SaraX626

Most modern viewers of 1930's comedies will be accustomed to the necessity of suspending disbelief and modern sensibilities to entirely enjoy these films. However, She Married Her Boss contains one or two scenes which make this a difficult task. The main problematic scene is the drunk driving scene which is sufficiently reckless as to be just plain alarming to modern audiences but fortunately occurs at the end of the movie so as not to be troubling throughout. The second such scene however is the (aural) scene of Julia (Claudette Colbert) spanking Anabelle several times with a hairbrush. In modern times, with the idea of physically punishing children being so controversial, this scene refuses to simply fade into the background of the film and become simply a comedic scene and lingers in a slight feeling of unease in watching the remainder of the film despite Annabelle's growing affection for Julia. Simliarly Julia's friends taunts of Annabelle appear somewhat cruel; being adults ganging up on an unhappy child, no matter how obnoxious her behaviour.

Although some of the comedic aspects of the film may not translate to a modern audience, the film nevertheless contains some gems of serious scenes - Claudette Colbert's reaction to her husband mocking her for behaving like a woman and his criticism that she is making their marriage "just like any other marriage". Similarly the shop dummy scene can be enjoyed on a number of levels, the drunken comedy is delightful but also wonderful is Colbert's pained expression and declaration that "Julia doesn't live here anymore". Finally my favourite scene of the film, when Melvyn Douglass confronts Colbert after her antics in the shop window appear in the press, effectively calling her "second hand goods". Colberts reactions from resignation, to pride to hurt to confrontation are a pure acting lesson.

While some of the comedy may struggle to appeal to modern audiences, the scene of the new bride (Colbert) being carried over the thresh-hold by her new husband's butler remains one of the funniest moments in 1930's comedy and Julia's kicking of the child shop dummy (surely a reaction to her troubled step-daughter) remains a guilty pleasure so that despite some reservations the film continues to work on both the dramatic and comedic levels despite some need to be prepared more than usual to put modern considerations aside to entirely enjoy this.

Definitely in my all time top 10. The Milland/Colbert pairing is fantastic, there is wonderful chemistry between the two stars but it is Colbert who as the independent career woman Augusta Nash launched me on my love of 1930's/1940's films and I would recommend this as a fabulous example of what films of that era have to offer a modern audience.

The opening sequences set the adventurous and romantic tone of the movie. The scenes in Maxim's and the in the horse drawn carriage on Monmartre are wonderfully romantic as Tom (Milland) plots to overcome Augusta's business only attitude. A fabulous film which gets home the patriotic message needed as WWII commenced without ever overwhelming the wonderful adventurous story.

I'd never heard of this film until recently it was recommended to me as a pleasant but easily overlooked Jean Arthur film

Jean Arthur's range is hardly tested in this one - she plays Carole a nice girl next-door type with the typical Arthur intelligence but without any of the more complex qualities, which in certain of her films drew such memorable performances.

George Brent, as Fred Gilbert, is similarly untested in this film (as in most of his films) but is in the additionally unfortunate position of providing the comedy in the romance, initially through his health regime obsession and then his superficial attraction to Maizie (Dorothea Kent), (the latter also being the means by which an essentially simple story is sufficiently prolonged to allow a feature length gap between the boy meets girl beginning and the inevitable - this is 1930's romantic comedy - boy gets girl ending).

A modern audience may not react too well to Fred's comments about a woman's role in business or his attempt at ruthlessly (in intent if not in effect) resolving his `Maizie situation' once the attraction has palled. However the main problem with this film is not that the women's movement has moved on 70 years since the film was made - 1930's comedies are after all, remembered for the strong and independent heroines and Fred is of course made to regret and reconsider his words and actions. It is simply that you do wonder a little just what Carole sees in him. Fortunately this film is saved from the romance being completely unbelievable by Carole's obvious recognition (and Jean Arthur's ability to convey) that she loves Fred regardless of his faults.

What is slightly harder to accept is Fred's overlooking Carole for so long (at least once she is out of the rather scary suit and spectacles she wears in the film's opening scene). Even allowing for the fact that anyone can make a fool of him/herself when it comes to love, Fred's abrupt changes of heart, especially the first volt face when he decides to employ Maizie, left me a little puzzled. A nice clue is given in the scene where Fred follows Carole to the secretarial school and in response to he snappish `I'm busy' he sharply retorts, `I never saw you when you weren't'. However this is not explored fully nor given elsewhere as an explanation for his foolishness (at just 80 minutes long, an additional 2-3 minutes to deepen this rather more satisfactory explanation for Fred's behaviour would not exactly have overdone things).

In addition to the main cast there is the usual nice support from Lionel Stander and Ruth Donnelly, Columbia contract actors, as likely as not to be in any Jean Arthur film of this time. I'm not sure why but Lionel Stander saying the word `bellicose' just cracks me up. There are some nice scenes between Ruth Donnelly and Jean Arthur, which are a rarity in a film genre where scenes between 2 women are usually about romantic rivalry and bitchy exchanges. This element is of course present in the scenes between Carole and Maizie, the latter being as unpleasant and manipulative as the audience needs her to be in order that we do not need to worry about her (or Fred's treatment of her) when she is ultimately dispatched (landing on her feet in any event).

If you like 1930's Hollywood romantic comedy then this is a sweet, unassuming film, which, while not as memorable as many other films of Hollywood's golden age, is still worth a look.