Happy Anniversary

David Niven and Mitzi Gaynor, two talented actors, are miscast in this stagy comedy about a married couple whose past catches up to them just before they celebrate their wedding anniversary. The addition of a new to the household television set is the catalyst for a series of not terribly funny mishaps and lots of arguing. The dialogue is trite and stilted, especially coming from the mouths of the child actors, although all concerned sound as though they're reading their lines directly from cue cards. Had the film been shot in colour, it might have livened things up, but as it stands,the black and white photography just adds to the dreary proceedings.Happy Anniversary bubbles like flat champagne.

This kind of innocence and charm has been relegated to the distant past in our overly clever age dominated by blockbusters. We need to stay in touch with it. This flimsy, unpretentious comedy has more substance and structure than many a big budget movie. I am tempted to say "Don't miss it", but television is the only place you can see it. It's not even available on video. Good luck!

Here's another one of those funny movies the whole family can enjoy. You can really relate to this one, because the funny things here really happen in real life. My favorite is Niven's toast at dinner that starts a family argument. I can just see my family reacting to it now. As usual in the fifties, family values are squeaky clean, but that doesn't deter from the plot or the humor, which is the kind Niven fans expect.

David Niven is great as usual. Patty Duke is excellent and funny. Mitzi Gaynor is the perfect Barbie send-up, and as always, perfect for the time. If I could find it on tape, I would buy it, since this is a classic for its time, like "The Importance of Being Earnest" was decades earlier.

Mitzi Gaynor and Niven were quite good as a couple celebrating their thirteenth anniversary. I found the children annoying--especially the son. I found the conflict of the film amusing--Niven, after having consumed too much alcohol, lets it be known to Gaynor's parents that he and their daughter had engaged in relations prior to their marriage. This of course scandalizes Gaynor's parents, especially her mother who feels like a fool for having had a deep heart-to-heart conversation with her daughter (presumably about sex) the night before the wedding.

The other conflict in the film is that Gaynor's parents purchase a television set for the family. Niven deems television detrimental to family life and to people's intelligence and does not want one in the house. A running gag is that Niven keeps ruining the television sets. Anyway, the thing I was most surprised about was the amount of language in the film. While I'm used to 1950s films having more colorful words allowed (the word "hell" or "damn" will be heard once or twice in the film), Happy Anniversary seemed to have more of these words than I'm accustomed to in a film that is still technically in the production code era.

I also found the frank discussion of sex very interesting. At the beginning of the film, Niven and Gaynor's characters clearly sneak off to a hotel for a romantic rendezvous, then there's Niven letting the cat out of the bag about he and Gaynor's pre-marital sex, later, their little girl ends up on television to inquire about her parents' pre-marital sex and how that was negatively affecting their relationship.

There seems to be a recurring problem with films that have one foot in the production code era and one in the budding sexual revolution. They can't really figure out what they are about and wind up having neither the courage nor the quaintness of their convictions on either side. This one is mainly saved by Niven's charm and Gaynor's skill.

I have caught some of this this morning because the little girl that was playing in it was the same little girl that played Helen Keller on The Miracle Worker (1962). Looking quite different here, she puts on a cutesy nails-on-a-chalkboard Shirley Temple (if I may say so) voice which sometimes disturbed me about her earlier work. She looks a little like Natalie Wood or Margaret O'Brien. But her acting was pretty charming. None of the actors did an exceptional job, everybody had some forced moments.

The girl in there is obnoxious and precocious like her brother, she fights with her brother and I know that that can be that way with siblings, especially when they get older but they were still precociously insolent. Even to their parents, the children disregard the rules. That may not have been clichéd those days but it just didn't age well.

The movie pretty much only manages a chuckle out of me. The romance was just saccharine. And some of the scenes were forced.