No Time for Comedy

Successful comedic playwright Gaylord Esterbrook (James Stewart) is happily married to actress Linda Esterbrook (Rosalind Russell). But strange Amanda Swift (Genevieve Tobin) convinces him to write a drama and tries to steal him away from Linda. But she won't give in without a fight...

Comedic drama adapted from a stage play. It's actually pretty funny with many good lines but it just lacks that spark to make it great. It certainly isn't the actors' fault---Russell is beautiful, funny and completely at ease--Stewart comes across as an immature, alcoholic jerk (but that's what he is playing)--Tobin is quite amusing and Charlie Ruggles makes to most of his small role of Amanda's husband. And it's always great to see Louise Beavers even if is in the demeaning black servant role. So--it is good but not great. It just misses the mark. But it always great to see Russell and Stewart so young and full of life. I give it an 8.

...and why doesn't Warner Brothers know what to do with them? This feeble adaptation of a Broadway hit is comedy-drama of the clumsiest kind, veering uncertainly and arbitrarily between one genre or the other with no grace or logic. Nor are the stars well used: Despite his natural charm, Stewart can't hide the fact that his character is basically a lush and a spoiled child. Russell keeps doing irritating Greer Garson great-lady things, pointing her nose and clipping her diction and suffering with a noble smile. Louise Beavers, another trouper, is made to do demeaning dumb-maid stuff. Then there's that noisy Warner Brothers music, telling us exactly how to feel every damn minute.

One grace note: Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, who were paired so well in "One Hour with You" nearly a decade earlier, are coincidentally back in similar parts. He's as dry a light comedian as you could ask; she makes much out of little. But the movie keeps yelling how charming it's being, and trying to pass off boilerplate dialogue as repartee. 'Tain't funny, and it's not convincing as drama, either.

This is a fascinating picture for Stewart fans. Made after "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and in the same year as "The Philadelphia Story," "No Time" adds an interesting pre-war wrinkle to Stewart's on screen persona. At a time when he was most associated with the "aw-shucks" stereotype of the All-American naif, his Gaylord Esterbrook must have come as a shock to movie-going audiences. Gaylord begins as another one of Stewart's lovable rubes, but by picture's end he's become a cynical sophisticate - and Stewart's handling of the transformation is seamless. He's surprisingly good at playing the gruff curmudgeon and a man on the verge of an extra-marital affair - another atypical Stewart-like development. Likewise, the film itself mirrors Gaylord's personal and artistic transformation, beginning as a typically bubbly romantic comedy but turning bitingly (yet still amusingly) sour by the second act. After a series of comeuppances, Gaylord comes up against his limitations and the final scene -- a confession of humility delivered as a monologue to a seemingly non-existent audience -- is truly moving in the tradition of some of Stewart's finest moments. Lovely.

Successful comic playwright Jimmy Stewart decides that the times he is living in call for political drama instead of laughs. His stage star wife disagrees and must win him back from the clutches of the pretentious matron who has him in her thrall. Though one would think that the tall, lanky duo of Stewart and Rosalind Russell would be perfect together, they disappoint. They manage some charm and chemistry in the early parts of the film, but both surrender to stridency later on, and this movie has none of the fast pace or glossy sheen a sophisticated comedy set in Manhattan should have.

What is interesting here is the cultural mirror of the times. The amusing portrait of a cynical Manhattan is still recognizable, and the thesis that in bad times there is nothing more important than making people laugh is the same one Preston Sturges explored in his overrated SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS a year or so later. Though this film doesn't mix comedy and message drama as well as Sturges did, however imperfectly, the penultimate scene here is intriguing. Russell is prepared to marry the droll plutocrat whose wife has stolen Stewart from her, but he lets loose with a string of invective that probably accurately reflected the 'America First' Republicanism of the time. Russell decides that she'd rather be with a man who hates the fact that the free world was being taken over by fascists than by a man who sees all dictators with cynical detachment.

This film is heavy and crude where it should be light, and the implied sexual sophistication of the plot is not directed or played with the right tone at all. But this misfire will still manage to be of interest to some.

Too bad about the awkward shift. That first part shows Stewart at his charming down-home best. He's an aspiring playwright from the Minnesota sticks intent on mounting his unlikely play on Broadway. His play is trying to ape New York sophistication, but because of his rural background, the play comes across as comedic satire which the audiences surprisingly love. So Gay's (Stewart) reputation is made which he follows up with several more successful comedies. Meanwhile, he marries sensible lead actress Linda (Russell), who's drawn to his innocent manner. Their prosperous future now seems assured until he suffers writer's block and the marriage cracks open.

Stewart shines in this first part, clearly in his natural element. The movie's problem is Gay's sudden personality shift from down-home charming to churlish alcoholic. At the same time, the movie's mood and substance also alter and in unpleasant ways. I guess maid Clementine's (Beavers) snappy remarks are supposed to carry the comedic aspect, but unfortunately they're more caustic than funny. Then too, the plot becomes pretty implausible as Gay hooks up with ditzy Amanda (Tobin), and we're supposed to believe that their lengthy relationship never gets intimate. But then if it did, we wouldn't be as accepting of the movie's upshot.

On the other hand, the acting is good, except maybe for Tobin, but the real problem is with script and direction and the sudden rupture into mismatched parts these entail. The basic idea of a naïve rural lad trying to adjust to urban sophistication remains a workable one. But it needs a smoother more plausible treatment, especially with the transition, than it gets here. Sorry to say that, all in all, the 90-minutes amounts to a waste of outstanding movie performers.