The Philadelphia Story

It is the wedding of the year with socialite Tracy Lord due to marry George Kittredge behind closed doors, with no press allowed. However the editor of Spy Magazine is set to run an exposé of Tracy's philandering father and a New York dancer and strikes a deal with her ex husband CK Dexter Haven if he can get a couple of journalists into the wedding and the reception. Keen to get back at Tracy, Dexter agrees to help and escorts writer Mike Conner and photographer Liz Imbrie into the Lord home in the days before the wedding. With tensions high between Dexter and Tracy, everyone playing games and relationships equally confused and confusing anything could happen and surprises are in store.

Shot in about 8 weeks with a low number of takes and some impressive adlibbed and one-shot scenes this is a movie worth seeing even before you look at the cast list and the professional reviews. The plot is partly a comedy, partly a character drama and partly a romance (albeit a rather tidy one) and each aspect pretty much works in tandem with the others. The comic tension between the characters is really well written and, although it is a cliché, it does fizz and spark across the screen and is regularly hilarious and consistently a delight to the ears. With such superficial energy it would be easy to ignore the fact that it is interesting below this; specifically I liked the character of Tracy and the way that parts of the film show her character being stripped back as she in particular learns something about how she comes across, softening her character a little bit in later scenes. However to suggest that this has great depths is to give it more praise than it deserves, because it doesn't run deep and it isn't a great drama. Likewise the romance isn't a main part of it but it does still work because it is all delivered at such a fresh and funny pace that it draws you in, even to the point where I gratefully accepted the film's conclusion with a smile rather than a sneer.

The cast are a delight, but then that pretty much goes without saying, and they work with the dialogue like a surgeon uses a scalpel. In fact that is a good example because the dialogue is normally almost as sharp as said instrument. Grant may have got top billing and the big money (which he then donated away) but it is very much a shared effort between the three stars, with Grant in fact having the least showy character. If anything the film belongs to Hepburn who is a delight whether spitting back at her father with tears in her eyes or a barbed comment sliding in like a greased knife. Stewart is just as good and is reaction shots show a real comic timing, but he also gives good dialogue and he is fun. Like Stewart, Grant has a great chemistry with Hepburn, which means that he can deliver convincing tension and trade insults without undermining the ending which otherwise would have maybe been an ask too far. Hussey is good and it is easy to forget that she must have felt a bit out of her depth but it never shows in her performance. Support is roundly strong from Young, Nash, Halliday and even Weildler.

Overall this is a delightful film that is such fun and has such a good pace and spark that it is easy to buy into the weaker elements of the narrative and not only forgive them but get into them. The dialogue is sparky and funny while the delivery of same is just what the material deserved. The cast have chemistry and help inject urgency to the story that keeps it all moving forward. A wonderfully delightful film that is fun to watch and surprisingly engaging.

Obviously, the three lead actors are all just as great as we remember them, especially Jimmy Stewart in his Oscar-winning role. But don't miss the turns by Ruth Hussey, as the long-suffering but still devoted assistant to Stewart's journalist character, and Roland Young (who'd already starred with Cary Grant in the rightfully popular first and best "Topper" movie) here as Uncle Willie. So who ultimately winds up with Katherine Hepburn's character? Her ex, played by the suave Cary Grant, who may be a cad, or the earnest and down-to-earth young writer played by the honest Stewart, or the safe but utterly uninteresting fiancé played by John Howard. (Who? Exactly!) You'll have to watch all the way to the end to find out. Heck, just try not to! 😁

After Katharine Hepburn was one of a group of stars dictated "box office poison" by the ruling moguls of Hollywood she went east and scored a complete triumph on stage with The Philadelphia Story. But our Kate was the shrewd one, she had the foresight to buy the film rights from author Philip Barry and peddle them to the studio that would guarantee her repeating her stage role and giving her creative control.

On stage she had co-starred with Joseph Cotten, Van Heflin, and Shirley Booth all of whom became movie names later on, but meant nothing to Hollywood in 1940. She had the choice of leading men and cast in their places, Cary Grant, James Stewart and Ruth Hussey.

This was Grant's fourth and final appearance on screen with Hepburn. It's a typical Cary Grant part, witty and urbane, with a touch of the rogue in him. He's Hepburn's ex-husband, still very much in love with his ex-wife, but she's marrying stuffed shirt John Howard.

Reporter James Stewart and photographer Ruth Hussey are covering Hepburn's wedding for Spy Magazine, the National Enquirer of the day. Through a little judicious blackmail they're invited to this premier society wedding, but both feel out of place and used.

After The Philadelphia Story, Katharine Hepburn was a movie name the rest of her long life. Even with an occasional clinker no one ever questioned her about being box office poison.

James Stewart won the Best Actor Oscar in probably the most romantic he was ever on the screen. A lot felt it was a consolation Oscar for not winning it for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in 1939. Stewart himself proclaimed to all who'd listen that he voted for good friend Henry Fonda in the Academy Sweepstakes for The Grapes of Wrath. I've always felt that when Stewart talked about those hearth fires banked down low to Hepburn, he was really talking about himself. He's a cynical fellow at first and his romantic side comes as a surprise to him more than even the audience.

The Philadelphia Story has become such a classic that even the musical remake High Society doesn't try to copy it, it just presents a softer musical alternative. But I'd kind of liked to have seen Hepburn do this with her original cast as well. Oscars were in the future for Van Heflin and Shirley Booth and Joseph Cotten the following year made his debut in the biggest film of all.

Never get tired of watching this hilarious classic. It also provided an opportunity for me to talk with my daughter about how women's roles have changed since the 1940's which was a golden side benefit to the fun story. (What would Ruth do today? What would we think of Uncle Willy today? In what ways is Tracy strong? Who were the good men and in what way?)

I really wasn't so much wowed by The Philadelphia Story's "story",as it were,as I was mesmerized by three of the big screen's strongest ever screen presences' interaction with one another.Katherine Hepburn,Cary Grant,and James Stewart were great (if that is even a strong enough word) individually,but together here in this film,they were absolutely out of this world.The story,quite frankly,gave me a headache overall,but I did find the ever famous "hiccup" improvisation between Stewart and Grant hysterical as it was obvious both men could barely compose themselves,but being the professionals that they were,they got it together and moved on,and that's what made the scene so entertaining.I had a great time watching.