Kockenlocker (William Demarest) is a widower, a grumpy small town police chief with two daughters: the nubile Trudy (Betty Hutton), and a prematurely worldly-wise 14-year old (Diana Lynn). Trudy gets in trouble, marrying a GI in the middle of the night after a wild soldiers’ going-away party, but she was in a stupor and doesn’t remember who the guy was, and the soldiers are all long gone. Technically she is married, she doesn’t know to whom and, unfortunately, turns out to be in the family way.

Local nebbish Norville (Eddie Bracken) wanted to join the military, but they wouldn’t take him. He has always had a crush on Trudy. So he quite willingly becomes manipulated into becoming the Oriole whose nest has been filled by a Cowbird. But bigamy must be avoided, so trying to patch this up without letting the father into what really happened sets the stage for all kinds of rollicking and hysterical situations. Much of the comedy, both physical and dialogue, is very funny. All three of the main leads are great comics.

On the special features track, some movie critics giggle and titter about how Sturges got around the Hays Commission rules to tell a story like this. A pregnant woman had to be married, and a female couldn’t be drunk. So he contrives that she is technically married, and her stupor is not due to alcohol, but because she bopped her head on a chandelier during a dance.

Now, I am not prudishly suggesting that a story of an unwed mother cannot be done. Not at all. But here, an atmosphere of flippancy about it is pervasive. She pouts; she cries; she is desolate: but all of that is almost self-parodying. There is no possibility of repentance because she is too superficial for such categories to even apply. The hysterics, whether sad or funny, seem to convey the message that “society,” not the silly girl, is what needs to change.

The question also needs to be raised whether a movie portraying American soldiers this way, not to mention the general slapstick pervading the theme, should have been made at the climax of a desperate war advertised as saving civilization from barbarism. Or: if the soldiers were of such character, should we not consider that the war was indeed the triumph of the barbarians?

An interesting historical note: even Mussolini and Hitler are shown as comic figures. I’m pretty sure this would not have been done if there had been a belief in 1944 about a holocaust going on.

I’m giving this a “one” mainly for the “ya gotta see this to believe it” category.

What would you do if you won the big prize and got the check, but it was in error?

The blue-collar ethnic hero of this story does, and his response is to buy presents for everyone in the neighborhood. What will happen when the error is discovered? is the question that maintains the tension to drive the story forward.

There is a bit of a Jewish tone throughout– when the happy uproar in the neighborhood breaks out, the mother and friends, hearing it, but not knowing its origin, mutter things like “it must be a funeral,” “probably an accident– only lost an arm or leg” and other such speech tricks that Wex explained to us.

Likewise, an authority figure is challenged at one point, “who do you think you are, Hitler?” (laughter from everyone). This is a bit extreme or contrived or macabre, depending on which historical perspective you take.

Nevertheless, an enjoyable evening.

This is the movie that inspired the Coen brothers’ Oh Brother where art thou?

The tension between the haves and have-nots is not resolved, other than that Sullivan learns from the have-nots that comedy is everything. I find the message a bit pompous, even though it tries to be the opposite. The manner of both embracing and rejecting the lower class is a bit cynical I think. It’s not unworthy of a single viewing however when the supply of better ones has run dry.

Without being Southern, that is what this movie is about. It is a romance of the Battle of the Sexes on the old model.

Perky Barbara Stanwyck and her father Charles Coburn are con artists. Young Henry Fonda bumbles onto the scene: he is perfect for them: naïve and rich. But he falls for Stanwyck, and that makes Stanwyck fall for him (the other side of the coin). But how can they extract themselves from the roles that brought them together?

This movie is full of slapstick, wry commentary, witty dialogue, and hysterical situations. I’m starting to like this Preston Sturges guy. (But see also reference in discussion of nudity.)

It is a kind of imagined Othello. The evil suggestions of brother-in-law regarding the faithfulness of Rex Harrison’s wife are at first violently rejected, but then begin to play on his mind. Various stratagems are considered in detail as jealousy overwhelms his mind. He is a conductor, so the movie has the chance to work in some marvelous symphonic pieces (including Rossini, Wagner and Tchaikovsky) which complement the theme in an ingenious way.

Mixed in is some slapstick of uneven success: the first slapstick scene, with the fire, is long and not very funny; the one near the end with Harrison trying to carry out his revenge is very funny indeed, though it too could use a little editing.

Writer and director is Preston Sturges, who was unknown to me but (it turns out) was one of the big shots of the 1940s. The DVD includes a commentary track with a panel of critics that are very knowledgeable about the movie, the people, and the genre.