Okay, so Michel gets into it with Dudley over the best way to serve guinea hen - - a la Michel, or, as Dudley suggests, les Italienne. Dudley deals the final blow insisting upon paprika! Paprika? wouldn't that be more of a Hungarian preparation?
shareI'm trolling the Christmas movie boards and who do I see posting for the defense on THE BISHOP'S WIFE but my old pal, jackboot.
Well, I'm going to respond for the prosecution. Dudley is so wrong in this scene it borders on scandalous. Even before the restaurant scene, Dudley, to impress Julia, scams an older, plain-Jane woman into giving up a hat she has her heart set on buying. OK, we'll forgive that naughtiness because Julia, too, wanted the flowery chapeau (although one could ask as an angel why couldn't he just conjure up a second hat to make both women happy?) Next, in Michel's, Dudley orders Italian food in a French restaurant. Such bad form! If you ever saw the film, GET SHORTY, there's a bit about how movie stars go into restaurants and order "off the menu" just so they can throw their weight around. That's what it looks like Dudley's doing here. While he's impressing Julia with his French, he's pissing off the maitre'd with his ego-driven impertinence. He's not even arguing on Julia's behalf, I'm sure she's fine with the menu; he's arguing just to make himself look good.
Also, this is the scene where Dudley starts seducing Julia, as well. He reads her palm while looking into her eyes while cooing to her about her beauty. It's a good thing the coven of women from Henry's church was there to stop what might've happened next, or we might've had to change the title of the movie to THE ANGEL'S GAL.
Farley! You crusty old contrarian, you!!
I hope that you at least enjoyed Gregg Toland's photography which was truly wonderful in so many of the scenes.
And you're going to crack under cross examination, sir! The hat scene comes much later, on a different day, than the luncheon at Michel's. I can't really enter a strong argument for or against the hat incident as that hat looked just plain silly to me on both women, but it looked positively dreadful on the older, heavy-set and unattractive woman. I'm sure that if she had bought that hat, instead of Julia, something awful would have happened to her. Without a doubt, that little confection of a hat was enough to delight Julia whereas the old battle axe trying it on was just being sold a hat by a shop girl. Dudley's judicious use of miracles must have precluded conjuring up too many hats for a greater good, impossible for us mortals to understand. I think you'll just have to take that one on faith, Farley old chum.
So, that lunch - - I can't help but wonder about it! At first he beckons Michel to bring them whatever he thinks would be the finest meal. Then Dudley gets into this debate with Michel over the preferred preparation of the capon in question. Maybe Dudley knows that Julia didn't like guinea hen a la MIchel? Maybe he was trying to spice up her life, literally as well as figuratively? Perhaps one is supposed to argue with the French waiter/proprietor as a matter of proper due course, such as the haggling over the price of a rug in a Moroccan marketplace is considered an expected and even required part of the prescribed and accepted protocol?
Now, what is Dudley really up to? He's come on the scene in answer to both Henry's and Julia's prayers: to give Henry guidance and to relieve Julia's unhappiness. Clearly, Henry is on the wrong track and needs to 86 the ambitious fund raising for this would-be overly glorified house of worship for the rich and vain. Dudley, in service to Henry and to give him guidance, is there to steer Henry back to focusing on his marriage and his family but Henry can't let go of his ambition and continues to push Julia away. Dudley proves to be fallible as an angel and in the process of trying to help Henry make the right decisions he instead becomes fascinated with and very attached to Julia. That's a pretty good conflict upon which to hang a plot. If he had instead followed the Farley plan we wouldn't have a movie and we'd never get to see that great deep focus shot with the camera set on the floor of the parlor shooting across the house to Henry's office when Dudley is giving Debbie the back story on the 23rd psalm.
So, what does Dudley really do, as regards Julia? He does seem to cross well over the seeming line of conventional proper conduct for an angel, but doesn't it all work out as exactly the right thing in the end? At the the story's beginning, Julia is deeply unhappy. He shows her a great time and lets her know what a wonderful woman she really is. He assures her that she'll always be loved and her life will be filled with a great deal of happiness, as he is reading her future without looking at her palm. And once again, as in the Philadelphia Story, Cary Grant orders up stingers as the proper medicinal unguent that will salve that situation with the gaggle of busy bodied old biddies who are looking askance at Dudley and Julia. He's a bit of a rogue angel in his methods with Henry and Julia, it would seem, but he makes everything right in the end. At every turn, when Henry should be directing his attention to his wife and their marriage, he instead runs off to brown nose rich people and crow for money to build his shrine to vanity. Clearly Dudley is fascinated by Julia upon first sight and it appears that he very nearly is ready to become a fallen angel over her, but again, without a conflict with some real tooth to it, what kind of story would we have? He does find himself envying the mortals he was sent to protect and once his work is done, he realizes this and states that he would not ever come back, even if asked for and that he would instead request that he be assigned to some opposite end of the universe. And Henry, in the course of seeing that this angel sent in answer to his prayer is, in effect, stealing his wife away, takes a long time to do the right thing. Instead of realizing that he should be fighting to save his marriage he sends Dudley out to represent him with his wife while he goes about grubbing for money by kissing up to the vulgar rich. And when Henry realizes that he doesn't like what's happening between Dudley and his wife what does he do? He doesn't do the right thing, he instead takes the easy way out and further compromises his principles in order to get Mrs. Hamilton to sign over the mazuma, in order to have his cathedral and thus be done with his (wrongly) supposed need for Dudley being there.
Okay, Dudley's methods are unorthodox for an angel but Henry and Julia both get their prayers answered by the end and they are clearly once again happily together and in love with one another, and a few other people's lives are also set back on the right course, too, so, where's your beef, Farley??
I'm curious as to what exactly happens to the professor, once Dudley's work is done and he is forgotten. Does the professor's bottle of cheap brandy keep refilling itself and continue warming and inspiring, but never inebriating, it's imbiber after Dudley is gone?
Dudley lavishes a lot of attention on Julia and shows her a heavenly good time but he keeps it more or less above board and on the up and up. If Henry could only extracted his head from beneath the coattails of all the rich potential donors he so relentlessly pursued, he would have used Dudley to represent him in his business instead of having Dudley representing Henry with his wife and Henry could have used the extra time to reacquaint himself with his family from whom he's estranged himself. The one scene I'm a little unclear about is near the end, after he miraculously decorates the Christmas tree he then tells Julia that he's tired of wandering for eternity, being neither hot nor cold and she becomes very upset and tells him that he must leave at once and never come back. Was he really coming onto her? was he ready to fall to earth and give up the angel racket in order to be with Julia? Or was he trying to make it so that she could not continue to be attached to him? Once the prayers were answered, he would have been completely forgotten anyway, so that seems a moot point. I guess that, again, I would say that Dudley was completely consumed by his conflict, as well as was Henry and Julia with their own, and that without all this conflict the story would be that much more toothless.
But really Farley, let's face it, you and I, going at it, tooth and nail, over movies that were never meant to be so over-thunk in the first place! We should be ashamed of ourselves!
I must be entering the geezer phase of life, jackboot, 'ol boy. I complain about things I have no business judging: reality TV shows, loud music rumbling from the car stereo sitting at the red light next to me, young pissant Saturday night drunkards, pretty women in skimpy clothes - Well, maybe not that, but you get the idea. So, here's my Mother's Day Resolution: Starting tomorrow, I'm going to stop trolling these boards looking for contrarian things to say and write about classic movies with a more positive outlook. In fact, I will become the King of Positive Thinking. That's tomorrow. For today, I'll jab and weave against your logic and see if I can counter your swooning over Dudley.
First, for full disclosure, this may be my favorite holiday movie. It's so Christmas Eve-y. It's almost film noirish in its nocturnal sensibility, and that ice skating scene alone is worth the price of admission (of course, I've never "paid" to see THE BISHOP'S WIFE in a movie theater, but I did buy a ticket to see the "remake," THE PREACHER'S WIFE; a film I wouldn't move my finger across the remote control to watch again). And here's a detail you may or may not know, that Sam Goldwyn tried to talk William Wyler out of directing THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, which Goldwyn considered a depressing topic, and instead direct this more "uplifting" film. Wyler said no, Henry Koster said yes, and the rest is history.
As for that hat, it must've had some appeal in 1947, because Julia wears it for a full 20 minutes of screen time, with the obvious approval of Loretta Young, and Dudley didn't seem to mind it, so it must be a 1940's thing we'll never understand.
Back to Michel's. This is Julia's favorite restaurant, so shouldn't Dudley simply ask her what her favorite entree on the menu is instead of getting into an unseemly harangue with the waiter? It seems everything Dudley does is to impress Julia and get next to her: his genius for ice skating, corraling the boys choir - and conducting it, teaching the daughter to throw a snowball. I know, whoever he meets he makes them feel better about themselves, but Julia becomes more and more doe-eyed with every succeeding miracle. At the outset, all Dudley has to say to Henry is "I'll go to Mrs. Hamilton's, you see to your wife, that's more important." I'm sure Henry would've jumped at the opportunity, but he doesn't because Dudley asks Henry what he wants to do, and only mentions Mrs. Hamilton in an off-handed way. No, Dudley wants to hang out with Julia for some un-earthly reason. Why else would he threaten to kill Henry with a bolt of lightning? Whatever happened in Dudley's past is haunting his present.
Dudley says as much when he tells Henry "when an angel envies a mortal" it's time to move on. God or the Fates may be testing Henry, but it's Dudley who has the bigger change. He's the one who has to tell his higher-ups after all is said and done, "I almost screwed it up, but I realized at the last second I was being a bad dude, so I did the right thing and walked away." But this only happened because Julia shot him down. Had it gone the other way, would he have been as noble? Would he have let Henry put up his dukes, and then smite him?
The kicker scene for me, is when Henry goes to visit the Professor - who, by the way, catches onto Dudley's devious ways before Henry (Why can't Dudley get his story straight about the Vienna conference?) The Professor and Henry know no good can come of this relationship, and that Henry has to rescue Julia from the angel. The Professor says it's a "pity" that Dudley's an angel because he likes him so much, i.e. Dudley's worn out his welcome. Still, in the end, Henry may have gotten his "guidance," but it's Dudley who gains wisdom. In an odd metaphor, maybe we can equate Dudley to another cinematic character, Travis Bickle from TAXI DRIVER, who, like Dudley, falls in love with a woman he can never have, but redeems himself by doing good for the person in his charge (Henry/Iris), then finding his own inner strength, walks away from love because it's not meant to he.
Well, Farley, old chum, there's little use in complaining about our exits and entrances and which of our many parts we're presently playing in this play in seven acts in this mortal coil. At least we're beyond the mewling and puking phase. You can change the dial to get rid of the reality shows, the four-wheeled boom boxes are a little harder to deal with and the Saturday night drunkards out on amateur night can be navigated around too. Thank Heaven for pretty women in skimpy clothes!
So, have they erected a statue to you up there at W. 29th St. and Fifth Av.? I'm sure you'd look fine standing there, in a bronze likeness, next to Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, as sign, symbol and testament to this new Positive Outlook Farley. But, I'd hate to see the old Farley go, as much of a nattering nabob of negativity as that can (mistakenly, I'm sure) mean.
We concur and are in complete agreement on what a terrific Christmas movie this is. And yes, it manages to have a very noir-ish feel to it throughout which is just terrific. We won't waste any time discussing unfortunate and ill-advised remakes of this wonderful film. I didn't know that little story about Wyler being tapped to helm this production. Anyway, all's well that ends well.
I did enjoy seeing little Teddy Infuhr, as Captain of the Attack, in a more normal role than as that hateful Dexter in The Best Years Of Our Lives.
Appreciation of that confounded hat is beyond my poor and feeble abilities. Perhaps it's testament to Loretta Young's and Cary Grant's professionalism that they were able to endure the thing convincingly for those twenty minutes? That hat is over my head, so to speak.
Now, Farley, have you forgotten your manners? Surely Julia would expect Dudley to order for her, it would be the polite thing for him to do. Given the time, that was the man's job. And it had been years since Julia had been to Michel's, so, who knows what was on that menu. I can't figure the reasoning behind having Dudley going against Michel's advice and instead insisting upon his own preparation. And asking for cayenne pepper and paprika? That "diavolo" seasoning he requests doesn't seem exactly "angelic" to me. But, Dudley is clearly a bit of a walking, or flying, anachronism in a number of ways.
It is clearly established very early in the story that Dudley is at once smitten with Julia, right on first sight, when she is looking at that aforementioned hat in the shop window. Dudley is tempted to cross the line and go out of bounds from the outset, BUT, he does, upon his very first meeting with Henry, try to nudge Henry to pay more attention to Julia. He sends Henry in to have dinner with her, he tries to get Henry to let him go in Henry's stead to those meetings and appointments so that Henry can keep his date with Julia and take her to Michel's, but Henry is completely stuck on his ambition to see his cathedral rise and for its light to shine like a beacon and so on. So, the score, as I see it is, that Dudley instantly feels a very earthly attraction to Julia but he tries very hard to do his assigned job and shepherd Henry in doing the right thing. The right thing being for Henry to preserve his marriage and family. Henry stubbornly refuses at each turn and Dudley is only too willing to fill-in there instead. Henry DID have the opportunity to do all of those things with Julia, but Henry could not relax his need for control and insistence upon the importance of his office to allow Dudley to stand in for him at all of those business appointments. And his attraction to Julia only grows to where he is absolutely ready to fall to earth to be with Julia. Henry has abdicated his role as husband to Julia and Dudley, yielding to temptation, is only all to ready and willing to step in.
You're trying to stack the odds here, Farley, playing the angle that Dudley is deliberately trying to steal Julia away from Henry but I don't see it that way. Dudley does not threaten to kill Henry with a bolt of lightning, he simply states the fact that it could in fact occur for Henry's benefit, since Henry is demanding a fight. Henry's reply is exactly what Dudley has been waiting to hear and upon hearing that, Dudley's job is done. But, what if Julia had not shot Dudley down? Would he have fallen to earth to be with Julia, had she been willing to accept his advances? Perhaps Divine Providence would never have allowed it? We'll never know, but, had not that crucial moment occurred, thanks to Julia, Dudley could well have failed in the worst possible way on this mission. I'm sure that he would have to answer for this to his superior officers upon returning to headquarters.
I don't believe that Dudley ever attended the Professor's lectures in Vienna and that he was just blowing smoke, saying "yes" and agreeing to everything the Professor said, in order to gain his confidence and establish that they already knew each other. There are some incongruities with the Professor and Dudley's interactions which puzzle me. The Professor (who is probably my favorite character in this story and I think it's Monty Wooley's best performance by far. Or, at least it is definitely my favorite) has no religion and I believe that is why he was a little disappointed to learn from Henry that Dudley was an angel. But, during Julia and Dudley's visit to the Professor there is a big change that comes over the Professor which I don't fully understand. The Professor actually approaches Dudley and asks him very pointedly whether he would have time to finish the tremendous task of writing that Roman history and Dudley tells him authoritatively that yes, he will have time and he will finish it. Did the Professor suddenly get religion? The Professor's tone is so changed to where he is completely submissive and subjugates himself to Dudley. Was it only the story of the coin which got to the Professor? Why would he, a hard-bitten cynic and non-believer suddenly have faith in Dudley to provide the answers to those questions? And, at the very end, it is the Professor who can still feel Dudley's presence, on the steps of the church on Christmas Eve, after Dudley has been forgotten by all of them.
Many of the characters undergo life-changing transformations in this story, but it's Henry and Dudley whom we are to observe most closely. And you're right, I'd say that it was Dudley who had the biggest challenge and the greatest obstacle to surmount. Wouldn't it have been far less of a story had Dudley merely been a by-the-book goody-goody angel whom could do only as the angel's employee handbook specified?
But, I'm not going with you on Taxi Driver, here. I'll let that one lie. Interesting thought, though.
Farley, are you silently going to abdicate your position and effectually declare defeat?
shareIt's been a couple of years since I've seen THE BISHOP'S WIFE, jackboot. Unlike our classic "Sticky Merkel" post, I might be a bit rusty to go toe-to-toe with you on this one. But upon seeing this gem again in the near future, I promise, I shall return, and with a dazzling dissertation of the uncanny similarities between Dudley and Travis Bickle.
My God, Dexter was Goldwyn contract player. Who knew?
Well, Farley, you better hit the woodshed and bone-up on your Bishop's Wife!
I'm terribly saddened that some of the best of our debates, on the White Christmas board, have inexplicably vanished. Like the one regarding Tom Waverly and discussion of the ETO during WWII.
What's worse is I saved one of those posts in my computer last year. Of course, lost everything when it crashed. I think it was called the `Shady Haynes Sisters.` We were rolling on that one.
shareOk, you two...wherever you're debating and discussing now, please let me know so I can follow these delightful conversations. I might even be tempted to join in. I miss these kinds of exchanges in a world of trolls.
shareI second your emotion toward these two funny, interesting characters as 2 of the most interesting, albeit rather long-winded at times, posters on IMDb to date.
God, I love finding these types of serious, in-depth discussions of a film, actually adding value to the conversation rather than tearing a film apart (too much). And, amazingly it seems, they comments to one another don't seem to immediately deteriorate into personal diatribe, complete with moronic name calling!!! What a treat.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL. May wee humans and our World make some reasonable progress toward love, peace and
compassion in 2016!!
We DESPERATELY need many, many 'Dudley the Angel' characters the World over, no matter what beliefs people follow!!!