42 reviews
Holliday is sublime! Ray is engaging! The story... hm!
With a bit of editing, this could be a much better film--and it's certainly NOT for all tastes
This film is highly reminiscent of Judy Holliday's other film, PHFFFT! because both films concern a divorcing couple that down deep still love each other dearly. Also, in many ways it is reminiscent of THE WAR OF THE ROSES in that it appears to be a cautionary tale about marital discord, but unlike this Danny DeVito movie, THE MARRYING KIND is more upbeat and doesn't have the same dark sensibilities as WAR OF THE ROSES.
The film begins with a husband and wife in divorce court. Instead of just granting the divorce, the judge brings them both into her chambers to discuss why they want the divorce since it isn't readily apparent. Both Holliday and Aldo Ray (who plays the husband) then begin to recount their marriage through a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks are incredibly well-acted and realistic--like a real honest to goodness family. While most of their ups and downs seem pretty normal, great tragedy strikes later in their marriage (get out the tissues!).
All of this is wonderfully done, but also VERY tough to watch as things turn from bad to much worse. Plus, after a while, the tragedy and pain becomes a little too much and seems to drag on a bit too long. Shortening up the film by about fifteen minutes would have greatly helped the pacing. Despite these problems with the film, though, the film is marvelously realistic and great film-making. In many ways, this is a must-see film for young couples or anyone contemplating divorce, as it gives an unusual perspective and insights you just don't normally see addressed in films.
The film begins with a husband and wife in divorce court. Instead of just granting the divorce, the judge brings them both into her chambers to discuss why they want the divorce since it isn't readily apparent. Both Holliday and Aldo Ray (who plays the husband) then begin to recount their marriage through a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks are incredibly well-acted and realistic--like a real honest to goodness family. While most of their ups and downs seem pretty normal, great tragedy strikes later in their marriage (get out the tissues!).
All of this is wonderfully done, but also VERY tough to watch as things turn from bad to much worse. Plus, after a while, the tragedy and pain becomes a little too much and seems to drag on a bit too long. Shortening up the film by about fifteen minutes would have greatly helped the pacing. Despite these problems with the film, though, the film is marvelously realistic and great film-making. In many ways, this is a must-see film for young couples or anyone contemplating divorce, as it gives an unusual perspective and insights you just don't normally see addressed in films.
- planktonrules
- Jan 21, 2007
- Permalink
Charming comedy/drama about a couple about to divorce...
THE MARRYING KIND gave movie-goers a first glimpse of ALDO RAY and he proves to be every bit a match for the comic talent and dramatic abilities of JUDY HOLLIDAY. The two of them are a sheer pleasure to watch, totally good chemistry and always believable as a husband and wife on the verge of divorce.
The story is told in a series of well-staged vignettes in flashback as they recount the facts of their troublesome marriage to a divorce court judge (MADGE KENNEDY), who ends up believing that the two of them still love each other and can be taken off the docket for the next day's hearing.
The ups and downs of the marriage are mostly due to the financial strain and the macho behavior of a man who has the need to be the breadwinner but feels he can't support his wife and children the way he'd like to on his post office salary. Ray is excellent at suggesting the moods of a man who misunderstands many a situation because he can't see beyond the money angle. A very revealing scene at a butcher shop where the butcher talks common sense about the realities of life, is a fine piece of writing and beautifully played.
Both Holliday and Ray shine in what is almost a two-character film, especially in the second half--and their arguments have the ring of truth in them, with money and temperament being the strain that seems to be the root cause of their problems.
A touching film, serious at times but basically a romantic comedy directed with great skill by George Cukor (who said he could only direct women?). Ray does a masterful job in his breakthrough film.
Summing up: Highly recommended. Clever screenplay by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin.
The story is told in a series of well-staged vignettes in flashback as they recount the facts of their troublesome marriage to a divorce court judge (MADGE KENNEDY), who ends up believing that the two of them still love each other and can be taken off the docket for the next day's hearing.
The ups and downs of the marriage are mostly due to the financial strain and the macho behavior of a man who has the need to be the breadwinner but feels he can't support his wife and children the way he'd like to on his post office salary. Ray is excellent at suggesting the moods of a man who misunderstands many a situation because he can't see beyond the money angle. A very revealing scene at a butcher shop where the butcher talks common sense about the realities of life, is a fine piece of writing and beautifully played.
Both Holliday and Ray shine in what is almost a two-character film, especially in the second half--and their arguments have the ring of truth in them, with money and temperament being the strain that seems to be the root cause of their problems.
A touching film, serious at times but basically a romantic comedy directed with great skill by George Cukor (who said he could only direct women?). Ray does a masterful job in his breakthrough film.
Summing up: Highly recommended. Clever screenplay by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin.
Excellent
This is a real gem of a film. It is a comedy/tragedy, but in such a way as to be able to flow easily from the two formats. Thus the viewer is never fully laughing or crying throughout the film, but at different moments. It works. The film is told in flashback, and each of the remembrances are told in short vignettes. Judy Holliday is wonderful in her role, and the much underrated Aldo Ray is also brilliant, they are a perfect match. The acting by both the leads is terrific and believable, and there is some wonderful location photography of early 1950s New York. A really great film worth seeking out.
Reasonably sophisticated, well-acted serious-comedy
George Cukor-directed comedy-drama, written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin, features Judy Holliday and Aldo Ray as a married couple on the rocks, explaining to a divorce court judge when, how, and why they fell out of love. Initially, the pairing of the leads (Ray in his debut) doesn't quite convince, but Cukor does a fine job at building up a rapport between these two which is pretty convincing by the picture's midway point. Still, for a film touted as being an honest, daring look at modern marriage, the set-up seems suspiciously safe and glossy--with the married couple sleeping in separate beds! There aren't many surprises in the screenplay, though there are witty lines in the fast-talking, streetwise vein and the wrap-up is sweetly accomplished. **1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Jan 13, 2007
- Permalink
There are two theories on arguing with women. Neither of them work.
Lesson learned from this film. Don't take yourself too seriously and appreciate the life partner you have before you lose them by saying the wrong thing(s). Judy Holliday plays Florence Keefer a secretary at a busy office and her husband Chet Keefer suffers a debilitating work accident that leaves him almost useless as the family breadwinner. In any marriage there are ups and downs and sometimes depression and dissention get the better of one or both partners. Such is the case with Mr. And Mrs. Keefer who end up in divorce court where a wise judge decides to put off her decision overnight and let both parties sleep on their decision but first they walk Judge Anne B. Carroll (Madge Kennedy) through their marriage and family turmoil from each of their perspectives.
Any film with Judy Holliday is worth watching and the (then) novice Aldo Ray both showed their acting chops. I am sure many moviegoers were wiggling rather uncomfortably in their theater seats reflecting on their own marriages and the silly fights that were relevant on screen to their own life experiences.
This film may be seventy (70) years old now but the trials and tribulations of millions of married and/or cohabitating partners could learn from the film The Marrying Kind.
I give the film a quality 6 out of 10 IMDB rating.
Any film with Judy Holliday is worth watching and the (then) novice Aldo Ray both showed their acting chops. I am sure many moviegoers were wiggling rather uncomfortably in their theater seats reflecting on their own marriages and the silly fights that were relevant on screen to their own life experiences.
This film may be seventy (70) years old now but the trials and tribulations of millions of married and/or cohabitating partners could learn from the film The Marrying Kind.
I give the film a quality 6 out of 10 IMDB rating.
- Ed-Shullivan
- May 11, 2022
- Permalink
Judy, Judy, Judy
It's widely known that Judy Holliday was the greatest comic actress of all time, but did you know she was also a subtle and moving tragedienne? This movie begins as a screwball comedy about a sparring couple, and all I'll tell you is, it turns into something quite different -- and it pulls it off. Judy's beautiful playing has much to do with this, as does Cukor's deft direction. Aldo Ray is a revelation: You may not think of him as a leading actor of his generation, but with Cukor's touch, he hits all the notes of tenderness, childishness, and bewilderment written into his character. Husband-and-wife screenwriters Kanin and Gordon supply funny lines, ingenious dream sequences, a "Rashomon"-type narrative, and much hard-earned insight into marital discord. Also, unusual for a Hollywood film from the '50s, the kids come off as real kids, not synthetic little dears or bratty little monsters.
Despite all the high-priced talent, it's a cheap-looking movie, with almost verite glimpses of 1952 New York. And the abrupt shift of tone may be off-putting to some. Me, I appreciated the film for treating adults like adults, and for suggesting that life and marriage are not wrapped up in neat little packages. An offbeat movie, and very rewarding for those willing to accept it on its own terms.
Despite all the high-priced talent, it's a cheap-looking movie, with almost verite glimpses of 1952 New York. And the abrupt shift of tone may be off-putting to some. Me, I appreciated the film for treating adults like adults, and for suggesting that life and marriage are not wrapped up in neat little packages. An offbeat movie, and very rewarding for those willing to accept it on its own terms.
Flashbacks and actors make this film somewhat enjoyable
"The Marrying Kind" is a 1952 comedy and drama about everyday life for a young middle-income couple. Judy Holliday had become a star just two years before with her Oscar-winning performance in "Born Yesterday." But this was Aldo Ray's first leading role, and it won him some recognition.
The plot for this film has a nice device - perhaps one of the first to use flashbacks a great deal. Madge Kennedy plays Judge Anne Carroll who sits Florence and Chet Keefer (Holliday and Ray) down in her office during a lunch break in the divorce court. She wants to see if the couple can't resolve their problem ahead of impending divorce. What is interesting and very telling about the flashbacks, is that each of the Keefer's stories as seen through their eyes are not what the audience is seeing played out in flashback. Each of the partners sees himself/herself as good and in the right, and the other partner at fault.
Judge Carroll intersperses questions to bring up the next recollection. And, as these episodes continue, the couple's stories and the flashbacks begin to seem more and more alike. One can guess where this will lead eventually, and it does.
For their acting and this clever device, "The Marrying Kind" is a good film. But, it's not great as a comedy or drama or combination. The movie came in 64th in 1952 in gross box office receipts. It more than covered its budget, but obviously was not a blockbuster hit. While some reviewers on IMDb rave about this film, one suspects that most audiences in the early 1950s (as indeed today) probably didn't enjoy this type of film. Rip-roaring comedies about marital strife, yes. Or very serious drama, yes. But movies that try to inject humor between serious and everyday humdrum matters, no. They don't have enough oomph to make them entertaining or enjoyable.
Judy Holliday had a short career on stage and on the silver screen, dying of breast cancer in 1965 at age 43. She was a very good actress, often playing a naïve (not dumb) blonde in sophisticated comedies. In general, those are comedies that are built around dialog that is witty, clever, sometimes profound, and funny in varying degrees. Seldom do such comedies have audiences rolling in the aisles with laughter. But well done, they are entertaining. They mostly seem to be shows of egos for playwrights (and directors, somewhat).
While she was a very good actress, Holliday was not a comedienne. Nor was she a great comedy actress, as some people think. I've seen all of her credited films, and not one ever evoked more than a chuckle or smile from me. So, it's not wise to put Holliday in the company of the great comedy actresses who could conjure up laughter right and left - not only from their lines, but from their expressions, body language and antics. Jean Arthur, Carol Lombard, Irene Dunne, Greer Garson, Ginger Rogers, Myrna Loy, Lorretta Young, Rosalind Russell, Claudette Colbert, Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck, Doris Day and others have given audiences much to laugh about in film. One will notice that Katherine Hepburn is not in this list. That's because the bulk of her comedy was of the intellectual, witty, overly clever type. It evokes smiles and chuckles, but not great laughter.
This is a good film with some good acting. It has a tragedy and some serious drama. If one is in the mood for such a movie, it will be enjoyable. But, if one is looking for laughs, there are many outright comedy films that should be considered.
Here are some favorite lines:
Florence, "But down there in Atlantic City, I got into quite a lot of thinking. You know what I mean? I don't mean just stewin' around, I mean thinking. And to tell ya the truth, I was surprised how enjoyable it was."
Florence, "And I made up a rule. I'm gonna do at least a half hour's thinking every day. All by myself. Just quietly." Mrs. Derringer, "What're you gonna think about?" Florence, "I don't know. Everything."
The plot for this film has a nice device - perhaps one of the first to use flashbacks a great deal. Madge Kennedy plays Judge Anne Carroll who sits Florence and Chet Keefer (Holliday and Ray) down in her office during a lunch break in the divorce court. She wants to see if the couple can't resolve their problem ahead of impending divorce. What is interesting and very telling about the flashbacks, is that each of the Keefer's stories as seen through their eyes are not what the audience is seeing played out in flashback. Each of the partners sees himself/herself as good and in the right, and the other partner at fault.
Judge Carroll intersperses questions to bring up the next recollection. And, as these episodes continue, the couple's stories and the flashbacks begin to seem more and more alike. One can guess where this will lead eventually, and it does.
For their acting and this clever device, "The Marrying Kind" is a good film. But, it's not great as a comedy or drama or combination. The movie came in 64th in 1952 in gross box office receipts. It more than covered its budget, but obviously was not a blockbuster hit. While some reviewers on IMDb rave about this film, one suspects that most audiences in the early 1950s (as indeed today) probably didn't enjoy this type of film. Rip-roaring comedies about marital strife, yes. Or very serious drama, yes. But movies that try to inject humor between serious and everyday humdrum matters, no. They don't have enough oomph to make them entertaining or enjoyable.
Judy Holliday had a short career on stage and on the silver screen, dying of breast cancer in 1965 at age 43. She was a very good actress, often playing a naïve (not dumb) blonde in sophisticated comedies. In general, those are comedies that are built around dialog that is witty, clever, sometimes profound, and funny in varying degrees. Seldom do such comedies have audiences rolling in the aisles with laughter. But well done, they are entertaining. They mostly seem to be shows of egos for playwrights (and directors, somewhat).
While she was a very good actress, Holliday was not a comedienne. Nor was she a great comedy actress, as some people think. I've seen all of her credited films, and not one ever evoked more than a chuckle or smile from me. So, it's not wise to put Holliday in the company of the great comedy actresses who could conjure up laughter right and left - not only from their lines, but from their expressions, body language and antics. Jean Arthur, Carol Lombard, Irene Dunne, Greer Garson, Ginger Rogers, Myrna Loy, Lorretta Young, Rosalind Russell, Claudette Colbert, Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck, Doris Day and others have given audiences much to laugh about in film. One will notice that Katherine Hepburn is not in this list. That's because the bulk of her comedy was of the intellectual, witty, overly clever type. It evokes smiles and chuckles, but not great laughter.
This is a good film with some good acting. It has a tragedy and some serious drama. If one is in the mood for such a movie, it will be enjoyable. But, if one is looking for laughs, there are many outright comedy films that should be considered.
Here are some favorite lines:
Florence, "But down there in Atlantic City, I got into quite a lot of thinking. You know what I mean? I don't mean just stewin' around, I mean thinking. And to tell ya the truth, I was surprised how enjoyable it was."
Florence, "And I made up a rule. I'm gonna do at least a half hour's thinking every day. All by myself. Just quietly." Mrs. Derringer, "What're you gonna think about?" Florence, "I don't know. Everything."
Drastic turns
Chet marries Florence and for a while all is swell. But due to personal tragedy and Chet's inability to hold on to a job, they find themselves in divorce court.
Time has completely forgotten this truly masterful piece of cinema art. 'Marrying Kind' starts out as a screwball comedy, evolves into gentle and then starker realism, takes a drastic turn towards tragedy, only to try and find its way back. Veteran director Cukor invited all sorts of trouble with this extremely challenging format, with a drama very obviously inspired by King Vidor's ground-breaking late silent 'The Crowd'.
It is a virtuosic and deeply, deeply affecting film, as written by Garson Kanin, directed with an almost uncanny ear for dialogue by the underrated Cukor, and acted by newcomer Aldo Ray and the ever-brilliant Judy Holliday. The ending to this film testifies to an unexpected emotional maturity in Hollywood in the early 50's, and the transfer is perfect.
I daresay nobody with an open mind is ever liable to forgot this film, and remember, before you start moaning about the mixing of genres, Life does its own mixing of tears and laughter every day to every single one of us. In that respect no film ever was more organic than this one!
Time has completely forgotten this truly masterful piece of cinema art. 'Marrying Kind' starts out as a screwball comedy, evolves into gentle and then starker realism, takes a drastic turn towards tragedy, only to try and find its way back. Veteran director Cukor invited all sorts of trouble with this extremely challenging format, with a drama very obviously inspired by King Vidor's ground-breaking late silent 'The Crowd'.
It is a virtuosic and deeply, deeply affecting film, as written by Garson Kanin, directed with an almost uncanny ear for dialogue by the underrated Cukor, and acted by newcomer Aldo Ray and the ever-brilliant Judy Holliday. The ending to this film testifies to an unexpected emotional maturity in Hollywood in the early 50's, and the transfer is perfect.
I daresay nobody with an open mind is ever liable to forgot this film, and remember, before you start moaning about the mixing of genres, Life does its own mixing of tears and laughter every day to every single one of us. In that respect no film ever was more organic than this one!
Unfocused, and predictable
I found the film to be somewhat predictable, and unfocused, as to what it was trying to be. Serio-comic movies are difficult to pull off to begin with, and this one fails overall! Some of the dialog sparkles, but much just lays there, and although only about an hour and a half long by the midpoint the viewer can easily surmise how it will all wind up! Ray's first picture, and possibly the reason he was often typecast as a lunk head. Overall mostly forgettable!
- tstrat-64441
- Jan 8, 2018
- Permalink
A not a good remake of "The Crowd'
Judy Holiday's Most Tragic Role and Aldo Ray's First Star Turn
- theowinthrop
- Sep 6, 2007
- Permalink
A Dramedy Lacking In Appeal
After the success of "Born Yesterday", a film adaptation of the play co-written by Garson Kanin and starring Judy Holliday, Columbia wanted to replicate those results and hired Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon to write a film specifically for Judy. The result is "The Marrying Kind".
"Born Yesterday" was worthy of its praise. The script was wonderful and the three main stars--Holliday, William Holden and Broderick Crawford--turn in performances that play off each other and perfectly define their characters. "The Marrying Kind", on the other hand, falls short and fails to use Judy's talents to their best advantage.
The film is what we now refer to as a dramedy. Judy Holliday certainly has that within her range and she tries (as Florrie)--with Aldo Ray who plays her husband (Chet) in the film--to honestly portray the blue collar couple that is the film's focus.
The first failure is the way the film makes Aldo Ray an insensitive oaf. And that makes Judy Holliday's character a woman who settles and who is not very discriminating. As viewers, we can't care as much as we should about their fates. As great as Kanin and Gordon are, this offering is not up to their usual standards, even if it might be daring.
The tale of their relationship is too desperate. And it contains little that can be considered romance. Chet is inattentive and clueless.
The story is told in flashbacks to a judge who will decide the outcome of their marriage. She is used as a tool lay out their history for consideration. The first problem is that Chet has a horrible memory, always recalling events from a position of bias. And when their relationship encounters a real tragedy, their is little substance to help the couple survive.
Fans of Judy Holliday or Aldo Ray (in his first fully credited role) may still enjoy this film on some level. It's also fun to look for Charles Bronson (uncredited) and Peggy Cass (uncredited and in her first film role).
"Born Yesterday" was worthy of its praise. The script was wonderful and the three main stars--Holliday, William Holden and Broderick Crawford--turn in performances that play off each other and perfectly define their characters. "The Marrying Kind", on the other hand, falls short and fails to use Judy's talents to their best advantage.
The film is what we now refer to as a dramedy. Judy Holliday certainly has that within her range and she tries (as Florrie)--with Aldo Ray who plays her husband (Chet) in the film--to honestly portray the blue collar couple that is the film's focus.
The first failure is the way the film makes Aldo Ray an insensitive oaf. And that makes Judy Holliday's character a woman who settles and who is not very discriminating. As viewers, we can't care as much as we should about their fates. As great as Kanin and Gordon are, this offering is not up to their usual standards, even if it might be daring.
The tale of their relationship is too desperate. And it contains little that can be considered romance. Chet is inattentive and clueless.
The story is told in flashbacks to a judge who will decide the outcome of their marriage. She is used as a tool lay out their history for consideration. The first problem is that Chet has a horrible memory, always recalling events from a position of bias. And when their relationship encounters a real tragedy, their is little substance to help the couple survive.
Fans of Judy Holliday or Aldo Ray (in his first fully credited role) may still enjoy this film on some level. It's also fun to look for Charles Bronson (uncredited) and Peggy Cass (uncredited and in her first film role).
Jarring, mood-shifting, and disarming
This movie reminds me a lot of Penny Serenade, but Aldo Ray is no Cary Grant. And, while Judy Holliday is one of the greatest comedy actresses of all time, and is marvelous at showing a broad range of emotions, this character is disturbingly all over the compass, and it is impossible to get a handle on her. The gallows-humour-out-of-the blue turn that this movie takes is jarring and disturbing. Certainly the dialogue is sharp and well-written, and the supporting cast is terrific. Maybe the interjuxtaposition of satire, screwball comedy, tragedy, and pathos is sheer genius, but I just was left numb.
- aromatic-2
- Apr 12, 2001
- Permalink
Strange film, worth seeing
The dizzy title of this film might suggest a screwball comedy, but it's deceptive. Despite claims to the contrary, this is definitely not a screwball comedy. It starts with plenty of jokes and humorous moments, but among other things, the pacing is all wrong. Also, screwballs often involve moneyed folk with big houses and good accents, and these are working-class characters in a small and under-furnished apartment. Knocking a few drinks back is an amusing foible in screwballs: here it usually complicates the lives of the characters. Instead of driving places, they take the bus or feel guilty about spending money on cabs. Screwball couples may have a pet dog or a leopard in tow; how many of them have small children (as here) whose sleep is interrupted by the bitter arguments of their parents? This might even be called anti-screwball.
The unevenness of tone certainly disconcerted me the first time I saw it, and it has clearly worried several of the other people who've commented on the film. Though Judy Holliday is great (as usual), it helps an appreciation of the film if one does not expect a replay of Born Yesterday's raucous laughter or even the gentler-paced humour of Bells Are Ringing.
Scenes of the discordance and trials of married life are played for laughs, but with an increasingly harder edge until the comedy has very nearly been wrung out of the whole thing. Slowly, the humour departs from the story and we're left with a very watchable study of a marriage spiralling into crisis, even if the treatment does become rather soapy at times.
After several viewings of this strange film, I'm still not sure if I've enjoyed the experience, though I constantly feel that I've been watching something significant. I can't give it a score, as I really don't know how to estimate an accurate score. It's worth seeing, even if you don't expect to like it: that's the only way I can summarise it.
The unevenness of tone certainly disconcerted me the first time I saw it, and it has clearly worried several of the other people who've commented on the film. Though Judy Holliday is great (as usual), it helps an appreciation of the film if one does not expect a replay of Born Yesterday's raucous laughter or even the gentler-paced humour of Bells Are Ringing.
Scenes of the discordance and trials of married life are played for laughs, but with an increasingly harder edge until the comedy has very nearly been wrung out of the whole thing. Slowly, the humour departs from the story and we're left with a very watchable study of a marriage spiralling into crisis, even if the treatment does become rather soapy at times.
After several viewings of this strange film, I'm still not sure if I've enjoyed the experience, though I constantly feel that I've been watching something significant. I can't give it a score, as I really don't know how to estimate an accurate score. It's worth seeing, even if you don't expect to like it: that's the only way I can summarise it.
- alan-morton
- Sep 15, 2004
- Permalink
he says, she says
Florrie Keefer (Judy Holliday) and Chet Keefer (Aldo Ray) attend New York Court of Domestic Relations in front of Judge Anne B. Carroll (Madge Kennedy). They recount their story to the judge. Chet and his friend George met Florrie and her friend in Central Park. Chet is a poor post office worker and quickly married Florrie. There is the general up and down of a new marriage. The couple invent a roller skate but the demonstration does not go well. They have young children.
This is a bit of he says, she says movie. The ups and downs are not that dramatic for most of the movie. This may possibly be edgy for its times. Holliday's brassy voice can lead to some fun comedy. It would have been nice to have actual funny jokes. Holliday and Ray have good combative chemistry which does lead to believability to their split. It's not that compelling but it is interesting.
This is a bit of he says, she says movie. The ups and downs are not that dramatic for most of the movie. This may possibly be edgy for its times. Holliday's brassy voice can lead to some fun comedy. It would have been nice to have actual funny jokes. Holliday and Ray have good combative chemistry which does lead to believability to their split. It's not that compelling but it is interesting.
- SnoopyStyle
- Oct 13, 2016
- Permalink
A Separation story 6 decades before an Iranian masterpiece, with that typical comedy and pulpy Happy ending.
The Marrying Kind (1952) :
Brief Rev5-
A Separation story 6 decades before an Iranian masterpiece, with that typical comedy and pulpy Happy ending. The Iranian masterpiece "A Separation" (2011) is a universal classic, and I remember feeling numb at the end of the movie. The basic problems that cause arguments and indifferences between a man and his wife were covered with simplicity there. But George Cukor did it 6 decades ago, and that too with a comedy movie. It's funny and interesting, though, especially with the kind of cast it has. The only problem is that it's too simple and typical. You just knew it was going to have that rushed, quick, happy ending. And it happens with a blink of an eye. Well, that was quite normal those days, but then I think about some of the 30s and 40s classics and good films that were so meaningful and substantial with similar subjects. The Marrying Kind is about a couple appealing for a divorce in court. The female judge asks them to tell their story, and they begin telling it from the pass-by point. During the narration, they and the judge also realise that the problems are not that big. It was more about ego and self-obsession that caused insouciance between the love birds. Judy Holliday does what she was known for. Comedy! Only this time, she is far more sensible than her regular peculiar genius or ingenious characters. Aldo Ray couldn't match her, but he did well for himself. Madge Kennedy's Lady Judge was convincing, even though the character was written as being forcefully supportive. Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin's script is non-fancy, simple, and too natural to have many variations. The dialogue could've been better and crisper. George Cukor had many great movies by the time the 50s began, and he had nothing to prove his grand stature. So he makes a film for couples to make them realise the importance of saving their marriage. A fine watch for any season.
RATING - 6/10*
By - #samthebestest.
A Separation story 6 decades before an Iranian masterpiece, with that typical comedy and pulpy Happy ending. The Iranian masterpiece "A Separation" (2011) is a universal classic, and I remember feeling numb at the end of the movie. The basic problems that cause arguments and indifferences between a man and his wife were covered with simplicity there. But George Cukor did it 6 decades ago, and that too with a comedy movie. It's funny and interesting, though, especially with the kind of cast it has. The only problem is that it's too simple and typical. You just knew it was going to have that rushed, quick, happy ending. And it happens with a blink of an eye. Well, that was quite normal those days, but then I think about some of the 30s and 40s classics and good films that were so meaningful and substantial with similar subjects. The Marrying Kind is about a couple appealing for a divorce in court. The female judge asks them to tell their story, and they begin telling it from the pass-by point. During the narration, they and the judge also realise that the problems are not that big. It was more about ego and self-obsession that caused insouciance between the love birds. Judy Holliday does what she was known for. Comedy! Only this time, she is far more sensible than her regular peculiar genius or ingenious characters. Aldo Ray couldn't match her, but he did well for himself. Madge Kennedy's Lady Judge was convincing, even though the character was written as being forcefully supportive. Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin's script is non-fancy, simple, and too natural to have many variations. The dialogue could've been better and crisper. George Cukor had many great movies by the time the 50s began, and he had nothing to prove his grand stature. So he makes a film for couples to make them realise the importance of saving their marriage. A fine watch for any season.
RATING - 6/10*
By - #samthebestest.
- SAMTHEBESTEST
- Oct 8, 2023
- Permalink
This movie is excellent!
Judy Holiday never let us down when it came to her movie performances. This is no exception. Holiday made acting look easy and, like Bette Davis, always acted the part with no difficulties. She died much too young and we lost not only an accomplished actress, but also a beautiful person. I know that volumes have been written both about her and her films, so I won't go much into the movie itself.
Many of us have the impression that life was not as complicated back in the early '50's; that it was more wholesome and that people, in general, had better scruples than today. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aldo Ray plays a husband who has pent up anger about being married, not because of incompatibility, but because of financial problems. His obvious obsession with making money clearly shows in this film. The same holds true today. Many people believe that financial success is tantamount to a successful marriage. Again, this is fallacious and proved by the hordes of wealthy who get divorces every year.
The part of Ray's visit to the butcher proves that a successful marriage is based on many things, money not included. He is set straight not only by this incident, but also his friends, his daughter and the divorce judge.
All I can say is, see this gem! It is worth the time to see it. And yes! this film is available on DVD!
Many of us have the impression that life was not as complicated back in the early '50's; that it was more wholesome and that people, in general, had better scruples than today. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aldo Ray plays a husband who has pent up anger about being married, not because of incompatibility, but because of financial problems. His obvious obsession with making money clearly shows in this film. The same holds true today. Many people believe that financial success is tantamount to a successful marriage. Again, this is fallacious and proved by the hordes of wealthy who get divorces every year.
The part of Ray's visit to the butcher proves that a successful marriage is based on many things, money not included. He is set straight not only by this incident, but also his friends, his daughter and the divorce judge.
All I can say is, see this gem! It is worth the time to see it. And yes! this film is available on DVD!
- yardbirdsraveup
- Jan 13, 2007
- Permalink
HOLLIDAY & RAY MADE FOR EACH OTHER...?
From 1952 director George Cukor (A Star is Born/The Philadelphia Story) directs Judy Holliday (who he reunites w/after her Oscar winning turn in his Born Yesterday) & Aldo Ray (in his screen debut) in this drama about a marriage fraying at the edges. Opening up at a divorce hearing at court, a judge takes the feuding couple into an office & there they lay out the genesis of their union & what led up to where they are now. We see their blue collar straits, he works at the post office while she's a stay at home Mom rearing a boy & a girl. She wants to move ahead & yearns for a chance to do so (in one episode she calls into a radio show to answer a question & Ray feeds her the wrong answer) while he seems to be happy at his status quo. Things take a turn when their son dies in a freak accident at a lake which causes all the recriminations & regrets to boil over into constant arguments which culminates when she receives a check from a deceased boss which stirs Ray to think the worst of Holliday figuring she was romantically linked to him. Will the union give up the ghost or save itself in the final moments? Cukor was wise to cast these earthy actors (in the heated throes of argument you can almost hear your neighbors going at it in any big city) dig into these meaty roles (a turning of the tide was on the horizon for the accurate portrayal of real people, working class American accents & all, to be seen on the big screen). Co-written by Ruth Gordon (the some time actress) & Garson Kanin, this yarn set in the boroughs of the Big Apple crackles w/authenticity & heart.
Frank examination of marriage
While she never gave a bad performance this film contains Judy Holliday's best work, supposedly she felt so too, and probably Aldo Ray's as well. The situations are as relevant now as they were then and played with infinite sensitivity. Decidedly on the more sober side in its portrayal of marriage the Garson Kanin/Ruth Gordon script had touches of levity making it feel very true. While the leads are really the whole story silent film star Madge Kennedy stands out in the supporting cast as the compassionate and wise judge. Funny, sad look at a marriage from courtship through breakdown would be perfect for a remake with the proper actors although these two would be hard to top.
The Marrying Kind & Aldo Ray
A very pleasant romantic comedy (and a rare one about marriage -- most Hollywood comedies about marriage are "domestic", a different subgenre than "romantic"). Its shift in tone to drama in the second half was surprisingly successful, even the (in)famous -- and oft-criticized -- plot twist at the end of act two. The nightmare scene may be the most cinematic sequence George Cukor ever directed.
It should be noted that I am far from world's greatest Judy Holliday fan (didn't care for Born Yesterday at all). IMHO the film belongs to Aldo Ray, then at the beginning of his brief star push by Columbia (he even gets a special "Introducing" card after the end credits). Ray had not been acting long and it shows -- he has a tendency to rush his lines, even with Cukor directing. But for all his gaucheness -- perhaps, because of it -- Ray has a natural quality that is appealing.
Those who know Ray only from his later appearances will be surprised by how SKINNY he looks here! lol
As I said, Ray's star push by Columbia was brief. I don't know specifically why it ended, though I would guess it had something to do with the studio's signing of Jack Lemmon the next year. Ray was actually the better dramatic actor, but when you've got one of the very greatest light comedians of all time on your payroll, I guess you don't need to keep Aldo around as Judy Holliday's leading man.
Ray went on to 1) put on a few pounds, and 2) become essentially a character actor in leading roles -- his finest hour coming as the sergeant in the classic Men In War (1957). Ray was probably the greatest movie sergeant ever -- he seemed to possess an instinctive understanding of that character type. It's not widely known but Ray came very close to playing role of Prewitt in From Here To Eternity -- which would've been a dreadful miscasting. He was far better suited to the role of Sgt. Warden, where inherent cynicism comes into conflict with the need for idealism -- a description that could apply to any of Ray's best performances.
By the time of Men In War, Ray began to look very heavy, and much older on screen than he was in reality, which one presumes was due to his hitting the sauce away from the studio. By the time he was 40 he was pretty much washed up.
I won't go into the unfortunate circumstances of Ray's later life -- but I do hope that someday he gets the respect from film historians that he deserves.
It should be noted that I am far from world's greatest Judy Holliday fan (didn't care for Born Yesterday at all). IMHO the film belongs to Aldo Ray, then at the beginning of his brief star push by Columbia (he even gets a special "Introducing" card after the end credits). Ray had not been acting long and it shows -- he has a tendency to rush his lines, even with Cukor directing. But for all his gaucheness -- perhaps, because of it -- Ray has a natural quality that is appealing.
Those who know Ray only from his later appearances will be surprised by how SKINNY he looks here! lol
As I said, Ray's star push by Columbia was brief. I don't know specifically why it ended, though I would guess it had something to do with the studio's signing of Jack Lemmon the next year. Ray was actually the better dramatic actor, but when you've got one of the very greatest light comedians of all time on your payroll, I guess you don't need to keep Aldo around as Judy Holliday's leading man.
Ray went on to 1) put on a few pounds, and 2) become essentially a character actor in leading roles -- his finest hour coming as the sergeant in the classic Men In War (1957). Ray was probably the greatest movie sergeant ever -- he seemed to possess an instinctive understanding of that character type. It's not widely known but Ray came very close to playing role of Prewitt in From Here To Eternity -- which would've been a dreadful miscasting. He was far better suited to the role of Sgt. Warden, where inherent cynicism comes into conflict with the need for idealism -- a description that could apply to any of Ray's best performances.
By the time of Men In War, Ray began to look very heavy, and much older on screen than he was in reality, which one presumes was due to his hitting the sauce away from the studio. By the time he was 40 he was pretty much washed up.
I won't go into the unfortunate circumstances of Ray's later life -- but I do hope that someday he gets the respect from film historians that he deserves.
- jozefkafka
- Mar 26, 2008
- Permalink
The Marrying Kind follows the arc of a married couple through the first seven years of their marriage.
- hunt_kathleen
- May 31, 2008
- Permalink
Third time's the charm for Cukor and Holliday!
George Cukor has made a film about inconsistent narrators. As Florence "Florrie" (Judy Holliday) and Chester "Chet" (Aldo Ray) are about to get a divorce, both bicker and biasedly argue over details of their time together, their memories of love and bittersweet loss. However, the audience is lucky to have George Cukor as a reliable tour guide into the 7-year marriage of Chet and Florrie, for along with A STAR IS BORN, this is his most emotionally raw and truthful film. Some have complained that Aldo Ray seemed better fit for a war movie, and both actors had very unique speaking voices that typecast them, but I like the fact that Holliday and Ray are both a bit off; Unlike the very similar-plotted PENNY SERENADE, neither really had the aura of a huge superstar like Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, and they feel like real people, which is essential to the roles and neither felt like they were two actors playing dress-up (or down), and their flaws and insecurities are so human and real. Their fights don't feel scripted, but rather the audience is interrupting their neighbor's loud argument. The tragedies are not manipulative or forced unlike PENNY SERENADE but instead infused with honesty and a painful eye for details of the way a married couple acts and reacts like Stanley Donen's TWO FOR THE ROAD. Cukor's two screenwriters, Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon brilliantly use flashbacks and voice-overs to show how memories can be biased and that people can be cruel to try to avoid getting hurt, but that the truth (the flashbacks that we do see) is more bittersweet in its objectivity. Florrie and Chet may argue constantly and bicker to cover up their own vulnerability, but that's what makes them so perfect for each other, and why Florrie believes so much in Chet's ambitions and how Chet knows that Florrie brings out the best in him. The best movie couples are the ones whose respective films acknowledge the frailties of human beings--and also realize the potential to grow and evolve with love and redemption, which is what THE MARRYING KIND does with a refreshing sense of candid accuracy; this is a marriage straight from real life, not the Hollywood version of it.
- Goodbye_Ruby_Tuesday
- Aug 2, 2008
- Permalink
Proving that most divorces really are....over nothing....
- mark.waltz
- Dec 13, 2012
- Permalink
Just get a divorce
The screaming and the talking over eachother... I hate these two together. I almost couldn't make it through. By an hour in I was hoping it would end in divorce. They go through one problem after another. Makes me thankful for my easy marriage but also aware of how many of my relatives have had bad marriage. It's no good to raise kids in that atmosphere. I really hated this movie and I love old movies and movies about divorce. This one just was awful. Don't know if different casting would have made it better. Maybe Jimmy Stewart and Katherine Hepburn could have saved it. Sadly we will never know.
- l-s-s-yarberry
- Apr 23, 2024
- Permalink