Lawbolisted Powerful

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

RanchoTuVu Judy Holliday awakens to discover the self-esteem she lost thanks to her relationship to Broderick Crawford, who plays a rich, crooked, and boisertous owner of junkyards who takes Holliday along on a trip to the nation's capitol to bribe a congressman. As the film progresses she is drawn away from Crawford by William Holden, who plays a D.C. reporter hired by Crawford to help Holliday learn refinement. He does so by taking Holliday on trips to the Jefferson Monument and supplying her with reading material. The infusion of culture and Holden, who's considerably more suave and sophisticated than Crawford, is what she needed to locate her inner courage and stand up to the loutish Crawford once and for all.Thus, the historic environment of Washington D.C. combined with Holden seem to spell the end for Crawford's hold over Holliday's self-esteem. Though the film offers a scathing take on how business gets conducted in our nation's capitol, it is much more important in its focus on Holiday's evolution into her personal independence from tyranny.

writers_reign If nothing else this movie would be a fitting and durable memorial to a wonderful actress. Judy Holliday was one of a rare group of actresses who exude warmth even as they crack wise, people like Celeste Holm, Eve Arden, Virginia O'Brien. For once all the elements are top drawer; Garson Kanin worked without credit on this adaptation of his own hit (it ran four years) Broadway play, reluctantly Columbia imported the female lead and lived to give thanks (Paul Douglas played the male lead on Broadway and Gary Merrill the third person in the triangle in what was a much smaller role on stage), whilst I wouldn't have objected if they'd hired Paul Douglas along with Holliday I can do without the wooden Merrill and William Holden takes what is essentially a foil and invests it with charm whilst Brod Crawford grabs the male lead by the scruff of the neck and acts the bejeezus out of it. A certified classic.

dougdoepke I expect the movie's serious side took a backseat to Holliday's overpowering comedic performance. Her Billy Dawn is certainly Oscar-worthy in that year's heavy competition. Who can forget the Minnie Mouse voice, the big saucer eyes and sweetly naïve manner. Together, they combine into a career performance in what's a slyly demanding role. But especially, I love that gin game with the exasperated Harry. Billy seems so scatter-brained and he so focused, it's almost like seeing Al Capone get bested by Daffy Duck. What an expert piece of comedic architecture— in my book, it's the movie's and Crawford's best moments.Speaking of Crawford, he's so consistently loud and abusive, his Harry the junk man (how appropriate) amounts to almost a cartoon character in itself. Director Cukor was known as a woman's director, so maybe that's why Crawford goes over the top. But whatever the reason, he's much too much. The overbearing Harry is supposed to be dislikable but not so dislikable that he becomes a caricature. On a slightly different plane, note how the sexual conventions of the time are slyly finessed—the sleeping arrangements, Billy's withholding sex after the gin game, the suspicious hundred dollars her dad refuses, etc. These amount to a more suggestive screenplay than usual for that straitjacketed time. As funny as the movie is, it still adds up to more than just an expert amusement. There's a substantial subtext worth remarking on. For example, the moral of the screenplay is a clear one—no tyranny over people's minds. That lesson, of course, applies to Billy in spades, though she acts it out in highly amusing fashion. As the domineering Harry's silken mistress, she shows a tyrannized, inhibited silence in the film's first part— which is also why she so cleverly annoys Harry during that delicious card game. The ex-show girl may be a well-kept victim (check out her suitcases in the hotel lobby), but she's a victim no less, not only of Harry's abuse, but of her own difficult background, as well. The trouble is she's also a victim of her own assumptions and expectations about herself.Thus, when writer- educator Paul (Holden) arrives on the scene, he arrives as a potential liberator, bringing her both respect and ideas. But he's got to free her not only from Harry, but from her past dependent self, as well. Those tutoring scenes in the nation's capital with its inscribed democratic ideals are well chosen. The ideals, as we learn, apply not only to nations, but to individuals, as well. So when Billy finally recognizes how the two converge, she opens up a new independence of mind and personhood she never realized were waiting there to be freed. And when she finally leaves Harry for Paul, with just a few clothes, she's in effect chosen the 'happy peasant' over the powerful man (Napoleon) and the movie's moral parable is complete. Nonetheless, there are limits to these lessons. For example, the national monument scenes need not be so reverential since democracy itself remains an ideal, not a religion to be worshipped; at the same time, the 'founding fathers', for all their gifts, were only mortal men and not the gods of a religion. Moreover, the happy peasants of the script don't usually take the risks that drive a history of social and economic progress. Harry may not exemplify this worthy type of risk-taking, but there are limits, I believe, to the 'happy peasant' as a paradigm for an entire society. Of course, the comedic side of the movie means these more serious points can't be made too subtle or controversial, otherwise the funny parts would be undermined. But I can't help wondering just for the fun of it about the casting. Suppose that instead of the handsome Holden as Billy's catalyst, an ordinary looking man were there instead. Then I wonder how Billy would respond. Or instead of the bullying Crawford, suppose someone less good at being obnoxious were cast. But, of course, much of the movie's satisfaction comes from seeing this nasty guy and his plush prison get rejected.None of this is meant to take away from the superb comedic side of the movie. But the exceptional appeal of the material (Kanin and Mannheimer) is that it so neatly combines the laughs into food for thought and both of them into a single entertaining package. But above all, the movie remains a superb showcase for one of the best comediennes of that day or this. What a loss that she died so young. Fortunately, the laughs remain.

Steffi_P In their purest forms, theatre and cinema work in completely opposite ways. A theatre production, with the limited scope of the stage, must convey action, place and meaning through its words. A motion picture, being a primarily visual affair, must make its images speak without getting bogged down in too much dialogue. How then to translate a stage play to the screen without giving the script a complete overhaul? Enter director George Cukor. Cukor was undoubtedly the finest director when it came to theatre adaptations, and the studio trusted him well enough to turn him loose on barely adulterated material. He plays some of his neatest tricks in the first twenty minutes. During William Holden's interview with Broderick Crawford, the screen is filled with various flunkies rushing about doing Crawford's business. These are not merely here for background detail – the camera actually follows them more than it is does Holden and Crawford. It's a lively and cunning way of distracting us from Crawford's words – it isn't really important that we memorise every fact about this character, more that we get an impression of what he is really about. However in the following scene with Judy Holliday, everything is still and uncluttered, focusing us entirely on her and what she has to say.This is not to put down Garson Kanin's play. Born Yesterday is a beautifully structured piece, wonderfully simple and direct in its delineation of characters and situations. It describes Billie's blossoming as a genius at a credible pace without ever duplicating a moment, with every scene having a slightly different thrust. It's also a refreshingly mature and non-patronizing story of a female emancipation. Feminist purists may point out that Billie is arguably liberated by her male tutor, but she is nevertheless undoubtedly an independent actor in control of her own life, possessing of natural intelligence that was waiting to be given form. Besides, the tale of a stereotypical blonde bimbo getting one over on the chauvinistic boar she lives with is too good to resist.And what makes Billie's story work best of all is her portrayal by real-life blonde intellect Judy Holliday. At first glance Holliday is a graceless, squawking menace, in a similar vein to the Jean Hagen character from Singin' in the Rain. But while Lena Lamont is unquestionably a villain, Holliday makes Billie an engaging and above all likable individual. More than that Holliday skilfully brings out the humanity and touching realism in the caricature. While Holliday subtly feels out her performance, Broderick Crawford is more an actor of gesture and mannerism, filling the space with his larger-than-life presence. Next to these two, William Holden is almost a little bland in his steady professionalism, but this doesn't matter, as it's not his character who is required to shine.When we see a stage to screen adaptation, even a good one, its roots are usually obvious in the long passages of dialogue and lack of scene changes. Born Yesterday however moves with such pace and draws us in so successfully, you could be forgiven for thinking it was written directly for the screen. It is one of Cukor's best and the finest record one could hope for of the seldom-seen talents of Judy Holliday. It also holds its own in a year of so many fine dramas, and deserves to be remembered alongside All About Eve and Sunset Boulevard.