tylergee005
This movie attracted me from the start. Something about Ms. Hepburn that is so fascinating and intriguing, which really shines throughout this film. She is almost inspiring at how a suave and elegant and accomplished person should be, but of course with its faults. The plot perhaps was a bit squashed and felt sped up between when they like each other, to when they're living together. I wish we would've seen how they acted if dating for weeks and weeks on end, since Spencer's character almost immediately after moving in was annoyed (an visibly so, almost to an a-hole level), as if he didn't expect this, or that his love and infatuation for her almost completely disappeared instantly. Also, I understand the need for the type of ending it had, but the last maybe 20 minutes of the film were completely predictable, and dragged after a few minutes. The film obviously could've had a tighter script, and and editing towards the end, but overall I really enjoyed it, and felt it to be a worthwhile watch.
Blake Peterson
"Women should be kept clean, like canaries," secondary character Phil Whittaker (Roscoe Karns) muses at a baseball game. In attendance is Sam Craig (Spencer Tracy), a sportswriter, and his date, foreign correspondent Tess Harding (Katharine Hepburn). You see, the two are sitting in the coveted section of the arena set for journalists. While the other writers are attempting to get a story from the day's event, the loud Tess, wearing a large hat that blocks the view of hungry onlookers, constantly interrupts the tension by asking questions any non-sports fan would be curious about. It annoys everyone around her, except for the enchanted Sam — Phil's (jokingly?) sexist comment is well-timed but funny, as we're aware that Tess is a ball of fire that just won't be constrained like some clean canary.The first forty-five minutes of "Woman of the Year" are a romantic comedy dream, a battle- of-the-sexes marriage satire that wonders aloud if a tough-guy like Spencer Tracy can handle having a wife that wears the pants of the relationship and brings home most of the bacon, while he, a mere sportswriter, sits around, waiting to be loved. But once those forty-five minutes are up, things sour, turning into a feminist nightmare. The film decides to turn against its titular Woman of the Year, critical that she likes to work hard, wishing that she could become a dream spouse, a wife full-time. Ugh. "Woman of the Year" is, famously, the first pairing of Hepburn and Tracy, who endured a relationship lasting until his death in 1967. Unlike many of the other on screen/offscreen couples of the era (Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart, Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward), the two were never married, and Hepburn, most of the time, seemed to dominate the relationship, with her trouser-wearing, exercise-loving persona. Tracy, in the meantime, was her foil, the guy who kept her from saying things like "I'm a personality as well as a star" most of the time. They were and are a dynamite pair, but "Woman of the Year" depletes what makes them so charismatic (though not all the time), placing them in roles that attempt to turn them into that old, cute married couple upstairs.When Tess Harding and Sam Craig first hear of each other, fireworks hardly set off. Sam hears Tess dismiss the sports industry on the radio, favoring a world that focuses on the important things rather than the fluffers, and decides to write an article that criticizes her sensible ideas. Tess writes back, deflating his ego, and so on, and so on. They become rivals — until their very first meeting. Sam is struck by her intelligently sexy poise; Tess is attracted to Sam's gentlemanly instincts. They court, ultimately marrying. But what was once magnetic to Sam is getting old. Tess is so in love with her job that he can hardly count on her to greet him at home after a long day of work. Can she be the Woman of the Year and the Wife of the Year, too?There isn't anything wrong with a marriage drama — but "Woman of the Year" initially promises that we're going to get a brainy romantic comedy, and, unexpectedly, turns into a drama with seldom comedy and not enough romance. It feels like Tess and Sam spend more of the film in turmoil than in love, and laughs exist only in the first and final acts — anything in-between is slightly bitter. So much of the time is used up with Tracy pouting about Hepburn's chronic busyness. I would have preferred a story in which Tess maybe brought Sam along with her on her many globetrotting endeavors, turning him into an odd- man-out while enjoying some pleasing comedic situations.But most of the time, "Woman of the Year" stays serious, a disappointing fact considering how funny it can be. The ending, which sees Tess trying to be the perfect housewife by making Sam breakfast in bed, rings with potential hilarity. Hepburn is game, and her timing is flawless. In fact, the scene is hilarious. But it's also coated in wasted energy; why couldn't more of "Woman of the Year" had scenes like this? The film's many failures are not the fault of Hepburn and Tracy, though — Hepburn, in an Oscar nominated performance, slides through comedic, dramatic, and romantic scenes like a grizzled veteran, and Tracy, always an appealing lead, manages to keep Sam from going down too harsh of a path. "Woman of the Year" would have been better as a screwball comedy, or a romantic drama without Tracy that saw career woman Hepburn flying around the globe, using men along the way, perhaps falling in love accidentally. But the film doesn't know if it wants to be a romantic comedy or a marriage drama. It's unsatisfying.
Tim Kidner
This delight from director George Stevens was the first Tracy/Hepburn collaboration and as we all know by now, they fell in love.That the film doesn't always portray them as a loving couple is down to their superb acting - they had to act as though they hated each other at times.Back at the time, during WW2 (film was released in 1942) and with women having more and more general employment, due to the men having been conscripted, many could see possibly a situation where the woman wore the trousers, to coin an outdated expression. We have Ms Hepburn, running here and there - the film starts with press releases telling us that she is interviewing Winston Churchill - she is a very important and much in demand person.Similar in a way to their later 'Adam's Rib', we have in the other corner, an everyday bloke, set in his ways and here he is someone who has a very male-dominated profession - that of a sports correspondent. Naturally, Tess (Hepburn) who's extremely intelligent and inquisitive, wants to know the ins and outs of baseball. She tries to enter and understand his world.Naturally, this all causes slight havoc. She's always got her personal assistant hanging round her. She never knows which senior politician is going to phone her up - or when. Then, she is voted "Woman Of the Year". Her fiancé, Sam (Tracy) should be delighted. But isn't. The dreams he had of a normal, happy marriage slips further away from him....The narrative flow IS a bit lumpy - there are scenes - the final kitchen scene is in real-time and we just let it unfold naturally - but that's what life - and love - is often about. I rather like the way it is broken up by changing tempos and situations, being more natural and as a result, the pair seem very real to us.Some fans of the two actors believe that this is their best pairing, others think Adam's Rib is. I'm going to go for the second, myself, as it is slightly cleverer and the story is a touch stronger. Never-the- less, this is still extraordinarily good film-making and a fine movie.I watched the DVD as part of the Tracy/Hepburn 4 disc boxset.
sme_no_densetsu
"Woman of the Year" marked the first of nine big screen pairings of Katherine Hepburn & Spencer Tracy. In it, a down-to-earth sports writer falls for an internationally minded political columnist. Their unlikely attraction results in marriage but things do not go smoothly as Hepburn's character pays more attention to her career than her husband.The chemistry between Hepburn & Tracy isn't as refined here as it would become in later pictures but one can sense a spark between them. The contrasting characters make for some spirited interplay while Hepburn's deft performance landed her an Oscar nomination. There's little worth remarking upon in the supporting roles, though the actors are all capable.I found the film's biggest fault to be the screenplay, which nevertheless won an Oscar. The script fails to establish a consistent tone, as if the screenwriters couldn't decide between a comedy or a serious drama. They ought to have committed to one or the other since they make an awkward mix here.George Stevens' direction is well done and so is the score by Franz Waxman. Neither really warrants any special attention, though.In the end, "Woman of the Year" isn't entirely unsuccessful but I wouldn't particularly recommend it either. There are better Hepburn/Tracy films that aren't impaired by odd shifts in tone.
