This is the second film on the 1989 registry for Billy Wilder, who is sometimes called the greatest Hollywood director. Sure, that's a completely overblown and subjective statement, but it's there.
And yet there's apparently been criticism of his work, some from mainstream critics, some from the general internet public. I saw a reddit thread the other day talking about it.
The gist of the discussion goes like this: the pro-Wilder people think he's got some nice visuals to accompany his great stories. And you can probably tell which side I'm on if you read my review of Sunset Boulevard (1959). I think it's pretty undeniable, actually. The rest feel he has good, witty writing but poor directing. One user said his films lack visual imagination. I sorely beg to differ, but it's there.
I happen to think that his films look really great. They are successful at telling the story visually, and by that I mean showing actions to push the story along instead of telling us. His camera work isn't particularly extravagant, but it seems clear to me that he knows how to inject symbolism and visual metaphors into the frame. He just does it sparingly. I don't view the camera work in Wilder's movie as purely functionary, contrary to what his critics think. But maybe that's because he works with good DP's, I don't know. Also, good writing trumping highly inspired directing doesn't necessarily bother me either. Check out Woody Allen or my boy Todd Solondz.
So that's my justification for previously speaking highly of the hack fraud Billy Wilder.
I know about movies, you guys.
Billy Wilder and Some Like It Hot
Luckily, I found my Pete Timmerman notes.
But he didn't talk about Billy Wilder in class. Sorry.
But I do have to ability to roughly peruse the internet to get some basic background for all of you.
He was a Jewish Austrian who escaped the Nazi regime just before the Holocaust and lived in Paris, where he got into filmmaking. His career has spanned over fifty years, and while I've said he has a distinctive style (mostly witty writing), he doesn't have a trademark, I guess? He's not like Tim Burton who makes dark fantasies or Michael Bay who makes shitty action movies. Some of Billy Wilder's movies are comedies, some dramas, some noirs. Then again, he's not nearly as versatile as Howard Hawks, who was a total jack of all trades when it came to genre.
So I think that's why I've heard him being referred to as the greatest Hollywood director, because he's versatile without being inconsistent and his stories are very large scale and relevant to pop culture and society (especially Sunset Boulevard). His films have garnered tons of awards. He was the first to receive oscars for producing, directing, and writing for the same film (The Apartment [1960]). A feat only achieved by four others after him. Which actually sounds like a lot, but whatever. Also, he was a great actor's director, and a lot of his films got people oscars for acting.
Oh, and also, he was known to avoid complex cinematography later in his career because he thought it called attention to itself. So that's probably the root of the criticism of his directorial style. If you ask me, people who criticize his directorial style for it's understated visuals (which isn't always true) are forgetting about how he succeeds in the many other facets of directing (coaching performances, controlling the pacing of the story, blocking the set, etc.)
So onto the movie.
They get into hijinks along the way, Joe falls in love with the frisky Sugar Cane (Marilyn Monroe) and a elderly yacht owner falls in love with "Daphne" (Jerry). Wackiness ensues.
SPOILERS
In the end, the mob dispatches of Spats Colombo but are still after Joe and Jerry. They make their escape with Sugar in the yacht of the elderly man who loves "Daphne". Jerry reveals himself to end the charade but the old man seems to be cool with it.
So it has a pretty basic plot. Not a lot to say. It's wacky, it's funny, it's clever. Most people have already seen it so that's pretty much all there is to it.
Significance
While I don't think this is as big or important a movie as Sunset Boulevard, I'm finding that I can identify more small, individual reasons for its success.
One would be its involvement with Marilyn Monroe, but that, I think, is only a small factor. She had already starred in Billy Wilder's previous film, The Seven Year Itch (1955). And that seems like a much more iconic role considering it created this well known image:
But I noticed right away that Monroe's image was a lot more risque in this one.
He took classic good guy and sweetheart actor Fred MacMurray and turned him into a murderer.
He took a classic noir premise and made it comical, biting, and meta.
But there's also some shockingly suggestive moments in here. I know a comedy from 1959 about men dressing in drag to hide from the mob is in no way a liberal or progressive piece. But the key word here is suggestive.
For the time, the era, and the audience, the movie really walks the line. At one point, Jack Lemmon's character tangos with the old yacht owner, and they become very, very close.
What's interesting is that there are a couple moments where a certain dialogue is repeated. It's something to the effect of:
Character 1: This is absurd and completely outrageous (often referring to their cross dressing or leading on other men)
Character 2: Either we do it or we die.
This struck me as a nod to the audience. They set up this life or death premise to ease people of time into this gender bending premise, which doesn't touch upon but teeters closely to depicting homosexuality.
And to keep the skeptical movie goers present, they include these nods. Because they know they're treading a fine line.
Another interesting point is that this might be the beginning of the gender bender comedy subgenre. Without this movie we probably wouldn't have Tootsie (1982), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), Just One of the Guys (1985), Sorority Boys (2002), Nuns on the Run (1990), and She's the Man (2006) (although that one is based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. But the modern adaptation borrows all of its humor from Some Like it Hot and all its offspring ).
There are other variations on this type of comedy that basically emulate the same thing, like The Hot Chick (2002), where Rob Schneider and Rachel McAdams switch bodies. Also there's Jack and Jill (2011), where even though Adam Sandler is suppose to be playing a biological woman, they still do man in drag jokes (notably criticized by my boys at RedLetterMedia in their Jack and Jill review. Apparently there's a part where she has man strength, which would only make sense if she were really a dude. Which she isn't.)
So there you go, everybody. I should say that I didn't love this movie that much. There were parts that made me laugh, sure. Jack Lemmon was very, very funny in this. But I could take it or leave it, I guess. Honestly, Tony Curtis started to get on my nerves. I was disappointed that he ended up getting more focus than Lemmon.
But mostly enjoyable nonetheless.
I have a feeling I'm gonna be seeing more of Wilder on the registry.
The next film on the Registry is Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
