When dancers direct sex comedies. . .

Nobody would argue against Gene Kelly's contributions to the Hollywood canon as an actor and dancer (and that includes Xanadu -- Filmbrain's pick for unsung masterpiece of the 80s.) However, his talent behind the camera leaves a lot to be desired. After the cloying sweetness of films like The Happy Road (1957) and Gigot (1962), Kelly decided to try something a bit more hip and contemporary -- the chock-full-of-cameos sex comedy. Though released in the summer of love, A Guide For The Married Man is more State & Main than Haight-Ashbury (theme song by The Turtles notwithstanding.) It's set in a world where beautiful housewives parade around in hot pants and see-thru nighties, and men like Walter Matthau are the object of women's desire. It's a bawdy tale on par with the Benny Hill Show, and it hasn't aged well at all. (Was this thing ever fresh?) Matthau plays Paul Manning, Los Angeles businessman happily married to the rather stunning and completely submissive Ruth (Swedish bombshell Inger Stevens). His best friend Ed (The Boatniks' Robert Morse) is married to the equally submissive Harriet, but spends most of his free time having it off with anything he can get his hands on. A self-proclaimed expert in the art of cheating, he decides to share his expertise with Paul. The bulk of the film consists of Ed's various anecdotes about husbands who weren't careful enough, thus providing the opportunity for an endless stream of cameos (all of whom are listed in the credits as "technical advisers"). There's Lucille Ball fighting with hubby Art Carney, Jack Benny, Joey Bishop, Sid Caesar, Phil Silvers, and a braless Jayne Mansfield, to name a few. While the subject matter might be a bit daring for its time, Kelly keeps things clean, and ends the film with its morals (and virtue) intact -- there's Matthau, in a motel room, with a buxomly, bustier-wearing wealthy divorcee, and he just can't seem to keep thoughts of the loving wife out of his head. Unlike the truly subversive Lord Love a Duck (from the year before), A Guide For The Married Man misses a perfect opportunity to skewer the already-beginning-to-crumble facade of the suburban middle-class household. Considering that one year later Faces would be released shows just how out of date Kelly's film was. Still, as a dumb 60s farce it's no worse than the slew of other bloated comedies of the period. There are actually a few chuckle-worthy moments. [A Guide For The Married Man is not on DVD, but shows up on the Fox Movie Channel often enough. Best enjoyed with a scotch & water (in a highball glass).]

Comments

[Flickhead]

Scotch? Perhaps. But to flow with the right vibe, baby, you may be better off with a "martoonie."

"Guide..." was considered very risqué in its time. When I was a kid I tacked the one-sheet on my bedroom wall, only to get a lecture about pornography from my outraged mother. (For a sample of the poster, here's a rather poor reproduction: http://www.movieposter.com/cgi-bin/mpw8/viewPIDn.pl?pid=b70-3040&title=GUIDE+FOR+THE+MARRIED+MAN)

I haven't seen it in ages, but I remember The Turtles theme vividly:

"Every wife who's truthful
Who treasures marriedness
Must keep their husbands youthful
What better way than this?"

Now you may want to move on to Robert Morse in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying," featuring the Bob Fosse-choreographed dance number, "A Secretary is Not a Toy"!

[Sal C]

I caught this on cable a few months and remember thinking, "Did anyone ever think was funny?” Of course it is hopelessly dated in 2005, but were audiences in 1967 actually enjoying this? It's easy to assume that those who came before us were more naive, had simplistic tastes, were less discriminating, etc., but I often wonder if that's fair. Are my grandchildren going to think those about my generation 50 years from now? Will Pulp Fiction seem quaint to them?

[Filmbrain]

That's a great story Flickhead! Did the poster have to go?

[Flickhead]

Can't say for sure . . . the memory's gotten hazy. But she nearly went "nuts" when she found out that her thirteen-year-old son snuck in to see "The Statue," the David Niven mistaken-penis comedy. Mom always abided by the ratings imposed by the Catholic Legion of Decency, and she drew the line with this movie . . . and especially with that really "dirty" movie, "Blowup."

Does this explain some of my sundry psychological kinks?

[Flickhead]

Sal C., you bring up some valid points. But there are some people today who think that "Dodgeball" is a funny movie, too. I guess tastes change with time.

Just recently my 14-year-old niece visited, and we decided to watch "The Birds" on TCM. She watched the whole thing, but four or five times she asked "Who could possibly be scared by this?" She was more fascinated by how UN-thrilling it was (to her), and pondered a previous generation who could take it with a straight face.

Fortunately, I stopped getting depressed (or argumentative) over this kind of thing a long time ago.

[la depressionada]

o xanadu to is so sung. i favor "the apple" made, i believe, in the same year.

apropos of almost nothing: the only movie my parents drew the line at was "if . . ." (still one of my faves). i think they feared my brother and i would get us some machine guns and try to overthrow the mom and pop-riachy (as though we needed a movie for that).

[la depressionada]

syntax: o xanadu is too so sung.

[Sal C]

Flickhead - Hey, I thought "Dodgeball" was funny! Well, maybe 'funny' is too strong a word. How about 'amiable'?
Your point about horror films is well taken. That is the one genre that probably ages the least well, with comedy a close second.

[mastane]

hall

[mastane]

hall