His girl Friday is a 1940 movie categorized as a screwball comedy with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. While I already wrote a piece on a somewhat similar quirky comedy with Cary Grant (Bringing up Baby), I would argue that the nuances it presents are worth noting and would like to briefly discuss them.
The plot is fairly simplistic: Cary Grant plays the role of the editor of the Morning post and does whatever he can to keep his ex-wife, Rosalind Russell, as his writer. On the day before her wedding, he convinces her to chase the story of a man incriminated of murder wand whose life hangs in the balance; while initially she seems to be in love with the other man, she will end up following her ex-husband.
The first thing that I would like to point out is Cary Grant’s refreshing and hilarious role as he plays a very smug and arrogant character, quite different from his usual clumsy roles but nevertheless retaining in his acting some of those inept gestures; his cockiness is, to put it simply, off the charts. His character is however counterbalanced by a brilliant performance of the female lead: Rosalind Russell plays a well-known very capable and strong-headed reporter. The constant bickering between the two make up for some of the most hilarious scenes in the movie, so much so that it reminded me of another brilliant performance by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in The taming of the Shrew (who at the time were in fact married and soon after divorced).
Here is why this movie is worth a second glance: while it is in fact a comedy, the subplot emphasizes the ruthlessness and vulture-like business journalism was about. The very first panel of the movie in fact states that a reporter would have done anything and everything to chase after a good story. I would dare comment that His girl Friday denotes hints of a dark comedy and could even make one feel bad for laughing at some of the scenes. The fact that reporters are giving more weight to the story than the life of a human being should be brutal, but the movie treats it like something completely natural.
While I did write something similar in another article, I would like to repeat it here: the movie is very fast-paced, but there is always time dedicated to smoking. I would not say however those scenes were product placement. The perception of cigarettes during those days was probably very different, but it is interesting nevertheless to consider the importance that directors attributed to those cathartic moments and how well several extra seconds play out a scene that by nature should be faster. The gesture of smoking in many of those cases actually contributed to setting the pace for certain actions or dialogues.
Here is my final take: the movie is hilarious and worth watching, in spite of having some darker moments, but there is an idea that I would like to deconstruct. Although the female lead is a very strong protagonist up until the very end, in a single scene she is completely overturned. She wanted to live a different life with the man she was about to marry, but in the end she decides to stay with her ex-husband. I would not necessarily read a Stockholm syndrome within this moment since her ex-husband in fact does love her, but I cannot shake the feeling of something being twisted and wrong. It is as if he wants her for her ability as a writer and she follows him because of the blatant way he neglects her. Since this article already used an example from Shakespeare, here is another analogy, and this is much more of an opinion that a critical taught: this is a case of Titania from A midsummer’s night dream. Just as the queen of the fairies was a proud and strong character at the beginning of the play, in the last scenes she is completely overturned into a mute submissiveness. The exact same thing happens to Rosalind Russell; a spaniel and nothing more. This is the only reproach that I have.
I would give this movie a weak 7 out of 10 Pulitzers.