I know that the field of comedy has always been dominated by men. It’s no surprise that when humorous films are ranked, those most amusing to men lead the pack. But I still find it disturbing that the film the AFI considers the funniest of all time is one that gives me just a few laughs in its two hours of running time.
I’m willing to admit that I might be missing something in Some Like It Hot; after all, many women whose judgment I respect are fans of it, and I am an enthusiastic viewer of most of Billy Wilder’s work. But for what it’s worth, I’d like to vent a bit about why (for mainly gender-related reasons) I find this film that sounds so promising—two male musicians acting like women in order to travel with an all-female band—so annoying.
Daphne/Jerry (Jack Lemmon’s character): By Turns Annoying & Creepy
The script doesn’t help, but Lemmon is largely to blame for a very unfunny portrayal of a man turned on by his fellow female band members. His suggestive comments range from grating to disturbing, and his hyena laugh is Jim Carrey-annoying.
Take this scene: Jerry is in bed in his cross-dressing gear (i.e., as Daphne), when Sugar Kane (Marilyn Monroe) visits his train berth to thank him for a favor.
After the two get some drinks, Jerry says, “This may even turn out to be a surprise party.”
“What’s a surprise?” she answers.
“Not yet.”
“When?”
“Better have a drink first.”
“That’ll put hair on your chest.”
“No fair guessing.”
He then protests other women crashing his party, as it’ll ruin his surprise. I tried not to examine the logic of this scene too closely, but unfortunately, Lemmon’s delivery added to my initial reaction. Does this face look like seduction to you?
If there were any hint of self-deprecation here, any understatement, the scene might have played as lighthearted, with a hint of, I don’t know, possible participation from Monroe. But with Lemmon’s high-pitched, broad delivery and leer, I felt uncomfortable, not amused. Look, this isn’t It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, in which the humor is based on the immorality of its leads. We’re supposed to empathize with this man, not wish to warn Sugar Kane there’s a pervert on the loose.
Once Lemmon is being courted by a man and his energy dissipates into snarly comments and stiff movements, he’s quite amusing. I particularly enjoyed when he starts to really get into his gender ambiguity as he dances.
I just wish we could have had more of that and less of his flirtatious mood with Sugar and the other band members.
Joe/Josephine (Tony Curtis) a Bore—Until He Becomes a Pseudo-Millionaire
I’m not a fan of Tony Curtis’s. With the exception of Sweet Smell of Success, I tend to dislike his films, finding him too smugly pleased with himself, too much the “Matthew McConaughey of his generation,” as my sister puts it. While his low-key portrayal in Some Like It Hot is a welcome break from Lemmon’s energy, he takes his lethargy too far. It seems watching Lemmon’s hypercaffeinated performance caused Curtis to nap his way through the script.
But once Curtis (as Joe) ditches the dress and takes on a different costume, he is quite amusing. He has dressed himself in what he deems sophisticated clothing, complete with a cap and metal buttons. He wants to convince Sugar he’s from old money.
When he speaks, it’s with Cary Grant’s accent. I like the layers of jokes here, even if they’re anachronistic given the movie’s 1929 timeline: Joe is so unfamiliar with well-born men that he mimics a movie star’s imitation of one. (Admittedly, this wasn’t a bad choice: Grant was so convincing in his own portrayal of a blue blood that he probably convinced 90 percent of us.)
As the Shell millionaire he’s aping, Joe can be quite funny. I like when he mistakes a stuffed swordfish for a member of the “herring family.” Curtis is far more animated in these scenes, and the script so much stronger than in the rest of the movie. Joe’s description of his love’s death is funny, and his details about his family’s attempts at a cure for his heartache—a French maid, a troupe of Balinese dancers—are hilarious.
Male Fantasy Scenes Played as Realistic
I don’t know about you, but when I’m traveling with a bunch of female friends, I tend to relax in lingerie like this:
I prefer to cuddle up to my companions, especially ones I’ve just met, to get as much skin-on-skin contact as possible.
And on the beach, I like to spend my time tossing a ball to my pals in a provocative fashion.
If this kind of scenario is played as fantasy, I find it funny. But when I’m supposed to take it as a given, with the humor to be found elsewhere, I’m so busy rolling my eyes that I miss the action. Look, I understand that Hollywood wants to show some skin, especially in a film featuring Marilyn Monroe. And I’ll admit I’m jaded from one too many sorority house/girls’ locker room scenes of a similar nature. Admittedly, I have seen much worse in other movies; at least all of the women in the band aren’t dressed like this (just the most attractive ones, as they always eschew comfort for sexiness, right?)
If they’re played as campy, how funny scenes like these can be! But if they aren’t, I tend to look up the screenwriters and confirm my suspicion—yep, written by men, probably ones who’ve spent too much time on adult-only channels/sites. Am I the only one who thinks humor works best when it’s based on actual human behavior, not teen boys’ daydreams?
Missed Opportunities in the Script
Cross dressing is almost always funny in film, and Curtis and Lemmon are so unattractive as women, and so obviously male, that it makes the gullibility of those around them funny in itself. Initially, their disgust at the casual chauvinism of the other hotel guests is entertaining too, as when Daphne gets pinched and Josephine is propositioned by the bellboy. Pity that there’s no accompanying recognition of their own chauvinism, as without it, we’re left mainly with tired gags about breasts, high heels, etc. While occasionally both of the men (and the script) give a fun twist to their adoption of female clothing and mannerisms, in most scenes, I didn’t see anything new.
Of course, I know that this territory is much better canvassed today than in 1959, when it would have been far more scandalous. Still, the stars’ parents would have found the film tame; it’s impossible to be shocked by men in tights and Marilyn’s walk when earlier (pre-Code) movies portrayed women sleeping to the top and cheating on their husbands to get even—without judgment. Let’s not forget that Mae West had drag queens in her 1927 play, and planned to feature them in her next before the censors stepped in.
I know there are times when repetition of references, as we often see in Some Like It Hot, is funny. I still laugh every time I hear the name Mr. Bigglesworth. But those references only continue to be amusing if they were particularly funny—and ideally fresh—to begin with. I was disappointed to find that a writer/director who in an earlier film (with Charles Brackett) defined craziness as giving an engagement gift of a “roller skate…covered with Thousand Island dressing” would (with I.A.L. Diamond) resort to lines as flat as these: “I’ve got a funny sensation in my toes, like someone was barbequing them over a slow flame.”/ “Let’s throw another log on the fire.”
One Reason to Watch: Sugar Kane
Monroe is mesmerizing as Sugar Kane. She is, of course, unbelievably attractive in the movie.
And she manages to turn what could have been a brainless blonde stereotype into something believable, even touching. I particularly enjoyed her effort to convince Joe-as-Shell-millionaire that she has a sophisticated background. While he comes across as conniving and silly in his con, her performance is moving and honest and funny in spite of her lies. While she fabricates a Bryn Mawr education, she conceals nothing else, and her openness makes her deceptions so obvious they might as well not be deceptions at all.
It might seem that I hated this movie. I didn’t. In fact, I enjoyed the first 25 minutes or so, after which I just kept hoping it would improve in the interludes between Monroe’s perfect delivery of her lines. But the film’s undeserved reputation infuriates me. I can’t help wondering if I were a woman new to classic comedies and started with this one, would I have kept watching?
This post is part of the Contrary to Popular Opinion Blogathon, where we set the consensus on its head by defending a maligned film, performer or director or toppling a beloved one! Check out the other entries.
Nicely done. Like you, I don’t dislike the movie, but I never quite figured out why so many people are crazy about it, either. Horny men! Dressed as women! Surrounded by voluptuous females with whom they can’t possibly have “their way”! A riot, no? Er, not so much. Again, well-written blog.
Thank you! It’s interesting to consider exactly where a similar film–but with horny women–would rank, isn’t it? Leah
Well I finally got some enjoyment out of this movie — by reading your review! Unlike the film, it was laugh-out-loud funny!
I’ve always suspected that a lot of people who vote this onto the Best Comedy lists have never actually seen it, and are going by word of (over-lipsticked) mouth. Because UGH!! It has one prurient joke running through the whole film: The men are in drag, so they get to see women’s naughty bits and rub up against them!! Excuse me while I a): escape from everything horrible about the 1950s and b): shower vigorously.
Wilder tackled a slightly similar subject, with Ginger Rogers pretending to be a child, in The Major and the Minor, to much better effect, and he and Lemmon were a perfect combination in The Apartment, where Lemmon’s character not only respected Shirley MacLaine (even more than she respected herself), but genuinely liked and protected her. Even though she was, you know, a girl and all!!
God knows what they were thinking with Some Like It Hot…
Thank you so much for this, Leah, and for taking part in the blogathon!!
Thank you! I agree that The Major and the Minor is far funnier. I like that film a lot. And Lemmon is so much better in The Apartment, and the film many times as good as Some Like It Hot. I hadn’t thought of that–maybe they’re just voting without seeing it. That’s almost a comfort.:) Leah
The more I watch this, the more uncomfortable I become. I tried to convince myself that the bad-taste jokes were just lazy, or poorly-written but because some aspects of the film are so well scripted (the scene where Sugar tries to seduce Joe-as-Shell-millionaire for example) that clearly can’t be used an excuse.
It took me a while to realise it’s all built around a casual sexism – we’re expected to believe Sugar & her bandmates are so stupid they don’t realise there’s man in their midst, we’re expected to laugh at the amorous bellboys… If Wilder had focused more on the way the social treatment of Curtis & Lemmon changes depending on if they’re male or female this could have been an excellent piece of gender commentary. Instead he chose to play it for ALL the laughs, and I think it’s a poorer film for it.
PS – your sister’s take on Curtis is SPOT ON!
You’re right. And that’s why I don’t understand why critics continue to applaud it. What a squandered opportunity. Both of my sisters have a gift for lines like that one. Rachel’s full comment was actually, “Tony Curtis was the Matthew McConaughey of his generation. You’re welcome.” And indeed, I was appreciative:) Leah
As you must have seen in my post, I don’t think Marilyn is the best reason to see the film, but rather Jack. I do agree Jack Lemmon has his funniest moments while flirting with Joe E. Brown, and the same for Tony Curtis posing as a millionaire. I just love his Grant-inspired accent!
And, yeah, I have to say the women band’s behavior was soooo fantasized… for 1959 or even today!
Thanks for the kind comment!
Kisses!
Le
The Grant-inspired accent IS perfect.:) He is great with Joe Brown, isn’t he? I do like Marilyn here, but not in everything:) I enjoyed your post so much. Leah
I’m rather ambivalent towards this film. I think Marilyn is really good here, and there are some funny lines in the script. I agree with you re: Tony Curtis’ best scenes are as the faux Cary Grant; and that Jack Lemmon is really quite creepy in that scene on the train. As you pointed out, there are things to admire, but overall I find I don’t miss it if I haven’t seen it for a long time.
I had second thoughts about choosing it for this blogathon when I saw it was 2 hours. I’d forgotten that, and only Marilyn got me through it:) Leah
Couldn’t agree more. It is an okay film, but definitely not worthy of its top position on AFI’s list. As you mentioned, it would have been better if the writers had explored what it is like being a woman in a chauvinistic society. Instead it becomes part of the problem. Nice post!
Thank you! It’s so true. And what a good film it would have been. They had all the ingredients for a better one–
I enjoyed reading this critique, full of witty energy and earnest critique.
I agree 100% that Jerry is a perv and a schmuck. I see his conversion to Daphne as the film’s means of curbing his sexism, of showing him a bit of how the other half lives so he can stop being a schmuck. In the end, it works so well he’s delightfully queered by it, one of the best facets of the film.
Tony Curtis IS the Matthew M. of his day. That’s brilliant. Though as a Jew, he’s got a different angle on his sense of self-worth that need not be addressed further here! Suffice it to say, his character in no way deserves Sugar, and they both know it. We’re supposed to say, C’est la vie or it’s just a comedy or whatever, but it stings. We’re supposed to believe he, like Jerry, has been “cured” of his playboy ways by his experience, but I’m not convinced.
The other moment I love in the film is when Sugar, in all her plump, nearly-dressed glory, is singing I’m Through With Love when Tony Curtis, in drag, plants a huge kiss on her, and Sweet Sue completely loses it. Ultimately, it’s the unignorable queerness of the film that I love, not it’s love story or main characters.
Again, well done and thanks for sharing this. (With some guilt, I also slammed a Billy Wilder flick for this event, so I had to read yours!)
Thank you! I do enjoy watching Jerry’s ending, though I’m not sure that one dance is enough to make me buy it. Absolutely true that Joe doesn’t deserve Sugar, though it’s hard to imagine her making a good decision on love with anyone! Yes, we both attacked Wilder this time.:) I enjoyed your review–Leah
Enjoyed the review, even if I am on the dead opposite end of the opinion spectrum. 😉 I hated The Major and the Minor and rather enjoyed Some Like it Hot but then again, that is the point of this event, is it not?
I have to say, I really have a hard time with the “1920s” of the film. I have to bite my tongue, lest I become one of THOSE people. You know the types. “The cupid’s bow lip-line was six millimeters apart and in this film it is eight. So inaccurate.”
Anyway, thanks so much for joining in!
Thank you! It was a great blogathon. I’m glad it has fans I trust! That gives me more hope for those rating it:) It doesn’t seem to make much more than a token effort with the 20s storyline; I don’t think you have to be one of those people to be a bit annoyed. I feel that way about accents. Some mistakes are fine, but do filmmakers really think I don’t know the difference between Alabama and Tennessee? (reminds me of my favorite film review, when Anthony Lane says Ben Affleck’s accent takes a “patriot tour of several states” in Pearl Harbor). Leah
I actually rather like this film a lot, though I do think there are more than a few creepy bits that could have been excised. I wish the whole film could have been about Lemmon and Joe E. Brown. Those are my favorite parts.
It’s true! Those scenes are a lot of fun. I think that’s part of the reason I have so much trouble with the film. It had so much potential! Leah
The writers didn’t visit porn sites. This was more than a couple years before such things. The context was far more gender biased than it is today.