Skip to main content

Back to the Feature: Christmas in Connecticut (1945)


The past couple Christmases for Back to the Feature I’ve seen a few ultimately bad seasonal movies. The purpose of this series is to watch and review significant films that I haven’t seen before, but it’s beginning to look like I’ve seen all the good known Christmas movies. And while I can’t say Christmas in Connecticut dispels that notion, it’s certainly a mark above my previous experiences.
Christmas in Connecticut is not a great holiday movie by any means -there are definitely more than a few problems with it, but there is also some decent entertainment to be had in it, if you’re able to look past its’ noticeable shortcomings.
       War hero Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan) becomes enamoured with the work of food writer Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) while recuperating in hospital. Lane’s publisher Alexander Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet), on discovering this insists she host Christmas dinner for Jones at her famous Connecticut farmhouse. However Lane doesn’t actually have a farm in Connecticut, or a husband and baby as she purports in her articles, and so she must quickly find a way to cover all this while keeping her job. Which of course will get more complicated once she falls for Jones.
        Christmas in Connecticut is pure farce comedy, and I’ll be honest, I like a good farce. This one is adequate, which I’m sure is enough for its audience. It plays with misunderstanding, role reversal, and the liar revealed trope and definitely has fun doing it. The surface premise additionally, is a funny one, even if the movie itself doesn’t entirely live up to the potential. The idea that Elizabeth Lane is being called on her bluff and has to support a complete convoluted backstory she’s given herself is really good. It’s lessened a bit though by how in reach all of these objectives are. Her friend John Sloan, played by Reginald Gardiner as a discount Ronald Colman, happens to own such a farm in Connecticut, and marrying him (who of course is really in love with her while she has no such feelings) seems to be the answer for her fictitious husband. Even for the baby, they look after a neighbours’ kid who practically comes with the place. It all comes too easy and she gets too many people on board with the plan, including her editor played by Robert Shayne, and a chef played by Carl from Casablanca, S.Z. Sakall. And yeah, this food writer can’t even cook; which is another great comedic opportunity largely wasted.
Instead the focus of the farcical elements is in smaller things, like how inept she is at bathing and changing a child, and that she doesn’t know various facets of farm life that could’ve been avoided anyway. There are a couple laughs in these, but generally the story isn’t allowed to be as ludicrous as it should be. That is, until Christmas Day itself when Yardley witnesses the baby’s parent leave with their child and assumes its a kidnapping. Personally, a Raising Arizona style kidnapping would have been funnier if it was on Lane’s end -but this does lead to the misunderstanding stuff and some funny circumstances. However the movie overall is more interested in being a charming romance -that and the Production Code, being what prevents Lane and Sloan from actually marrying before Jones arrives, so as not to accidentally portray adultery in a positive light. And this would be justifiable if there was more romantic chemistry between Stanwyck and Morgan.
That’s not to say either performance is bad, or even necessarily that they have poor chemistry. It’s just not substantial enough. I confess to not having seen much of Stanwyck’s work, but she’s perfectly fine here, though I wonder what an actress like Katharine Hepburn would have brought to it. It feels very much in the style of those screwball comedies she made around this time, and the love triangle angle is pretty reminiscent of The Philadelphia Story. Nevertheless, Stanwyck’s character has personality and is a lot more engaging and funny than Morgan’s, who aside from the minor role reversal of being good with babies and his eventually forgotten interest in food, he isn’t much more than a handsome guy for her to fall for. However, he is a good singer, as in demonstrated in my favourite scene, where on Christmas Eve as snow is falling on the window panes, he plays and sings “O Little Town of Bethlehem” on the piano while Stanwyck decorates the Christmas Tree, consistently distracted by his voice. It’s a really nice Christmas moment, with terrific Christmas imagery, and even in its light comedic interludes, is just pervaded by a sense of Christmas charm. Greenstreet as usual gives an enjoyable performance and adds a touch of class to the whole picture, certainly more than Gardiner’s somewhat foppish stereotype. The rest of the cast, including Una O’Connor as an Irish housekeeper, are serviceable in their parts.
Lastly, it warrants mentioning how white this movie is. Everyone in it is fairly well-off, living privileged New England lives. When they first pull up to the farm it almost looks like the same set from Holiday Inn. There’s a clear celebration here of a very specific kind of Christmas that most viewers today and even back then couldn’t relate to, with very specific traditions and notions attached. The result is the setting and characters not being very identifiable and the stakes pretty non-threatening.
But Christmas in Connecticut is still mostly harmless -not all that good, but mostly harmless. Essentially what it feels like is an episode of I Love Lucy, only without the brilliance of Lucille Ball. Nonetheless, it has its okay moments and a couple really good and funny scenes. It should also be borne in mind that this film had the bad luck to come out one year before It’s a Wonderful Life, and two before Miracle on 34th Street, both of which would vastly eclipse it as holiday greats; and not having any Christmas songs to its name like the Bing Crosby films also hurt its memorability. Perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of Christmas in Connecticut is a 1992 TV movie remake starring Dyan Cannon, Kris Kristofferson, and Tony Curtis, and directed by Arnold Schwarzeneggar of all people! But for the film at hand, I can’t recommend it whole-heartedly, except as an okay, occasionally charming Christmas movie to have on in the background while catching up with loved ones during the greatest time of the year.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more