The Birds and the Bees

Most reviewers compare this film unfavorably with it's model: "The Lady Eve", staring Henry Fonda and Barbara Streisand. I haven't seen the earlier film, so can't compare them. I never was favorably impressed with George Gobel's humor when he was a TV star, and I'm not much impressed with his humor in this film, the obvious being his running into waiters carrying full trays. Oh yes, in one seen, Gobel is talking to Mitzi Gainer, and goes up a stairs , not noticing that she kept walking forward. He briefly ran into another lady listener, then descended another stirs, to rejoin Mitzi again.......The latter part of the film ,where Mitzy and David Niven pretend to be a couple of French aristocrats, whom Gobel has never seen, is an unconvincing masquerade. The only thing different about Mitzi was her pseudo-French accent, which I though was very good. Niven just added a goatee to supposedly disguise himself. Any fool(except Gobel) would have immediately recognized them as the same pair Gobel interacted with on the ocean cruise.(Gobel later claims he knew all the time, but didn't let on). Through most of the film, it's not always clear whether Mitzi is a gold digger, or, as she claims, has fallen in love with the clumsy, if wealthy, Gobel(very hard to believe). Mitzi comes across as a foxy elegant woman, very animated and beautiful. She and Gobel get to sing and dance a bit to the title song, which probably will sound familiar.

During an transatlantic sea voyage, a card shark and his daughter, Mitzi Gaynor, cheat a wealthy simpleton out of a lot of money, but complications ensue when the the girl falls in love with the victim. David Niven is his usual charming self as the father, but George Gobel as the love interest is wooden and the film falls far short of the original. Preston Sturges directs this mixture of slapstick and sentiment. Save your money and rent the original, The Lady Eve, instead.

Birds and the Bees beats the Lady Eve for the simple reason that Henry Fonda isn't funny. The man can't do comedy to save his life. George Gobel is a hoot. Viewers would do well to stop comparing the two movies and accept it on its own terms. The scene between Gobel and Niven where they discuss a subject then clap their hands over each others mouths before the other can reveal anything is classic. David Niven was never funnier. Gobel wrote the book on playing bumbling ineptness, something Fonda couldn't approach. For me, it was Fonda who was miscast in the original movie. Anyway, give it a view and don't try comparing it to anything. You'll have a good time with it.

A much better remake than it has a right to be. The improvements over the original includes a much better musical score, the advent of color.and the addition of the 2 leads Mitzi Gaynor and George Gobel. Hank Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck are physically well matched so it is hard to swallow her character not being attracted to his character. For the remake because Mitzi and George are so mismatched physically, and there seems to be chemistry between the two principals the romance works. The screen play trims some of the fat off the supporting characters Fred Clark always shines with the brunt of the story focused on the main leads. The casting of George Gobel using his television alter ego as an innocent over an obvious ploy by what should be another fortune hunter is delicious for me. The supporting cast rounds out a formula musical comedy. I look forward to a DVD copy of this movie.

Sometimes it's difficult to analyze what is wrong with a film. It's been said that casting is 90% of a film. Consider The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. George Gobel doesn't really act the part, the just plays the part. That's one thing wrong with the film. He's basically doing a TV skit where acting is not the primary ingredient, but personality it. Niven however is great in a dual role (actually a single role in two) in one of his more nuanced performances. Fred Clark was the second best Harry Morton on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, second only to Larry Keaton, but he doesn't do much here.

What makes this film worth watching nevertheless is the indomitable and comparable Mitzi Gaynor, who is always worth the price of admission. The woman was simply stunning, though it's odd why she never became a (to sound like Ed Sullivan) a really really big star. She herself admitted this much in an interview. She never had a star image. I can't imagine someone going to see a Mitzi Gaynor film the way they would an Ava Gardner or Grace Kelly film.

But Gaynor is a standout in this film in both roles as herself and as pretending to be someone other than herself. She alone kept me watching the whole film. The first part of the film was especially dull and went nowhere so it took great effort to continue, though the pace picked up around the time of the snake scene.

Like I said earlier, it's difficult to "doctor" a film. I didn't find the script all that well written, though Sturges' name is on it since it was the template of this version. I always find comparisons with an original futile. One accepts a film on its own terms. No point in comparing Gobel with Fonda, for example. Especially since Gobel was not even an actor while Fonda was one of our most accomplished actors. As for Stanwyck, I never liked her for some reason and I could never understand her femme fatale status in movies. So Mitzi Gaylor wins the contest easily.

The problem comes down to pace. The film should have been directed in a Hawksian manner, with a much faster pace, quicker timing; instead the scenes never seem to come alive.

Finally Harry Warrens two songs are superb, especially the title song. Somehow I get the feeling that is one of those films that will look better on a second viewing when one doesn't expect that much.