The Talk of the Town (1942) User Reviews

This is a good movie

[Bassem · 8/10 · 9 October 2003]

Talk of the Town is a good movie! It is well written with witty and interesting, sometimes even surprising dialogue. It is well directed and well played. Even the score is really good (I am not sure if both John Williams and Frederick Hollander borrowed or it was just Williams who borrowed form Hollander for Star Wars). I grew fond of Roland Coleman through this movie, he is simply debonair. Sure, the preaching toward the end of the movie is a bit thick, but it is in character… and should you listen closely you would find that the message is as relevant today as then. And about the love triangle plot… It keeps you guessing till the last moment (only one other movie successfully does the same: Casablanca). Talk of the Town is an intelligent and endearing mix of comedy and drama, it does not use comedy only for the introduction but keeps it up, in parallel to the drama, well through the movie; in that it is remarkable. To say the least it did not deserve to be forgotten, for it does what movies do best: give you a good time.

Colman, Grant and Arthur - how can it miss? It doesn't.

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 10 February 2008]

Cary Grant is Leopold Dilg, "The Talk of the Town," in this 1942 film also starring Ronald Colman and Jean Arthur. The outspoken Digl is framed for arson and murder and escapes from prison. He ends up in the home of a schoolteacher he's known since childhood, Nora Shelley. She's preparing her home to be rented the next day - except the renter, an attorney named Professor Lightcap (Colman) shows up right then. Since Leopold has a bad ankle, Nora lets him hide in the attic. Though Lightcap wants peace and quiet to write a book, things don't quite happen that way. Nora insists on being his secretary/cook - because she has to take care of Leopold - and every time Lightcap turns around, there's Nora's mother, the police looking for Dilg, furniture deliveries and a delivery of all of Nora's clothing - before he agrees to hire her.

Nora and Dilg's attorney Yates (Edgar Buchanan) attempt to drag the brilliant ivory tower attorney into the unfair assumption of guilt of Dilg, but Lightcap refuses. His type of justice, it seems, is all on paper. He doesn't want to get involved with any real people. Leopold, posing as the family gardener, gets into some heated discussions with him, and at Leopold's urging, Nora gives Lightcap special attention. But is any of it enough to make him cave and help Digl?

This is a grand comedy with very serious undertones. Who would ever expect two of the most elegant men in film history, Grant and Colman, to be facing off in a comedy, no less, where one of them is very definitely NOT elegant. Grant is terrific, a truly great actor who rarely let his audience see anything but the famous "Cary Grant" persona. Here, he's a man of the people with a clumsy walk and casual clothes. His pantomime to Nora through his attic window of wanting something to eat is hilarious. The bearded Colman plays the role of a stuffy professor very straight. Lightcap is barely able to stand the chicanery of Nora's household at first, as he has a strict routine. Fast forward and he's flirting and dancing with a smart-mouthed beautician (Glenda Farrell) in order to pump her for information about her boyfriend. His acting, particularly his courtroom speech toward the end of the film, is magnificent. Arthur plays Nora as a dizzy, confused and nervous woman, completely thrown as a landlord, a friend and a woman by the appearance of Leopold and the brilliance of Lightcap, as well as his admiration of her. She's torn between the two of them - and keeps the audience wondering.

Really a must-see for the lesson that true justice must be not read, not preached, but lived and for the wonderful characterizations and direction by Stevens.

Comedy with Social Justice Theme

[arelx · 7/10 · 10 April 2010]

First I read through all the 43 previous reviews to see if anyone saw the same things I saw in this movie. I should say that I had the privilege of seeing the film in all its big-screen glory at the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, with a live audience who laughed heartily. It was a hard film to watch for someone who has spent too much time in too many courtrooms watching too much injustice, but two things shocked me, though, and the second made sense of the first. Two reviewers did mention what's on my mind, but only part of it. The first shocking thing was that I had to agree with reviewer "Joey the Brit" when he wrote about actor Rex Ingram's "disproportionate, prominent" grieving when his employer, played by Ronald Colman, shaved off his beard. Colman, a law professor, performed this act because, after he had admitted to his landlady and housekeeper Jean Arthur that he had grown the beard to hide his youth while an underage student in law school, she accused him of hiding behind it. Ingram's reaction is truly "disproportionate." The camera focuses on Ingram's face for perhaps a full minute. The black man's face fills the screen as he grieves, and finally a tear runs down his face. It was so out of place, so prolonged, this scene! Why? As soon as Ingram arrives he is full of deference with dignity. His character has been with his employer for 15 years, during all of which time the boss has had the beard. But to grieve for a beard! I forgot my dumbfounded reaction as the plot moved forward, but I watched "Tilney," Ingram's character as the professor's "man," more carefully. The second shock has to do with what reviewer "mitchmcc" wrote, that he/she "would bet that the script was written by a 'progressive,' and that 'social justice' was the real goal here." Given that one of the screenplay writers was blacklisted in the 1950s, that's probably not far from the mark. It wasn't until the last courtroom scene, when the lynch mob bashes their way into the Hall of Justice, that I suddenly understood the significance of Ingram's reaction. It wasn't trivial. I had just been reading about how, in 1936, yet another attempt had been made to pass anti-lynching legislation. It was the best hope of passage there had been since this type of legislation had first been introduced following the Civil War, but many experts blame its failure to pass on President Roosevelt's failure to support the bill. Although it isn't clear to me that Roosevelt's support at that time would have helped to pass it or could have kept it from being repealed by a hostile Supreme Court, it is clear to me that no anti-lynching legislation had been passed by 1942, when this film was released. No such legislation was ever passed. And when I saw that rope in the hands of the lynch mob I knew why Ingram had been weeping. It wasn't for any beard. It was for the one black man or more lynched every month around that time. It may be only a subtext, but Ingram's screen-filling, weeping face made it a powerful one.

A classic, Jean Arthur at her zenith

[bgillespie24 · 24 May 2003]

Never will you see a movie that mixes comedy, romance, social commentary, and drama as well as this one. In some ways this movie pre-tells the McCarthy era of the 50's. Also, this movie takes some interesting turns and does what only a handful of my favorite movies have accomplished; it does not reveal it's true dramatic arc until well into the second act.

But hey, you've got Cary Grant, Jean Arthur, Ronald Coleman, and even "Uncle Joe at the Shady Rest" having a wonderful time on-screen, and the audience goes along for the ride.

I won't hide the fact that Jean Arthur is my favorite classic era actress. She's talented, smart, funny, and had the guts to stand up to the movie moguls of the 40's, putting her career in jeopardy in the process.

Only some stiff supporting acting prevents this movie from receiving my highest rating. Check out this film and be reminded how great an "old" movie can be.

****1/2 out of *****

Borscht With An Egg In It

[telegonus · 9/10 · 3 November 2001]

A superb comedy from 1942, written by Sidney Buchman and Irwin Shaw, and directed by George Stevens, this movie has a little bit of everything in it: comedy, drama, social commentary, suspense and mystery. It also features three of the most charming stars to ever grace the screen: Cary Grant, Jean Arthur and Ronald Colman. As this was filmed on the Columbia lot it has a Capra-esque feel to it. There is also a dark, austere quality to the photography and lighting that evoke the wartime mood, otherwise not evident in the film.

The story concerns Cary Grant escaping from jail and hiding out in the summer cottage of middle-aged bachelor law professor, Ronald Colman. Grant's character (named Leopold Dilg, who has a fondness for borscht with an egg in it), was falsely accused of burning down a textile mill. Jean Arthur's local gal vacillates bewteen these two very different men, who, as things turn out, get on quite well with one another. Grant teaches Colman a thing or two about real life, while Colman instructs Grant in the law. The problem is that the gentle professor doesn't know that Grant is in trouble with the law. Things gets awfully complicated near the end, as the story turns melodramatic, not altogether happily, as it had been for the most part up till this time a warm, funny study in character and mistaken identity.

Overall, the movie is hard to fault. The actors are so engaging and the dialogue so good, one can forgive almost anything. There's a nicely suggested small-town New England feel to the film, which does not caricature Yankee types, as was so often the case at the time, and is most refreshing here. Grant is, as usual, so excellent that one forgets that he is acting, as he manages to suggest working-class origins, genuine intellectual curiosity, and a hint of anger, especially in the eyes, as his performance perfectly sums up what the film is about, without drawing too much attention to itself. A remarkable achievement, for Grant, director Stevens, and everyone involved in this happy production.

Funny, thoughtful, what more do you want?

[stills-6 · 9/10 · 5 March 2000]

I don't understand why this movie isn't more popular or regarded as a classic in the canon of early Hollywood movies. All the stars are wonderful in their roles, but Ronald Coleman is fantastic as an ivory tower jurist who is forced to rethink his philosophy. Maybe Claude Rains could have played this part, but without the subtly sarcastic bemusement that Coleman brings.

Maybe because it can't be categorized definitely as a screwball comedy or a "serious" movie, it has been overlooked. I found it much funnier than "Bringing Up Baby" for example, even though "Talk" is a great deal more serious and introspective.

A lot of the suspense that might have been put into the story was bled out by the philosophical approach that the movie takes. Every potentially suspenseful situation that could have been played out for at least half of the movie is extinguished within fifteen minutes at the most. But that's part of the fun! It gets rolling, and you can't quite tell where it's going all of the time. Watching Cary Grant mug suavely and Jean Arthur speak like she's ad-libbing, you just have to sit back and enjoy it. It's not interested in manipulating its audience, it's actually trying to present real characters in a compelling story. I loved it!

An uneven story salvaged by three resourceful actors

[Oblomov_81 · 7/10 · 19 February 2003]

Social commentary either elevates the value of a film or bogs it down, and with comedies it is generally the latter. "The Talk of the Town" is no exception; while it is a fun film that has much to admire, the pretensions of the film-makers often get in the way of what could have been a masterpiece of comic suspense. The tone becomes almost unbearably preachy at times, and some of the monologues on `justice' and the `pursuit of truth' are excruciating on the ears. Thankfully, the good people at Columbia hired just the right people to star.

The specific political stances of Leopold Dilg are never made clear; we're just supposed to accept the idea that he's a good guy who is put down by a corrupt system. Fortunately, Cary Grant uses his remarkable charm and talent to turn in a performance that allows us to sympathize with a character whose background is far too vague. Likewise, Jean Arthur and Ronald Colman are able to invest interest in characters that might otherwise have come off two-dimensionally. The charisma of the three leads fuels a love triangle that does a far better job of moving the story forward than any "serious message" that the film-makers were trying to impart to the audience. Grant, Arthur, and Colman are rightfully remembered as three of cinema's finest actors, but they deserve special credit for adding some much-needed pizzazz to this movie.

All in all, "The Talk of the Town" is a rambling, misguided movie saved by smart casting and disciplined acting, not to mention more than a few laughs. It is a classic example of skilled performers triumphing over flawed material.

Living Justice

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 19 April 2007]

The Talk of the Town puts visiting law professor Ronald Colman in a delicate situation. He's rented a cottage for some peace and quiet before going before a Senate committee dealing with his nomination to the Supreme Court. But things are anything, but peaceful in the town of Lorchester, Massachusetts.

The factory owned by Charles Dingle has burned down, arson is suspected and Cary Grant in an unusual working class role is the suspected arsonist. He's a man of radical opinions in the town so he's a convenient suspect. As the factory was the main employer in the town you can imagine that folks are crying for blood.

Which brings an escaped Cary to that same house that Jean Arthur has rented to Colman.

Though there are some amusing moments to be sure from all three of the stars, I find The Talk of the Town to be more serious than dramatic. Grant challenges Colman to come down out of the ivory tower he's been living in and apply his high minded principles to real life, if not necessarily his case.

When he does Colman does it with a vengeance and it brings down a whole lot of Lorchester's leading citizens.

Though Grant and Arthur are first billed, this film really belongs to Ronald Colman. His character is modeled I believe on a recent Harvard law professor who was also appointed to the Supreme Court, one Felix Frankfurter.

Of course what the impeccable English Ronald Colman playing WASP Michael Lightcap and a Viennese Jew have in common is not obvious at first. But before becoming mentor to a host of New Deal civil servants, Felix Frankfurter was not only a professor of law at Harvard, but concerned himself with a host of social issues. He was for instance, very prominent in the defense of Sacco and Vanzetti whose plight in the twenties is very similar to Cary Grant's. Like Colman's character Lightcap, Frankfurter was also known as a man of impeccable integrity, who even his worst enemies conceded. He could also be a bit too high minded at times and had to be brought to realize in his philosophy of judicial restraint, that the courts are and should be an instrument for progress and social change. His story would make an excellent film itself.

Although I can't see Felix Frankfurter putting the moves on beauty parlor owner Glenda Farrell to learn the truth about the arson. Farrell who graced many a Warner Brothers crime feature in the Thirties has the best of the supporting roles in The Talk of the Town. Also the ever unctuous Charles Dingle is wonderful as the very corrupting influence on the town itself.

Colman's final speech to the mob who are ready to lynch Cary Grant is a masterpiece, one of his best moments on screen. The words ought to be required reading and viewing for those who would dismantle our judicial system out of heated passion of the moment.

As a film that challenges folks to live up to the creed they espouse The Talk of the Town should not be missed.

Cary Grant Switches Personae.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 26 April 2010]

Grant is a political activist, Leopold Dilg, who is framed for arson and for the death of a man supposedly burned to death. He hides out in the farmhouse of a friend, Jean Arthur, but Arthur has rented the house for the summer to stern judge Ronald Colman, who wants peace and quiet so he can write his book. He's also hoping for an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Arthur introduces Grant as the gardener. Coleman soon finds that Grant is a most peculiar gardener. He cultivates some pretty unorthodox views of the law, promoting its spirit, whatever its letter. Also he's able to beat Coleman at chess.

Coleman finally discovers Grant's real identity and is determined to turn him in but before he can do so, Grant knocks him out and escapes. Coming to, Coleman thinks things over and realizes there is no real evidence against Grant except an oddly self-absorbed hair dresser who was the girl friend of the supposedly barbecued victim. Coleman pursues his own investigation. Things get hectic before they end happily.

Jean Arthur winds up in the arms of Cary Grant, while Coleman dons his black robe and sits behind his massive bench, entirely satisfied with the way things turned out. I'd have given Jean Arthur to Ronald Coleman, who seems more devoted to her than Grant is. It would be better for everyone concerned. Coleman is older and Arthur would provide him with contentment for the rest of his life, after which she'd become terribly rich. Grant, on the other hand, is a wisecracking malcontent whose middle name is Trouble. On top of that, he's named Leopold Dilg. That means she would have to become Mrs. Dilg. And on top of THAT, Cary Grant always gets the girl. Let's give her to Coleman this time. She'd make a nice addition to his library.

I didn't find it as satisfying as some other viewers. The blend of romance, comedy, and drama was a little uneasy. Grant had a tendency at this point in his career of branching out into serious roles, often in message movies, in which he challenged his usual handsomely carefree film persona. "Penny Serenade," for instance. They were generally failures and Grant went back to doing what he did best by the late 40s.

Never again would he be a character named Leopold Dilg or Ernie Mott or something.

Good.

The Law and Life: Striking a Perfect Balance

[theowinthrop · 9/10 · 29 September 2005]

Cary Grant has a curious role in this film - he is a labor agitator. He has been stirring up matters in his native town against the local big business factory, owned by Charles Dingle. Then, there is a fire at the factory - an arson fire. Grant is suspected and arrested for the arson (and subsequently for the murder of Tom Tyler, the factory foreman who is missing and presumed dead). Grant manages to escape capture, and heads for the home of one of his oldest friends - Jean Arthur. What he does not realize is that Arthur has rented the house for the summer to a law professor of note, Ronald Colman. Arthur is willing to hide Grant in the attic, but Colman does arrive, only to find that the sheriff and a pack of hounds are at his door (and due to some unexpected clothing switching the hounds chase Colman up a tree).

Starting with this situation, THE TALK OF THE TOWN blossoms into a neat little comedy triangle that tackles the issues of what is law, and what do we expect of it? Colman's Professor Lightcap is a quiet judicial scholar - a man of books. Probably too many books. Later in the film, Grant's Leopold Dilg tells Arthur's Nora Shelley that he's looked at the legal tomes Colman reads (and upon which his judicial philosophy is based) and they are intelligent, comprehensible, "and dead." Colman, in short, is a legal conservative, and so has a tendency to support the status quo. He is also an appointee (awaiting confirmation) to the U.S. Supreme Court. All this is hardly promising for Grant and Arthur, who hope that Colman can assist them in saving Grant from prison or worse. Grant's attempts at getting Colman into the real world is limited by his inability to appear in public (he is a wanted man, after all). But Arthur, and Grant's attorney Edgar Buchanan, are capable to take Colman around the town and make him realize that Grant has not been given a fair chance to defend himself.

The film concentrates on Colman's slowly becoming a realist - seeing that the opinions of one hundred years of precedents are not the be all or end all of justice. It begins when he meets Dingle, and then the trial judge (who seems all too prejudiced against Grant before the trial - not to mention too chummy with the owner of the factory). As he comes down to earth, he even strips himself of his badge of ivory tower-ism - his beard, which he shaves off (much to the distress of his valet, played by a subdued but funny Rex Ingram).

I leave it to the viewers to see how Colman eventually does get Grant out of his legal difficulties. The movie is one of the few (up to that date in the 1940s) that looked at the legal system critically. The massive dislike of the townspeople towards Grant (where they all have been financially hurt by the factory fire they blame on him) makes a fair trial in that town impossible. It reminds us of the issue nowadays about media coverage of crimes where local jury pools get tainted by prejudgments of defendants thrust down their throats. Yet Colman is warned by his political friends to avoid involvement - to keep himself clean before he is confirmed. You wonder what is the value of a seat on the Supreme Court if the would-be judge cannot make sure that justice is even handed and as near pure as possible.

To me TALK OF THE TOWN may not be a great film but it is above average, and an unusual one for both male leads - for Grant in his character's personality, and for Colman for his gradual concentration less on his rivalry with Grant over Arthur as with the battle for justice. Before TWELVE ANGRY MEN came out over a decade later, TALK OF THE TOWN was the best movie about the philosophy and reality of the law (except for THE OX-BOW INCIDENT) Hollywood produced.

Comedy or "seriously?

[davyd-02237 · 7/10 · 6 February 2019]

What a cast! these days they don't make films like that. A truly great cast. The small "troublemaker" against the "American system" - corruption from the top down. Havent seen this film in over 30 years and it hasn't aged in terms of its value for enjoyment and entertainment where eventually the truth of what really happened eventually comes out in view of the entire town. Well worth watching, cant say too much without spoiling things for you...catch this next time its on...we saw it on "freeview 81"

A colorful suspense in lively wit and a judicial theme -- MUST-SEE entertaining B/W classics

[ruby_fff · 10/10 · 20 April 1999]

It's entertaining suspense with lively lines and conversations, even discourse on law and justice --- fugitive scenario with the ever radiant Jean Arthur as the spunky heroine in the whirl of it all.

Suspenseful tale touching on society's reactions to law and order, yet comedic with subtle hints of romance, delivered in polished words and flowing pace -- thanks to the wonderful trio of Cary Grant, Jean Arthur and Ronald Colman -- humor not missing a beat even at the critical moments. Simply well-crafted direction by George Stevens, optimizing a sharply written script by Irwin Shaw and Sidney Buchman, based on Sidney Harmon's story. It's absolutely delightfully enjoyable.

Cary Grant is Leopold Dilg, the fugitive. Jean Arthur is Nora Shelley, a schoolteacher whose house becomes the hideout for Leopold. Ronald Colman is Professor Lightcap who happens to arrive on the scene to occupy Miss Shelley's house for summer rental. Such crisp delivery: using newspaper headlines flashing across the screen, the first 5 minutes -- short of 2 brief spoken lines -- set the atmosphere and tone of the story simply by what we see on screen (enhanced by music). The ending was just as succinct in few spoken words -- well-edited character expressions and the quick cut scenes were effective vs. using dialog. Music essentially complements the unfolding plot -- sometimes spices up the tempo of the film.

No words are wasted here. No foul language (an occasional "darn" perhaps), no gratuitous action/violence, no car chase (a just as exciting dogs-chasing-man scene there is). Wit, charm and humor abundantly applied. The film also attempts to have a moral message (not at all preachy) on how everyone should treat law and order. It presents questions (serious and light): "Why does man lie?" "If you want to get information out of a woman, how do you go about it?" "What are extenuating circumstances about the law?" and not forgetting a pun or two: "Your cold will thaw. Everything thaws." Lively lines with comedic pacing are blended into the precarious situations of the storyline with flowing humor.

Every supporting role has his/her particular part in the grand scheme of things and each little scene is flawlessly integrated into the plot. It's wonderful to watch this film. Rarely do we have a suspense that's so very entertaining -- comedic and romantic, too -- all wound together into 1:58 length -- colorfully presented in Black and White. Simply timeless. MUST-SEE classics this is. Made in 1942, the subject of law and order still applies today.

Other B/W timeless pieces with Jean Arthur, the ever energetic talking-continuously-in-one-breath heroine, are three from Frank Capra: "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" 1936 with Gary Cooper, "You Can't Take It with You" 1938 with James Stewart, and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"1939 with James Stewart encore.

More B/W gems with Cary Grant besides the Hitchcock classics, and the famous George Cuckor's "The Philadelphia Story" 1940 with Katharine Hepburn and James Stewart, are: Cuckor's "Holiday" 1938 with K. Hepburn, Howard Hawks' "Bringing Up Baby" 1938 also with K. Hepburn, Joseph L. Mankiewicz's "People Will Talk" 1951 with Jeanne Craine.

Albert Lewin's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" 1945, based on a novel by Oscar Wilde, is yet another rare gem of B/W classics, somehow with (necessary) true color segments included. Intriguing contemplative tale.

Confusing

[ctomvelu1 · 6/10 · 10 January 2010]

What a strange movie, especially for its time. Cary Grant plays a fugitive wanted in connection with a plant arson that resulted in a death. He hides in old fried Jean Arthur house, which she is renting to a famous law professor (Ronald Coleman) headed for a big time court appointment. Grant pretends to be the gardener, to so-so effect. Pretty soon, the trio is on the lam, and looking for the real killer. To complicate natters, both men are smitten with Arthur. Is this a comedy or a drama? It appears to be both. The oddest thing is having Grant and Coleman costarring. Those two accents will do in the strongest man. Coleman is wonderful as always. But I think I can see why this never quite found its audience. I would not watch it a second time.

Only so-so

[mitchmcc · 3/10 · 17 April 2006]

Although I am a huge Cary Grant fan, and I love Jean Arthur, this film leaves a lot to be desired. As a previous reviewer said, something is just not right with it, and it doesn't really click.

Perhaps it is because it cannot make up its mind whether it wants to be a comedy, screwball comedy (it does have some elements of this), or a drama with a serious message.

If I had to guess, I would bet that the script was written by a "progressive", and that "social justice" was the real goal here.

Cary Grant doesn't come off right as the labor agitator who is jailed for committing arson and murder, and Ronald Colman does not (IMO) do very well with comedy. The only saving grace is Jean Arthur, who performs with her usual grace and beauty.

I would skip this one, unless you just want to see it for the record.

A perfect mix of comedy and drama

[perfectbond · 8/10 · 10 December 2003]

Talk of the Town is an excellent combination of a screwball comedy and legal drama. Grant plays well in both genres and is aided here with very capable co-stars, Arthur and Coleman. The discussions between Dilg and the professor concerning the practical and theoretical aspects of the law are both entertaining in their tit-for-tat presentation and thought provoking in their philosophical content. Jean Arthur is also very charming as the love interest who helps move them to compromise. I thoroughly enjoyed this intelligent, witty, funny, and well-acted film and strongly recommend it, 8/10.

Hollywood craftsmanship at its best.

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 6 May 2018]

Copyright 22 July 1942 by Columbia Pictures Corp. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 27 August 1942. U.S. release: 20 August 1942. Australian release: 4 November 1943. 12 reels. 10,735 feet. 119 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Law professor unknowingly shelters a fugitive in his holiday house.

NOTES: Nominated for the following Academy Awards: Best Picture (lost to Mrs Miniver); Best Original Story (lost to The Invaders); Best Screenplay (lost to Mrs Miniver); Best Black-and-White Cinematography (lost to Joseph Ruttenberg for Mrs Miniver); Best Black-and-White Art Direction (won by This Above All); Best Film Editing (won by Daniel Mandell for The Pride of the Yankees); Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (won by Max Steiner for Now, Voyager).

COMMENT: Certainly an extraordinary, off-beat film. To my mind, it's also very successful in its odd combination of high-powered, lynch-town drama, romantic triangle and screwball comedy of deceit and disguise. There are one or two false moments (at least one of them deliberately contrived to entertainingly surprise the audience), but Stevens manages a delicate balancing act with both dexterity and style. He is aided by a first-rate cast.

Voluble Jean Arthur and superficially charming Ronald Colman make perfect partners and the support players - with special mention to Rex Ingram's devoted "man" and Frank Sully's chatty cop - deliver some unforgettable cameos. It would be invidious not to also single out Glenda Farrell, Charles Dingle, Emma Dunn, Leonid Kinskey, Tom Tyler and especially George Watts.

All this solid acting is backed by a tautly entertaining, suspensefully witty script. The cleverly unusual plot is adroitly underpinned by smart dialogue and sharp ripostes. True, a bit of philosophizing occasionally creeps in - but that's part of the film's overall balance.

Pacing too is exactly right. Stevens knows the precise moment to cut away from a scene. Although there is a fair amount of talk, it rarely becomes wearisome or outstays its welcome.

Photography and other credits are first-rate.

OTHER VIEWS: Missing out on a slew of Academy Awards by sheer bad luck, The Talk of the Town is in every way one of the most entertaining treats of the year. Intelligent, witty dialogue is amusingly bandied between two cleverly contrasted characters, most ingratiatingly enacted by Cary Grant and Ronald Colman - with Jean Arthur judiciously cast as a reluctant referee.

The story is cleverly plotted with lots of surprises twisted and sprung, and directed with real flair by a director who knows the paramount importance of editing and montage. Every gag works perfectly, while every gram of suspense is wrung from the pacey scenario by inspired intercutting.

Although billed third, Colman's part is by no means the lesser. In fact, he probably has more scenes than Grant - and he makes the most of them. It is one of his most memorable roles.

Lavishly produced, zestfully acted right down the line, beautifully photographed and set, The Talk of the Town is a tribute to Hollywood craftsmanship at its best.

The Proto-Grant

[schappe1 · 1 June 2003]

The Cary Grant most of us remember is a middle-aged but still athletically lithe man with distinguished looking salt and pepper hair and immaculate manners with the clothes to go with them. He was the role model for Ian Fleming's James Bond as well as for several TV heroes, including Peter Gunn, Mr. Lucky, (based on one of Grant's movies), and Amos Burke. There's nothing like the original.

But Grant had his antecedents, as well. And one of them was surely Ronald Coleman. Coleman was the real thing- an English gentleman born to wealth with not only exquisite taste and manners but the most gently melodious voice in the history of the cinema. This voice was by nature calm and authoritative and perfect for the heroic thinker, who will make the big speech at the end and tell us what the story's really about, as he does here. Normally it's left to the ladies to provide us rough and ready men with an alternative to butting heads 24 hours a day. But Coleman could show us the virtue of rational thought and gentle manners without ever seeming effeminate in any way. His voice gave him too much authority for that. These qualities make him perfect for the role of Michael Lightcap, the college professor and would-be supreme court justice of "Talk of the Town" who has to learn to apply the law to real human problems. it also makes the final scene uproarious as he grabs a gun and storms a court room as if he were John Wane, only to end it with a Colemanesque speech. The scene is so wonderfully out of character it's much more powerful than if Wayne did it himself.

Grant, meanwhile, still has a lot of Archie Leach in him here. As in most of his early roles, he's a bit of a scrambler, trying to avoid the law, rebelling here against injustice. He's an intelligent guy but clearly not a "gentleman" in the Coleman sense or in the later Grant sense. In a way, this is more interesting than his later performances in which he usually plays a more cynical type that wants to avoid "foreign entanglements" and stick to his business, (which, by the way, makes him a role model for Bret Maverick, as well). Here he's still young enough to think he can change the world and does so by changing Coleman. But in the long run, it was Coleman who changed Grant.

As to the film itself, one reviewer below called it "dated". Quite the opposite is true. The issues here- about applying the law for it's own sake or as a tool to create justice is always relevant. This is one of several films of the period, ("The Grapes of Wrath" and "Idiot's Delight" among them) that probably couldn't have been made ten years later because they questioned authority, war and other injustices. their makers would have been branded as "fellow travelers" with the communists. Actually, there are people who would not want this type of film to be made today, either. That makes it all the more important to see "Talk of the Town" and films like it every chance we can.

Dilg-ing In The Garden

[Lejink · 7/10 · 5 May 2011]

Bit of a hotch-potch for me, this war-time George Stevens' production, though there was much to enjoy along the way. The problem for me was that I wasn't sure what kind of film it was trying to be - thriller, whodunit, romance, philosophical treatise, drama, even comedy and felt it fell between all these stools.

It starts excellently with a grim, noirish introduction as Cary Grant's political agitant Leopoldo Dilg, a handy scapegoat effects a gritty, rain-soaked night-time escape from the accusing and chasing authorities when the munitions factory he works at goes up in flames, apparently killing the foreman. Then, however, it veers into farce with Grant's unwelcome stowaway routine at Jean Arthur's old place just happening to clash with soon-to-be-Supreme-Court-Justice Ronald Colman's tenancy of the place. Cue humorous comings and goings as Arthur attempts to conceal Grant, before she comes clean (sort of) with the cold, donnish Colman and introduces Grant to him as her surprisingly deep and free-thinking gardener, with whom Colman soon comes to converse on a highly intellectual and political level over games of chess. Later of course, both men influence each other's initially polarised point of view as we get to the predictable resolution with the romantic triangle between the three squared just as unsurprisingly too.

The best parts of the film for me, were the cinematography and the acting of Grant and Arthur. I like Colman as an actor, but his part is poorly written as he's made out to be a sort of intellectual Longfellow Deeds come down from his ivory tower to get humanised by the vivacious Arthur and loquacious Grant. Comedy doesn't appear to be his forte, at least on this showing.

The plotting is however too fantastical and muddled and escapes the director's attempts to pull it together coherently, to such an extent that I almost suspected studio tinkering with the left-leaning polemic of the piece.

One More Reason to Miss Jean Arthur

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 7 March 2006]

George Stevens had the ability to make truly memorable films out of lightweight material. "The Talk of the Town" and "The More the Merrier (1943)" were two early-40s projects that teamed Stevens up with the adorable Jean Arthur. Both would probably have been forgettable pseudo-comedies had Stevens not directed them with such a sure hand.

"Town" is a sort of strange hybrid--part screwball comedy, part political activist film. Its screenplay could probably be a little tidier, but I'm not going to complain, because I loved this movie. Cary Grant and Arthur were a terrific match for one another, and Ronald Colman makes a perfect straight man for the both of them. He plays a stuffy professor staying in Arthur's country home while he devotes himself to work. Grant shows up on the lamb for some political activism that got him in trouble, and the movie is devoted to Arthur's and Grant's antics as they first try to hide Grant's identity from Colman and then try to enlist Colman in their populist cause.

This is a great and not especially well known film from the war years. Set aside some time to enjoy it and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Grade: A

Not bad, exactly, but it just doesn't work at all

[zetes · 6/10 · 16 May 2010]

An uneasy mixture of comedy and drama. Jean Arthur is mixed up in a love triangle with an escaped convict (Cary Grant, totally miscast) and a law professor about to be appointed to the Supreme Court (Ronald Colman, too British to be this character). Grant has been accused (and actually convicted) of burning down a factory and killing a man. He claims he's innocent, despite being a famous rabble-rouser. Arthur, who is working as a secretary for Coleman, hides Grant in her cabin and slowly tries to convince Colman to help with the injustice of the situation. It's a very awkwardly plotted film, and the attempts at comedy fall flat. I never really believed Grant as a rabble-rouser, and he just can't seem to handle the dramatic angle of the picture at all. Colman is pretty much the opposite. The film basically leaves him out of the comedy. Neither of the actors' romantic intentions come off as believable. Well, I guess they are believable in that anyone would want Jean Arthur, but it just doesn't fit in with the social issues angle. Pretty much nothing about it works besides Arthur. In my mind she can do no wrong. It isn't an especially bothersome picture to watch, really, even with all its problems, but it's far from good.

One of the most enjoyable films of its year.

[MOscarbradley · 8/10 · 6 May 2019]

A farcial, grown-up rom-com, very typical of its period, the early forties, and what might be called a prestige production. Cary Grant is the escaped convict and suspected arsonist, Ronald Colman is the stuffy law professor who comes to his aid and Jean Arthur, the girl who is the object of both their affections. George Stevens was the director at a time when a George Stevens movie was a sure sign of quality and he draws terrific performances from all three leads. He also succeeds in subverting the semi-serious plot to great comic effect, making this one of the most enjoyable pictures of 1942, (it was nominated for seven Oscars). Not seen much these days but it cries out for a good revival.

Thoughtful George Stevens Drama.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 11 October 2013]

George Stevens directed this comedy/drama starring Jean Arthur as Nora Shelley, who owns a boarding house in New England where she is staying, along with noted Harvard Law School professor Michael LightCap(played by Ronald Colman) who is working on a book. Joining them is Leopold Dilg(played by Cary Grant) who is said to be the gardener, but in reality is an escaped prisoner accused of arson and murder regarding a reputedly unsafe factory. Leopold claims his innocence, and when the professor gets wind of this, resolves to help him prove it by conducting his own investigation... Thoughtful and smart film with a good cast and involving story, with a most subdued performance from Grant(which makes for a welcome change!) Well worth seeking out.

Intelligent mix of comedy, romance, and drama

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 25 May 2018]

A strong cast with two leading men, comedic moments, and intelligent commentary on justice in America all make this a very good film. Cary Grant is a man in jail in a small town on trumped up arson charges, and Ronald Colman is an eminent legal mind who is just arriving there to work on a book. Grant escapes to the home of his old friend Jean Arthur, and Colman shows up the same night to begin renting it from her. Grant is hidden away in the attic for awhile, but soon strikes up a friendship with Colman while pretending to be Arthur's gardener, and the pair engage in some interesting debates on justice and the law. Colman represents the viewpoint of the dispassionate letter of the law, while Grant cautions that such thought is too idealistic for the way justice is often administered. As a mob has been whipped up into a frenzy against him by the local corrupt businessman whose factory burned down, he ought to know.

Grant and Colman are given equal chance to charm us and shine, and they do. Arthur more than keeps up them, delivering her lines so naturally, and she's delightful. The film keeps us guessing as to who she may end up with, as both men are attractive in their own way. I loved seeing a little bit of darkness and danger in Grant here, as well as moments of charm, such as when he widens his eye and assures Arthur that they won't recognize him from the photograph on a Wanted poster, because they hadn't captured his spirit.

The film gets a little heavy-handed in some of its messaging as the film plays out, but I was swayed by just how relevant it is in the times of today's populism. The danger of the mob being manipulated by someone who is corrupt (how can one not think of 'lock her up' while watching that today?), the danger of rushing to judgment instead of listening to the facts and the evidence, and the need to fight for principles were certainly appropriate in 1942, but they're also timeless. Rex Ingram is strong as Colman's servant, including a moment where he gets choked up watching Colman shave off his beard. It seemed a rather odd to me at the time, but since it means Colman is going to fight for justice in this particular case, going against the mob, it may be that Ingram relates this to countless mobs lynching African-Americans, with no one standing up for them.

The film has a few moments where you have to suspend disbelief, but I enjoyed it for its intelligence, and added dimension to what otherwise would have been a standard comedy or romantic comedy. It's a film that will charm you one moment, and make you think the next, and that's not bad.

Here's a quote from Colman's speech to the mob: "This is your law and your finest possession - it makes you free men in a free country. Why have you come here to destroy it? If you know what's good for you, take those weapons home and burn them! And then think... think of this country and of the law that makes it what it is. Think of a world crying for this very law! And maybe you'll understand why you ought to guard it. Why the law has got to be the personal concern of every citizen. To uphold it for your neighbor as well as yourself. Violence against it is one mistake. Another mistake is for any man to look upon the law as just a set of principles. And just so much language printed on fine, heavy paper. Something he recites and then leans back and takes it for granted that justice is automatically being done. Both kinds of men are equally wrong! The law must be engraved in our hearts and practiced every minute to the letter and spirit. It can't even exist unless we're willing to go down into the dust and blood and fight a battle every day of our lives to preserve it. For our neighbor as well as ourself!"

Hallelujah.

Good but not great.

[Qanqor · 7/10 · 14 May 2011]

There's a lot of great things in this film, but they don't add up to a great film. In this case, the total is less than the sum of its parts.

The problem really is that the movie can't make up its mind what it's trying to be. It's a drama and a comedy and a romance and a message film, and by trying to be all those things, it succeeds well at none of them.

As a comedy, it is ruined by the drama. The movie starts out so serious and heavy, that we get in a serious, heavy mood, and start really caring about the plot-- which is death for a comedy. So when various shenanigans start happening, it's hard to let loose and laugh at them, because we're still worried about how it affects the plot and if the hero will get caught.

As a romance, it's almost a complete dud. What we have here is a classic lovers triangle, and while all three leads are very good dramatically and comedically, there's really very little chemistry between either male lead and the heroine. It's a sad commentary on the romance when the most interesting relationship is the hypotenuse-- Grant and Coleman's budding friendship has much more chemistry than either man with the woman. The only good thing I'll say about the romance aspect of the film is that it did do a good job of keeping you guessing about which gentleman she'd end up with.

Drama is perhaps the films strongest suit, but even here it comes up short. The story is interesting and engrossing, and again, the leads do a fine job. But because so much of the film is expended on the other aspects, the overall dramatic story is pretty sparse and sketchy. The chief villain, the factory owner, is more a prop than a character; we never do really find out exactly what his scheme or motivations were, or see him actually get some comeuppance. We have no idea what the allegedly strong evidence against the hero was supposed to be-- indeed, it's hard to see how they had any case against Grant at all.

And as for the message, well, it's so short on details that it's not much of a message at all. This is no Atlas Shrugged in terms of trying to get a philosophy across. The whole theory-of-law thing works best to simply show the developing intellectual engagement leading to the friendship between the two male leads.

So I find the film hard to heartily enjoy. Yet despite all my criticism, I gave it a pretty good rating. Because there is a lot that's very good here. Good dialog, good performances, some of the comedy really is pretty good. It's just that, as I said, it doesn't all add up very well.

But I am going to try my borscht with an egg beaten into it one of these days!

Too Much Talk of the Town

[Rindiana · 5/10 · 11 June 2009]

A likable cast and an unusual story promise entertainment with enough food for thought, but the whole static affair proves a disappointment.

An excellent Colman shines in an otherwise extremely contrived plot with naive (pseudo-)intellectual pretensions. In the second half the timing is all off, Arthur's flightiness and Grants lordliness grow tiresome while a discriminating audience certainly loses interest as a freshly shaved reborn sunny boy Colman saves the day by confronting a laughably Hollywoodesque lynch mob in the worst Capra-fashion.

All in all, a rather heavy-handed attempt at seriousness, typical for "Shane" director Stevens, with only some amusing lines and moments to guarantee average viewing pleasure.

(One of the writers was Irvin Shaw. Give me his namesake George Bernard any time instead!)

5 out of 10 borschts with egg