The Marriage-Go-Round (1961) User Reviews

Today she'd just want sperm

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 3 August 2015]

James Mason and Susan Hayward two big film names replaced Broadway stars Charles Boyer and Claudette Colbert for the film version of the play The Marriage Go Round. Mason and Hayward were both at or near the top of their careers, Hayward being just three years away from her career Oscar winning role in I Want To Live and Mason was off a big box office hit in Journey To The Center Of The Earth.

The two play a pair of married professors and the film is done in the format of both of them giving a lecture on some recent trial their marriage went through. The trial came in the person of blond statuesque Swede Julie Newmar who is the daughter of a colleague that Mason knows. He knew Julie as a child, but she's all grown up now and fully developed in all the right places.

Mason's considered a genius and Newmar who has an IQ to match her measurements is brutally frank in what she wants. She wants Mason, but she's not clear in why she wants him at first. Simply for breeding purposes. She wants him to father a super genius child. Today I'm sure Mason might just donate his sperm.

Well whether for romance or breeding Hayward ain't having any. Such is the basis of this comedy which on Broadway had a 431 performance run for 1958-1960. It's slight and amusing and probably played better on stage on the one scene in the living room of the Mason/Hayward home. Still fans of the stars will like it.

I VANT your genes!

[dhk612 · 6/10 · 2 November 2006]

This movie seems to plod along with innuendos between Mason, Hayward, and Newmar. There is a fun scene between Hayward and Newmar in which Hayward advises that her husband is not for "borrowing." But Newmar's response is Hayward's equal when she responds that she is bigger, stronger, prettier, and smarter and she will only listen to what he has to say. It's a great scene but about the only one in the film that worked for me. The rest is pretty much blah, blah, blah.

What IS redeeming about this movie, though, is the set decorating and the costumes. In my opinion the sets in this movie could be from 20 years in the future. Sleek, classy. The costuming is perfect: muted, elegant colors on beautifully trim bodies. Mason is impeccable in his wardrobe. Of course Newmar looks like Barbie in her swimsuit. It was, however, great to get to see her in a performance before Catwoman in the Batman series.

The eye candy is worth the watch in this film.

Sweet comedy

[sligocait · 7/10 · 5 April 2013]

I am a long-time James Mason fan, and he showed his comedic side in several films, this being one of them. The premise is sweet and this film is perfect for a rainy afternoon or for when you just want to watch an enjoyable movie that does not contain violence, objectionable language or loud special effects. If you are a James Mason fan, this is a must-see. He is handsome, suave and dashing in this film and his touch for light comedy is fun to watch and a nice change from his more typical serious roles. He is in "A Touch of Larceny" and "Tiara Tahiti" form here, and carries the light comedy very well. I recommend this film to everyone who enjoys a nice romantic comedy, and especially to those who appreciate Mr. Mason's considerable charm, talent and touch for comedy.

Just OK

[artzau · 6/10 · 4 May 2001]

Take three competent actors, James Mason, lovely Susan Hayward and Julie Newmar, and an idiot script with a lame premise and what do you get? Right. A mediocre movie. But, it's OK. Mason plays a cultural anthropologist who Newmar wants to share genes with. However, Mason's wife, Hayward, is having none of it. It goes down from there. Lamewitted writing, silly situations but always good acting and hey, Newmar was ALWAYS worth the price of a ticket. Hayward too is great but you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, the saying goes and a poor script does not a great movie make.

I enjoyed the movie, but liked others of Mason's more.

[twelthofnever · 29 June 2006]

The outside scenes of this movie were partially filmed in Lakeland, Florida (my hometown) on the Florida Southern College campus. The buildings were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and are situated adjacent to Lake Hollingsworth. It made a beautiful setting for this romantic comedy. Co-star Susan Hayward was one of my favorite actresses and of course, Julie Newmar was almost as smashing as Bo Derek in "10". I thought the plot was a bit sophisticated for the time (1961). More to my liking were the Doris Day - Rock Hudson comedies of the same period. A little less sophistication and more "slapstick" type fun films. Tony Randall's masterful comedic genius added greatly to most of them.

I rarely seen sex comedy of the 1960s that it's worth seeing.

[MyMovieTVRomance · 7/10 · 25 January 2024]

A pretty rarely seen 1960s sex comedy, if the view count on Letterboxd does any indication. I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot, just for being a rom-com of its time. There's something relaxing and carefree about movies of this sort from the 1960s - especially the early 1960s. That being said, this one didn't full me over like The Facts of Life (1960), but they do make a great double feature.

Julie Newmar was gorgeous in a very Anita Ekberg kind of way, and I was very pleased with her performance. But I kept thinking about To Wong Foo: Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar - the 1990s comedy that had little to do with her, but the title does stay in one's mind.

Julie Newmar played a Swede in this movie. I don't know if she's actually a Swede though. Either she is, or she studied her accent from Greta Garbo movies. All Swedes sound like Greta Garbo to me. At least, when they are at their most Swedish.

The real standout star of the film though, was the house. Wow, they don't make them like that anymore! The layout and everything, so distinctly 1950s / 1960s. In other words, just beautiful!

Definitely a Newmar vehicle.

[CMUltra · 4/10 · 17 July 2006]

It may not be enough to say that Julie Newmar is statuesque. Further hyperbole is probably needed, perhaps along the lines of "she defines statuesque" or "her picture is in the dictionary under statuesque." She is such a striking figure that she can basically carry a scene simply by walking around or striking a pose. That's good, because that's pretty much all that happened in this film.

The story could have been vaguely insulting but instead was just boring. I won't detail it as the one-line plot outline is more than sufficient. No layered meanings, no depth, not much of anything. The performers, saddled with such a story, seemed like they gave it a real try where most may have just phoned it in. That's a plus.

Recommended for Newmar fans only.

Fun little fantasy

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 8 April 2021]

In The Marriage-Go-Round, a Swedish exchange student comes to stay in the home of a happily married couple. The wife welcomes her with open arms, but she really shouldn't. We find out pretty early on she has designs on the husband; she wants him to father her child! Told in a funny he-said-she-said format, James Mason and Susan Hayward tell the audience about the time in their lives when their marriage was tested by the ridiculously attractive Julie Newmar.

While it's totally believable that James Mason would be propositioned in such a way, it isn't quite believable that he would be tempted to stray with Susan Hayward at home. She's far too strong and independent to portray a housewife who's let herself go. There are several jokes about her putting on weight and not being alluring enough for her husband. But it's Susan Hayward! Onstage, Claudette Colbert originated the role. She's a beautiful woman, too, but she would have been middle-aged at that time, still retaining the vulnerability of her youth, and far more convincing. Julie Newmar is wonderful, though; and she also played the role on Broadway. Hilarious, physically perfect, a flawless Swedish accent (patterned after her mother), and a master of intellect and sportsmanship, she fits the description of every man's fantasy and every woman's nightmare.

The fun part of the movie is, of course, James Mason. His delighted grin is hilarious, and you can clearly see him having a ball during the filming. It's no stretch to see why he was asked to play Hubert Humphrey in Lolita after being paired with a young girl in this movie. As this is a comedy, and he's the pursued not the pursuer, we can all have a good laugh.

Ehh....

[MarieGabrielle · 5/10 · 18 May 2007]

I do like James Mason and what else can be said about Susan Hayward?. With the cast of capable actors, the story should be a given, and should work.

Somehow it doesn't. Is it just dated?. Is it just that romantic romps with hip chicks (Julie Newmar) and rock music have no resonance?. Despite the backdrop of Frank Lloyd Wright's house in Lakeland Florida, the story comes up banal and empty.

Perhaps it is the portrayal of Hayward and Mason as a married couple After the requisite jealousy, tantrums, and throwing around of suitcases, the couple gets back together. We still see formula like this today in recent films like "The Break Up". It just doesn't work, and leaves the viewer feeling they have witnessed somehow, another wooden version of Hollywood romance.

Obscure movie--for good reason!

[preppy-3 · 4/10 · 25 September 2015]

A happy middle-aged couple (Susan Hayward and James Mason) allow a Swedish girl (Julie Newmar)--a daughter of a friend--to stay in their house for a few days. While there she promptly tells Mason she wants to have a child with him because he's so intelligent! Predictable complications ensue.

Silly sex comedy. This was based on a VERY successful Broadway play. However what worked on stage does NOT translate to the screen at all (this was not a hit). The plot is pretty dumb and probably an insult to Swedish people. It has incredibly dated sexual politics (even for 1961) and a discussion on infidelity is more funny than shocking. What saves this from being totally unwatchable are the actors. Mason and Newmar are very good in their roles and Hayward is excellent in hers. Also their house is stunning to look at. But, all in all, this is a forgettable movie. I give it a 4.

Susan Hayward's last film at 20th Century Fox As a contract Star

[adventure-21903 · 9/10 · 3 November 2019]

20th Century Fox produced this film version of the Broadway hit play starring Claudette Colbert (who hoped to reprise Broadway role in the film but lost the star role to Susan Hayward). Charles Boyer starred with Colbert on Broadway.

20th assembled a fine production team starting with Walter Lang and and Susie gave it her all top billed over James Mason and Julie Newmar but comedy wasn't really her forte.

Susan Haywood looks beautiful as always and would return to 20th a few years later playing Helen Lawson in this smash hit Valley of the Dolls. Susie was greeted with an orchestra upon her arrival at the 20th lot with the music "if you knew Susie the way we love Susie oh what a gal." Truly Susie was quite a woman a great box office, a great actress and a great lady who died far too young.

Even beautiful women have to be wary of the knock-outs.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 28 November 2018]

Lucille Watson's character in "The Women" said it best when she described a man's infidelity as a sign of him being bored with aging, with their insecurities of their virility taking over what was left of their sensibilities. This film version of a hit Broadway play youthens the leading characters played by Charles Boyer and Claudette Colbert on screen and makes them a decade younger through the casting of James Mason and Susan Hayward. The film has a strange narrative, with both of the leading characters seemingly talking to an audience, either out in an auditorium (in the case of Mason) or the audience (as in the case of Hayward). That makes this strange tale of assumed infidelity rather stagy, and the plot seems rather forced. That concerns the arrival of their Swedish house guest (Julie Newmar), a sex kitten who purrs sweetness but has other ideas for Mason other than just borrowing a bed in his beautiful home. She wants him to father his baby! Of course, in this era, there were certain terms that you could not use, and "sperm donor" on film was certainly one of them! This makes the audience believe that Newmar wants to conceive "the old fashioned way", obviously not something that Hayward would approve of her husband doing to assist a younger and shapelier house guest.

What might have worked on screen does not quite come off on film. The pacing is slow and aggravating at times, and Hayward comes off as too understanding until the conclusion. Even after she walks in on Mason and Newmar lip-locked, she acts as if she's just walked in on a mischievous child. Nobody fools around on Hayward and lives to tell about it, that's been my take on her temperament both in films and in real life which presented her as rather tempestuous. Still, she's always watchable, and Newmar is certainly a striking young lady, although in real life it would be Hayward who would do the striking. While the lush Cinemascope and art direction are lavish and Mason and Hayward's home certainly lush with art decco, it all feels a bit forced. The plot is resolved too nicely and far too quickly, and while the theme is perhaps way ahead of its time, the manner in which the subject matter is dealt with makes it feel like something very important is missing from Newmar's intentions. Certainly, a re-written version of this 10 years afterwards could have gotten away with a lot more, but not in the very strict code era. A comedy without real conflict, humor or resolution ends up being a near misfire saved only by its likable stars, even though, unlike the ridiculous name of Hayward's character, I was not content.

Watch "Rocky XXIII" instead

[gordon-287 · 1/10 · 17 November 2006]

I was working in a first-run movie theater when we showed this. I thought the plot line was extremely weak then, and I still do. Julie Newmar plays a Swedish beauty in search of a father for her planned child. She wants to find someone with a lot of intelligence so her child will grow up to have both beauty and brains. She finds James Mason's character who is a professor, and not a bad looking one at that. Having settled on him as a potential father, she finds there is only one hitch: he is already married, and his wife, not being into the liberated Swedish lifestyle, will have nothing of her husband's being unfaithful. How they managed to squeeze 98 minutes out of this plot line still mystifies me. Another thing that is puzzling is why two top-rate actors, Mason and Hayward, would have touched this script with a 10-foot pole. Like good coffee grounds won't make good coffee out of bad water, good acting just can't salvage a bad plot. They must have had to pay some bills. If you are desperate for a movie to watch, I recommend "Rocky XXIII" instead.

One for Julie Newmar fans!

[JohnHowardReid · 1/10 · 5 November 2017]

Susan Hayward (Content Delville), James Mason (Paul Delville), Julie Newmar (Katrin Sveg), Robert Paige (Dr Ross Barnett), June Clayworth (Flo Granger), Joe Kirkwood, Jr (Henry Granger), Mary Patton (Mamie), Trax Colton (Crew Cut), Everett Glass (professor), Ben Astar (Sultan), Bruce Tegner (judo man at pool), Mark Bailey (boy), Ann Benton (girl), John Bryant (young professor).

Directed by WALTER LANG. Written by Leslie Stevens. Director of photography: Leo Tover. Art directors: Duncan Cramer and Maurice Ransford. Film editor: Jack W. Holmes. Sound: E. Clayton Ward and Frank W. Moran. Costumes designed by Charles LeMaire. Music by Dominic Frontiere, conducted by Dominic Frontiere. Assistant director: Eli Dunn. Tony Bennett sings "Marriage-Go-Round" by Alan Bergman, Marilyn Keith, and Lew Spence. Color by DeLuxe. Photographed in CinemaScope. Make-up: Ben Nye. Hair styles: Helen Turpin. Set decorators: Walter M. Scott, Paul S. Fox. Westrex Sound System. Producer: Leslie Stevens. A Leslie Stevens Production for Daystar/20th Century-Fox.

Copyright 1960 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Paramount and simultaneously at the Trans-Lux 85th Street: 6 January 1961. U.S. release: December 1960. U.K. release: 15 October 1961. Australian release: 25 May 1961. Sydney opening at the Regent. 8,791 feet. 98 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Content (Susan Hayward) and Paul Delville (James Mason) are a happily married couple. He is a Professor of Cultural Anthropology at a university where she is Dean of Women, and both give lectures on marriage, each from his or her own viewpoint. Their talks are based on sixteen years of marital fidelity, mingled with a knowledge of marriage customs of other lands. The daughter of an old friend from Sweden — a Nobel Prize winner — comes into their life. They expect Katrin Sveg (Julie Newmar) to be a lanky teenager, but in walks a statuesque, Viking beauty. And her father is not with her. At dinner, alone with Paul, she announces, quite naturally, that she has come from Sweden to see Paul "because I want you to be the father of my baby." Katrin goes on to explain that she had seen him in a newsreel and decided that, with his mind and her body, they could produce the ideal child. Of course, Katrin is willing to allow Paul to think about her proposition. When his wife comes home, he tells her of his dilemma.

NOTES: Running a highly successful 431 performances, Leslie Stevens' play, "The Marriage-Go-Round" opened on Broadway at the Plymouth Theater on 29 October 1958. Paul Gregory produced, Joseph Anthony directed, Charles Boyer played Paul, Claudette Colbert played Content and Edmon Ryan was Ross. For the film, Julie Newmar repeated her Broadway role of Katrin Sveg which won her an Antoinette Perry award for best supporting actress.

COMMENT: Restricted to "Adults Only" in 1961, but okay for all today, "The Marriage Go-Round" is a one-joke sexual farce, distinguished by the presence of Julie Newmar, but otherwise of little interest.

I took this movie up with James Mason and this is what he replied: "As you say, the movie was clumsily and heavily directed. I would certainly agree that this particular film is as tedious as it is tasteless. Its approach to sex is hypocritical. It's also sniggering and totally unfunny. I played my part in a permanent state of total embarrassment."

OTHER VIEWS: "Tedious." — Variety. "Rather thin." — New York Herald Tribune. "Remarkably tame and tedious." — Monthly Film Bulletin.

"The play was a smash hit and ran more than a year. The $3,000,000 DeLuxe colored screen version lacks two of the Broadway principals and most of the jokes." — Time.

**

[edwagreen · 4/10 · 29 September 2015]

Let's face it- Mason and Hayward were not born to do comedy. The film should have been made years before with Irene Dunne and Cary Grant in the leads. Then, you would have seen something.

Hayward seems to handle her social drinking since she had plenty of experience with that in "I'll Cry Tomorrow," and "Smash-Up."

The two play college officials who are supposedly experts on marriage. In their lectures, they recount what happened when a Swedish girl, played with relish by Julie Newmar comes to visit. With her high intelligence, she tells it like it is. She comes on to Mason by telling him that she wants her him to be the father of the child.

Even in comedy, Hayward's response was somewhat dramatic, and that is what was not needed here.

The premise was not good here.