hpr_transcripts/hpr2937.txt

Episode: 2937
Title: HPR2937: Lord D's Film Reviews: His Girl Friday
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr2937/hpr2937.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-24 13:35:32

---

It's HBR Episode 2937 for the 5th of November 2019. Today's show isn't titled,
His Girl Friday, and it's part of the series, Lord D's Film Review.
It's hosted by Lost & Bronx, is 49 minutes long, carries a clean flag,
and is licensed under a CC-0 license. The summary is, Lost & Bronx
reviews an old screwball comedy. For your information the link given in the show itself
is a bit outdated, so if you can go to the show notes you'll find a link to a better copy of the movie.
Enjoy!
This episode of HBR is brought to you by AnanasThost.com.
Get 15% discount on all shared hosting with the offer code
HBR15, that's HBR15.
Better web hosting that's honest and fair at AnanasThost.com.
Hello, this is Lost & Bronx, and this is the first episode of a new series,
or part of a series, that I'm calling Lord D's Film Reviews.
The explanation of this series takes a little setup, and I'll only do this once in this first episode.
But, basically, Lord D refers to Lord Drakkenblut, who is a fairly well-known member of this community
who passed away a few years ago, much respected, much loved.
And he was kind of ubiquitous in the free software Linux scene,
and in this community specifically, HBR and Linux podcasting in general.
But I didn't know him that way. He also did a podcast called Ten Buck Review,
which basically he would buy these cheap little films from the bargain bin in the store that were $10 or less, and he would review them.
And many of them were terrible films, even if they weren't B films per se.
These were films that generally didn't do very well at the box office and got marked down and put out on DVD.
And these were the sorts of movies that he would review.
Well, I did a review for that podcast, a public domain film that I got off of Archive.org,
and he was very gracious. He put it on the show, and it was very nice. It was very nice of him.
So, this series is in memory of him, because he was a great guy, and a lot of people miss him quite a bit.
Probably a better memorial to Lord D would be something in the free software Linux vein,
but as I say, I didn't really know him in that arena. I knew him in this one.
So, this is what I'm doing, because it's kind of an area that I have an interest in. So, here we go.
Now, this also dovetails into a series that I did recently called Random Elements of Storytelling,
in which I would talk about particular aspects of storytelling, often using movies or television as an example,
but also novels, or really almost anything that tells a story.
And I'm pulling some topics from that to use as my criteria for assessing films that I have seen.
So, basically, there are five different categories that I'll be judging things by,
and these categories are rated 0, 1, or 2, and that allows us a range from 0 to 10 points
or stars or whatever. Let's say 10 points, because, I don't know, for no particular reason.
So, 0 to 10 points for each category. In each category, we're going to be asking two questions.
If the answer is no, it's a 0. So, we end up with a 0 in that category.
If the answer to both questions is no, we end up with a 1 if the answer to one of the questions is no,
and the other one is yes, and of course, we end up with two points if both answers are yes.
0 to 2 for each category.
Alright, now, the categories cover these five topics.
Plot, main characters, genre, construction, and payoff.
Now, more or less, I've spoken about every one of these topics in that previous series.
So, if you did listen to those, this stuff won't be unfamiliar to you in context of the way that I'll be assessing this.
So, plot, the two questions are, does the plot make sense, and is it free of large plot holes?
Now, I put that into one question, because too many plot holes and it stops making sense.
So, basically, does it make sense?
Okay, does the plot make sense?
And does the plot seem original, or original enough, or put it another way?
Does it seem to be free of hackneyed elements?
Now, we know that there's nothing original under the sun.
There's no such thing as a new idea necessarily, or when one comes along, it's really quite a big deal.
We won't be looking at it like that.
What we'll be looking at is whether or not, within context of this story, does the plot seem to be more or less fresh?
If you have a plot that you've seen a bunch of times, and you're kind of sick of it, that's a no there, right?
If it's one that you've seen a bunch of times, but this seems to be a new spin, or they did it really, really well, that's it, yes.
Or maybe it's one you've either never seen before, or you rarely see, or you've never seen perhaps associated with some other aspect of the film that we'll be talking about, such as genre, or the type of characters that are involved.
So, the answer could be yes or no, quite easily, just depending upon whether or not we've seen a lot of this recently, and how well it was handled.
Okay, main characters, are they realistic? Do we believe them?
You know, and we look at these characters and say, yeah, that seems like somebody you could meet in real life, or that seems like somebody who's perfect for this story.
Because don't forget, if we're looking at a wacky comedy with over the top sorts of characters, you don't run into those people in real life necessarily, but they work beautifully for that particular story.
So, realism is not real, we have to understand that distinction.
Realism works in context of the story, so that question, yes or no, but again, we'll be discussing it when we come across it.
Also, under main characters, do we care about them?
These might be real characters, but if they're all either boring or unpleasant, and we just don't care what happens to them, that's a fail.
We're supposed to care what happens to these people. They don't have to be sympathetic, but they at the very least have to be interesting.
If we don't get that, that's a fail.
Alright, next is genre.
Now, under the genre category, we've got, does this genre work well for the plot?
Sometimes they're just sort of mashed in there. You have this story, and it's mashed into a particular genre.
Now, the genre might just be, quote unquote, drama. That's fine, that's valid, and we won't go much further with that, unless the story is kind of not working under that distinction.
Alright, and the other question for genre is, what another genre worked better for this plot, or this story, or the story that we're trying to tell?
So, it is possible to have an adventure tale that maybe it's a western, but it probably would work better if it was just set in a modern city.
It does happen. You do run into tales like that, movies like that.
So, yes or no, does it work within that genre, or could it work better somewhere else?
Alright, the next category is construction.
Now, construction is kind of a conflated term, because I'm including the acting, right? That's the first question.
Is the acting good? Does the acting work? Are the actors doing their jobs well?
Now, I have relegated this to a single question, whereas very often we're used to judging an entire film based on the performances.
I'm more focused on story. Anyone who's heard me talk before knows that's really where my love is.
I'm looking for a good story. So, yes, acting is represented in these reviews, but it is downgraded in importance.
I'm less concerned about the acting. Unless, of course, the acting so bad, it damages the film, but we'll reflect that with our point category.
Alright, that's the first question under construction. The second one, you might be able to guess. It has to do with direction.
It has to do with production values. It has to do with editing.
All of that stuff, again, I'm downgrading the importance of it because I'm more focused on story.
However, understand that editing is an integral part of storytelling when it comes to movies.
It's possible that perhaps I shouldn't downgrade it so much to one half of one category.
But, you gotta pick your battles and that's where I'm putting that. So, those two categories, acting and then production.
And the final category is payoff. Alright, the payoff, that was a whole topic in that previous series that I did.
And, basically, it's the ending of the film.
Now, we're not necessarily talking about a twist ending. We're not talking about wrapping up a mystery story or anything like that.
We're talking about what you're walking away with.
So, the questions, the two questions under this category are, did the filmmakers accomplish what they seem to set out to do when the film started?
In other words, by the end of the film, do you think they did their job right? Did they pull it all off?
This is an impression you're gonna have by the end of the film. Did they pull off what they attempted to do?
So, you can have a beef film that's schlocky, that's grind house, that's terrible, by most standards.
And yet, it can get a nice fat yes on that question because that's what they were attempting to do.
And if they pulled it off, then they get a yes in that category.
And now, the second question is the ending emotionally satisfying.
Now, that's a very, very important one.
Now, understand again, emotionally satisfying doesn't mean a happy ending, it doesn't mean that everything's all sunshine and rainbows for our characters.
It can be a tragedy, it could end up being terrible, it doesn't have to be a happy ending by any means.
That doesn't matter at all.
In context of this question, what that means is, did they pull all their threads together emotionally so that when the story's over,
and I'm thinking back on it, do I feel like something was left out?
Do I feel like this should have gone somewhere else, this was a mistake, the way they ended it was a mistake.
It's how it leaves me feeling with the way the film ends, am I emotionally satisfied?
So, with that overview done, let's get into my first review.
Okay, I decided to pull over and park because I got to read this thing.
So, the name of the film is His Girl Friday.
It's at archive.org slash details slash his underscore girl underscore Friday.
It's a public domain film and it's considered a romance slash comedy.
Here's the description from archive.org.
Hilarious romantic comedy starring Carrie Grant and Rosalind Russell.
Russell is a rough and tumble reporter looking to get out of the news racket by marrying and becoming a housewife after her divorce from newspaper publisher Grant.
Just when she is about to leave town with her husband to be, the still love sick Grant drifts her to cover one final breaking news sensation.
Along with plenty of laughs and fast paced dialogue, this film provides a witty and cynical look at news business.
There is a slight audio sync problem in the first couple minutes of the film.
It is present on the source medium and is very brief.
Now, that was right there on archive.org.
I actually didn't notice this sync problem, but there was a reason for that and I'll get to it later.
It's a black and white film and it is a sound film. It was directed by Howard Hawks.
The runtime is one hour 31 minutes and 44 seconds and the year it came out was 1940.
Okay, we'll just jump right into this.
First, plot. Does it make sense and or is it free of huge holes?
Yes, yeah, by and large it does make sense.
Understanding that it is a screw ball comedy.
Nothing actually makes sense when you compare it to the real world.
But within the context of the film itself, it actually does.
There are tons and tons of plot holes and dangling things and stuff that isn't wrapped up and we just don't care.
It's so fast paced, it just flies by and you don't think about it again.
Okay, next question. Is it original or does it seem to be?
Frankly, the answer is no.
I say no because when his girl Friday came out, it was already a remake.
Another film version of this had come out in the 30s.
And it was based on a famous Broadway stage play called The Front Page.
And again, I'll talk more about that later.
There had been several versions of it, many people already knew about it by that point.
And of course, since then, I'm looking at this with, you know, 2019 eyes.
And I gotta tell you, we've seen a lot of this again and again and again.
It's very classic stuff.
But even at that time, I don't think it was all that original to see this sort of crazy news story kind of stuff.
Even in a comedic sense, there were a lot of films made in the 30s that were like this.
Many of them owed a lot to The Front Page, which had come out a little bit earlier.
And I mean the stage play.
But by this point, by 1940, a lot of people had seen this.
So, there you go.
Alright, main characters, are they realistic?
Again, within context of this story, yes they are.
In the real world, no, they wouldn't be.
They're ridiculous.
In the real world, they're over the top.
They're just nonsensical.
But within context of the film, yes, they absolutely are.
Next question, do you care about them?
Yes, I do.
I found them funny.
I found them charming.
I found them attractive.
They were interesting, too.
The things that we're doing was interesting.
Their flaws were interesting.
We wanted to know more about them.
We wanted to see where this was going.
So, yes, I did care about them.
Okay, next category, genre.
Does it work for the plot?
Yes, however, there are other ways it can be approached.
Alright?
The next question, of course, is, is this the best genre for this tale?
No, I think it is.
So, that's a yes.
Alright?
But it is not the only one that you could use.
We have seen this sort of plot done in thrillers and crime stories.
Right?
Within this tale, at one point, Rosalind Russell's character comes in contact with this guy
who is on death row, and he's going to be executed, but he's escaped.
He takes her hostage, and it's all played for laughs, and it's all really funny.
But that could very easily, very easily be a thriller.
It could very easily be a mystery story.
There's a conspiracy against him to try to railroad him into an execution there.
It could all be done very, very differently.
This could be a very different genre.
However, I think it works best as a comedy.
So, that gets a yes from me.
Alright, the next category, construction.
Is the acting competent for the tale?
That's an easy yes.
You got Kerry Grant, whose mouth is flying a mile a minute.
You've got Rosalind Russell, who's doing the exact same thing.
The secondary characters are all delightful.
The actors do a tremendous job with all these people.
They make them seem just perfect for this tale.
Acting was absolutely competent.
Absolutely.
Next question.
Is the production and or editing competent?
Now, I say no.
And that might be heretical.
This is Howard Hawks, who was a film legend in Hollywood.
But I still say no.
And the reason being is like many stage plays that are adapted to the screen.
This looks like it was a stage play adapted for the screen.
There's an awful lot of standing around in a single room,
that's the way it was written for the stage.
Right at the very beginning of the film, they spend time in the newsroom
and then they spend time in a restaurant.
But then finally, they go to the prison and there's a press room in the prison.
And that's where the rest of the film takes place.
Outside of a few quick jaunts out into the city.
The staging was wrong for this film.
They needed to break out.
It becomes really claustrophobic.
It really does.
And I think they needed to move out from that one set.
All right.
Finally, the last category, pay off.
Did the filmmakers manage to do what they seemed to be intending?
I'm giving that a no.
In my opinion, Howard Hawks didn't reach what he was after.
I know I'm in the minority on this.
This is kind of considered an old Hollywood classic.
However, I feel like this thing could have been more.
I think by expanding it out into more than just that room for the last 80% of the movie,
I think this film could have grown some wings and it really could have sort.
As it stands, it's a classic example of a screwball comedy from that era in Hollywood from 1940.
But I don't consider it a classic film in and of itself.
Howard Hawks did not grab the brass ring on this thing.
He got close, but he didn't do it.
And the final question, are you emotionally satisfied when the film is over?
Well, despite my criticisms, yes.
I think it was a very pleasant film.
It was funny, laugh out loud, funny, and several occasions.
The characters, they have a happy ending.
Yeah, as I say, there are some big holes.
But we don't think about those because it raised to a happy ending.
We're satisfied.
You leave the film.
You say, oh, that was really pleasant.
And you remember it fairly fondly.
Yes, I felt emotionally satisfied.
So my final score is a 7 out of 10.
Now that's not bad.
Not great, but really better than average.
I think it was pretty good.
So I got some notes.
I do have some notes for this thing and I have a lot of it here.
So I'm just going to read it straight.
First one.
This film was an adaptation of the famous stage play The Front Page,
which was written by real-life Chicago newspapermen Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur.
That ran on Broadway from 1928 to 29 and was revived on Broadway four times after that,
most recently in 2016.
So this is still a very current play.
People still love this thing and they still return to it.
It was turned into a musical called Windy City, which played in London and elsewhere over the years.
It's been adapted to radio and film numerous times.
In this version of it, his Girl Friday, which switched the main lead from male to female
and added a romantic subplot, was even adapted back to the stage in 2013.
So you have The Front Page, which was adapted to the screen as his Girl Friday,
which then, later on, was adapted back to a stage play, including the romantic subplot.
Rosalind Russell's character on the stage play for Broadway is a man.
They rewrote this to make that character a woman and not just a woman,
but the ex-wife of Carrie Grant so that we have this romantic tension floating throughout the entire story.
They're still in love with each other, but they drive each other crazy.
It's that sort of thing.
And by changing that, they really do give more nuance to this tale.
It isn't just a news story.
It's also a romance.
It's also a sweet tale about these two misfits who really can't do anything,
but dig up dirt and report on stories.
That's what they're best at.
And they can't really do it without each other.
This play has had nods in media as diverse as science fiction novels and superhero comic books,
and virtually every single presentation of a newsroom or reporters in the 20th century and beyond
where their comedic or serious has been influenced by this story to some degree.
Okay, next point.
There are numerous race issues noticeable immediately in this film,
including some outright slurs.
Modern apologists might chalk them up to simply being how news reporters spoke back then.
It's not how reporters spoke back then.
It's how white people spoke back then.
And yes, there are no people of color in the entire film,
even though an important plot point rests on the African-American community of Chicago.
This film is very much a product of its time.
Okay, and the next point.
It's a funny film.
Despite my criticisms, it's a witty, very fast-paced goof of a tale
with lots of twists and turns.
Next point.
The title, His Girl Friday, doesn't make any sense at all.
I don't know what decisions went on in altering the title from the front page,
but Rosalind Russell's character is a respected news reporter in this movie,
not anyone's assistant.
So there's no logical reason for this particular title.
I suspect it had something to do with marketing, which is fair enough,
but why they didn't go with something at least semi-accurate is a mystery.
Okay, and finally, the internet archive copy that I watched is really lousy,
and I grabbed the highest resolution copy they had there.
If you want to see this film, catch it on Amazon, Netflix, or your local library,
because the image quality on the archive.org version is poor.
It's worth it for free, perhaps, but not if you can get it elsewhere for the same price,
or for no additional price than what you're already paying for other content.
And that is it. That is my review of His Girl Friday,
and that is it for this first episode of Lord D's Film Reviews.
This has been Lost in Bronx.
Thank you for listening. Take care.
You've been listening to Hacker Public Radio at Hacker Public Radio.org.
We are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday, Monday through Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by an HBR listener like yourself.
If you ever thought of recording a podcast, then click on our contributing to find out how easy it really is.
Hacker Public Radio was founded by the digital dog pound and the Infonomicon Computer Club,
and is part of the binary revolution at binrev.com.
If you have comments on today's show, please email the host directly,
leave a comment on the website, or record a follow-up episode yourself.
On this other way, status, today's show is released under Creative Commons,
Attribution, share a like, 3.0 license.