"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the \"screwball\" pictures of the 1930s.
Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.
First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous  the \"ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?\" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.
Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny  The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example  but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller  snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots  but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy  for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table  but such moments are few and far between.
Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where \"Queen of Screwball\" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.
The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense  as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot  that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"