Whenever I watch a film for the second time, I notice even the most subtle of details or symbolic elements that I had previously overlooked, and The Philadelphia Story was no exception. Despite the fact that I had to resort to re-watching select clips on YouTube (the movie was not available for free online in its entirety), I was able to glean several instances of notable mis-en-scene and cinematic choices that I had not picked up on before. While some may be more obvious or plausible than others, I wanted to share my findings.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukZDbYWVybs&w=560&h=315]

My first realization is associated with the first scene of the movie (above), and I am very surprised how I initially missed this distinct cinematic choice. In this scene, Tracy and Dexter have a falling out, and we can determine that their altercation signifies the end of their first marriage. What I had failed to notice before was the complete absence of conversation in their interaction. In fact, it is filmed in a manner very similar to that of early silent movies — with dramatic music and exaggerated actions and emotions. Given one of the central themes of this film, this style make sense. The film’s primary takeaway is the importance of meaningful conversations within a successful marriage in which both parties understand each other’s faults and ask probing questions to help each other grow; the fact that this scene includes absolutely no conversation shows how Tracy and Dexter were previously incompatible and the extent to which they both needed to experience a period of learning and growth to establish a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship.

My next observation is associated with the screenshot above, which was pulled from the scene where drunken Macaulay is interrogating Dexter about his feelings for Tracy. Right as Macaulay inquires, “Do you still love her?”, we obtain this view of Dexter’s house, which displays a model of a ship and the shadows of what seem to be a miniature woman and man in the background. As we learn throughout the film, boats represent the relationship between Dexter and Tracy. In fact, at the end of the film, we learn about a boat that Dexter had named “True Love,” which is “only comfortable for two people” and is described by the two as “yar.” Boats obviously represent a significant aspect of their previous relationship and allow Dexter and Tracy to speak in their common language. Perhaps the boat and shadow figures in this scene represent the couple and their “true love” and allow the audience to draw a conclusion on their own to Macaulay’s question, “Do you still love her?”

While I have to admit that my next observation may be a bit of a stretch, I decided to share it, as I find it incredibly interesting. When Macaulay and Dexter are conversing at Dexter’s house, the background displays three animal heads mounted above a fireplace along with three trophies –one of which is noticeably larger — on the mantel. While I had dismissed the idea that these objects held any type of significance at first, I decided to explore this mis-en-scene further when I saw that Macaulay literally pauses in conversation to stare at these animal heads. Perhaps these three animals represent the three men “going after” Tracy. Throughout the film, it becomes apparent that one of the men (Dexter) is more fit for Tracy, followed by Macaulay and then George. Does the larger trophy next to the animal head on the far right represent Dexter and his victory in establishing a marriage with Tracy in the end? Is it purely coincidence that there are three animals, three trophies, and three men? Everything is placed in a scene for a reason, right?  Just some food for thought.

Ultimately, while the plausibility of some of my findings may be questionable, I definitely think there are intentional and subtle details in The Philadelphia story that are very easy to overlook. Even after replaying these scenes several times, it did take me a bit of time to take notice to these details and establish these inferences. I can only imagine how many other symbols and cinematic choices I would take notice to if I had the ability to study the entire movie in this level of detail.

Seeing and discussing romantic comedies with The Philadelphia Story reminded me of a study I read that discussed the impact of recent romantic comedies on society’s perception of romance and relationships. The study, titled Contradictory Messages: A Content Analysis of Hollywood-Produced Romantic Comedy Feature Films (Johnson & Holmes, 2009), looked at what common traits and behaviors romcoms use to portray love and how this influences adolescent ideas about relationships. Several studies have already established a connection between people who consume lots of “romance media” with unrealistically ideal expectations for relationships (Segrin & Nabi, 2002), and other studies have proven that adolescents use media depictions of unknown social situations to develop their own views of how such situations should progress (Bandura, 1986, 1994), so looking at the messages romantic media is sending reveals much about common relationship problems in today’s society.

The researchers highlighted several main traits of romantic comedies that cause problems in relationships. First, surprisingly only half of the films showed or heavily implied any kind of sexual behaviors beyond a first kiss. Non-sexual behaviors, such as hand-holding, hugging, and cuddling, were present in almost every film, but nothing more was shown. This can lead to a perceived disconnect between sexual behavior and romantic relationships. Additionally, the man initiated the overwhelming majority (75%) of any physical behavior, reinforcing the concept that initiating or progressing a relationship is solely the duty of the man (to say nothing of LGBT couples). The second group of traits, compliments, also cemented the highly gendered roles society expects men and women to play in relationships. Men gave 80% of the compliments, 95% of the gifts, and 82% of the miscellaneous “favors” in the depicted relationships. Many of these gifts and gestures were exaggeratedly romantic gestures, such as buying an entire room worth of roses or singing a self-composed song of love in Times Square. Obviously, this sets real-life expectations in all of the wrong places, implanting the idea that these kinds of actions are the true determine of the extent of love.

Romantic comedies do nothing to offset this very material view of love. Of all the observed conversations about open feelings and intentions, a measly 6% discussed trust, and of those, 75% were about how the couple did not trust each other. That means, of all conversations about feelings, approximately 1% of discussions in romantic comedies demonstrate that crucial element trust. To support this distrust, characters lying to their partner outweigh truthful conversations about actions by a factor of 15 to 1. Additionally, early relationships are portrayed as very fragile, with most relationships breaking up after the first fight. The ideas implicated here are obvious: you don’t have to trust each other and good couples never disagree.

Between the lack of honest communication, lack of trust, and emphasis on material goods and deed as representative of relationships, it’s little wonder that so many people are facing relationship crisis in modern society. With a 50% and rising divorce rate in America, few relationships are standing the test of time. The media we absorb definitely plays a part in our relationship expectations. While romantic comedies may not be entirely responsible, it is vital to be aware of the ideals they push so viewers can separate the movie from real life and avoid subconsciously subscribing to the messages they send.

*All cited studies can be found through PSU Libraries website, free to students.

Characterization is one of the most integral elements of film, and for me, excellent characterization can make any film great, no matter the quality of its other aspects. It’s pretty clear I value characterization since my favorite movie of all time is Tarkovsky’s Stalker, which is almost entirely an exercise in the characterization of three principal characters.

Philadelphia Story is the first movie we have come across this semester where I really found the characterization to excel. I usually have a main criterion that separates good characterization from bad: moral ambiguity. Compare Philadelphia Story to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In Mr. Smith, it is pretty clear who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Some viewers may enjoy this clarity, but from a critical standpoint, there is very little to analyze about Jefferson Smith or Jim Taylor. The ideas that each character represents are obvious. But with Philadelphia Story, you cannot simply categorize any character into “good” or “bad.” When you start looking closely at each character, you see that everyone has both good and bad qualities. Try to think about your reaction to each character and how your view of them changed throughout the movie. I know that personally I did not respect either Tracy or Dexter at the beginning of the movie as they both seemed a bit full of themselves and resentful. I also initially saw nothing wrong with George as he seemed like a fine, unobtrusive husband. All these ideas changed and shifted throughout the film. This is what I mean when I say “moral ambiguity”; there is complexity behind the characters.

Now, first of all, it is very important to point out that a more complex characterization is not only in line with the theme of the movie, but necessary to back it up. C. K. Dexter Haven throughout the movie talks about how people must tolerate others’ flaws and be cognizant of their own. Both Tracy and Mike need to come to the realization that nobody, including themselves, is perfect. People have flaws. This paradigm that C. K. Dexter Haven espouses is consistent with reality as we know it, and this is why characterizing people with flaws and moral ambiguities can be so poignant. No one in real life is just a good or bad person. Everyone is some unique mixture of different qualities. Movies have the power to explore many unique and different characters that are neither good nor bad, but both and neither, that are undeniably themselves and no one else. That’s why this sort of complex characterization is so interesting to me; I’ve seen my fair share of Jefferson Smiths and Jim Taylors but never a Tracy Lord or C. K. Dexter Haven.

I was very pleased to see a romantic comedy that explored such interesting ideas. Professor Jordan is right that I cannot think of any other romance movie that really brought up the idea that lovers should challenge each other and accept each other’s flaws.