Sturges reminds me of a proto-Verhoeven, an almost misanthropic director who makes films that play like incompetent, almost juvenile Hollywood trash, yet have a dark, bitingly satiric undercurrent and subtext that mock the system that created them (along with everything else). That he managed to make such films, as Verhoeven does, with Hollywood money is astonishing and hilarious.
The first time I saw Sullivan’s Travels, I was quite unimpressed. It struck me as stultifingly shallow with its sententiously melodramatic middle-eight and denouement. But tonight, I got to see it on the big screen, as I suppose it should be. (The fact that the idiots that run my local “arthouse” felt the need to crop the academy ratio print to fit a matte screen, chopping off the top and bottom of the image, is a pit thread in and of itself.)
“Eureka!” I exclaimed, running wet and naked about the theatre. Errr… Nevermind. At any rate, I finally realized what the film was about. It was a satire of everything. A satire of Capra, a satire of the populists, a satire of Hollywood, a satire of the goodhearted yet pitifully shallow people who try to put bandaids on the gaping wounds of the poor, on the rich folk who blithely throw money at any problem they face and above all, I suppose, a mockery of the people in Hollywood who think that they reflect or dictate modern culture.
I began to suspect as much after the speech of Sullivan’s manservant (“Poverty must be shunned at all cost!”) and when we see the black cook on the bus, but it was really driven home to me by the ridiculously over the top ‘uppity Negroes’ in the church, and the dialogue about how they don’t put away picture directors for disagreements with yardmen. At the end, when Sullivan says “that’s all some people have in this cockeyed caravan” and the image fades out to the convicts laughing, I suddenly realized that they were laughing at him. The idiot. He hasn’t learned anything except that his money entitles him to privileges that the proletariat don’t enjoy. His attempts at curing the societal ills he has seen amount to making Ants In Your Pants of 1941. The irony in the picture is just brilliant.
Unfaithfully Yours pulls a similar trick, throwing cultured people into violent, murderous rages while making the audience cheer for them, then delivering a maudlin happy ending, which everyone fails to notice is driven by the still-present misogynistic jealousy of the lead. It’s a shame that Sturges didn’t make more pictures than he did, but we got Kubrick and still have Verhoeven.