Neither of us had ever seen it. We’re in our mid-60s. Expected there to be enough cringey moments that we might not make it through the first 20 minutes.
We were wrong. Good script, well played. The cross-dressing is never played for cruelty or cheap laughs. The level of violence was surprising; I’d always thought this was a zany comedy.
Both Tony and Jack’s characters were played with nuance and genuine vulnerability by the end.
I’ll admit here that this is the first Marilyn Monroe movie I have ever watched all the way through. She’s no Meryl Streep. But she clearly had some acting chops and the role was a difficult one so it seemed to me.
Was fascinating to read online afterwards how incredibly difficult she was to work with on set. Demanding endless re-takes of shots and scenes, etc.
SO much of this film is terribly dated of course. Racial and sexual stereotypes abound, along with other stereotypes. And yet it wasn’t off-putting too much to make us stop.
Thoughts? Through the lens of 2025, it’s hella mess. Through the lens of 1959 when it was shot? Pretty smart writing and filmmaking.
I was only 10 when it came out, and I don’t remember seeing it on first (or 2nd or 3rd) run. I don’t remember when I first saw it, probably in my 20s on TV.
I watched most of it again recently on TCM (I think it was). I disagree that it’s a mess from today’s perspective, more that it has a sort of cartoonish quality that says “don’t take me too seriously, I’m just trying to make you laugh.” Whatever racism and especially sexism there was, was certainly of its time – it’s sort of like watching old blackface movies, I don’t condone the racism, but I can still watch the performance for whatever good qualities it might have had. I thought Jack Lemmon especially was outstanding, Tony Curtis played his usual sort of semi-sleazy role, only this time he grows up a little, Marilyn looked sad to me, through the filter of knowing how soon she would be dead.
It is one of my favorite comedies, in no small part because it just keeps upping the ante on the absurdity of the premise (and weaving together its multiple plots) without ever pulling back. The “racial and sexual stereotypes” are certainly less emphasized than many films of the era (nothing nearly as cringy as Mickey Rooney’s Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany’s) and if anything it presages the entire #MeToo movement with Joe and Jerry having to discover what it is like to be a woman with every many pawing at you and trying to back you into a corner. As manipulative as Joe is as “Shell Oil, Jr.” he’s never trying to push himself onto Sugar, and ‘Daphne’s acquiescence to Osgood Fielding III’s advances is exactly the kind of pragmatism that a woman might accept just to get some peace and stability. (“Why would a guy marry a guy?” “Security!”).
Monroe was clearly struggling through the film; you can see that her line readings are often not very clean, and I can only imagine what a nightmare she would be to work with, especially for a perfectionist like Billy Wilder, but she’s also spot-on casting for the role and great when she’s called upon to perform in a musical role. Curtis (who’d been on a run since Sweet Smell of Success) and Lemmon (who would go on to do The Apartment with Wilder and screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond, arguably his best performance) are on fire with their contentious banter, backed up with talent like George Raft, Joe E. Brown, and Pat O’Brien. The girls of “Sweet Sue and her Society Syncopators“ are also quite memorable, as are Sue (Joan Shawlee) and manager Bienstock (Dave Barry).
I think the film is just as relevant today as it was then (if not moreso), and a timeless comedy that combines the tropes of gender swapping, on-the-run antics, mistaken identities, and great musical sensibilities, as well as taking a dig at the vacuously wealthy and their privileged aimlessness. And it ends with the best possible line, “Nobody’s perfect.”
I saw, it as a kid and found it terribly cringey, and I saw it a few years ago and found it just as cringey. As a female, seeing a grown woman act as stupid and childish as someone with mental disabilities yet being lusted after for it, was an awful experience. I was embarrassed and ashamed. What’s a pre-teen girl supposed to think about her future after watching this? Would you want your daughter watching it? What message would you want her to get from it?
I consider Marilyn Monroe a tragic figure. She wanted badly to be more than Hollywood’s “dumb blonde” and she had the chops to back it up. Unfortunately she was hampered by typecasting, lousy scripts, stage fright, and personal struggles. She studied seriously at the Actors Studio with Lee Strasberg, chasing roles that let her show real vulnerability and sharp comedic instincts. When the material rose above cheesecake, she shone brightly: Bus Stop, The Misfits, Some Like It Hot, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, and her dark turn in Niagara all prove she could act. Hollywood and life itself never let her blossom to her full potential.
I recently watched The Seven Year Itch, and while it wasn’t a great movie, or a Streep-worthy peformance by Monroe, when she’s onscreen, she dominates—and not just because of her looks.
A woman who knew him well said that Marilyn Monroe’s Misfits costar Glark Gable combined the adorable playfulness of a little boy with the admirable masculinity of a grown man. Marilyn had the compelling vulnerability of a little girl and the vivacious appeal of a grown woman. It’s a fair indictment of a society where they shared this similarity but had such different fortunes.
I’m not sure what we were expecting when my wife and I watched it for first time many moons ago. It was the first time seeing Marilyn Monroe actually act in a movie for both of us. She’s absolutely adorable in it and we were both unexpectedly taken by her.
My wife is a big fan of Grumpy Old Men, and one of my top movies is The Great Race. Curtis and Lemon were in top form, but it was Monroe that really made it click.
MM definitely had that elusive “it” factor (like Audrey Hepburn). She could walk into a scene and the whole screen leaned toward her. Jack Lemmon (another favorite of mine) was the rare male version of that same magic: effortlessly magnetic, never forcing it. When he’s onscreen, everyone else just fades into the background. Tony Curtis… not so much.
One of my very favourite films. I hadn’t seen it in a few years and recently watched it again and was delighted all over again by how sharp the writing is (and the performances too). I may be biased and therefore giving it too much credit, but for a film from the 50s it doesn’t seem to be in the least bit transphobic considering the two leads are men in disguise as women. They and their initial awkwardness (and then how easy they find it, in time) are the subject of the joke, rather than the fact it is < gasp > two men in women’s clothes. That’s my (uninformed) opinion on it.
I read Gloria Steinem’s biography of Marilyn Monroe, which included the interesting fact that she could sketch very well without a model, and included details that made her sketches lifelike-- and she had never had any drawing lessons.
So, it seems she had some kind of eye for detail, and the ability to present the details that communicated, which is necessary for acting.
The first film of hers I ever saw was Don’t Bother to Knock, which I saw because it was tagged a “thriller” in the paper, and I like Anne Bancroft. I was probably 11 or 12, and didn’t realize I was watching Marilyn Monroe, or whom I’d heard.
She is quite good in that film, and it’s not a sexy role.
As others have said, it’s not Meryl Streep level-- but if you think of some of Streep’s less demanding films, like Defending Your Life, or Mamma Mia, the few glimpses we get of MM actually acting-- I think she was up to Streep-lite, and had she been challenged by her career, instead of typecast, maybe she would have been good. Not a Meryl Streep, but maybe an Amy Adams, or Anna Faris.
I think that the movie lands differently in 2025 when the gay subtext is more obvious. The movie ends with Jack Lemmon perhaps running off to marry another man and it’s played as funny, but not in any way disgusting, or perverted. The film seems to be saying love is love.
It has been a decade - maybe 2 - since I saw it. I did not care for it. Just didn’t strike me as terribly funny - and I’m not sure you can debate funny. I feel similarly about many other movies of that age and older - such as Hepburn/Grant. I can acknowledge some elements of cleverness, but the whole thing just didn’t tickle me. I’ve got nothing against silliness, but the whole premise struck me as silly in a way that did not engage me. (A ridiculously minor thing that bothered me was the horrible effort they made at faking playing their instruments. Yeah - I know…)
I’ve posted often how I find comedy does not hold up well over time. (Our most recent experience was Trading Places. ) Maybe I should see if it works in reverse, and this time around I LIKE SLIH!
Regarding “Some Like It Hot:” About 25 years ago, when I was in my late 40s (and had seen SLIH several times, including once in a packed theater) I sat in on a film class at a local college. The Prof showed parts of the film to a room full of students who had barely cracked their 20s. They loved it. They laughed out loud. Many of them said “I want to see the whole movie.”
Even in 1959, it was a period piece, taking place in the 1920s, though racial and gender stereotypes hadn’t chance much in reality in the intervening 30 years. It was as representative of 1959 as it was 1929.
It’s still a fun ride. Jack Lemmon was hilarious. Marilyn was what everyone expected Marilyn to be. (Who else could have played either of those roles?) And the final shot is still a hoot.
I have to agree with all of the comments regarding Monroe. And- to be fair, I should have referenced another actor besides Streep. Early on, Streep has admitted in interviews that she was mighty unsure on some levels of performance. I saw both “The Deer Hunter” and “Manhattan” in the theaters as a late teen-ager. Don’t remember being bowled over by HER. That’d be retrograde adoration. She clearly had and has “it” on screen, just as Monroe did.
This does make me wonder what kind of artist Monroe would have developed into had she not died.
And on a side-note, gosh howdy do I wish Eve was still active on the boards. This would be her kinda thread.
I wonder if George Raft was ever anybody’s favorite actor. He was good here, hamming it up, but his performances in anything else I’ve ever seen him in was unimpressive. He did have a memorable persona on screen, I guess.
I’ve seen it so many times that I can do the lines as the actors are saying them. It is the funniest movie I have ever seen, I adore Jack Lemmon, am totally meh about Marilyn Monroe, and Tony Curtis is perfectly fine in a supporting role. My niece and I constantly throw lines at one another. When she got engaged I asked her “who’s the lucky girl?” Of course she replied “I am.” I don’t think the movie is cringeworthy. I don’t think there are subtle/hidden meanings. It’s a movie. From 1959. Just watch it and laugh.
) Maybe I should see if it works in reverse, and this time around I LIKE SLIH! 