"No Time for Comedy" starts out as cute "country bumpkin moves to the big city" story. The plot moves to its fun, middle section with clever lines and happy days. then the inevitable, serious life situations. some good laughs in the middle, mostly at the expense of Clementine, the maid, played by Louise Beavers. Ros Russell does a great job as the starlet Linda Paige, who marries the author (Jimmy Stewart) of the play she saves. Charlie Ruggles does a fine job as the understanding husband of "the other woman". Also a very patient, understanding take on when one's spouse starts to look at others, especially for this period of time in film-making. Whenever Genevieve Tobin spoke, she sounded just like Billie Burke. Tobin ALSO married her director Keighley, and seems to have left the biz after this film. Note it did not win, or even get nominated for any awards, in spite of the big names in it. not sure if that's because its too many different things, or maybe the subject matter couldn't be rewarded in those times. It must have done OK in the theater, since it was re-released again later with a new title.
25 Reviews
Underrated Stewart Performance
jadiloretto4 October 2007
This is a fascinating picture for Stewart fans. Made after "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and in the same year as "The Philadelphia Story," "No Time" adds an interesting pre-war wrinkle to Stewart's on screen persona. At a time when he was most associated with the "aw-shucks" stereotype of the All-American naif, his Gaylord Esterbrook must have come as a shock to movie-going audiences. Gaylord begins as another one of Stewart's lovable rubes, but by picture's end he's become a cynical sophisticate - and Stewart's handling of the transformation is seamless. He's surprisingly good at playing the gruff curmudgeon and a man on the verge of an extra-marital affair - another atypical Stewart-like development. Likewise, the film itself mirrors Gaylord's personal and artistic transformation, beginning as a typically bubbly romantic comedy but turning bitingly (yet still amusingly) sour by the second act. After a series of comeuppances, Gaylord comes up against his limitations and the final scene -- a confession of humility delivered as a monologue to a seemingly non-existent audience -- is truly moving in the tradition of some of Stewart's finest moments. Lovely.
Has To Be Different From the Stage Version
bkoganbing10 November 2006
James Stewart and Rosalind Russell both got loaned out from MGM to Warner Brothers for their one and only screen teaming in No Time For Comedy. This play by S.N. Behrman ran for 185 performances on Broadway during the 1938 season and starred Katherine Cornell.
It also starred Laurence Olivier which leads me to believe the stage version has GOT to be a whole lot different than what we are seeing. Usually James Stewart and Laurence Olivier were never up for the same parts so their must have been a real big rewrite to make this part playable for James Stewart.
Imagine George Bailey if for amusement in Bedford Falls he wrote plays and you've got the character of Gaylord Estabrook who Stewart plays in No Time For Comedy. The film opens with the play about to open out of town and being produced by Clarence Kolb. Kolb has second thoughts though when he meets country rube Stewart from some small town in Minnesota and backs out of the production. But star Rosalind Russell has faith in the play and she pulls together the money to have it produced. Of course she falls for Stewart and they're married.
I don't know about you, but I sure can't see the future Lord Olivier playing the part as Stewart presents it.
The rest of the film is about Russell's and Stewart's marriage and the trials they're put through. Another married couple, Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, take an interest in each of them. Ruggles does well in a very unusual role for him, a sophisticated banker with pretensions to superiority.
No Time For Comedy is decidedly a second level entry in the credits of both the leads. Fans of Stewart and Russell should like it though.
It also starred Laurence Olivier which leads me to believe the stage version has GOT to be a whole lot different than what we are seeing. Usually James Stewart and Laurence Olivier were never up for the same parts so their must have been a real big rewrite to make this part playable for James Stewart.
Imagine George Bailey if for amusement in Bedford Falls he wrote plays and you've got the character of Gaylord Estabrook who Stewart plays in No Time For Comedy. The film opens with the play about to open out of town and being produced by Clarence Kolb. Kolb has second thoughts though when he meets country rube Stewart from some small town in Minnesota and backs out of the production. But star Rosalind Russell has faith in the play and she pulls together the money to have it produced. Of course she falls for Stewart and they're married.
I don't know about you, but I sure can't see the future Lord Olivier playing the part as Stewart presents it.
The rest of the film is about Russell's and Stewart's marriage and the trials they're put through. Another married couple, Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, take an interest in each of them. Ruggles does well in a very unusual role for him, a sophisticated banker with pretensions to superiority.
No Time For Comedy is decidedly a second level entry in the credits of both the leads. Fans of Stewart and Russell should like it though.
What are Jimmy Stewart and Roz Russell doing at Warner Brothers...
marcslope28 January 2002
...and why doesn't Warner Brothers know what to do with them? This feeble adaptation of a Broadway hit is comedy-drama of the clumsiest kind, veering uncertainly and arbitrarily between one genre or the other with no grace or logic. Nor are the stars well used: Despite his natural charm, Stewart can't hide the fact that his character is basically a lush and a spoiled child. Russell keeps doing irritating Greer Garson great-lady things, pointing her nose and clipping her diction and suffering with a noble smile. Louise Beavers, another trouper, is made to do demeaning dumb-maid stuff. Then there's that noisy Warner Brothers music, telling us exactly how to feel every damn minute.
One grace note: Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, who were paired so well in "One Hour with You" nearly a decade earlier, are coincidentally back in similar parts. He's as dry a light comedian as you could ask; she makes much out of little. But the movie keeps yelling how charming it's being, and trying to pass off boilerplate dialogue as repartee. 'Tain't funny, and it's not convincing as drama, either.
One grace note: Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, who were paired so well in "One Hour with You" nearly a decade earlier, are coincidentally back in similar parts. He's as dry a light comedian as you could ask; she makes much out of little. But the movie keeps yelling how charming it's being, and trying to pass off boilerplate dialogue as repartee. 'Tain't funny, and it's not convincing as drama, either.
nice teaming of Russell and Stewart
blanche-213 July 2008
Rosalind Russell and James Stewart are husband and wife in "No Time for Comedy," a 1940 film also starring Charles Ruggles, Genevieve Tobin, Louise Beavers and Allyn Joslyn. It's based on the Broadway hit that starred Katharine Cornell and Laurence Olivier in one of his early lead roles in the U.S. This was the play, according to legend, that David O. Selznick arranged for Olivier to star in so he would be separated from Vivien Leigh while she was doing "Gone with the Wind." Russell is the glamorous stage star Linda Paige who is starring in a drawing room comedy by one Gaylord Esterbrook (Stewart). He's actually from the sticks, and the play is not without its problems. When the production loses its backer, Paige steps in and saves the show. Bumpkin Esterbrook becomes a lauded playwright and marries Paige. He writes comedies with starring roles for her. One day he meets Mandy Swift, a socialite who likes to, shall we say, take young men under her wing and mold them. She convinces Gaylord that he needs to write some serious drama. Since he's already doing some serious drinking, it stands to reason one should follow the other.
Not having seen the original play, it's hard to say whether the film matches up to the original. At the time of the film, Spain was involved in a civil war, and all of Europe threatened by the Nazis; war was imminent. The play is about a playwright who is agonized by his success in the genre of sophisticated comedies when the world is such a serious place. It's also about several years into a marriage when the bloom has fallen off the rose.
The film "No Time for Comedy" is an uneasy mix of drama and comedy. Stewart, who normally plays a likable character, plays a country boy spoiled by success. He turns to drink and another woman, making him much less likable. Yet the audience is set up from the beginning to think he's going to be a nice guy. Russell, of course, plays the stage actress (which she was) beautifully. As Gaylord's suffering wife, she is dignified and sophisticated and you can see her broken heart beneath the veneer. Louise Beavers is fabulous as the maid who is not only an equal in the household but acts on stage as well.
Part of the problem with "No Time for Comedy" is that nowadays, we know the importance of comedy in times of tragedy. In fact, it's always time for comedy, never more than when there's a dark pall over the world. Despite good performances, the movie seems dated today, as I suspect would the play.
Not having seen the original play, it's hard to say whether the film matches up to the original. At the time of the film, Spain was involved in a civil war, and all of Europe threatened by the Nazis; war was imminent. The play is about a playwright who is agonized by his success in the genre of sophisticated comedies when the world is such a serious place. It's also about several years into a marriage when the bloom has fallen off the rose.
The film "No Time for Comedy" is an uneasy mix of drama and comedy. Stewart, who normally plays a likable character, plays a country boy spoiled by success. He turns to drink and another woman, making him much less likable. Yet the audience is set up from the beginning to think he's going to be a nice guy. Russell, of course, plays the stage actress (which she was) beautifully. As Gaylord's suffering wife, she is dignified and sophisticated and you can see her broken heart beneath the veneer. Louise Beavers is fabulous as the maid who is not only an equal in the household but acts on stage as well.
Part of the problem with "No Time for Comedy" is that nowadays, we know the importance of comedy in times of tragedy. In fact, it's always time for comedy, never more than when there's a dark pall over the world. Despite good performances, the movie seems dated today, as I suspect would the play.
An uneven filmed stageplay
mike4812818 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Gay Esterbrook and Linda Paige (Stewart and Russell) are a cute married "show biz" couple at first, but the whole thing goes sour when Mr. and Mrs. Swift get involved with their love and professional life. Gay turns to "Demon Rum" to drown out his sorrows when he experiences a terrible case of "writer's block", after 4 hit stage comedies in a row. With Mrs. Swift as his "muse", he writes a real stinker of a rotten tragedy that dies a cruel death at it's premier. When it stops being a romance, the film itself turns into a tragedy, then rights itself at the very end. Rosalind never looked lovelier, however, and Charles Ruggles is his usual charming self. Jimmy Stewart is good until he shows his "mean streak" which often shows up in even his best movies. Fun-to-watch until it drops like a rock about 50 minutes in.
Strange Jimmy Stewart, Strong Rosalind Russell, Odd FIlm
krdement12 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a peculiar film. I think that this film suffers for being a little schizophrenic. It starts out as a light romantic comedy, but it morphs into a much darker film. Similarly, Jimmy Stewart starts out much like his Mr. Smith character come to the big city, but he morphs into Smith's boozing, egotistical, dark alter-ego. During this phase of Stewart's career, this is a rather interesting departure from his normal aw-shucks, ingenuous protagonists. It both hearkens back to his role in After the Thin Man and anticipates his roles in the Anthony Mann Westerns. It is interesting, and Jimmy pulls it off well.
The film also suffers because of the script. Some of the dialog is very artificial and wooden - more like prose in an essay than dialog.
For me the strength of this film is Rosalind Russell. She handles a difficult character very admirably. Her character, Linda (Paige) Esterbrook, is so full of wise toleration, restraint and understanding that it is close to unbelievable. At times her dialog is unnatural in the extreme - check out the scene where she goes to the Swift residence and confronts Amanda. I think most actresses would have become wooden delivering such stilted lines. And Genevieve Tobin does very well with her lines, too, although they don't seem to be quite as artificial as Russell's; plus her character is more artificial than Russell's. While Russell's character is making comments full of double meaning that kind of fly over Amanda Swift's head, Swift's remarks are pretty straight forward. Russell's dialog seems similarly difficult in most of her scenes. Yet imbuing them with her own down-to-earth persona, Russell pulls them off about as well as I could imagine.
The scene between Linda Esterbrook (Russell) and Amanda Swift (Tobin) makes it clear that this film had pretty lofty pretensions that are not altogether realized. I think it is supposed to be a film along the lines of All About Eve, but doesn't capture the same satirical tone. This is an interesting film, even if not fully realized or altogether enjoyable.
The film also suffers because of the script. Some of the dialog is very artificial and wooden - more like prose in an essay than dialog.
For me the strength of this film is Rosalind Russell. She handles a difficult character very admirably. Her character, Linda (Paige) Esterbrook, is so full of wise toleration, restraint and understanding that it is close to unbelievable. At times her dialog is unnatural in the extreme - check out the scene where she goes to the Swift residence and confronts Amanda. I think most actresses would have become wooden delivering such stilted lines. And Genevieve Tobin does very well with her lines, too, although they don't seem to be quite as artificial as Russell's; plus her character is more artificial than Russell's. While Russell's character is making comments full of double meaning that kind of fly over Amanda Swift's head, Swift's remarks are pretty straight forward. Russell's dialog seems similarly difficult in most of her scenes. Yet imbuing them with her own down-to-earth persona, Russell pulls them off about as well as I could imagine.
The scene between Linda Esterbrook (Russell) and Amanda Swift (Tobin) makes it clear that this film had pretty lofty pretensions that are not altogether realized. I think it is supposed to be a film along the lines of All About Eve, but doesn't capture the same satirical tone. This is an interesting film, even if not fully realized or altogether enjoyable.
The title is meant to be taken literally
utgard149 August 2014
This is a real disappointment. A comedy that isn't the least bit funny, despite the good cast. James Stewart play a playwright from a small Midwestern town that writes a successful Broadway comedy. He falls in love with Rosalind Russell, the leading lady from his play, and the two marry. But success goes to his head and he lets a rich guy's wife convince him that he is wasting his time writing comedies and he should try his hand at a tragedy. The movie was on life support by this point but after this it's all over. The characters do things that defy reason. I just didn't care a whit what happened to anybody, especially Stewart. Another thing I hated was Allyn Joslyn's smug character. He annoyed the heck out of me. A real chore to sit through. Jimmy and Roz deserved better.
Not bad...but not good either
preppy-316 December 2004
Successful comedic playwright Gaylord Esterbrook (James Stewart) is happily married to actress Linda Esterbrook (Rosalind Russell). But strange Amanda Swift (Genevieve Tobin) convinces him to write a drama and tries to steal him away from Linda. But she won't give in without a fight...
Comedic drama adapted from a stage play. It's actually pretty funny with many good lines but it just lacks that spark to make it great. It certainly isn't the actors' fault---Russell is beautiful, funny and completely at ease--Stewart comes across as an immature, alcoholic jerk (but that's what he is playing)--Tobin is quite amusing and Charlie Ruggles makes to most of his small role of Amanda's husband. And it's always great to see Louise Beavers even if is in the demeaning black servant role. So--it is good but not great. It just misses the mark. But it always great to see Russell and Stewart so young and full of life. I give it an 8.
Comedic drama adapted from a stage play. It's actually pretty funny with many good lines but it just lacks that spark to make it great. It certainly isn't the actors' fault---Russell is beautiful, funny and completely at ease--Stewart comes across as an immature, alcoholic jerk (but that's what he is playing)--Tobin is quite amusing and Charlie Ruggles makes to most of his small role of Amanda's husband. And it's always great to see Louise Beavers even if is in the demeaning black servant role. So--it is good but not great. It just misses the mark. But it always great to see Russell and Stewart so young and full of life. I give it an 8.
A strange comedy with very little romance and disjointed dialog
SimonJack24 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
"No Time for Comedy" clearly is a comedy, but a very strange one. The romance is very iffy because there doesn't seem to be much chemistry between the leads - Rosalind Russell and James Stewart. That it's also billed as a drama tells me that the writers and producers were intent on the somewhat dark aspect of the plot about halfway through. Overall, the film has a tremendous cast for a very strange, even awkward screenplay.
The plot is simple enough, and fairly common. A would-be writer from small town America has his play accepted for a Broadway production. He comes to the Big Apple after rehearsals are underway. He meets the leading lady and they fall for one another, and get hitched. But, instead of just a single hit play and then writer's block or some flops, he writes a few more successes and they are sitting on top of the world. Then, a different twist takes over. The playwright now wants to write a drama to address some of the world's problems. He feels he isn't contributing anything with his comedy. Interestingly, Paramount Pictures would pick up on this theme as the plot for a superb comedy and adventure drama the next year, in "Sullivan's Travels."
But the plot and result is quite different here. Somewhat similar to a few other films, the playwright is lured into his change of attitude and outlook by another woman. Her approach is quite different than the usual sexual attraction. This is where the dark aspect of the film comes in. She sees the playwright as a very capable person, but whose latent talent needs to be exposed and brought out for all to see. Now, I said that this is a strange comedy. That little dark aspect would be okay if the movie had kept it at that. But instead the film builds a whole subplot around it, that shakes up the marriage, and confounds the overall plot. And what makes this particularly detractive from what might have been a very good film, is that the humorous dialog is scatterbrained throughout. It's as though the writers just plopped in any funny line or thought that came to mind, without it fitting in the particular scene or conversation.
As a result, there is a good smattering of funny lines, but many that don't fit in the flow of the script. A much better screenplay could have made this a superb comedy. The film is based on a 1939 Broadway play of the same name. Even with Laurence Olivier and Katharine Cornell in the lead roles the stage play barely lasted one season - with 179 performances. Considering that two-some of the leading dramatic actors of the day, one wonders if the play wasn't much more drama than comedy. Then the effort to make it more of a comedy with the seemingly haphazard humorous dialog in this film makes more sense. The only thing that saves this film from being a flop is the lively performance by Rosalind Russell as Linda Paige Esterbrook, and some very funny lines from her and Charles Ruggles (as Philo Swift) and Louise Beavers (as Clementine). This is not a very good film for Jimmy Stewart.
Here are some favorite lines from this film.
Linda Paige, "Uh, tell me, do you do anything else besides write plays?" Gaylord Esterbrook, "Well, I'm editor of the Redfield Daily Reporter." Linda, "Ohhh? A town of 700 people has a Daily Reporter?" Gaylord, "It's 786... Well, it's - we call it the Daily Reporter. It comes out twice a month." Linda, "Uh, huh. Isn't that confusing for your readers?" Gaylord, "I don't know. I never thought of it. I guess it is."
Richard Benson, "You know, he's an eccentric young man, even for a playwright." Linda Paige, "I can't argue with you there."
Linda Paige, "Oh, uh, we'd be glad to buy a ticket for the Policeman's ball." Police Sergeant (James Burke, uncredited), "Get outta here. We don't want you at our affair."
Clementine, "I thought you was in Hollywood." Morgan Carrell, "I'm, uh, out on parole."
Linda Paige, "Well, of course, if you married me, you'd have to give up your room at the "Y." Maybe you don't love me enough to make that sacrifice. Maybe you don't even love me at all."
Philo Swift, "I've been married before. I shouldn't like to be divorced a second time. It gets to be undignified."
Philo Swift, "I don't discuss things with my wife. We're beyond that stage."
Linda Paige Esterbrook, "I'd better get dressed for dinner. I'm going out with Mr. Carrell." Clementine, "Well, heh, heh, it's a democracy and everybody's entitled to their own taste."
Clementine, "Why, boss, how come you opened the door by yourself?" Gaylord Esterbrook, "I've been practicing, Tulip."
Clementine, "He's stone sober, Miss Linda." Gaylord Esterbrook, "Now, I'll allow it this time, Cat. I won't let it happen again."
Gaylord Esterbrook, "I suppose you think Amanda's a complete idiot?" Linda Paige Esterbrook "I think she's a very clever idiot. But an idiot, just the same."
Linda Paige Esterbrook, "Did you send a telegram to Gay wishing him luck?" Philo Swift, "Yes, I sent him a telegram, but I forget what I wished him."
Morgan Carrell, during intermission of Gaylord's dramatic play, "Pretty awful, isn't it?" Philo Swift, "Well, it wouldn't be so bad if people didn't laugh so much. It keeps waking me up."
Morgan Carrell, "Well, no time to argue now. I directed this play and I've got to sit through it. And the punishment fits the crime."
Gaylord Esterbrook, "Gosh, I haven't kissed you for two months." Linda Paige Esterbrook, "That's nothing to brag about, you big, long drink of water."
The plot is simple enough, and fairly common. A would-be writer from small town America has his play accepted for a Broadway production. He comes to the Big Apple after rehearsals are underway. He meets the leading lady and they fall for one another, and get hitched. But, instead of just a single hit play and then writer's block or some flops, he writes a few more successes and they are sitting on top of the world. Then, a different twist takes over. The playwright now wants to write a drama to address some of the world's problems. He feels he isn't contributing anything with his comedy. Interestingly, Paramount Pictures would pick up on this theme as the plot for a superb comedy and adventure drama the next year, in "Sullivan's Travels."
But the plot and result is quite different here. Somewhat similar to a few other films, the playwright is lured into his change of attitude and outlook by another woman. Her approach is quite different than the usual sexual attraction. This is where the dark aspect of the film comes in. She sees the playwright as a very capable person, but whose latent talent needs to be exposed and brought out for all to see. Now, I said that this is a strange comedy. That little dark aspect would be okay if the movie had kept it at that. But instead the film builds a whole subplot around it, that shakes up the marriage, and confounds the overall plot. And what makes this particularly detractive from what might have been a very good film, is that the humorous dialog is scatterbrained throughout. It's as though the writers just plopped in any funny line or thought that came to mind, without it fitting in the particular scene or conversation.
As a result, there is a good smattering of funny lines, but many that don't fit in the flow of the script. A much better screenplay could have made this a superb comedy. The film is based on a 1939 Broadway play of the same name. Even with Laurence Olivier and Katharine Cornell in the lead roles the stage play barely lasted one season - with 179 performances. Considering that two-some of the leading dramatic actors of the day, one wonders if the play wasn't much more drama than comedy. Then the effort to make it more of a comedy with the seemingly haphazard humorous dialog in this film makes more sense. The only thing that saves this film from being a flop is the lively performance by Rosalind Russell as Linda Paige Esterbrook, and some very funny lines from her and Charles Ruggles (as Philo Swift) and Louise Beavers (as Clementine). This is not a very good film for Jimmy Stewart.
Here are some favorite lines from this film.
Linda Paige, "Uh, tell me, do you do anything else besides write plays?" Gaylord Esterbrook, "Well, I'm editor of the Redfield Daily Reporter." Linda, "Ohhh? A town of 700 people has a Daily Reporter?" Gaylord, "It's 786... Well, it's - we call it the Daily Reporter. It comes out twice a month." Linda, "Uh, huh. Isn't that confusing for your readers?" Gaylord, "I don't know. I never thought of it. I guess it is."
Richard Benson, "You know, he's an eccentric young man, even for a playwright." Linda Paige, "I can't argue with you there."
Linda Paige, "Oh, uh, we'd be glad to buy a ticket for the Policeman's ball." Police Sergeant (James Burke, uncredited), "Get outta here. We don't want you at our affair."
Clementine, "I thought you was in Hollywood." Morgan Carrell, "I'm, uh, out on parole."
Linda Paige, "Well, of course, if you married me, you'd have to give up your room at the "Y." Maybe you don't love me enough to make that sacrifice. Maybe you don't even love me at all."
Philo Swift, "I've been married before. I shouldn't like to be divorced a second time. It gets to be undignified."
Philo Swift, "I don't discuss things with my wife. We're beyond that stage."
Linda Paige Esterbrook, "I'd better get dressed for dinner. I'm going out with Mr. Carrell." Clementine, "Well, heh, heh, it's a democracy and everybody's entitled to their own taste."
Clementine, "Why, boss, how come you opened the door by yourself?" Gaylord Esterbrook, "I've been practicing, Tulip."
Clementine, "He's stone sober, Miss Linda." Gaylord Esterbrook, "Now, I'll allow it this time, Cat. I won't let it happen again."
Gaylord Esterbrook, "I suppose you think Amanda's a complete idiot?" Linda Paige Esterbrook "I think she's a very clever idiot. But an idiot, just the same."
Linda Paige Esterbrook, "Did you send a telegram to Gay wishing him luck?" Philo Swift, "Yes, I sent him a telegram, but I forget what I wished him."
Morgan Carrell, during intermission of Gaylord's dramatic play, "Pretty awful, isn't it?" Philo Swift, "Well, it wouldn't be so bad if people didn't laugh so much. It keeps waking me up."
Morgan Carrell, "Well, no time to argue now. I directed this play and I've got to sit through it. And the punishment fits the crime."
Gaylord Esterbrook, "Gosh, I haven't kissed you for two months." Linda Paige Esterbrook, "That's nothing to brag about, you big, long drink of water."
Roz and Jimmy = Mismatched.
nycritic9 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Russell and Stewart. Both actors with career highs the previous year, 1939 -- she with THE WOMEN, he with MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON which earned him his first Academy nod for Best Actor. Both with careers entering high gear at the dawn of the 40s with fine performances, she in HIS GIRL Friday, he with THE PHILADELPHIA STORY for which he finally did win the Oscar. Together they should have succeeded together as main players in a movie.
So what failed? The fact that this was a truly awful story, ill-conceived for any medium, stage or film, and the fact that Stewart's role is not very sympathetic -- a rarity. He comes across too petty, irritatingly self-involved with his own success as a writer that one also wonders why Russell's character, a successful stage actress, would stay with him at all. In today's world, a divorce would have been in order faster than yesterday's news, and even then they were taking place within the rich and famous. Which makes me go to the second problem in the film --Russell plays a role that Greer Garson could practically sleepwalk through, and does so in a way that makes you feel sorry for her, but also makes you want to dive into the screen and smack her with something hard. Comedy was her specialty -- this was Russell trying to prove she could also do drama, and it does not work in her favor.
And what on Earth is Genvieve Tobin doing in this film? She looks crazy from the start, so completely affected she makes "stage British" look genuine, and her presence brings the film to a dead halt. That she doesn't quite get her comeuppance for nearly destroying a marriage is beyond me.
Louise Beavers fares even worse: she plays Russell's maid and what she does is repeat her "resigned, but jolly" role until it's dead on the floor. But, to give her credit, she does get screen time, and high billing in a time when black actors/actresses were barely seen.
NO TIME FOR COMEDY drains the life out of the comedy and remains only a footnote mention in both Russell's and Stewart's careers.
So what failed? The fact that this was a truly awful story, ill-conceived for any medium, stage or film, and the fact that Stewart's role is not very sympathetic -- a rarity. He comes across too petty, irritatingly self-involved with his own success as a writer that one also wonders why Russell's character, a successful stage actress, would stay with him at all. In today's world, a divorce would have been in order faster than yesterday's news, and even then they were taking place within the rich and famous. Which makes me go to the second problem in the film --Russell plays a role that Greer Garson could practically sleepwalk through, and does so in a way that makes you feel sorry for her, but also makes you want to dive into the screen and smack her with something hard. Comedy was her specialty -- this was Russell trying to prove she could also do drama, and it does not work in her favor.
And what on Earth is Genvieve Tobin doing in this film? She looks crazy from the start, so completely affected she makes "stage British" look genuine, and her presence brings the film to a dead halt. That she doesn't quite get her comeuppance for nearly destroying a marriage is beyond me.
Louise Beavers fares even worse: she plays Russell's maid and what she does is repeat her "resigned, but jolly" role until it's dead on the floor. But, to give her credit, she does get screen time, and high billing in a time when black actors/actresses were barely seen.
NO TIME FOR COMEDY drains the life out of the comedy and remains only a footnote mention in both Russell's and Stewart's careers.
Gaylord Writes Again
lugonian11 June 2017
NO TIME FOR COMEDY (Warner Brothers, 1940), directed by William Keighley, stars James Stewart and Rosalind Russell, in what the title indicates, a comedy. This comedy, however, taken from a stage play by S.N. Behrman, as produced by Katherine Cornell and the Playwright's Company that starred Laurence Olivier, is very much a screen adaptation by Julius J. and Philip G. Epstein that was very much rewritten to fit in with Stewart's screen persona. Somewhat reminiscing with director Frank Capra's MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN (Columbia, 1936) where country yokel (Gary Cooper) takes Manhattan, NO TIME FOR COMEDY offers Stewart something similar as country boy taking on Broadway (with some doses of Stewart's own MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)), especially when both Deeds and Estabrooke characters run off to fires after hearing sirens from fire engines at a distance.
Set in the Broadway district of New York City, Linda Paige (Rosalind Russell), actress, along with Richard Benson (Clarence Kolb), producer, and Morgan Carroll (Allyn Joslyn), director, are all set to work on an upcoming play, "Dilemma at Dinner," but are awaiting for the arrival of its author, Gaylord Esterbrook (James Stewart), from Redfield, Minnesota, who's to arrive and oversee production with rewrites. After nearly two weeks, Gaylord does appear, and once seen, is not believed to be taken seriously as the playwright until he shows his identification card being that from the Redfield Volunteer Fire Department. Even its lead actress, Linda, is stunned, after mistaking him for an usher by giving Gaylord a quarter to buy her a pack of cigarettes. Though Benson decides not to produce the play, Linda arranges to have Gaylord's first play go on as scheduled. The play, being a comedy about high society in three acts, much to everybody's surprise, becomes a smashing success. In due time, the shy country boy turned playwright marries his leading actress, Linda. For the next four years, Gaylord writes a succession on comedy hits, until coming up with a writer's block. During a dinner party, Gaylord meets Philo Swift (Charlie Ruggles), a middle-aged stock holder of Wall Street, and his attractive young wife, Amanda (Genevieve Tobin). It is Amanda who not only tells Gaylord he should be writing dramas, but soon finds no time for comedy and more time for Mrs. Swift, much to the dismay of Linda.
A pleasing comedy with some serious overtones features some notable character actors in support as J.M. Kerrigan (Jim, the Bartender); Robert Greig (Robert, the Butler); Frank Faylen (The Taxi Driver); and Herbert Anderson (better known for his 1960s TV role as the father of "Dennis the Menace") as one of the actors. Louise Beavers carries on her usual sassy performance as Linda's maid; while Charlie Ruggles (on loan from Paramount) having some of the best and funniest fine delivery one-liners ever heard to stir up laughter. Take note that spelling of Linda's last name is seen as "Paige" throughout the story, yet in the closing credits is spelled "Page." For film buffs or historians, it's interesting finding James Stewart and Rosalind Russell, both contract players for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, together for the only time in a Warner Brothers production. It's a wonder why Warners didn't use its very own stock players as George Brent and Olivia De Havilland, Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan, or Jeffrey Lynn and Priscilla Lane in the Stewart and Russell roles. Then again, stronger marque names is what lures audiences into the theaters. In this case, Stewart and Russell work out quite well, as does Genevieve Tobin, looking quite youthful here than she ever did thus far, in one of her final movie roles.
Of the handful of James Stewart or Rosalind Russell movies that have been distributed to home video, NO TIME FOR COMEDY was one that never was. Since its humble beginnings, broadcast on cable television as Turner Network Television (TNT) in the late 1980s, and Turner Classic Movies (TCM) dating back to 1994, presented this edition with a 1949 reissue and studio logo with asinine title, "Guy With a Grin." It wasn't until decades later when TCM finally broadcast NO TIME FOR COMEDY under its original title and studio logo when shown on June 4, 2017.
Though there have been other movies featuring similar themes where playwright tries to do something completely different from his usual style of writing, NO TIME FOR COMEDY is one for the time capsule where Broadway and playwrights are concerned. (***1/2)
Set in the Broadway district of New York City, Linda Paige (Rosalind Russell), actress, along with Richard Benson (Clarence Kolb), producer, and Morgan Carroll (Allyn Joslyn), director, are all set to work on an upcoming play, "Dilemma at Dinner," but are awaiting for the arrival of its author, Gaylord Esterbrook (James Stewart), from Redfield, Minnesota, who's to arrive and oversee production with rewrites. After nearly two weeks, Gaylord does appear, and once seen, is not believed to be taken seriously as the playwright until he shows his identification card being that from the Redfield Volunteer Fire Department. Even its lead actress, Linda, is stunned, after mistaking him for an usher by giving Gaylord a quarter to buy her a pack of cigarettes. Though Benson decides not to produce the play, Linda arranges to have Gaylord's first play go on as scheduled. The play, being a comedy about high society in three acts, much to everybody's surprise, becomes a smashing success. In due time, the shy country boy turned playwright marries his leading actress, Linda. For the next four years, Gaylord writes a succession on comedy hits, until coming up with a writer's block. During a dinner party, Gaylord meets Philo Swift (Charlie Ruggles), a middle-aged stock holder of Wall Street, and his attractive young wife, Amanda (Genevieve Tobin). It is Amanda who not only tells Gaylord he should be writing dramas, but soon finds no time for comedy and more time for Mrs. Swift, much to the dismay of Linda.
A pleasing comedy with some serious overtones features some notable character actors in support as J.M. Kerrigan (Jim, the Bartender); Robert Greig (Robert, the Butler); Frank Faylen (The Taxi Driver); and Herbert Anderson (better known for his 1960s TV role as the father of "Dennis the Menace") as one of the actors. Louise Beavers carries on her usual sassy performance as Linda's maid; while Charlie Ruggles (on loan from Paramount) having some of the best and funniest fine delivery one-liners ever heard to stir up laughter. Take note that spelling of Linda's last name is seen as "Paige" throughout the story, yet in the closing credits is spelled "Page." For film buffs or historians, it's interesting finding James Stewart and Rosalind Russell, both contract players for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, together for the only time in a Warner Brothers production. It's a wonder why Warners didn't use its very own stock players as George Brent and Olivia De Havilland, Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan, or Jeffrey Lynn and Priscilla Lane in the Stewart and Russell roles. Then again, stronger marque names is what lures audiences into the theaters. In this case, Stewart and Russell work out quite well, as does Genevieve Tobin, looking quite youthful here than she ever did thus far, in one of her final movie roles.
Of the handful of James Stewart or Rosalind Russell movies that have been distributed to home video, NO TIME FOR COMEDY was one that never was. Since its humble beginnings, broadcast on cable television as Turner Network Television (TNT) in the late 1980s, and Turner Classic Movies (TCM) dating back to 1994, presented this edition with a 1949 reissue and studio logo with asinine title, "Guy With a Grin." It wasn't until decades later when TCM finally broadcast NO TIME FOR COMEDY under its original title and studio logo when shown on June 4, 2017.
Though there have been other movies featuring similar themes where playwright tries to do something completely different from his usual style of writing, NO TIME FOR COMEDY is one for the time capsule where Broadway and playwrights are concerned. (***1/2)
Comedy or drama? A little of both.
vincentlynch-moonoi28 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I disagree with quite a few of the reviews here, and I'm giving this a strong "7" rating.
There are two things I particularly like about this film. The first is in regard to the Jimmy Stewart performance. It seems as if most of the time we can cast Jimmy Stewart in either a drama OR a comedy, and he's equally good at both (although the intense dramas came mostly after his fighting in World War II). Here we have a little both. In the first half of the film, we see the 'aw shucks', rather comical Stewart playing country bumpkin who, nevertheless has written a good play. In the second half of the film, when he strays from his wife and lashes out at her (although he's really lashing out at himself), we see the more dramatic James Stewart. The good news is that we see both types of Stewart characters here. The bad news is that it is, perhaps, the reason some of our reviewers here don't like the film -- it's difficult to peg it as either a comedy or a drama, because it has elements of both genres.
The other thing I like here is Rosiland Russell's performance. I've never been a particular fan of hers in films. I don't dislike her. She's just an actress that I typically think to myself, 'Oh...Rosiland Russell. Who's her co-star?" That's how I decide whether or not to watch one of her films. Well, I really liked her here. In fact, as I watched the film I tried to think of an actress who could have played this part better. And I couldn't. She was 'just right' for this role.
The other thing I really like about this film is the presence of Charlie Ruggles. Largely forgotten now, he was a wonderfully popular actor in both movies and television. I remember him fondly.
And, the wonderful Louise Beavers is here...naturally as the maid (who also does a little acting). She funny and charming, and it is such a shame that in that era African-American actresses couldn't get more substantive parts. She's a gem!
I liked this enough that after watching it on TCM I ordered the DVD from Amazon. Nuff said.
There are two things I particularly like about this film. The first is in regard to the Jimmy Stewart performance. It seems as if most of the time we can cast Jimmy Stewart in either a drama OR a comedy, and he's equally good at both (although the intense dramas came mostly after his fighting in World War II). Here we have a little both. In the first half of the film, we see the 'aw shucks', rather comical Stewart playing country bumpkin who, nevertheless has written a good play. In the second half of the film, when he strays from his wife and lashes out at her (although he's really lashing out at himself), we see the more dramatic James Stewart. The good news is that we see both types of Stewart characters here. The bad news is that it is, perhaps, the reason some of our reviewers here don't like the film -- it's difficult to peg it as either a comedy or a drama, because it has elements of both genres.
The other thing I like here is Rosiland Russell's performance. I've never been a particular fan of hers in films. I don't dislike her. She's just an actress that I typically think to myself, 'Oh...Rosiland Russell. Who's her co-star?" That's how I decide whether or not to watch one of her films. Well, I really liked her here. In fact, as I watched the film I tried to think of an actress who could have played this part better. And I couldn't. She was 'just right' for this role.
The other thing I really like about this film is the presence of Charlie Ruggles. Largely forgotten now, he was a wonderfully popular actor in both movies and television. I remember him fondly.
And, the wonderful Louise Beavers is here...naturally as the maid (who also does a little acting). She funny and charming, and it is such a shame that in that era African-American actresses couldn't get more substantive parts. She's a gem!
I liked this enough that after watching it on TCM I ordered the DVD from Amazon. Nuff said.
Disappointing!
JohnHowardReid24 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This comedy of manners with a theatrical background offers a good First Act, but bogs down in the Second Act, and then drops right down completely and absolutely in the Third.
Mind you, the proceedings are not helped by the blatant over-acting of Genevieve Tobin!
Keighley's direction is lively enough in the First Act, but is as dull as the script in Acts Two and Three!
All the talking, talking, back and forth, seems to go on forever!
The movie's production values don't impress either!
At least the title is dead on! No time for comedy, for sure!
Mind you, the proceedings are not helped by the blatant over-acting of Genevieve Tobin!
Keighley's direction is lively enough in the First Act, but is as dull as the script in Acts Two and Three!
All the talking, talking, back and forth, seems to go on forever!
The movie's production values don't impress either!
At least the title is dead on! No time for comedy, for sure!
Disruptive Shift
dougdoepke7 July 2017
Too bad about the awkward shift. That first part shows Stewart at his charming down-home best. He's an aspiring playwright from the Minnesota sticks intent on mounting his unlikely play on Broadway. His play is trying to ape New York sophistication, but because of his rural background, the play comes across as comedic satire which the audiences surprisingly love. So Gay's (Stewart) reputation is made which he follows up with several more successful comedies. Meanwhile, he marries sensible lead actress Linda (Russell), who's drawn to his innocent manner. Their prosperous future now seems assured until he suffers writer's block and the marriage cracks open.
Stewart shines in this first part, clearly in his natural element. The movie's problem is Gay's sudden personality shift from down-home charming to churlish alcoholic. At the same time, the movie's mood and substance also alter and in unpleasant ways. I guess maid Clementine's (Beavers) snappy remarks are supposed to carry the comedic aspect, but unfortunately they're more caustic than funny. Then too, the plot becomes pretty implausible as Gay hooks up with ditzy Amanda (Tobin), and we're supposed to believe that their lengthy relationship never gets intimate. But then if it did, we wouldn't be as accepting of the movie's upshot.
On the other hand, the acting is good, except maybe for Tobin, but the real problem is with script and direction and the sudden rupture into mismatched parts these entail. The basic idea of a naïve rural lad trying to adjust to urban sophistication remains a workable one. But it needs a smoother more plausible treatment, especially with the transition, than it gets here. Sorry to say that, all in all, the 90-minutes amounts to a waste of outstanding movie performers.
Stewart shines in this first part, clearly in his natural element. The movie's problem is Gay's sudden personality shift from down-home charming to churlish alcoholic. At the same time, the movie's mood and substance also alter and in unpleasant ways. I guess maid Clementine's (Beavers) snappy remarks are supposed to carry the comedic aspect, but unfortunately they're more caustic than funny. Then too, the plot becomes pretty implausible as Gay hooks up with ditzy Amanda (Tobin), and we're supposed to believe that their lengthy relationship never gets intimate. But then if it did, we wouldn't be as accepting of the movie's upshot.
On the other hand, the acting is good, except maybe for Tobin, but the real problem is with script and direction and the sudden rupture into mismatched parts these entail. The basic idea of a naïve rural lad trying to adjust to urban sophistication remains a workable one. But it needs a smoother more plausible treatment, especially with the transition, than it gets here. Sorry to say that, all in all, the 90-minutes amounts to a waste of outstanding movie performers.
tone change
SnoopyStyle22 January 2021
Small town reporter Gaylord Esterbrook (James Stewart) from Minnesota has written his first play, a comedy about Park Avenue high society. It's being staged on Broadway and he is brought out to New York to work on it. Linda Paige (Rosalind Russell) is his leading lady on stage, his play's savior, and eventually his partner in real life.
It's a light comedy with Russell and Stewart with a change into melodrama. The comedy is a little fun if not laugh out loud funny. Comedic tastes have changed over the years. This is not slapstick which generally has a better staying power in the various eras. Russell and Stewart have a functional chemistry. He's extremely appealing. There's a general appealing touch which keeps this relationship rolling along. I would suggest playing up Stewart as a small town hick and maybe give him a cowboy hat or something. That would make all the initial disbelief that much more funnier. It would give the comedy an object to concentrate on and his third act change can be incorporated into a clothing change. As for this third act, the melodrama does struggle as the tone changes. It's relatively low stakes as the ending is inevitable. It would maybe help if his striving for change is something more than a muse and Linda could do more to help fix his play.
It's a light comedy with Russell and Stewart with a change into melodrama. The comedy is a little fun if not laugh out loud funny. Comedic tastes have changed over the years. This is not slapstick which generally has a better staying power in the various eras. Russell and Stewart have a functional chemistry. He's extremely appealing. There's a general appealing touch which keeps this relationship rolling along. I would suggest playing up Stewart as a small town hick and maybe give him a cowboy hat or something. That would make all the initial disbelief that much more funnier. It would give the comedy an object to concentrate on and his third act change can be incorporated into a clothing change. As for this third act, the melodrama does struggle as the tone changes. It's relatively low stakes as the ending is inevitable. It would maybe help if his striving for change is something more than a muse and Linda could do more to help fix his play.
A strong first half...followed by a talky and unbelievable second half.
planktonrules6 August 2010
The first portion of "No Time for Comedy" is excellent--and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, somewhere around the middle, it was like the characters had head injuries (particularly James Stewart) and began acting weird...along with some new and annoying friends. As a result, the film really lost its momentum and its way.
The film begins with a playwright (Stewart) being called to Broadway to do some re-writes for the play. They are in rehearsals and the play just doesn't quite flow the way they'd hoped. Stewart is not at all like they expected. After all, the play is a smart drawing room comedy featuring the upper crust--and Stewart is some Midwestern yokel who has never even been to the big city or been with the smart set. After some teething problems, however, the play is a success. This part of the film is very charming and seeing him and Rosalind Russell together was a treat.
The next portion of the film really stopped making sense. Now that Stewart and Russell are married, suddenly the sweet guy has turned into a major butt-head--a very selfish one at that. Now he drinks heavily and begins hanging out with the world's most superficial and annoying married woman anyone could imagine (Genevieve Tobin). While I hated the change in Stewart's character (since it seemed so out of character), everything about Tobin was wrong...100% wrong. Her character made no sense at all and was played so broadly you'd wonder how any semi-sane person could fall for this super-annoying....'lady'. Also incongruous is her husband (Charlie Ruggles)--he simply made no sense at all as the annoyed but unbelievably passive rich husband. At this point, the only person who comes off halfway convincing is Russell...but even she occasionally behaves oddly. It was really as if the film had two different writers who didn't even read each other's scripts before combining them.
The overall film really looks like two separate films. The first half I'd score an 8 and the second I'd score a 3. It really would have been improved with a revision...a re-write like Stewart's character was called in to do when the movie began. Not a good film, though it looks nice and has some lovely scenes. The bad just outweighs the good.
By the way, after Stewart behaved abominably through much of the film, why would Russell's character STILL want him?! What sort of screwy message is this projecting at women?!
The film begins with a playwright (Stewart) being called to Broadway to do some re-writes for the play. They are in rehearsals and the play just doesn't quite flow the way they'd hoped. Stewart is not at all like they expected. After all, the play is a smart drawing room comedy featuring the upper crust--and Stewart is some Midwestern yokel who has never even been to the big city or been with the smart set. After some teething problems, however, the play is a success. This part of the film is very charming and seeing him and Rosalind Russell together was a treat.
The next portion of the film really stopped making sense. Now that Stewart and Russell are married, suddenly the sweet guy has turned into a major butt-head--a very selfish one at that. Now he drinks heavily and begins hanging out with the world's most superficial and annoying married woman anyone could imagine (Genevieve Tobin). While I hated the change in Stewart's character (since it seemed so out of character), everything about Tobin was wrong...100% wrong. Her character made no sense at all and was played so broadly you'd wonder how any semi-sane person could fall for this super-annoying....'lady'. Also incongruous is her husband (Charlie Ruggles)--he simply made no sense at all as the annoyed but unbelievably passive rich husband. At this point, the only person who comes off halfway convincing is Russell...but even she occasionally behaves oddly. It was really as if the film had two different writers who didn't even read each other's scripts before combining them.
The overall film really looks like two separate films. The first half I'd score an 8 and the second I'd score a 3. It really would have been improved with a revision...a re-write like Stewart's character was called in to do when the movie began. Not a good film, though it looks nice and has some lovely scenes. The bad just outweighs the good.
By the way, after Stewart behaved abominably through much of the film, why would Russell's character STILL want him?! What sort of screwy message is this projecting at women?!
***1/2
edwagreen27 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Both Roz Russell and James Stewart shine in this 1940 comedy where a young guy from Minnesota writes a play, comes to New York and meets the star of it and quickly marries her. The play turns into a success and the playwright is established.
Four years later, Stewart develops writer's fatigue or bloc and he soon finds inspiration from Genevieve Tobin whose voice sounded almost like Billie Burke.
With the world at war now, Stewart gets the idea to write a dramatic play. Spending more time with his inspiration writer, Russell becomes jealous and is warned by her husband, humorously played by Charles Ruggles, an investment guy from Wall Street. Things change rapidly and both parties agree to divorce to marry each other's mate.
The ending is so good where Russell sees something in his drama, which others deemed as a plot as the two reunite.
Louise Beaves alternates as an actress and maid to the Stewart-Russell couple.
An enjoyable comedy so rich in substance.
Four years later, Stewart develops writer's fatigue or bloc and he soon finds inspiration from Genevieve Tobin whose voice sounded almost like Billie Burke.
With the world at war now, Stewart gets the idea to write a dramatic play. Spending more time with his inspiration writer, Russell becomes jealous and is warned by her husband, humorously played by Charles Ruggles, an investment guy from Wall Street. Things change rapidly and both parties agree to divorce to marry each other's mate.
The ending is so good where Russell sees something in his drama, which others deemed as a plot as the two reunite.
Louise Beaves alternates as an actress and maid to the Stewart-Russell couple.
An enjoyable comedy so rich in substance.
A very disappointing movie
richard-178715 November 2017
I stuck with this movie because I have a head cold and didn't have the energy to do much of anything else. But if I had had the energy, I hope I would have given up on it early on, when Stewart's character becomes thoroughly disagreeable.
This is the story, often told, of an artist who becomes a success and then is led astray by a woman who promises to bring out his "potential." But the script is not well-written. None of the changes are prepared in advance. We don't ever really see why/how Amanda can seduce Stewart away from Rosalind Russell.
And then there are all sorts of gratuitous slams at the Black maid, played by Louise Beavers.
In short, this movie did nothing for me. I can't imagine that S.N. Behrman's play, on which it was based, could have been this uninvolving.
This is the story, often told, of an artist who becomes a success and then is led astray by a woman who promises to bring out his "potential." But the script is not well-written. None of the changes are prepared in advance. We don't ever really see why/how Amanda can seduce Stewart away from Rosalind Russell.
And then there are all sorts of gratuitous slams at the Black maid, played by Louise Beavers.
In short, this movie did nothing for me. I can't imagine that S.N. Behrman's play, on which it was based, could have been this uninvolving.
A Forgotten Gem
marylois-788-9103044 June 2014
No Time For Comedy is one of those glittering baubles about the theatre of the 1930s. Originally staged in New York for Katherine Cornell and featuring a callow young Laurence Olivier as her earnest playwright husband who drinks too much because he's convinced he's wasting his talent writing comedy when the world is such a wretched place, it was reworked for Jimmy Stewart and Rosalind Russell, and for me the movie plays as well if not better than the play.
I was familiar with S.N. Behrman's elegant script and as I saw the film I was a bit confused. A whole new act had been added at the beginning to define the playwright as an awkward kid from Minnesota, swimming with sharks for the first time as his play is produced in New York. Jimmy Stewart was at his best, transitioning from a stammering yahoo to a gentleman drunk, and rising to the occasion to hammer out what he hopes will be a masterpiece with the help of a conniving female (Genevieve Tobin). Rosalind Russell is up to the role of the glamorous actress, the foil for the insecure playwright on the way up (and down), and Charlie Ruggles is wise and sophisticated and totally believable as the husband of the conniver and later suitor to the actress. Tobin is quite adroit, playing the conniver as a Billie Burke-type, although not quite pretty enough to convince me Stewart would leave Russell for her.
It's a very satisfying film if you like the genre, and it's always a pleasure to see Jimmy Stewart so at home in a "stagey" piece.
I was familiar with S.N. Behrman's elegant script and as I saw the film I was a bit confused. A whole new act had been added at the beginning to define the playwright as an awkward kid from Minnesota, swimming with sharks for the first time as his play is produced in New York. Jimmy Stewart was at his best, transitioning from a stammering yahoo to a gentleman drunk, and rising to the occasion to hammer out what he hopes will be a masterpiece with the help of a conniving female (Genevieve Tobin). Rosalind Russell is up to the role of the glamorous actress, the foil for the insecure playwright on the way up (and down), and Charlie Ruggles is wise and sophisticated and totally believable as the husband of the conniver and later suitor to the actress. Tobin is quite adroit, playing the conniver as a Billie Burke-type, although not quite pretty enough to convince me Stewart would leave Russell for her.
It's a very satisfying film if you like the genre, and it's always a pleasure to see Jimmy Stewart so at home in a "stagey" piece.
Worst role for Stewart ever
rinzler24 February 2021
Limp But Not Without Interest.
tjonasgreen22 March 2004
Successful comic playwright Jimmy Stewart decides that the times he is living in call for political drama instead of laughs. His stage star wife disagrees and must win him back from the clutches of the pretentious matron who has him in her thrall. Though one would think that the tall, lanky duo of Stewart and Rosalind Russell would be perfect together, they disappoint. They manage some charm and chemistry in the early parts of the film, but both surrender to stridency later on, and this movie has none of the fast pace or glossy sheen a sophisticated comedy set in Manhattan should have.
What is interesting here is the cultural mirror of the times. The amusing portrait of a cynical Manhattan is still recognizable, and the thesis that in bad times there is nothing more important than making people laugh is the same one Preston Sturges explored in his overrated SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS a year or so later. Though this film doesn't mix comedy and message drama as well as Sturges did, however imperfectly, the penultimate scene here is intriguing. Russell is prepared to marry the droll plutocrat whose wife has stolen Stewart from her, but he lets loose with a string of invective that probably accurately reflected the 'America First' Republicanism of the time. Russell decides that she'd rather be with a man who hates the fact that the free world was being taken over by fascists than by a man who sees all dictators with cynical detachment.
This film is heavy and crude where it should be light, and the implied sexual sophistication of the plot is not directed or played with the right tone at all. But this misfire will still manage to be of interest to some.
What is interesting here is the cultural mirror of the times. The amusing portrait of a cynical Manhattan is still recognizable, and the thesis that in bad times there is nothing more important than making people laugh is the same one Preston Sturges explored in his overrated SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS a year or so later. Though this film doesn't mix comedy and message drama as well as Sturges did, however imperfectly, the penultimate scene here is intriguing. Russell is prepared to marry the droll plutocrat whose wife has stolen Stewart from her, but he lets loose with a string of invective that probably accurately reflected the 'America First' Republicanism of the time. Russell decides that she'd rather be with a man who hates the fact that the free world was being taken over by fascists than by a man who sees all dictators with cynical detachment.
This film is heavy and crude where it should be light, and the implied sexual sophistication of the plot is not directed or played with the right tone at all. But this misfire will still manage to be of interest to some.
Inconsistent and dated
HotToastyRag16 December 2021
The beginning of No Time for Comedy led me to think the plot was going in a certain direction, but it completely went down a different path in the second half of the film. James Stewart started the movie off as a midwestern hick who made a splash hit on Broadway with his first play. Rosalind Russell was the leading lady, and immediately after they received positive reviews after opening night, she proposes marriage to him. It seemed to me that she didn't really love him and just wanted to trap him for his talent, so he would write play after play for her to star in.
But in the second half, Jimmy's character completely changes. He turns into a typical "artist" whose moods revolve around his work. He leaves home and goes on a bender from bar to bar in Manhattan whenever he feels blocked, and he treats his wife with very little respect. Where is the country bumpkin from the start of the movie? And if Roz didn't really love him, she shouldn't care if he strays as long as the plays keep being written. There comes a time when Roz has to choose between a temperamental, unfaithful, selfish man who's only as successful as his latest play; and a classy, mature, even-tempered millionaire. I'd pick Charlie Ruggles every time, but leads in romantic comedies usually make the wrong choice.
There's also another unpleasant element in this film: racism towards Louise Beavers. She plays a "Mammy knock-off" and is constantly the butt of every joke. She mispronounces large words, she speaks with incorrect grammar, and when she can't make it as an actress she ends up working as a domestic (complete with uniform) for Roz. It's supposed to be a laugh line that she asks after the motivation of her bit-part character on the stage; James Stewart tells her to just keep answering doors the way she's been doing and she'll be fine. For a woman who played the lead in Imitation of Life, it's insulting for her to sink to such a role.
But in the second half, Jimmy's character completely changes. He turns into a typical "artist" whose moods revolve around his work. He leaves home and goes on a bender from bar to bar in Manhattan whenever he feels blocked, and he treats his wife with very little respect. Where is the country bumpkin from the start of the movie? And if Roz didn't really love him, she shouldn't care if he strays as long as the plays keep being written. There comes a time when Roz has to choose between a temperamental, unfaithful, selfish man who's only as successful as his latest play; and a classy, mature, even-tempered millionaire. I'd pick Charlie Ruggles every time, but leads in romantic comedies usually make the wrong choice.
There's also another unpleasant element in this film: racism towards Louise Beavers. She plays a "Mammy knock-off" and is constantly the butt of every joke. She mispronounces large words, she speaks with incorrect grammar, and when she can't make it as an actress she ends up working as a domestic (complete with uniform) for Roz. It's supposed to be a laugh line that she asks after the motivation of her bit-part character on the stage; James Stewart tells her to just keep answering doors the way she's been doing and she'll be fine. For a woman who played the lead in Imitation of Life, it's insulting for her to sink to such a role.
Jimmy's Worst
davidjanuzbrown14 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
If you are a James Stewart fan, this is a film to avoid. It starts with his stupid character Playwright Gaylord 'Gay' Esterbrook, who is a combination of Peter Morgan Jr (His character in "Vivacious Lady" who marries entertainer Francey (Ginger Rogers) on his first trip to New York), Jefferson Smith from "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", and David Graham (The killer in "After The Thin Man). If you have seen these films, you know that they are very naive characters who are not what anyone expects (Particularly at the end). Here he marries actress Linda Paige (Rosaland Russell), also on his first trip to New York. However, he becomes a nasty, drunken, cynical character who cheats on Linda with 'Mandy' Swift (Genevieve Tobin), and becomes the exact opposite of his Jefferson Smith character. In fact, becomes a hater to the degree of Graham (Who really despises Selma Landis( Elissa Landi) to the extent of framing her for murder, while being a spineless weasel). The only reason this film does not get zero stars is Russell (Although I certainly preferred Rogers (And the supporting cast) in "Vivacious Lady"). I even wonder if they used the word "Gay" in the homosexual context back in 1940, because you think of gay, cynical and drunk (Sometimes together) and playwright in the same context. NOT terms you use to describe Jimmy Stewart. In other words, Stewart fans... Avoid.
No Hint of Comedy
ArtVandelayImporterExporter21 January 2021
Did someone at the studio intend to title his movie literally? Because there truly is no comedy here.
It's not a funny situation. There are no funny lines. There's no funny physical shtick. Nothing.
The only thing remotely worth watching is the nomninally aw-shucks maid who is subversively the most clever character in the movie. Not funny. But clever. Pretty thin gruel.
If we're being honest, Jimmy Stewart had no business being in comedies. As good as The Philadelphia Story is, it's not because of Jimmy Stewart. I don't care about the shiny trophy he got. That movie belongs to Katherine Hepburn, with a huge assist to Cary Grant, who subdued his spastic shtick to play, in effect, third banana. Stewart is too much of an overly serious stick to come across as funny. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? That's not comedy. That's social satire. He does far better in westerns where he gets to play it straight. That's where his moral rectitude can really shine. I'll give him credit, though, for avoiding hix cliched stutter in this film. The restraint was admirable.
It's not a funny situation. There are no funny lines. There's no funny physical shtick. Nothing.
The only thing remotely worth watching is the nomninally aw-shucks maid who is subversively the most clever character in the movie. Not funny. But clever. Pretty thin gruel.
If we're being honest, Jimmy Stewart had no business being in comedies. As good as The Philadelphia Story is, it's not because of Jimmy Stewart. I don't care about the shiny trophy he got. That movie belongs to Katherine Hepburn, with a huge assist to Cary Grant, who subdued his spastic shtick to play, in effect, third banana. Stewart is too much of an overly serious stick to come across as funny. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? That's not comedy. That's social satire. He does far better in westerns where he gets to play it straight. That's where his moral rectitude can really shine. I'll give him credit, though, for avoiding hix cliched stutter in this film. The restraint was admirable.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
