Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WOMEN OF THE YEAR

(M.G.M.)

A TITLE like that is a temptation, a temptation to talk about the Story of the Yearthe year 1903 and every year

since. For the plot of this film is at least as old as the movies (c.f. Taming of the Shrew for an even earlier

version). Worse than that (for it really can’t help its age) it is almost completely threadbare: hardly a single new idea covers its tired old bones. It .wheezes painfully along for about 10,000 feet, cuts a caper or two, and then, in apparent despair at ever finding a satisfactory resting-place, just folds up and dies. If it hadn’t been for those occasional capers (the wedding night sequence particularly), and the fact that two interesting and capable stars were doing their best with the barren possibilities of the theme, I think that when the lights went up you might have found our little man folded up in his seat fast asleep-if he hadn’t joined the exodus which began among the audience soon after the halfway mark. As it was he found enough interest in the acting and in the personality of Katharine Hepburn to keep him awake, and even upright in his seat; he even found occasion for a few good laughs, and some appreciative chuckles at the dialogue.

But that is regrettably little to be able | to say in favour of a major production with stars like Miss Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. I may add that, after a dull run of pictures, I went to Women of the Year with my defences down, almost anxious to be entertained, but I came away more than ever convinced that Hollywood is at present in a bad spell of the doldrums. The story? Career versus Marriage. She is a highbrow columnist on international affairs, he is a lowbrow sports writer. They marry, and the fact that she is acclaimed as America’s Most Outstanding Woman of the Year does not much impress her down-to-earth husband, who prefers a woman about the house. Unless they get better material than this I am afraid that Miss Hepburn may be the forgotten woman of next year, and Tracy the forgotten man. \

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.I whakaputaina aunoatia ēnei kuputuhi tuhinga, e kitea ai pea ētahi hapa i roto. Tirohia te whārangi katoa kia kitea te āhuatanga taketake o te tuhinga.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZLIST19421009.2.30.1.3

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Listener, Volume 7, Issue 172, 9 October 1942, Page 13

Word count
Tapeke kupu
365

WOMEN OF THE YEAR New Zealand Listener, Volume 7, Issue 172, 9 October 1942, Page 13

WOMEN OF THE YEAR New Zealand Listener, Volume 7, Issue 172, 9 October 1942, Page 13

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert