choosing his wife’s husband
by Douglas Messerli
Julius
J. Epstein (screenplay, based on a play by Norman Barasch and Carroll Moore),
Norman Jewison (director) Send Me No
Flowers / 1964
In short, what this film “pretends” to be about is absolutely
predictable and inconsequential, while its “secret” story, filled with puns and
campy phrases, is far more entertaining and, given its somewhat forbidden daring,
is quite a hoot. From the very first moment of this film, with George rolling
alone in bed, obviously troubled (he is dreaming, apparently, about various maladies
and medicines) we realize that he is not comfortable in his married life—although
the movie pretends they have the perfect relationship.
Before we can even assimilate what George’s problem is, his wife has been
“accidentally” locked out of her own house, while George puts in a pair of ear
plugs as he enters the shower, making certain that he will not be able to hear
her complaints of being locked out.

In his hypochondria, he soon discover, George is the most selfish of
men, hardly hearing anything his wife says, as he moans, seeking solace over a
phantom pain in his chest. Although he has had a complete check-up only two
weeks earlier, he is determined to visit the doctor again. The doctor (Edward
Andrews), a friend, is apparently quite aware of George’s medical fears, and
assures him that it is only indigestion. Yet George insists that he check him,
readily unbuttoning his shirt and, even when the doctor suggests “You can
button up,” leaving it open as if to show off his well-shaped chest.
Overhearing the doctor discussing another patient’s dire condition, he, again
in self-centeredness, the patient is himself.
On the way home, meeting up with his friend Arnold, George asks “Can I
take you into my confidence,” the way one might almost begin a sentence in
admission one’s sexuality—he is, of course, about to reveal his medical
news—and from that moment on almost everything the two discuss might be
perceived on two levels, the commonplace and the sexual. In lines like “I might
as well go all the way,” or their man-to-man discussion of a table: “It feels
so good, you just run your hand over it. Every chance I get I’m gonna feel the
table,” their metaphors skirt the edge, while other statements are outright
punds. Helping out around the house, Arnold soon after quips, “I’ll be right
here mowing your back lawn. I already mowed your front lawn,” playing with that
word’s lesser known meaning of overwhelming or knocking something down.
At other times, twosome simply talks in a language more gay than
heterosexual: on the look-out for a new husband, George comments on a golfer at
the country club: “He’s reasonably good-looking,” to which Arnold responds,
“Not as reasonable as you George.” And when Judy meets an old friend, Bert (the
handsome Clint Walker) they invite him to join them not only in a drink but insist
he join them at the club’s evening dance. A few minutes later, trying to send a
message to George, Arnold suggests “I’ve got to powder my nose. George, yours
could use a little powdering too.”
Bert’s comment about Judy, who he knew as young woman, is perhaps one of
the most outrageous the movie has to offer. When Judy tells him that she’s
married to George, Bert looks him briefly over before uttering “ But I thought
she’d end up marrying someone like Cary Grant,” reminding us that Hudson is
indeed someone like that dashing bi-sexual actor (see my pieces on Grant in Reading Films, Vol 1).

Is it any surprise that before the film is over, George and Arnold end
up in the same bed with a bottle of champagne, George commenting that Arnold
sleeps on the same side of the bed as does Judy? Does it really matter that Judy
returns home for the film’s “happy” ending. She has long been feeding her
husband a sugar placebo to put him to sleep, so I guess the audience, if it
desires, can continue sleeping as well.
But for me Send Me No Flowers is more interested in signaling its actor’s gay
sexuality than it is serious about its comic heterosexual story. My interest in
pointing to these open puns, gestures, and phrases, accordingly, is not
prurient as much as it is a necessary reading of what this film is primarily
about. Winks, in-jokes, fondling, campy phrases and just plain bawdiness give
this film far more dimension than its straight-laced story of a hypochondriac
husband who has a temporary misunderstanding with his wife.
Los
Angeles, March 8, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment