The Road to Reno: "The Awful Truth" and the Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage

Author(s): Jane M. Greene

Source: Film History, Vol. 13, No. 4, Before Screwball (2001), pp. 337-358
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3815454 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Road to
The Awful
Hollywoodcomedy
remarriage
Jane M.Greene
Leo McCarey's1937 versionof The Awful Truth
is, perhaps,the mostwell-knownand frequently
discussed screwballcomedy, and an important
model for latercomedies of the classical era,
notably,HisGirlFriday,MyFavoriteWifeand Bringing
Up Baby.James Harveyhas called it 'the definitive
screwballcomedy and the purestof all such films'.2
AndDuaneByrgeclaimsTheAwfulTruthis 'arguably
the best screwballcomedy ever made'.1Inhis 1981
book, Pursuitsof Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy
of Remarriage,StanleyCavelldubs the film'thebest,
or the deepest, of the comedies of remarriage'.3
Cavellarguesthatcomedies of remarriageconstitute
a particulargenre of the Hollywoodtalkie which
inheritsfromShakespeareancomedy a stress on the
heroine,whofrequentlyholdsthe keyto the success-
ful conclusion of the plot. The genre differsfrom
Shakespeareancomedy,however,inthatthe heroine
is marriedand the plot revolvesaroundthe reunion
of the centralcouple.4Cavellargues thatthe birthof
the subgenre in the mid-1930s reflects a growing
equality between men and women. Moreover,its
formationwas dependent on the development of
sound technology and the talents of a group of
actresses (KatherineHepburn,BarbaraStanwyck,
IreneDunne,RosalindRussell)whose mothers,be-
ing of the 1880 generation,would have fought for
suffrage.He writes:
- halfa dozen years after
Nineteen-thirty-four
the advent of sound - was about the earliest
date bywhichthe sound filmcould reasonably
be expected to have found itself artistically.
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Film History, Volume 13, pp. 337-358, 2001. Copyright ? John Libbey
ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in Malaysia
Reno:
Truth and the
of
And it happens that at that same date there
was a groupof womenof an age andtempera-
ment to make possible the definitiverealiza-
tion of the genre ... a date at which a phase of
humanhistory,namelya phase of feminism,
and requirementsof a genre inheritinga re-
marriagestructurefromShakespeare,and the
natureof film's transformationof its human
subjects, mettogetheron the issue of the new
creationof woman.5
WhileIshareCavell'ssense thatthe roleof the
heroineis crucialto definingthe screwballcomedy
of remarriage,his exclusive focus on films of the
1930s and early 1940s makes it difficultto distin-
guishthe uniquefeaturesof thisplotandthe qualities
of the 'new'woman.As CharlesMusserhas pointed
out in the context of a discussion of the Cecil B.
DeMilledivorce comedies, the remarriageplot is
employedinthe silentperiod.6Nowhereis this more
obvious than with the case of Cavell's best and
deepest comedy of remarriage,TheAwfulTruth.The
McCareyfilm is based on a 1922 play by Arthur
Richman,whichwas twice adapted for the cinema
underthe same title priorto 1937: in 1925 (distrib-
uted by ProducersReleasing Corporation),and in
1929 (by Pathe).7Bothfilmswerethoughtto be lost,
Jane M. Greene is a doctoral candidate in film
studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She
is completing her dissertation on industry censorship
and Hollywood comedies of remarriage. Address
correspondance to jmgreen2@students.wisc.edu.
338 --------
-
338Jane
-----------M-
but a recently recovered printof the 1925 version and
a partialscreenplay of the 1929 filmoffer an excellent
opportunityto examine the conventions of the genre
and its evolution across the two decades. This article
considers four versions of The Awful Truth:the 1922
theatrical version; the 1925 silent film directed by
Paul Powell, starring Agnes Ayres and Warner
Baxter; the 1929 remake, directed by Marshall
Neilan, with Ina Claire and Henry Daniels; and the
1937 McCarey film, starring Irene Dunne and Cary
Grant. As I will demonstrate, by only considering
comedies of remarriage from the sound period, Cav-
ell is unable to recognise the historically unique
characteristics of these films - the very works he is
tryingto set apart as unique. A comparative analysis
with earlier versions will allow us to explore what is
distinctive about the depiction of adultery, divorce
and remarriage in the 1930s and early 1940s, and to
assess how the screwball heroine differs from pre-
vious incarnations of this role.
The theatrical version
The outline of the play and the films is similar and
can be summarised fairly succinctly. All versions
center on the divorce and eventual reunion of a once
happily married couple, Lucy and Norman (Norman
Satterlee's name is changed to Norman Warrinerin
the 1929 film and JerryWarrinerin the 1937 version).
The divorce is a result of Norman/Jerry's belief that
Lucy has had an affairwith another man. Inthe 1937
version Lucy's suspected lover is her voice teacher,
Armand Lavalle, and in all other versions, he is her
friend, Rufus Kempster (who's first name is Jimmy in
the 1929 film). After the couple separates, Lucy
becomes engaged to another man, Dan Leeson.
Leeson has an elderly female relative who is suspi-
cious of Lucy's character. Inthe play and the firsttwo
adaptations, she is a maiden aunt, Julia, and in the
1937 version, she is his mother. Specifically, Mrs.
Leeson has heard rumors that Norman/Jerrygener-
ously allowed Lucy to get the divorce when, in fact,
there was evidence that Lucy had been dallying with
another man. Norman/Jerry is summoned, and he
testifies to Lucy's good character, taking the blame
for the failure of the marriage. Later, however, he
makes it clear to Lucy that he believes she did have
an affair. Through this renewed contact with
Norman/Jerry, Lucy realises that she still loves him.
She breaks off her engagement to Leeson and sets
out to win her husband back. By the conclusion of
all versions, the husband and wife are reunited.
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jane M. Green
Greene
The play employs a pattern of restricted narra-
tion to raise doubts about Lucy's character in general
and her relationship with Rufus in particular. For
example, in Act One, Lucy confronts Dan and Mrs.
Leeson about their suspicions and apparently spon-
taneously tells her friend, Josephine, to phone
Norman and ask him to visit. Lucy explains that she
wants to settle all of Dan's doubts by letting him ask
her ex-husband for the facts. She then reminds
Josephine not to reveal the purpose of the visit to
Norman so that Dan may take his testimony as the
truth. Lucy also plays herself up as something of a
martyr,insisting that Dan go through with the meet-
ing even though his suspicions have greatly of-
fended her. When Norman arrives, he tells Dan that
there was nothing between Kempster and Lucy be-
yond a pleasant friendship and that the divorce was
mostly his fault. Dan is convinced he has heard the
truth. However, Norman later tells Lucy that he does
believe she had an affair with Kempster. Moreover,
the following exchange reveals that Lucy had antici-
pated Dan and Julia's suspicions and had arranged
the meeting with Norman:
Lucy: You answered all his questions.
Norman: My dear Lucy, I lied like Ananias
himself.
Lucy: Itwas very good of you.
Norman: It's what I'm here for, isn't it? I re-
ceived your note this evening when I came
home to dress, and I waited patiently in my
room ever since for the expected summons. I
even had dinner served upstairs. After all the
preparation you could hardly suppose I'd de-
fault when the pinch came.
The revelation that Lucy had arranged Norman's
testimony calls her character into question. She has
shown herself capable of deception and manipula-
tion: pretending to come up with the idea for Nor-
man's visit on the spur of the moment, feigning
outrage at Dan's suspicions, cautioning her friends
not to influence Norman. Aside from raising general
suspicions about her character, her manipulations
appear to implicate her in the affairwith Kempster. If
she were truly innocent, would she have to lie and
arrange the situation to such an extent?
At the end of Act One, Dan asks Norman to
repeat his testimony for his aunt. At first, Lucy is
outraged, but when she realises that it would give
 =

The Road to Reno: The Awful Truth and the Holywood comedY of remarriae
ts-ii
^II{R.......t ! .riUs
. ..........
..illu
339

....... x Fig. 1. Lucy(Ina

Claire,
seated,
stagesher
right)
defenseforthe
benefit
of
prospective
husband Daniel
Leesonandhis
aunt
suspicious
(PaulHarveyand
Louise
Mackintosh, left).
Herex-husband
Norman (Bruce
McRae) helpsby
lyinglikea
gentleman. White
Studio photo
fromthe1922
Broadway
production ofThe
AwfulTruth,
Theatre
Magazine,
heranotheropportunityto see Norman,she quickly thatifhe wantsto knowthe truth,he willhaveto meet December 1922,
changes hertuneand insistson meetingat herhome with her again. Lucy suggests that they meet the p. 372.
the followingday. ActTwoopens as Lucyis prepar- followingevening in her apartment,explaining:'I'm
ing for Norman'svisit, spraying her perfume on tired of restaurants.I've come to the pointwhere I
pillowsaroundthe room.WhenNormanarrives,Lucy preferthe coziness of home.' A few moments later,
tells himthatthe Leesons have been delayed. Nor- when Dan returns,she shoos him out, requesting
man is suspicious, but Lucyquicklydistracts him, thathe go home and dress fortheirnighton the town.
and the formerhusbandand wife are getting along When Dan mentions that he would prefera quiet
quitewell when Josephine enters and exclaims to dinnerat home alone, Lucyprotests:'Oh, Dan,you
Lucy:'Iknewyou'd be alone! The others are due in knowhow I hate spending the evening at home.'
aboutten minutes,aren'tthey?'Normanlooks at his Thisscene illustratesthe extentLucywillgo to
ex-wife,who is describedas wearinga guiltyexpres- manipulatesituationsto her advantage, the ease
sion. Again,a change in the range of narrationfrom withwhich she makes completelyopposing claims
restrictedto unrestrictedrevealsthatLucyhas been ina matterof minutes,and the wayshe cleverlytimes
involvedin behind-the-scenes machinations,this herrevelationto Normanso she can arrangeanother
timearranginga meetingalone withNorman. meeting. Along withthe doubts created by the re-
Atthe end of the second act, the audience is strictednarrationin earlierscenes, her actions and
givena concrete example of how easily Lucylies to dialogue in this instanceencouragethe audience to
and manipulatesthe men in her life. AfterNorman suspect the worstwhen presentedwithan ambigu-
testifiesabout Lucy'scharacterbeforethe Leesons, ous situation.This is broughtfullcircle in the play's
Danescorts his auntto herhotel,promisingto return conclusion.
shortly.Once Normanand Lucyare alone again, she Act Three opens the morning after the di-
tells him that she did not have an affair with vorced couple's rendezvous. Norman arrives at
Kempster,remindinghim that, at the time, she Lucy'sapartmentstill in state of confusion. He ad-
neitherconfirmednordenied his accusations about mits that as much as he stillloves Lucy,he doubts
her infidelity.Normanis confused and demands an thathe willever be able to believe in her innocence.
explanation,but Lucywarns him that Dan will be Atthis point,Kempsterarrivesunexpectedly.Lucyis
returningmomentarily,hence they cannot discuss aboutto send himaway,butNormaninsiststhatshe
the matterfurther.Normanaccuses her of manipu- see him. He plans to eavesdrop on theirconversa-
latingthe timingof her revelation,but Lucyinsists tion and finallydiscoverthe true natureof theirrela-

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I :4.n2&fV7. .iana MI ir'rGnA-
U
. ..l"
. . --.-(.......... ....................................

tionship. Lucy agrees, and the conversationwith examples of herduplicity,encourages the audience
Kempsterappears to vindicateher. He revealsthat to questionLucy'sinnocence.Atthe veryleast,some
theirrelationshipwas innocent,thatthe most he ever doubt remainsabout the natureof her relationship
asked forwas a kiss but she refusedhimeven that. with Kempster,and this is reflected in Norman's
Kempsterdeparts, and the issue is apparentlyset- lingeringsuspicions:just as he must resign himself
tled for Norman;he tells Lucy how relievedhe is to neverknowingthe truth,so mustthe audience.
finallyto hearthe truth. Severalcontemporaneousdiscussions of the
WhenNormanleaves the roomfora moment, play indicate that the ending impliedLucy'sculpa-
Kempstersuddenlyreappearsand asks Lucynotto bility and, indeed, that this conclusion may have
leave her name the next time she phones him, ex- been the subjectof a controversybetweenthe author
plaining:'Mywife put the wrongconstructionon it.' and the play's producers.Thereare two divergent
Thisexchange revealsthat Kempster'ssupposedly accounts of the play in TheatreMagazine.The No-
unexpectedvisit was orchestratedby Lucy.On his vember 1922 review of the play, while acknow-
way out, Kempsterrunsinto Norman,whose suspi- ledging that there is some ambiguity in the
cions are revived.He asks Lucywhy Kempsterre- conclusion, finds that the ending absolves Lucy:
turned, suggesting that their conversationwas a 'Threeacts are spent in the endeavors of various
'trick': people to ascertainthe truth.No one ever does, not
even the audience, though in the mannerof treat-
Norman:Hiscoming heretodayand speaking
ment of the subject in the last act the impressionis
as he did bears a remarkableresemblanceto
the comedy we played. generallyset that she was reallyinnocent.At least
the ex-husbandthinksso and all is again well be-
Lucy:We? tween them.'8This is in contrastwith a spread in
December1922whichseems to have been advance
Norman:ForLeeson's benefit.
promotionalmaterial.One-page summariesof plays
Lucy:Norman!Youmeanthat-that Iarranged withphotographswerea regularfeatureof the maga-
all this, that Itold Rufusto come- zine and may have been suppliedby theatricalpro-
ducers or writtenby the magazine's staff. The final
Norman:[Clutchinghis head] Oh, how will I
act is describedas follows:'Lucyinvites[Kempster]
ever knowwhatto believe.
to call and ina prearrangedscene whichSatterleeis
Normanis about to leave and Lucybegins crying. permittedby Lucyto overhearitis made apparentto
He rushes back to her, and the two proclaimtheir the ex-husbandthat Lucywas actuallyinnocentin
love foreach otheras the curtainfalls. her relationswithKempster.The rest is easy. Satter-
As Norman'sdialogue indicates, the ending lee believes because he wants to believe- but the
parallelsthe openingscene. Inboth,a change inthe audience - ah! The audience!'9The differingac-
rangeof narrationrevealsthatLucyhas prearranged counts of the ending in TheatreMagazineare sec-
a situationoriginallypresented as spontaneous. A onded by AlexanderWoollcott'sNew YorkTimes
degree of ambiguityalso remainsat the play'scon- review.Woollcottstates thatinthe dramaas staged,
clusion.Thereare, infact, indicationsthatKempster 'bywitcheryand a littledeft perjury',Lucysettles the
does not know the reason for his visit. Lucy fre- questionaboutherpast, 'provingtriumphantly inthe
quently asks him to to
repeat himself make sure final moments of the play that, in her relationswith
Normancan heartheirconversationand, at several the suspected dancing man, she had ... been "as
points, she interruptshimwhen he seems about to pure as the drivelingsnow".'However,he goes on
revealthatshe had asked himto visit.Thus,there is to argue: Thisratherlame conclusionleaves all her
no motivationfor Kempsterto lie when he asserts conduct duringand beforethe play quite inexplica-
thathe and Lucydid nothavean affair.However,this ble...' Woollcott also reports backstage gossip to the
is a deductionthat the audience must make on its effect that: 'as Richmanfirst wrote the piece his
own, since the straightforward avowalof Lucy'sin- heroinehad, in fact, been extremelyguilty- which
nocence by Kempsteris shown to be the resultof versionwouldat least have been rational.'10 As the
Lucy'smanipulations.Iwouldarguethatthe pattern Woollcottreviewpoints out, the attemptto promote
of restrictednarrationthatcreates uncertaintyabout an interpretation of Lucy'sinnocenceat the end does
Lucy's character and actions, along with concrete not fitwithpatternsestablishedinthe restof the play.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Road to Reno: The Awful
- NW1-
Truth and I the Hollywood comedy
-,,,,-
of remarriage
I'll I- - _ ,,,,-.-l- -
341

Fig. 2. Norman
(Warner Baxter)
wakesLucy
(AgnesAyres)
witha bouquetof
flowers.The
AwfulTruth (PDC,
1925).[Thisand
allsubsequent
photos,except
wherenoted,
courtesyof
Wisconsin Center
forFilmand
Theater
Research.]

I have tried to indicate that there is a consistent use
of restricted narration across the play to create
doubts about Lucy. Moreover, she is shown to be a
manipulative woman who is aware of her sexual
power over men, particularly her ex-husband's at-
traction to her, and who uses this power to her
advantage. These factors comprise significant
points of comparison with the cinematic adaptations
of The AwfulTruth.
The 1925 film version
The film version provides exposition that illustrates
the nature of Kempster and Lucy's association prior
to the divorce, as well as Lucy and Norman's mar-
riage. This inclusion of backstory is not unique to The
Awful Truth.It was common practice for Hollywood
film adaptations to start the story earlier than on
stage in order to avoid a lengthy series of dialogue
titles for expository purposes.11 Through the mid-
twenties, silent films, whether adaptations of plays
or not, typically began with a series of expository
scenes that could run to several reels. But while
standard for the period, this narrative technique is
used in the first film version of The Awful Truthsig-
nificantlyto alter the nature of the relationships rep-
resented and to emphasise Lucy's innocence.
Since the 1925 version of The Awful Truthhas
not been widely seen, it is worth summarising in
some detail.12 From the beginning of the film, Nor-
man's jealousy is established as the major obstacle
to an otherwise happy marriage. Unlike the play, in
which Lucy and Norman have been divorced for four
years, the film begins shortly after the couple's wed-
ding. The opening scene depicts the loving nature
of their relationship as Norman wakes Lucy by brush-
ing her face with flower petals. Their declarations of
love are interruptedby the arrivalof the morning mail.
When Lucy reads the returnaddress on an envelope,
she appears pleased. Norman notices this and
wants to know who sent her the letter. She asks if he
is jealous and he denies it, but when she sets the
unopened letter beside her on the bed, he attempts
to read the address. Lucy catches him, and Norman
claims that he has a right to see it, especially if it is
from a man. Lucy then hides the letter under her
bedding, and objects to Norman's suspicions:
Lucy: Norman, your jealousy is not flatteringto
me.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342
I IIAnna
a49r . ........ fl i t _111_11"
.::--------, -..
" ----------
Norman: If I didn't love you, I wouldn't be
jealous.
Lucy: I'd ratheryou showed your love by trust-
ing me ... It's not from a man, Norman, but you
can't see it. Marriedpeople should trust each
other without proof.
Norman leaves for work in a huff, and the final shot
of the scene is a medium closeup of Lucy, who
recovers the envelope from under her blankets and
opens it, glancing up from the letter to look after
Norman and sighing.
Inthe opening scene as described, the narra-
tion would seem to be restricted, withholding infor-
mation about the letter. However, it seems likelythat
in the original print a closeup insert of the letter
revealed its contents and the identity of the sender
to the audience. In the UCLA print there is a slight
jump in the footage and a black splicing mark a few
seconds after Lucy opens the envelope which
seems to mark the location of an insert. Although it
is impossible to determine who sent the letter with
the existing print, it is unlikelythat the inserted letter
implicated Lucy in an extramarital affair. First, the
shot of Lucy reading the letter dissolves into an
intertitlethat asserts her innocence: 'Everybeautiful
woman loves admiration, but she hates to be sus-
pected when she knows herself to be above suspi-
cion.' Moreover, as will be demonstrated, Lucy's
behavior and a pattern of unrestricted narrationin the
rest of the film demonstrate that Norman's suspi-
cions are unfounded.
The second scene of the film takes place at a
partythrown by Norman's boss, Jonathan Sims, and
it introduces a number of importantsecondary char-
acters. These include Josephine Trent, Lucy's best
friend, a divorcee 'who has found marriage a liberal
education -and has taken several "decrees" '; Rufus
Kempster, 'a Don Juan on balloon tires - one of
Lucy's many rejected suitors'; Julia Leeson 'whose
wealth is equaled by her tonnage'; and Julia's
nephew, Danny Leeson, 'a white violet hopelessly
infatuated with the charming Mrs. Satterlee'. The first
dialogue exchange of the scene reiterates the point
about Norman's jealousy. Shortlyafter the Satterlees
arrive, Josephine approaches Lucy and asks how
she is getting along with her caveman. Lucy re-
sponds: 'Norman would be the dearest thing in
captivity if he weren't so jealous'. Meanwhile, Nor-
man is waylaid by Sims, who has been directed by
Kempster (apparently the head of the company) to
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ml' Zrgano
. . ........
put Norman in charge of a mining project in Mon-
tana. At first Norman resists, insisting that he cannot
leave Lucy home alone, 'unprotected'. But Sims
convinces him to take a few weeks to look over the
project.
During the party, Norman keeps a watchful
eye on Lucy as she dances with Danny Leeson.
During their dance, Danny all but swoons, and later,
he pronounces his love for Lucy, claiming that she is
'as beautiful as the pale moonlight - as a white swan
sailing among the pond lilies'. Lucy greets these
romantic sentiments with laughter, and her gestures
indicate she wants him to cease. She is rescued from
Danny by Kempster, who whisks her away from the
young man only to begin pitching his own brand of
woo. Kempster, too, is quickly discouraged when
Lucy reminds him: 'stop making love to me - I'm
married now.'
The dance ends, and Lucy and Kempster
leave the dance floor and exit right. There is a cut-
away to a two-shot of Norman and Jonathan. Nor-
man's eyeline indicates that he is watching his wife
with Kempster, and he then exits right. At this point,
the printis missing footage. The two-shot of Norman
and Jonathan cuts to an intertitlereading 'I'msorry',
which is followed by a two-shot of Lucy and Norman
both looking unhappy. It is obvious that in the miss-
ing segment, Norman followed Lucy and Kempster
and an argument ensued. The existing print shows
the end of this scene, with the Satterlees resolving
their differences for the time being. They embrace as
Lucy reassures her husband, 'Icould never be untrue
to you - because I love you'.
In the next scene, an introductory intertitle
reveals that Lucy has gone to live with Josephine
during Norman's tripto Montana in order to 'escape
Kempster's determined pursuit'. Kempster is shown
with a letterfrom Lucywhich reads: 'Rufus, since you
won't stop telephoning and sending me flowers
when I asked you please not to, I'm going away
where you can't find me.' InJosephine's apartment,
Lucy declines her friend's invitationto go dancing,
claiming that it would not be wise: 'WithNorman so
jealous? I'm walking on eggs as it is.' As these
examples demonstrate, Lucy has the best of inten-
tions and is unaware that Kempster maintains an
apartment in the same building. Laterthat evening,
when the building catches fire, Lucy is driven onto
the fire escape where she runs into Kempster. It is
not clear that Kempster has taken the apartment to
be near to Lucy, but when she asks him how he got
The Road to Reno: The Awful Truthand the Hollywood comedy of remarriage
The...
RenolThl
Road to
Truth
and-the-Holl-wood.
. . . .
there, the dialogue title indicatesa degree of hesi-
tancy in his reply:'I - I'mstopping here.' Norman
returnshomefromhis tripto findhis wifeand his rival
climbingdown the fire escape in theirbedclothes.
Immediately,he accuses them of arranginghis trip
so they could be together,and althoughLucytries
to explain,Normanwillhear none of it and rushes
off. Kempster'sexpression as he comfortsthe dis-
traughtLucyindicatesthathe is notat alldispleased
with the turn of events. In a closeup he is shown
contemplatingthe situation,scratchinghis chinwith
a slightsmile.
In the followingscene, Lucyarriveshome to
find Normanin a rage, packing his suitcase and
preparingto leave her. Again, she attemptsto ex-
plainthe situation,onlyto be told her storyis ridicu-
lous. When she asks Normanif he reallybelieves
whathe is insinuating,he responds:'Whatwouldany
man believe? Kempsterloves you. You dance with
him, flirtwith him. He got me out of the way. And
tonight - .' Lucy is offended and slaps him across
the face before runningout of the room. Norman
appears ashamed and conciliatoryas he follows
Lucyintoher room. However,it is Lucy'sturnto be
stubborn.She takes off herweddingringand throws
it at him,asserting:'Thisis whatjealousyleads to -
a man you love, to whom you've given everything,
believes you a cheat - a loose woman.Well,I don't
belong in thatclass!' Normanstormsout and Lucy,
sobbing, bends to pickup herwedding ring.
The next scene is set at a fashionablemoun-
tainresortwhereLucyis visitingJosephine.Lucyand
Normanhave been divorcedforabouta year.Thus,
withthis scene, the film'catches up' to the starting
point of the play. The tone also becomes more
comic, in contrastwiththe opening sections which
presentthe demise of the Satterlees'marriagein a
straightforwardly dramaticfashion. As will be dis-
cussed below, even the lattersections of the 1925
film are not as consistentlycomedic as eitherthe
playor the two laterversions.
Atthe resort,Lucyand Josephine see Danny
Leeson and his AuntJuliaoutside the main lodge.
Dannyis sitting,shiveringinthe cold and complain-
ing to his Aunt,who calls hima 'thin-bloodedmolly-
coddle'. Lucy asks Josephine if she knew Danny
would be there when she invited her to visit.
Josephine laughs and replies: 'Dannyhas twenty
millionsand you haven'ta cent - and the boy's crazy
aboutyou.' Lucyresists the idea as 'ridiculous',but
Josephine presses the matter:'Catch 'em young
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
comed-
o r
e..marriae
343
3
and train'em, I say. Besides, you'd make him the
happiest boy in the world.'Josephine encourages
Lucyto talkto Dannyand she finallyagrees. Again,
Dannypracticallyswoons over Lucy,tellingherthat
her divorce has given him a reason to live. The
couple are joinedby AuntJuliawho scrutinisesLucy
and comments on her divorce.
Underpressure fromJosephine and Danny,
Lucyagrees to marryDanny.WhenAuntJuliahears
the news, she immediatelyobjects: 'You- marrya
divorcedwoman?Andone who was divorcedunder
a cloud? Never!'Josephine suggests that Norman
be asked to visitthe lodge to settle the question.At
first,Lucyobjects,butwhenJuliaasks ifshe is afraid,
she acquiesces. Normanarrivesthe next morning,
and testifies for the Leesons. He tells them: 'The
awfultruthis, Mrs.Satterleeand Iseparatedbecause
we differin temperament.I was whollyto blame.'
Julia is satisfied and Normanplans to leave the
lodge. Lucythen confesses to Josephine that she
cannotmarryDannynowthatshe has seen Norman.
Josephine encourages her to patch things up with
Norman,assuringLucy:'I'llconsole the babymillion-
aire.'However,when Lucyfinds Normanand triesto
thankhimfordefendingher, he is less than respon-
sive, tellingherthat in his meetingwiththe Leesons
he 'liedlikea gentleman'.Lucyis discouragedand
mopes around the lodge, resigned to Norman's
departureon the nextbus.
Josephine steps in and convinces Normanto
stay for lunch and a toboggan party.An intertitle
explains: 'Welldoes the wily Josephine know that
there is nothing like tobogganing to bring people
closely together.'Thefollowingscene illustratesthis
pointwhen Josephine insiststhatLucyand Norman
take a turnon the toboggan. Bothof them resisther
at first,but she forces Normanto sit at the frontof
the sled withLucyimmediatelybehindhim.Stillnot
satisfied, Josephine sits behind Lucyand pushes
hercloserto Norman,takingLucy'sarmsto putthem
aroundhis waist. Afterthe initialtoboggan run,an
intertitle
informsus that'thehourshaveslippedaway
- and so has Josephine'. We then see Lucy and
Normanlaughingand setting up theirsled for an-
other run.This time, Normansits behind Lucyand
she pulls his arms around her. Later,when they
tumble off the toboggan into the snow, a playful
momentbecomes romanticand they kiss.
Kempster appears at this moment having
'kepttrackof Lucy'since her divorceand followed
her to the lodge. He invitesthe couple to his cabin.
344
Fig. 3. 'Nothing
liketobogganing
to bringpeople
closelytogether'.
LucyandNorman
ontheslopes.
TheAwfulTruth
(PDC,1925).
Norman's good mood immediately disappears, and
Lucy's smile fades. Instead of being discouraged as
she was earlier, Lucy takes the initiativein this scene
and departs with Kempster. As they walk off, Lucy
purposely drops her scarf behind her, glancing back
at Norman as she does so. Norman hesitates at first,
but then picks up Lucy's scarf and follows. Inside
Kempster's cabin, Lucy avoids his attempts to em-
brace her until she sees Norman standing outside.
She then begins to flirtopenly with Kempster, who
calls her a littlewitch and vows: 'You've never kissed
me - but you're going kiss me now.' He grabs her
but she resists and yells for help. Norman bursts into
the cabin, pulls Kempster away from Lucy and
punches him. Lucy then tries to clear her name,
asking Kempster: 'Have I ever done anything to
encourage [you]?' Kempster shakes his head no.
Lucy asks Norman if he now believes that there was
nothing between them. Norman is not convinced
and accuses her of bringing Kempster to the lodge
and orchestrating 'a frame-up' to square things.
Fed up, Lucy spies Danny approaching the
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jane M. g~~~~~~~~oiw,fw
Greene
cabin in a sleigh. She storms out, telling Norman that
she will marry Leeson after all since he believes
anything she says. Norman follows her, but Lucy
pelts him with a snowball. Finally, Norman throws
Dan out of the sled into a snowbank and takes off
with his ex-wife. He tells Lucy that he must have her
back. She protests: 'But you say I've deceived you.
I say I haven't. I can't prove it and you won't believe
me.' Norman responds: 'I've learned my lesson.
There's no happiness for a man who doesn't trust his
wife - so I'm going to trust you - you devil!'
There are two significant points of contrast
between the theatrical version and the silent film
version of The Awful Truth.The first point concerns
the extent to which the plots establish Lucy's guilt or
innocence: the handling of the exposition of Lucy's
relationship with Kempster, and the explanation
given for the divorce. The second point concerns
Lucy's role in the reconciliation and the means she
employs to win her husband back.
Inthe play, Norman's jealousy is one problem
among many in the marriage. At first, Lucy claims
The Road to Reno: Th Roa
Reno The to
Awu Truth
Awful n the
rt and h Hollywood
olwodcmd comedy offrmrig4
The~
that she let Normanbelieve she was unfaithfulbe-
cause they were both miserable.In Act Two, Lucy
explainsthatshe saw Normanbecomingembittered
and unhappy:'But,even then, you loved me. You
see that's why nothing in the world would have
inducedyou to havea divorce,except believingwhat
I made you believe.'Lucy'sassertionthatshe rather
selflessly allowed himto believe she was unfaithful
seems somewhat implausible.At another point,
Josephine revealsto Normanthat Lucyallowedher
friendsto believeanotherversionof the divorce-that
Normanneglected Lucyand 'ill-treated' her. Finally,
inActThree,Lucychanges herstoryagain, claiming
that Norman'squestions about Kempsterwere 'an
insult',and she finallylet him believe the affairoc-
curredso he would agree to a divorce.This is the
only momentin the playwhen Norman'sjealousyis
discussed as a factorin theirdivorce.The difficulty
in determiningthe true reason Lucy and Norman
divorcedincreases the ambiguitysurroundingLucy
and Kempster'srelationship.Herinabilityto settleon
a reason for the break up of the marriageand the
implausibility of her assertions indicatea degree of
subterfuge.
Giventhe way it handles exposition,the 1925
filmemphasises Norman'sjealousywhichit repeat-
edly shows to be unwarrantedand unfair.This is
reflectedinthe openingintertitle, whichcites Othello:
'O,beware,my Lord,of jealousy;itis the green-eyed
monsterwhichdothmockthe meatitfeeds on.' From
this opening quotation,the filmstresses Norman's
partinthe divorce,especiallyby the incidentsof the
letterand the quarrelinthe partyscene. We also see
the firestartinginthe apartmentbuildingwhereLucy
resides withJosephine, and the coincidence which
brings Lucy and Kempstertogether under appar-
ently suspicious circumstances. Lucy is drivento
rejectNormanandthrowdownherweddingringonly
afterNormanhas made suggestions thatwe know
unambiguouslyto be baseless.
Inaddition,the filmaltersKempster'scharac-
ter and his relationshipwith Lucy. In the play,
Kempsterdoes not appear untilthe end of the final
act, and, when he does arriveat Lucy'sapartment,
he seems quite harmless.Moreover,he is as much
a victimof Lucy'smachinationsas everyotherman.
She arranges his visit, controlsthe course of their
conversationand, afterhe has served his purpose,
she quicklydispenses withhim. Inthe filmversion,
however,Kempsteris much morepredatory.Thisis
apparentin his behaviorwithLucy(kissingher hand
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
remarriage 345
beforedrawinghis strawin the contest, holdingher
uncomfortablyclose on the dance floor, following
her to Josephine's and then laterto the lodge) and
particularlyin his behind-the-scenes maneuvering
with regardto Norman'scareer. By demonstrating
that Lucy is an unwillingvictimof Kempster'sad-
vances, the filmemphasises her fidelityto her hus-
band. Clearly,in revisingthe playforadaptation,the
filmmakershave gone to greatlengthsto reducethe
ambiguitiesabout the heroine'smotives and elimi-
nate all possible suggestion of adulteryon her part.
The second importantpoint of contrast be-
tween play and silent film concerns the way the
heroineengineers the remarriage.In the theatrical
version, Lucywins back her husband in a manner
that casts furtherdoubt on her character.She em-
ploys underhandedmethods in arrangingto meet
Normanalone on threeoccasions. Beyondthat,she
is quite aware of Norman'ssexual attractionto her
and does not hesitate to use it to achieve her pur-
pose. Thus, as mentionedabove, Act Two opens
withLucysprayingperfumeon pillowsinpreparation
for Norman'svisit. Normannotices this when she
arrangesthe cushions on the sofa for himand pur-
posely punches themto release the scent. Lucyhas
also strategicallyplaced objects aroundthe room
which bringback fond memoriesfor Norman.One
pillowin particularaffects him. He brings it to his
face, inhalingthe smell of her perfumeas he remi-
nisces about acquiringit in Florence:'Theone that
layon the sofa inthatlittlehotel,and thatwe bought
the next morningfor its associations.'AfterNorman
testifies for Mrs. Leeson and he is left alone for a
moment, he repeats the same action, inhalingthe
scent of the pillow.
Althoughthe audience does not witness the
meeting the next evening between Lucyand Nor-
man, the couple's subsequent dialogue makes it
clear that Lucycontinuedon the course set in their
first meeting and that Normanresponded to her
advances. When he arrivesthe next morning,he
startsto apologise:
Norman:Foractinginthatabominablefashion
last night- tryingto kiss you, as I did.
Lucy:[Sternly]Itwas veryshockingbehavior.
Norman:Iknowit.Ihave no defense. Butthere
shouldbe some lawagainstthe indiscriminate
use of perfume.
Lucy:Youonce said I used itwiththe greatest
discrimination.
346 346~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~I~~~~~~~nA1 -------- II
Lucy quicklyforgives him, and Norman wonders why
she refused to hear his apology the night before.
Again, Lucy reveals that she has manipulated the
situation. She pretended to be offended by his ac-
tions so that he would have to see her again. Norman
is annoyed and confused. He admits that he is still
desperately in love but is not convinced that she has
told him the truth about Kempster. Lucy tries to
comfort him, crossing over to him with another per-
fumed pillow, but Norman shoos her away, claiming:
'Everytime you make me comfortable that way, you
destroy all possibility of rest.' The play establishes
that Norman is the one character who is aware of
Lucy's manipulative and deceitful nature. Yet despite
this, he succumbs to her. Given this pattern, the most
plausible motivation for his final reconciliation with
his wife would appear to be his inabilityto resist his
sexual attraction to her. Hence, Lucy actively brings
about the reconciliation by manipulating people and
situations and by seducing her former husband.
The 1925 filmversion resolves the plot in a very
different way, relying crucially upon the character of
Josephine. She is a much more active character in
the film than in the play. She takes the lead in
establishing the engagement between Danny and
Lucy, and makes the first move in the subsequent
reconciliation of Lucy and Norman as well. Moreover,
in the film, Josephine takes on the more mercenary,
gold-digging characteristics of the play's Lucy. This
can be seen most clearly in the way each version
motivates the engagement to Leeson.
Inthe theatricalversion, Josephine is a happily
marriedyoung mother who is loyal to Lucy almost to
the point of being blind to her friend's more unfavor-
able qualities. For example, in Act One, Josephine's
husband, Eustace, asks Lucy why she is marrying
Leeson, and Lucy replies: 'For one thing, he asked
me if I would. For another- Dan's ridiculously rich.'
Josephine refuses to believe this is her only reason,
but Lucy confirms that money is her primarymotiva-
tion, revealing that she has gone through both her
inheritance and the money from Norman's settle-
ment. Unlike the heroine of the two later films, the
1925 Lucy, like her theatrical counterpart, contem-
plates an engagement with Leeson out of financial
need. But, it is Josephine, having been through
several husbands, who encourages her friend to
pursue Danny and makes the proposal happen. In
addition to using Josephine to 'innocent' the heroine,
Leeson's character is also changed toward this end.
In all other versions, Leeson is a big, strong and
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
------I~Io
'IP J.IaneM. Greene
Il
( V nl A F
altogether too-rustic oil man, but the 1925 version
goes out of its way to characterise Danny as a forlorn
'mollycoddle'. When the two friends see Danny shiv-
ering in frontof the fire in the lodge, Josephine quips:
'You two were made for each other. He'll freeze to
death withoutyou - and you'll starve to death without
him.' Although Lucy is embarrassed by Danny's
awkward expressions of love and admiration, she is
never unkindto him, and by marryinghim would save
him from his overbearing aunt. Thus, in the silent
version, Lucy's engagement to Danny is presented
as mutually beneficial, as well as largely the result of
her friend's manipulations.
Although much of the resolution in the 1925
film is motivated by Josephine, Lucy does become
more active in the final scenes. While she initially
resists Josephine's attempts at remarriage match-
making, she later takes steps on her own to effect a
reconciliation with her husband. Nonetheless, she is
not seductive. Initially,Norman's romantic feelings
for Lucy are rekindled by innocent (i.e. nonsexual)
play in the snow. Lucy then manipulates Norman
through his jealousy: first to get him to follow her to
Kempster's cabin, and then to get him inside where
she hopes Kempster's admission of guiltwillabsolve
her. Her final announcement that she intends to
marry Dan also plays on Norman's jealousy. The
New York Times review of the film reinforces this
interpretation, characterising the reunion thusly: '...
after a decent interval, the wife decides she wants
him back. How does she get him? By deliberately
making him jealous again.'13 In the film adaptation,
then, Norman's motivations for the remarriage differ
from the play as a function of the changes in Lucy's
character. In the drama, Norman's attraction to his
seductive wife overrides his suspicion about the
affair. Whereas in the film version, Norman's jeal-
ously itself pushes him to the point where, ironically,
his suspicions about Lucy's relationship with
Kempster no longer matter.
In summary, the exposition in the 1925 film
provides an unambiguous reason forthe divorce and
also establishes Lucy's innocence in her relationship
with Kempster. In her engagement to Danny and her
reconciliation with Norman, Lucy is much more pas-
sive than her counterpart in the play. This is largely
due to the actions of the 'wily'Josephine, who takes
on some of the trickster role of the play's Lucy. Even
when Lucy does become active, she is not seductive
- the romantic appeal that she makes to her former
The Road to Reno: The Awful Truthand the Hollywood comedy of remarriage
f"S&.wPJII,I%..ll...I .?r
husband is a result of innocent fun with no sexual
taint.
The 1929 film version
The 1929 versionof TheAwfulTruthis a much more
faithful adaptation of the play than the silent film,
probably due to several factors. New sound technol-
ogy allowed for a more straightforwardadaptation of
the play, and the play's author, Arthur Richman,
co-wrote the scenario. Moreover, the film starred Ina
Claire,who originated the role of Lucy on Broadway.
Unfortunately,a print of the film does not appear to
exist, and the only available record is an incomplete
draft of the final revised script which is missing the
final, crucial scene in which Lucy and Norman rec-
oncile.14 However, even this partial script points to
salient differences between earlier and later ver-
sions.
The 1929 film avoids the expository scenes of
the silent film but begins much earlier than the play,
opening in a divorce court where Norman is grudg-
ingly taking the blame for the failure of his marriage
to Lucy. Before delivering his verdict, the judge in-
sists that Lucy and Norman meet in his chambers
and make one final attempt to reconcile. Soon the
couple is bickering over the temperature in the room,
and the debate is turning into a shouting match when
the judge returns. He grants them their divorce,
reminding them that it will be a year before it be-
comes final. There is an ellipsis of an unspecified
length (it appears to be a matter of days or weeks)
and then the film picks up approximately where the
play begins. From then on, the 1929 film is very
similarto the theatrical version, with several scenes
that are almost direct transcriptions of the original.
However, there are a few notable differences that
affect our perception of Lucy's character and her
guilt or innocence in the Kempster affair.
The 1929 film has generally unrestricted nar-
ration, eliminating many of the shifts from restricted
to unrestricted that characterise the play and create
doubt about Lucy. She still plays an active role in the
reconciliation, but she is not as manipulative or du-
plicitous as the play's Lucy. For example, as in the
play, Lucy confronts the Leesons about their suspi-
cions. She asks both of them to be at her apartment
the following afternoon, telling them she will phone
Norman so they may question him about the divorce.
The next day in Lucy's apartment, Norman arrives
before the others, and Lucy asks him to tell the
Leesons that there was nothing between her and
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ar- A. _7_-
347
r
Kempster. At first, Norman refuses, claiming that he Fig. 4. Ina
will not say things he doesn't believe. But when the Claire,seenhere
Leesons arrive, Dan's pompous and arrogant be- withRaymond
havior so annoys Norman that he changes his mind Walburn
(Kempster) inthe
and vouches for Lucy's innocence.
1922Broadway
This arrangement of the plot eliminates the first productionof The
shift from restricted narration in the play when the AwfulTruth,
audience discovers that Norman's testimony was recreatedtherole
prearranged by Lucy. The film also makes the audi- of Lucyin
ence privyto the conversation between Norman and Marshall Neilan's
1929film
Lucy when she requests his help. Additionally, it
version.Theatre
eliminates the need for a second meeting, when
Magazine,
Lucy covertly arranges for Norman to arrive before December 1922,
the others and begins her attempt to win him back. p. 372.
Lucy is still quite active, defending herself by arrang-
ing the testimony, but the shift to a more unrestricted
narration makes her appear less manipulative and
plays down her conniving nature (particularly her
pretense that Norman's testimony is a spontaneous
idea and her offended martyract before Dan and her
friends). It also makes the audience aware of the
extent of her machinations, eliminating much of the
ambiguity characteristic of the play.
Immediately following Norman's testimony
before the Leesons, Lucy breaks off her engagement
to Dan. She then phones Norman and tells him she's
giving up the apartment and suggests that he come
over and pick up the remainder of his belongings.
Norman assumes that she is doing this in prepara-
tion for her marriage, and Lucy does not correct this
misinterpretation. Norman agrees to come over the
next afternoon. Lucy then makes another phone call,
348 348
--~~' _111_11?9~~;
----------
and the audience hears her asking to speak to
JimmyKempsteras the scene fades out.
As this scene indicates,Lucyis not the inno-
cent and passive victimshe is in the silentfilm.She
is active and stillcapable of deception, as she lies
to Normanabout her engagement to arrangean-
othervisit. However,she is stillless scheming than
her theatricalcounterpart:in the play, Lucy tells
completelyopposing stories to Normanand Danto
arrangean evening rendezvouswith Norman.This
is no longernecessary inthe film,as she has already
brokenoff the engagement. Moreover,in the play,
Lucy cleverly times her revelation about the
Kempsteraffair,knowingthat Dan willbe returning
shortlyand that Normanwillbe forced to meet with
her to hear her fullexplanation.Additionally,by in-
cluding the beginning of Lucy's phone call to
Kempster,the filmeliminatesanotherpivotalshiftin
the rangeof narration. Althoughwe do not heartheir
conversation,we do knowthat she has contacted
him.Thisis incontrastto the play,whenwe discover
that Lucyhas contacted Kempsterpriorto his visit
only when he returnsto request that she not leave
her name the nexttime she phones.
It is also interestingto note that in the 1929
film,Lucysuggests that Normaneavesdrop on her
conversationwithKempster.Inthe play,this is Nor-
man's idea, and at first, Lucy pretends to be of-
fended, suggesting that he is no betterthan Dan.
Again, the play presents Lucy as a more devious
character- only laterdoes the audience discover
that she arranged Kempster'svisit and also pre-
dicted Norman'sresponse to his arrival(much as
she anticipatesAuntJulia'sobjectionsin the open-
ingact).The1929 Lucyis certainlynotthe victimised
heroineof the silent film, but she is a kinder,less
manipulativewoman. Moreover,withoutthis almost
super-humanabilityto predictothers'actions, Lucy
is placed on a more even playing field with her
husband. This alterationin the relationshipis also
evidenttowardthe end of the film.
As inthe play,the means Lucyemploysto win
her husband back are primarilyseductive. When
Normanarrivesto pickup his belongingsthe follow-
ing day, Lucyis present (althoughshe has told him
she willbe out) and begins to seduce her ex-hus-
band.Thisscene is almostidenticalto the play:Lucy
uses perfumeand strategicallyplaced objects that
she knows willaffect Norman;he responds to her
seduction and soon admits that he still loves her,
althoughsuspicions aboutKempsterstillhaunthim;
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Jane M. Gren
Jane M. Greene
Kempsterarrives and Norman eavesdrops; Lucy
appears to be vindicated,but Kempster'ssudden
returnreviveshis suspicions.
At this point, the film departs from the play
because Normandoes notgive into his attractionto
Lucyand resign himselfto neverknowingthe truth.
However, several summaries and reviews of the
1929 version indicate that film follows the play's
conclusioninthatthe couple is reunitedat this point.
Accordingto TheExhibitor's Herald-World,'Lucy...is
pleadingwithJimmyKempsterto tellthe truth,when
her husband overhears the conversationand for-
gives her'.15And the AmericanFilmInstituteCata-
logue of FeatureFilmsclaims that Lucy 'is happily
reunited with her husband when he learns that
Kempsterhad onlyasked his wifefora kiss - which
she had refusedhim'.16However,inthe finalrevised
draft,Lucyand Normando notreconcileat thispoint
and are still quarrellingover the Kempsteraffair.
WhenNormanaccuses Lucyof arrangingthe meet-
ing withKempster,she responds:
Lucy: ... I did ask him here, but I didn't tell him
whatto say.
Norman:Youexpect me to believe that?
Lucy:Idon'tcare whatyou believe.I'mtiredof
being suspected. Tiredof argument,tiredof
tryingto convinceyou thatwhat I say is true.
Norman:[betweenclenched teeth] I'msailing
tonight- I hope I neversee you again.
Lucy:There'sone way you can make sure -
don'tcome back.
The scriptends with Lucygoing into her bedroom
and slammingthe door and Normanslammingthe
frontdoor behindhim.Anattached memo indicates
thatthe remainderof the filmwouldfollowthe original
draftof the screenplay,but these crucialpages are
not included in the file. It does seem unlikelythat
Normansuddenlyreturnsand forgiveshis ex-wifein
the missing pages. Censorship files hint that the
conclusion was more prolonged and included a
bedroom scene between Normanand Lucy. For
example,Pennsylvaniastate censors objectedto the
followingactions in reel seven:
Views of Normanin pajamas and dressing
gown, puttingout lightand gettingin bed with
Lucy ... Medium shot Norman and Lucy. He
starts to turn out light. Scene in dark with
The Road
The Ra to Reno:
Reo The
T Awful and tthe Hollywood comedy
Awf Truth-------and comed of rremarriage
i 349

exception of lightcoming fromwindow [and its screwballcounterpartby presentingan active,

Lucy'sline] 'Norman,turnup that light!Nor- capable woman who is still sympathetic. Signifi-
man,areyou crazy?Whatareyou thinkingof? cantly,it is not simplythe change in the wife'schar-
Norman,this is the most outrageousthing - acter,buta change inthe husbandandwifedynamic
(inaudible) - Stop it!' thatwillbe an importantpointof comparisonwiththe
1937 film.Thecrucialdistinctionis this move toward
The censorship file contains only a two-page a morebalancedor equal relationshipbetweenhus-
reportwith the reactionof Ohio and Pennsylvania band and wife. Additionally,the reintroductionof
censors as well as a few Canadianprovinces, all sexualityin the reconciliation,absent in the silent
objectingto thisconclusion.Ifotherstates foundthe version,and the apparentlysuggestive ending also
ending problematic,it is possible that Pathe re-cut looks forwardto the McCareyfilm.17
the film. A review in Film Daily (which does not
mentionthe ending)appearedon August4, 1929. A The 1937 film version
few weeks later,Pathetook out a fullpage ad forthe At this point, it is instructiveto turn to the 1937
filmin Variety,althoughneitherthe trade magazine screwballversion of The AwfulTruthand consider
norTheNew YorkTimesappearto have reviewedthe how it handles the question of Lucy'sguiltor inno-
1929 version.The state censor reportswere filed in cence, and how it motivatesthe reconciliationof
the firsttwo weeks of September.The next reviews husbandandwife.As willbe demonstrated,the 1937
of the play do not appear untilOctober(the above- film has a carefullybalanced range of narration
cited reviewfromthe Exhibitor's Herald-World and a whichreintroducesa degree of ambiguitymorechar-
few lines in Photoplay).Thisgap mightbe explained acteristicof the originalplaythanthe 1925 version.
by an attemptto recallprintsand re-editthe ending. The filmopens in an athleticclub whereJerry
This is speculation, but we can draw more Warriner is gettinga tan undera sun lampto disguise
substantive conclusions based on the script that the fact that he has not been on a business tripto
does exist. First,Lucyis not the innocentvictimthat Floridaas his wife, Lucy,believes himto have been.
she is in the silent film.She is an active character, Inthe followingscene, Jerryarriveshome withsev-
manipulatingsituationsto heradvantage,but notto eralguests, bearinga giftbasket of Floridaoranges
the extentshe does inthe play.Thisis largelydue to forhiswife.Lucy,to his surprise,is notat homewhen
the eliminationof key shifts in the rangeof narration he arrives.Jerryputs on a show of unconcerned
that create doubts about Lucy'scharacterand en- nonchalance, insisting that there is a reasonable
courage us to believethatshe could be guiltyof an explanationforherabsence. 'That'sthe troublewith
affair. Based on the extant script, it is not clear most marriagestoday', he insists. 'People are al-
whetheror not the 1929 filmever answersthe ques- ways imaginingthings. The road to Reno is paved
tions of herguiltor innocence. Butthe less manipu- withsuspicions.Thefirstthingyou know,theyallend
lativeand deceitfulshe is made to appear,the more up in a divorce court.' Eventually,Lucy returns,
likelywe are to believe her innocence. dressed to the nines inan eveninggownand fur,and
Lucyalso uses the same methods of seduc- accompaniedby hermusicteacher,ArmandLavalle.
tion she does in the play, reintroducinga sexual She revealsthatthey have been away all nightand
component that is missing in the silent film. It is explains that after attendingthe JuniorProm,Ar-
interestingto note, however,that unlikethe play's mand's car brokedown and leftthem strandedat a
Lucy,the 1929 heroineis not intotalcontroloverthe country inn. Jerry continues to present a calm
men in her life. Normandoes not rush back to her, fagade, butthe guests, sensing the awkwardnessof
succumbingto his attraction.As mentionedearlier, the situation,excuse themselves. Whenalone with
Lucyand Normanareon a moreequal levelbecause his wife, Jerryexpresses his disappointmentin her
Lucyis not as manipulative.Butthis is also due to behavior,emphasising his loyaltyby remindingher
the fact thatthe 1929 Normanappears to be less a of the lettershe wrote her dailyfrom Florida.Lucy
victimof his wife'smachinationsand his own attrac- turnsthe tables on himwhen she discoversthathis
tionto her.Additionally, the ending alludedto in the Floridaoranges are actuallystamped 'California Or-
censor reports indicatethat Normanis the sexual ange GrowersAssociation'.She goes on to inquire
aggressor in the bedroomscene. how he managedto get such a wonderfultan during
As Iwilldiscuss, the 1929 versionanticipates Florida'srecentrainyspell. WhenJerryaccuses her

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
350
35
Jn,e
Jane M.M. Green
Greene

Fig. 5. Jerry
(CaryGrant)
fakesa suntanin
LeoMcCarey's
remake of The
AwfulTruth
(Columbia,
1937).

of making insinuations about him to cover her own both the audience and LucyknowthatJerryis lying
about his Floridatrip.Unlikethe play,then, inwhich
guilt, Lucy insists that she has told the truth,arguing:
'There can't be any doubt in marriage. The whole Normanis a victimof Lucy'swhims and machina-
thing's builton faith.Ifyou've lost that,well, you've tions, Jerryis, if anything,shown to contributemore
lost everything.'Jerryagrees thatsince they can no to the circumstancesleadingto the divorce.
longer trust each other they might as well separate. A second, pivotalmanipulationinthe rangeof
The 1937 filmis the firstversionof TheAwful narrationlaterin the 1937 filmhelps to substantiate
Truthto suggest thatthe husbandhas been unfaith- Lucy'sinnocence. Unlikethe play,whichemploys a
ful as well as the wife.18The opening scene in the patternof sudden changes in narrationthat reveal
athleticclub definitelyestablishes that Jerryis lying Lucyto have been deceptive,thereis onlyone scene
to his wife,and even thoughhe does not revealwhat in the 1937 versionthat uses restrictednarrationto
he has been doing, the fact thathe is lyingis enough create a momentarydoubt about her characterand
to suggest thathe has been up to no good. Because her relationshipwithArmand.However,in the long
thereis no corollaryscene revealingthatLucyis lying run, this scene functions to vindicate Lucy. After
about the night in question, there is no direct evi- divorceproceedingshave been initiated,Jerryover-
dence thatshe is guilty.Moreover,she seems genu- hears Lucyon the phone makingan appointmentfor
inelysurprisedby the suggestion thatshe has done three o'clockthe next day. A cutawayrevealsto the
anythingwrong.Whenone of theirguests suggests audiencethatLucyis speakingto Armand,butwhen
thatherhusbandwouldnot be as calm as Jerryis in Jerrylaterasks to whomshe was speaking,Lucytells
the same situation,Lucy is amazed and wonders: him it was her masseuse. Lucy'slie and the myste-
'Whyshould Jerrybe angry?I didn'tbuildthe car!' riousnatureof her appointmentwithArmandcreate
Thus, the audience and Jerrymerelysuspect that doubt for both the audience and Jerry,suggesting
she is lyingabout her nightwithArmand.However, that she is carryingon an affairwith her voice

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
1TheRa
Road
ThelAwful
..o..
to
t Reno:
eo The Awful Truth
th.j.r
T and
an the Hollywood
Il.. ,,llylwllIdmey
.-.
comedy ofof rremarriage
ia.
351

Fig. 6. Lucy
(IreneDunne)
introducesJerry
to Armand
Lavalle
(Alexander
D'Arcy).Agreat
teacher,butnota
greatlover.The
AwfulTruth
(Columbia,
1937).

teacher. These suspicions prove to be unfounded in
the following scene when Jerry goes to Armand's
apartment expecting to catch Lucy and Armand 'in
the clinch' and instead finds the couple in the middle
of a recital surrounded by an admiring audience.
This recital establishes that Lucy's relationship with
Armand is legitimate. While the scene does not
completely settle the question of what happened the
night the car broke down, it is a strong indication that
Lucy has not been unfaithful.Thus, neither the play
nor the 1937 film completely absolve Lucy, unlikethe
silent film, but they employ the same narrational
strategies to opposite ends. Much like the 1929
version, the 1937 film encourages the audience to
doubt her guilt, while the play encourages the audi-
ence to doubt her innocence.
However, if Irene Dunne's character is more
innocent than the theatrical Lucy, she is still not the
passive heroine of the 1925 film, a victim of both an
irrationallyjealous husband and a predatory lover.
This is partly due to the opportunities for repart6e
given by the addition of the husband's suspected
infidelity.For every accusation Jerry levels at Lucy,
she is able to respond in kind, first pointing to the
oranges and Florida's rainy spell, and later making
subtle jabs at Jerry's philandering, such as: 'You get
around so much more than I do.' In addition, the
scheming Rufus Kempster of the silent film becomes
the foppish and rather foolish Armand Lavalle. Ar-
mand is made an object of ridicule throughout the
film, particularlyin the following exchange from the
second scene:
Armand: But, now my position must be con-
sidered. I have never yet been in a scandal.
Jerry: Never been caught, huh?
Armand: No. [Armandrealizes the implication
of his answer, does a double take at Jerry,and
turns to face him.] I am a great teacher, not a
great lover.
Lucy: That's right,Armand. No one could ever
accuse you of being a great lover.
This interchange is indicative of the complex levels
of ambiguity in the film: Lucy's line may suggest that

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352 352
---L~~' I--; ----------
she does not find Armand compelling in a romantic
role; alternatively, it may suggest that she has direct
experience of his inadequacy. In any case, the line
places her in a controlling position. Whatever may
have gone on between them, she is not the conven-
tional ingenue, nor he the predatory male.
Another feature which distinguishes the
screwball Lucyfrom previous incarnations is the lack
of importance accorded to the question of her fidelity
and chastity. The 1925 version insists on Lucy's
virtue to the point that it obliterates every trace of the
ambiguities which permeate the theatrical version,
and almost every trace of comedy. Lucy herself takes
Norman's accusations of infidelityto heart, and she
is offended that he could believe her 'a cheat - a
loose woman'. And, as already noted, the early
scenes in which she argues with her husband and
asserts her innocence are highly dramatic. In con-
trast, the McCarey version suggests that Lucy may
be innocent, but does not go out of its way to insist
on her innocence because, ultimately, it does not
take the issue very seriously. The comic treatment of
the wife's supposed infidelityis evident in Armand's
attempt to defend himself and Lucy cited above. It
can also be seen in the way The AwfulTruthhandles
the Leesons' questions about Lucy's virtue. In all of
the earlier versions, doubts about Lucy's character
are shown to have serious potential consequences,
precluding her engagement. Thus, Norman must be
summoned to defend his wife. But, while Lucy ar-
ranges for Norman to testify on her behalf in the play
and the 1929 version, and Josephine sets up this
testimony in the silent film, in the McCarey version,
the testimony is brought about by chance through
Mrs. Leeson's unplanned arrivalduring a business
meeting between Dan and Jerry. When Mrs. Leeson
voices her suspicions, Lucy says lightly: 'The gal's
name needs clearin' partner.' Thus, although the
clearing of Lucy's name may be of great moment to
Mrs. Leeson, the heroine herself does not seem to
regard it as a particularlyweighty matter.
Moreover, in both the play and the first film
version, Norman's testimony is presented in a
straightforwardand gallant manner, even if later, in
private, he expresses doubts about his ex-wife.
Thus, in the play, Norman tells Dan: 'if you'll permit
me to say so, your suspicions do you very little
credit.' And, in the silent film, Norman addresses
Julia: 'Yournephew, in sanctioning this impertinent
investigation, does not shine as a lover!' In the
McCarey version, the testimony itself becomes a
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
_111_11 I_
Jane M.
Jan M. Gr
Greene
en
source of comedy, as Jerry uses the opportunity to
take several jabs at his ex-wife. As he proclaims
'Lucyis above suspicion and always has been. She's
as pure as the driven snow. As faithfulas she is fair,'
he moves in front of Lucy, so she can see that he is
crossing his fingers behind his back. He goes on:
'Never during our maritalbliss did she cause me one
moment's uneasiness. Never did I have to ask:
"Lucy,where have you been? Whatwere you doing?"
[Jerryturns to look at Lucy] I always knew.'
I would argue that one of the unique charac-
teristics of the screwball version of The AwfulTruthis
its comedic treatment of what are rather serious
issues in the silent film and even to some extent in
the original play and 1929 version: divorce, infidelity,
the sanctity of marriage. All four versions are come-
dies, but the 1925 film is less consistently comedic,
not only because of its treatment of Lucy's character
but, also, because of the way it handles the idea of
divorce. It may be that the makers of the silent film
were unwillingor unable to represent the dissolution
of a marriage as a matter for comedy. In contrast,
McCarey's The Awful Truthexplicitly rejects sancti-
monious attitudes toward marriage and divorce.
Take, for example, the scenes immediately following
Lucy and Jerry's decision to divorce. Lucy phones
her lawyer and he attempts to reason with her, warn-
ing her not to end the marriage in haste. 'Marriageis
a beautiful thing ...' he repeatedly begins, only to be
interruptedby his wife calling him to the dinner table.
His responses grow more and more hostile, and he
finallytells his wife: 'Shutyour big mouth! I'lleat when
Iget good and ready, and ifyou don't like it,you know
what you can do. So, shut up!' Then, turning back to
the phone, he begins again: 'Lucy, darling, marriage
is a beautiful thing ...' as the scene fades to black.
Even the divorce trial, which follows this scene, is
handled comically, largely due to the addition of the
custody dispute over the couple's dog, Mr.Smith.
To a certain extent, both the play and 1929 film
anticipate the screwball comedy by injecting some
humor into the serious issues of divorce and infidel-
ity. Each version does this in a unique way. Much of
the humor in the play is comedic surprise resulting
from the audience's realisation that Lucy has ma-
nipulated testimony about her relationship with
Kempster. Moreover, Lucydoes not seem to take the
matter of infidelitythat seriously (she was, after all,
willing to let Norman believe her guilty of an affair in
order to obtain a divorce). However, the very fact that
she goes to such extremes to clear her name implies
The Road to Reno: The Awful Truthand the Hollywood comedy of remarriage
The Road
to~ Reno7--
JZZ
The
.7 LZ~~?~_~__~._L.:
Awful
thatshe recognises the importanceof the matterfor
other characters, and overall, the play takes the
question of her infidelityseriouslyas it remainsan
obstacle to both hermarriageto Danand herremar-
riageto Norman.
The 1929 filmeliminatesthe shifts in range of
narrationthat create comic surprisein the play, but
the unrestrictednarrationof the filmis used to create
a differenttype of humorinsome scenes. Forexam-
ple, before Normanmeets the Leesons, Lucyasks
himto vouchforherinnocence,buthe refusesto lie,
asserting,'Whyshould I do himan injury-he never
did me one'. However,whenthe Leesons arrive,Dan
arrogantly demands informationfrom Norman:
'Lookhere Warriner...I'm going to ask you some
questions... when I do, I expect you to tell me the
truth.'The script indicatesthat Normanis about to
tell his versionof the truthwhen 'he catches sight of
Dan staringat him and rollinga cigar aroundin his
mouth.A bittersmile crosses Norman'sface...' Nor-
man changes his mind and lies to the Leesons, at
which point Lucy,amused by the turnof events, is
forcedto stifleherlaughter.Thisscene, whichtreats
the husband's testimonyin a humorousmanner,is
remarkablysimilarto the screwball.However,since
the 1929 filmso closely followsthe play,it ultimately
accords the same importanceto issues of infidelity
and divorce.
The tone of the 1937 film is perhaps best
summed up in anotherscrewballcomedy, His Girl
Friday,in which Cary Granttells his ex-wife, 'You
have an old-fashionedidea of divorceas something
thatlasts forever- 'tildeath do us part.Why,divorce
doesn't mean anything nowadays ... just a few words
mumbledover you by a judge.' Previousincarna-
tions of TheAwfulTruthdisplaythis 'old-fashioned
idea of divorce',injectingsome humorintothe treat-
mentof these issues, butultimatelyrecognisingtheir
seriousness for the characters. Even Lucy, who
seems somewhatcavalierinthe play,has a financial
stake inthe resultof Norman'stestimony.Thescrew-
ball version eliminates this contingency, as Lucy
explicitlydenies that money plays any role in her
decision to marryDan. Hence, when Mrs.Leeson
continues to question Lucy's characterafter Nor-
man's testimony,she makes a joke out of it, telling
Dan and his mother:'Youtwo tryand settle things
foryourselvesand let me knowhow it comes out ...
put a lightin the windowif it's "yes",two if it's "no",
and if you can't make up yourmindsjust pulldown
the shade!'
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
Truth and the Ho?lywood comedy of r
..
353
353
The lack of moralisingabout adulteryand di-
vorceapparentinthe 1937versionof TheAwfulTruth
is complemented by a distinctiveapproachto the
resolutionof the plot. Lucy'sroleinthe 1937 version
is more complicatedthan in any of the earlierver-
sions. Whileshe is certainlynot as passive as the
1925 heroine,circumstanceand/orcoincidenceplay
a vitalrole in the couple's reconciliation.As pointed
out above, Jerry's testimony is the result of the
coincidentalarrivalof Aunt Julia. Nor does Lucy
activelyset outto establishherinnocenceby arrang-
ing the recitalat Armand'sapartment.As will be
demonstrated,Lucydoes take a more active role
later in the film, but her reunionwith Jerryis, to a
certainextent,stilla functionof circumstance.
On the evening the couple's divorce is to
become final, Lucygoes to Jerry'sapartment,but
she makes no overtmove to change his mindabout
the divorceor his impendingmarriageto 'madcap
heiress' BarbaraVance. Barbarahappens to call,
and when Lucy answers the phone, Barbarade-
mands to knowwho she is. Flustered,Lucyhands
the phone to Jerry,who quicklyconcocts an expla-
nation:Lucyis his sister, Lola.This gives Lucythe
opportunityto masquerade as Jerry'ssister in the
followingscene and sabotage his engagement to
Barbara.However,she is respondingto a coinci-
dence ratherthanactivelymanipulating the situation
- she does not intentionally answerthe phone know-
ingthatitis Barbara,norcouldshe predictwhatJerry
would say to his fiancee. Itis instructiveto contrast
the scene inthe finishedfilmwiththe finaldraftof the
screenplay in which Lucyexerts more control.19In
the script, Lucyexplicitlytries to convince Jerryto
give theirmarriageanothertry.She allbutbegs Jerry
to call off his engagement: 'Whenyou'remarriedto
Barbara,you'lllook back some day and you'llknow
that you threwhappiness away. [Thereis a mist in
her eyes now.] Please, Jerry,give our marriagean-
other littlechance. You won't be sorry.'As in the
finishedfilm,Lucyanswers the phone unawarethat
itis Barbara.However,the screen directionsindicate
that she 'has come to one of those sudden inspira-
tionsof hers and triesto throwa monkeywrenchinto
the machinery'.Thus,itis Lucywhotells Barbarathat
her name is Lola,in an attemptto makeherjealous.
Lucydoes becomes more active in the final
scenes of TheAwfulTruth,when she masquerades
as Jerry's vulgar, lower-class sister at Barbara's
party, pretendingto be drunk and performinga
pseudo-stripteasenumberto scandalise the snob-
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 Jane M. Greene

Fig. 7. Lucy,
JerryandDan
Leeson(Ralph
Bellamy)reactas
Jerry'snew
the
girlfriend,
dancerDixie
BelleLee
performs the
song'Gonewith
thewind'.
TheAwfulTruth
(Columbia,
1937).

bish Vances. Later, when Jerry and Lucy leave the
party, she continues her act, pretending to be drunk
so Jerry will have to drive her home. She then lies
about being expected at Aunt Patsy's cabin and,
when they are stopped by the police en route, she
releases the brake on the car, crashing it into a ditch
so Jerry will not be able to leave.
It is important to note that although the 1937
Lucy becomes more active, she is not being seduc-
tive, as is her counterpart in the play. The primary
motivation behind Lucy's actions, particularly her
masquerade as Jerry's sister, is to make Jerry less
attractive to Barbara. However, she also reminds
Jerry (and the audience) that he does not belong in
the pretentious world of the Vances. Ina similarvein,
the couple's conversation with Dan Leeson in the
nightclub earlier in the film separates them from the
unsophisticated rube.20Jerry's false enthusiasm for
Lucy's move to Oklahoma City ('And if it should get
dull; you can always go over to Tulsa for the week-
end') demonstrates that her fiance's lifestyle is not
suitable for her. Lucy's actions at Barbara's party
function in the same way as Jerry's dialogue at the
nightclub. Her 'screwy' behavior underscores the
Vances' snobbery and lack of humor. While they
respond to her dance with shock and disgust, Jerry's
reaction of amusement indicates that he gets the
joke and this separates him from his now ex-fiancee
and her family. In short, Lucy's actions establish her
solidarity with Jerry. Nonetheless, she is not making
a sexual overture.
The ending of the film merits special consid-
eration, since this is a point at which Lucy might
arguably be considered not only active, but sexual.
One of the things I find most typical about the han-
dling of the reconciliation in screwball is the way the
1937 film reintroduces sexual tension between the
couple, which is largely absent in the 1925 version,
but handles it in a very different way than the play.
Lucy's Lola act causes Barbara to call off the
engagement, but it does not appear to have
changed Jerry's mind about his ex-wife in the least.
He is initiallygrumpy and resistant to her and appar-
ently completely aware of what she is up to. More-
over, he obviously still believes that she had an affair
with Armand. This is evident on the way to the cabin,
when Jerry asks if he can borrow her car to returnto
the city. Lucy's smile fades, but she agrees to lend
him the car:
Jerry:Well thanks, I'llgo home.
Lucy: It's all rightwith me. My goodness. Ijust
thought ...
Jerry: Yes, you just thought that if I'd stay up

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The The
Road to Reno: The
RoadtoReno: Th Awful
A ful Truth
Trut and the Hollywood cV
and.... t.he. Holl..wood
there you'd show me exactly how innocent a
night in the country can be, didn't you?
Lucy:Well, all of a sudd... Are you still harping
on that same old string?
Later,they arriveat the cabin, and the caretaker tells
Lucy that Aunt Patsy is not there. Lucy pretends to
be surprised, remarking: 'I thought sure she was
here', and Jerry mutters: 'I didn't'.
Only when they are in adjoining rooms does
Jerry respond to Lucy, and this does seem to be
based on his sexual attraction to her. However, Lucy
has done nothing to cause this change in her hus-
band. After putting on one of Aunt Patsy's unflatter-
ing nightgowns, she turns out the light and gets in
bed. The circumstances themselves are seductive,
not Lucy:the door between the adjoining rooms has
a broken latch and repeatedly opens on its own.
Moreover,their divorce becomes final at midnight, a
fact we are reminded of by repeated closeups of the
clock as the deadline approaches. If anything en-
courages Jerryto reconcile with Lucy, it is that within
a few minutes he will no longer be able to 'indulge in
the maritalprivilege', as the censors of the day often
phrased it. One might argue, then, that the cabin
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of remarriaae
comedy of ...ma.
a
..
3555
--e5---------- ----UWW
Fig. 8. Abroken
doorlatchis all
thatstands
betweenLucy
andJerryatAunt
Patsy'scabin.
TheAwfulTruth
(Columbia,
1937).
scene in the 1937 version is more explicit than the
play, since we see the couple in their nightclothes
with only a broken door between them, and the act
of reconciling is unmistakably implied to be a sexual
reunion. But Lucy, for her part, simply waits in bed
for the situation she has arranged to develop. She
makes no overt move to seduce Jerry, nor does she
actively encourage him to make a move, in contrast
with the perfume-spraying tactics of the theatrical
Lucy. To underscore my point about her passivity in
the final scene, consider that in the script it is Lucy
(not Jerry, as in the film) who opens the window to
allow the wind to reopen the broken door.21Even this
small change would have made it a more active
seduction on her part.
The whole question of how the film handles
Jerry's suspicions about Lucy in the final scene also
deserves consideration. Itis obvious that Jerrywants
to be with Lucy and the following exchange might
even be taken as indicating he now believes her
relationship with Armand to be innocent:
Jerry: You're still the same, only I've been a
fool. But I'm not now. So long as I'm different,
don't you think that ... Well, maybe things
356 356
could be the same again, only a littledifferent,
huh?
Lucy:You mean that Jerry?You're sure? [Jerry
nods his head, yes.] No more doubts? [Jerry
shakes his head, no.] No more being... [Jerry
makes a gesture as if wiping clear a slate.]
However, the reason Jerry suddenly believes that
Lucy is innocent, if he does, is not explained, and his
transformation from cynical resistance in the car to
his apology at the cabin is rather abrupt. A script
version of the scene at the Vances' indicates there
was some attempt to motivate Jerry's change of
heart.22Before performing her nightclub number at
the Vances' party, Lucy asks Jerryto hold her purse.
When Lucy is preparing for her song and dance,
Jerrynotices a postcard sticking out of the purse and
can not resist looking at it. An insert reveals that the
card reads:
Dear Lucy,
I am back in Oklahoma. This time I am not in
love with a girl who is in love with someone
else.
Daniel Leeson
The screen directions indicate: Jerry is a
changed man. There is only one reason for Lucy's
actions - The gal is still in love with him.' This letter
would have provided some motivation for Jerry's
behavior in the final scene of the film, although, of
course, it would have been a rather lame motivation
since it would not have closed off Jerry's suspicions
about Armand which are the real impediment to the
resolution.
Ultimately, the insert of the letter was not in-
cluded in the film, possibly because most of the
footage had already been shot and Jerry's reaction
to the letter could not have been sustained without
reshooting the journeyto the country, and the scenes
in Aunt Patsy's cabin. But beyond such purely prag-
matic considerations, it seems to me that the insert
would have been quite out of keeping with the logic
of the film as a whole. It is a mark of how little the
1937 version is concerned withthe problem of Lucy's
fidelity that there is finally no real effort to motivate
Jerry's sudden conviction, if that is what it is, of her
innocence. The ambiguity about what Jerry believes
about Lucy, and why, is part of a systematic refusal
to 'clear the gal's name' not, as in the theatrical
version, because it finally does not matter to the
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
.IAnA*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IJane M. Green
OM
(wl.
husband, but because it has been rendered irrele-
vant as an issue for us. While the 1937 Lucy may be
less sexually aggressive than the theatrical and 1929
counterparts, the screwball version seems to go
fartherin abandoning all but the faintest pretence of
a moral resolution of her situation. This norm is not
even recognised in abeyance, as it is in the stage
version, when Norman decides he does not need to
know the awful truth.
Considering earlierversions of The AwfulTruth
highlights the unique characteristics of the 1937 film
and its treatment of the heroine. Unlike the play,
which suggests that Lucy may be guilty of an affair,
the screwball film leans in the direction of her inno-
cence. Inan additional contrast with the play and the
1929 film, Lucy does not use her sexuality to manipu-
late her husband. Her activity is primarily'screwy' or
'madcap' in nature - i.e. masquerading as his sister,
her parodic striptease, pretending to be drunk, re-
leasing the brake on the car - and not seductive. Yet,
unlike the silent film, which demonstrates unequivo-
cally that Lucy is innocent, the issue is still left open
in the McCarey version. More importantly,the whole
issue of Lucy's infidelityis not taken as seriously as
it is in the silent film: divorce and infidelity are not
subject to extensive narrativeelaboration or justifica-
tion. Finally, in a decided contrast to the silent film,
the McCarey version goes to great lengths to reintro-
duce the element of sexual attraction as a factor in
the reunion of the main couple.
So far, I have argued that screwball may be
characterised by a particular stance, or rather lack
of a moral stance, with regard to the heroine. It
should also be noted that the differences between
these plot variants are, to some extent, a product of
comic mechanisms specific to screwball comedy. In
the 1937 version, the open seduction of the play and
1929 filmis replaced by an escalating battle between
husband and wife. In a structure of comic reversals,
each one is embarrassed in turn as a function of
masquerading or role playing, physical, almost slap-
stick, comedy, and socially inappropriate behavior.
The nightclub scene exemplifies this pattern of com-
bative one-up-manship between man and former
wife. Jerry makes fun of Dan without Dan's knowl-
edge while simultaneously embarrassing Lucy, who
is aware that Jerry is mocking her new fiance. Lucy
retaliates with sly, derogatory comments directed
toward Jerry and Jerry's girlfriend Dixie Belle Lee.
When Dixie performs the song 'Gone Withthe Wind',
the highlight of which is her dress being blown up
The Road
T to Reno: The
t RReno: The Awful
Awful Truth
Truth and the Hollywood
and the Ho d oof remarriage
o ccomedy 357

over her head by a wind machine beneath her, Lucy
comments: 'I guess it was easier for her to change
her name than for her whole family to change theirs.'
This back-and-forth battle culminates when Jerry
encourages Lucy and Dan to dance, and the sub-
dued waltz that is playing as they walk onto the
dance floor is suddenly replaced by a frenetic swing
number. Dan responds enthusiastically, leading the
reluctant Lucy through a series of ridiculous dance
steps as a very amused Jerry looks on. The battle
resumes in the scene at the Vances' party, when
Lucy performs her own version of 'Gone With the
Wind', simultaneously mocking Jerry's former girl-
friend, Dixie, and his new fiancee, Barbara.
The screwball version of The Awful Truth is
noticeably different from earlier versions of the plot
in this focus on one-up-manship. Cavell has used
the term 'comedies of equality' when referringto the
screwball comedies of remarriage and the term
seems to me to apply to this pattern of reversal and
counter-reversal. In order for the battle to work, hus-
band and wife have to be worthy opponents, or
equals. This is not simply a function of the woman
becoming more active or more sexual. The play's
Lucy (and to some extent, the 1929 film's Lucy) is by
far the most active character, and the most aware of
her sexuality, yet there is no equality because she
has no real opponent: the men simply fall victim to
her lies and manipulations. In contrast, in the silent
film, Lucy is largely subject to the men's actions and
beliefs about her, and the very innocence that the
film is at pains to emphasise seems to relegate her
to this role. The impression one has of a robust and
independent heroine in the 1937 The Awful Truthis
a function of the not quite perfect symmetry estab-
lished between husband and wife. The balance be-
tween them is epitomised most importantly in the
film's introductionof the possibility that the husband
may also have been unfaithful. Jerry is a worthy
opponent for his wife, in part, because he may be
guilty, just as she may be. And this Lucy, in a role
that is neither unambiguously innocent nor guilty,
neither completely passive nor sexually aggressive,
is made to take his measure as foil and counter-
weight.
Acknowledgements: Iam indebted to Joe Lindnerof
the Academy of MotionPictureArtsand Sciences and
to Jere Guldinat UCLAfor helping to locate the printof
the 1925 version of The AwfulTruth.Special thanks to
Lea Jacobs for her criticalcomments and support, and
to MalcolmTurveyand Jonathan Walley,who showed
infinitepatience and providedvaluablefeedback during
our detailed discussions of this article.

Notes
1. James Harvey, Romantic Comedy in Hollywood from Lubitsch to Sturges (New York:Da Capo Press, 1998), 234.
2. Duane Paul Byrge, 'A CriticalStudy of the Screwball Comedy Film' (Ph.D. diss., Universityof Southern California,1985), 20.
3. Stanley Cavell, Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress, 1981), 231.
4. Ibid., 2.
5. Ibid., 19-20.
6. Charles Musser, 'Divorce, DeMille and the Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage', in Classical Hollywood Comedy, ed. KristineBrunovska
Karnickand HenryJenkins (New Yorkand London: Routledge, 1995), 308. See, also, BillyBudd Vermillion,'The Remarriage Plot in the
191 Os', in this issue.
7. ArthurRichman, The Awful Truth:A Comedy in ThreeActs (New York:Co-National Plays, Inc., 1930).
8. ArthurHornblow, 'The Awful Truth',TheatreMagazine (November 1922): 299.
9. 'Scenes from The Awful Truth',Theatre Magazine (December 1922): 372.
10. Alexander Woollcott, 'Second Thoughts on First Nights', New YorkTimes (24 September 1922): section VI, page 1. I am indebted to
Ben Brewster for this reference.
11. See Charles Musser, 'Divorce, DeMille and the Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage', n. 68, and Ben Brewster, 'AliasJimmy Valentineand
Situational Dramaturgy',Film History9, no. 4 (1997): 392 and n. 22.
12. There is a 16mm printat the Film and Television Archive, Universityof California,Los Angeles.
13. 'Double-Edged Jealousy', The New YorkTimes (2 July 1935):12:4.
14. Horace Jackson and ArthurRichman, The Awful Truth,Revised Final Script, 7 May 1929, Special Collections, Margaret HerrickLibrary,
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, (hereafter Academy Library).
15. 'The Awful Truth',Exhibitor'sHerald-World(19 October 1929) in the Production File for The AwfulTruth,Academy Library.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 358I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
Greeneu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:------. Jane
Jane. M. Greene

16. 'TheAwfulTruth',American FilmInstituteCatalogue of Feature Films, 1921-1930 (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1988), F2.021 1,
17. Itis interestingto note that Leo McCareywas workingat Pathein 1929 at the timethe MarshallNeilanversionof TheAwfulTruthwas
released.AlthoughMcCareyhas claimedthathis versionof the storyis completelydifferentfromthe Neilanfilm,itseems likelythathe
wouldhave been awareof it, especiallyif it had runintocensorshipproblems.
18. The 1953 remakeof TheAwfulTruth,Let'sDo ItAgain(AlexanderHall)buildson this by makingthe husbandunambiguouslyguilty.I
have been unableto locate a printof the film,but a summaryof the plotsubmittedto the ProductionCode Administration in October
1952 indicatesthatthewifediscoversherhusband'sbusinesstripto Chicagois a lie,andthat'he'sbeen ballingaboutmusicalManhattan
witha torridqueen of modernterpsichore...who specialises in performing tribalritualpubertydances'. Interestingly,
thisversionmakes
thewifeunambiguouslyinnocent,and heraffairis a fictitiousattemptat retaliation:'she arrangesa yarnof becomingloston a Connecticut
back roadwith...an eligiblebachelorof acknowledgedand celebratedtacticalprowess.'George Lait,Synopsis, 7 October1952, Let's
Do ItAgain,ProductionCode Administration File,AcademyLibrary.
19. VinaDelmar,TheAwfulTruth,FinalDraft(script),n.d., Leo McCareyCollection,LouisB. MayerLibrary, AmericanFilmInstitute,Los
Angeles, CA. The ProductionCode Administration File for The AwfulTruth,Academy Library,indicates that the ProductionCode
Adminstration receivedthe finaldrafton 15 June 1937.
20. SarahKozloffpointsto this conversationas evidence thatin screwballcomedies 'we are supposed to notice, not onlythatthe central
couple are uniquelysuitedforeach otherby the waytheirtalkis synchronised,butalso thattheirpotentialsuitors...areallwrong'.Sarah
Kozloff,Overhearing FilmDialogue(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 2000), 174.
21. VihaDelmar,The Awful Truth,FinalDraft,Leo McCareyCollection,AmericanFilmInstitute.
22. Thisversionof the scene, approximately 7 pages, is labeled'Retakes'anddated 15 September1937, LeoMcCareyCollection,American
FilmInstitute.Accordingto the shootingschedule inthe McCareyCollection,the originalversionof this scene was shot from26-29 July
1937. Inthe FinalDraftby VinaDelmarin the McCareyCollection,the scene at the Vances'was longer(24 pages) withLucygoing to
much greaterlengthsto embarrassJerry:among otherthings,she insultsMrs.Vance'sdecorating,impliesthatone of theirguests is
cheatingon his wife,and engages ina lengthyshoutingmatchwithMr.Vanceinwhichshe extolsthe virtuesof communism.Thescene
as itappearsinthe finishedfilmis almostidenticalto the Septemberretakesscript,butthe insertof the letterwas eliminatedeitherwhile
reshootingthe scene or in post-production.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.90 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:02 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions