The Marrying Kind (1952) User Reviews (41)

Holliday is sublime! Ray is engaging! The story... hm!

[CMUltra · 8/10 · 1 April 2007]

You gotta see this movie!

I'll talk at length about the one issue I had with this movie but you can just skip that if you like as I'll say right off the bat, I highly recommend The Marrying Kind!

For one, you get Judy Holliday! Really, that's enough to recommend anything. Second, you get her fourth outing with George Cukor (her second as the star). It also features a Garson Kanin screenplay. He didn't do too badly with Born Yesterday, did he? Plus you have a fun premiere role for Aldo Ray, a multi-faceted performance by Holliday and a superb slice-of-New-York-life in the early fifties.

Watch this movie!

Now… this movie was a bit odd in its flow. The ads and trailers clearly touted a romantic comedy. The re-teaming of Holliday and Cukor furthered this. And the first half of the movie was as light and airy as one could hope for, though I always wish for more Holliday screen time. Then, at the picnic, the movie takes a decidedly heavier turn towards drama from which it never returns. This had to catch audiences in 1952 off guard.

I never mind a tempo change in a movie if it's done well. Hitchcock switched gears nicely with Psycho in 1960 by having the "star" killed halfway through and taking us from a crime drama to psychological horror. Miike pulled an incredible swerve in 1999 with Audition where, again at the midway point, we were jolted from a light romance into a film of violent horror.

There are others but you quickly run out of well-crafted examples and are left with lots of movies where the change is simply not executed well. It leaves audiences puzzled as to what they're watching. Movie-making is an art and, over the past century, the craftsmen have learned to condition us as to how to react and what to expect. When they betray this it must be in a skilled fashion that plays to the context of the story (such as the two examples above) or the audience feels annoyance.

The death of their son (and the heartbreaking moments that followed) felt really out of place with everything that had preceded it. As a viewer I prepared myself for the mental shift. If this is no longer Born Yesterday comedy then are we now going into serious melodrama? I waited for the payoff but it never came. The Marrying Kind continued along the same plot line, limping now as its comedic legs had taken out at the knees.

The death of their son was played like similar incidents in The Crowd (1928) and Gone With The Wind (1939). Both of these movies, however, were beautifully crafted dramas. Optimism shining through the lens of heartache and tragedy. Romantic comedies (and all light comedies) show optimism in the face of everyday troubles, usually brought about by situational misunderstandings and misdirection. Not necessarily mundane but certainly not life-altering.

For me, this shift didn't work well. It certainly doesn't alter my love for Holliday as my favorite all-time actress (along with Audrey Hepburn) nor my consideration of Cukor as one of my all-time favorite directors.

For her part Holliday remained sublime, delivering pitch-perfect comedy in the first half and gut-wrenching drama in the second. Though she was really only utilized in her short career as a comedienne (and there were none better to this viewer) she clearly could have been a superb dramatic actress.

Columbia made quite a deal out of "introducing Aldo Ray." While he didn't become the major star they were clearly hoping for he was nonetheless likable and engaging here. His masculine appeal and gruff voice was an interesting alternative to Holliday's usual romantic interests. Compare Ray's blue-collar Chet to the reserved and cultured Paul Verral of William Holden (Born Yesterday) or Richard Conte's polite and introverted Nick Rocco (Full of Life). Or, for Holliday's best on-screen chemistry see Jack Lemmon's quirky and neurotic beaus (It Should Happen To You and Phffft!).

So sit back, expect a sea-change in mood and enjoy the incomparable Judy Holliday as she once again works her screen magic. We love you Judy. We miss you.

With a bit of editing, this could be a much better film--and it's certainly NOT for all tastes

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 22 January 2007]

This film is highly reminiscent of Judy Holliday's other film, PHFFFT! because both films concern a divorcing couple that down deep still love each other dearly. Also, in many ways it is reminiscent of THE WAR OF THE ROSES in that it appears to be a cautionary tale about marital discord, but unlike this Danny DeVito movie, THE MARRYING KIND is more upbeat and doesn't have the same dark sensibilities as WAR OF THE ROSES.

The film begins with a husband and wife in divorce court. Instead of just granting the divorce, the judge brings them both into her chambers to discuss why they want the divorce since it isn't readily apparent. Both Holliday and Aldo Ray (who plays the husband) then begin to recount their marriage through a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks are incredibly well-acted and realistic--like a real honest to goodness family. While most of their ups and downs seem pretty normal, great tragedy strikes later in their marriage (get out the tissues!).

All of this is wonderfully done, but also VERY tough to watch as things turn from bad to much worse. Plus, after a while, the tragedy and pain becomes a little too much and seems to drag on a bit too long. Shortening up the film by about fifteen minutes would have greatly helped the pacing. Despite these problems with the film, though, the film is marvelously realistic and great film-making. In many ways, this is a must-see film for young couples or anyone contemplating divorce, as it gives an unusual perspective and insights you just don't normally see addressed in films.

Charming comedy/drama about a couple about to divorce...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 21 June 2007]

THE MARRYING KIND gave movie-goers a first glimpse of ALDO RAY and he proves to be every bit a match for the comic talent and dramatic abilities of JUDY HOLLIDAY. The two of them are a sheer pleasure to watch, totally good chemistry and always believable as a husband and wife on the verge of divorce.

The story is told in a series of well-staged vignettes in flashback as they recount the facts of their troublesome marriage to a divorce court judge (MADGE KENNEDY), who ends up believing that the two of them still love each other and can be taken off the docket for the next day's hearing.

The ups and downs of the marriage are mostly due to the financial strain and the macho behavior of a man who has the need to be the breadwinner but feels he can't support his wife and children the way he'd like to on his post office salary. Ray is excellent at suggesting the moods of a man who misunderstands many a situation because he can't see beyond the money angle. A very revealing scene at a butcher shop where the butcher talks common sense about the realities of life, is a fine piece of writing and beautifully played.

Both Holliday and Ray shine in what is almost a two-character film, especially in the second half--and their arguments have the ring of truth in them, with money and temperament being the strain that seems to be the root cause of their problems.

A touching film, serious at times but basically a romantic comedy directed with great skill by George Cukor (who said he could only direct women?). Ray does a masterful job in his breakthrough film.

Summing up: Highly recommended. Clever screenplay by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin.

Excellent

[laffinsal · 29 December 2000]

This is a real gem of a film. It is a comedy/tragedy, but in such a way as to be able to flow easily from the two formats. Thus the viewer is never fully laughing or crying throughout the film, but at different moments. It works. The film is told in flashback, and each of the remembrances are told in short vignettes. Judy Holliday is wonderful in her role, and the much underrated Aldo Ray is also brilliant, they are a perfect match. The acting by both the leads is terrific and believable, and there is some wonderful location photography of early 1950s New York. A really great film worth seeking out.

Reasonably sophisticated, well-acted serious-comedy

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 14 January 2007]

George Cukor-directed comedy-drama, written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin, features Judy Holliday and Aldo Ray as a married couple on the rocks, explaining to a divorce court judge when, how, and why they fell out of love. Initially, the pairing of the leads (Ray in his debut) doesn't quite convince, but Cukor does a fine job at building up a rapport between these two which is pretty convincing by the picture's midway point. Still, for a film touted as being an honest, daring look at modern marriage, the set-up seems suspiciously safe and glossy--with the married couple sleeping in separate beds! There aren't many surprises in the screenplay, though there are witty lines in the fast-talking, streetwise vein and the wrap-up is sweetly accomplished. **1/2 from ****

The Marrying Kind & Aldo Ray

[jozefkafka · 7/10 · 27 March 2008]

A very pleasant romantic comedy (and a rare one about marriage -- most Hollywood comedies about marriage are "domestic", a different subgenre than "romantic"). Its shift in tone to drama in the second half was surprisingly successful, even the (in)famous -- and oft-criticized -- plot twist at the end of act two. The nightmare scene may be the most cinematic sequence George Cukor ever directed.

It should be noted that I am far from world's greatest Judy Holliday fan (didn't care for Born Yesterday at all). IMHO the film belongs to Aldo Ray, then at the beginning of his brief star push by Columbia (he even gets a special "Introducing" card after the end credits). Ray had not been acting long and it shows -- he has a tendency to rush his lines, even with Cukor directing. But for all his gaucheness -- perhaps, because of it -- Ray has a natural quality that is appealing.

Those who know Ray only from his later appearances will be surprised by how SKINNY he looks here! lol

As I said, Ray's star push by Columbia was brief. I don't know specifically why it ended, though I would guess it had something to do with the studio's signing of Jack Lemmon the next year. Ray was actually the better dramatic actor, but when you've got one of the very greatest light comedians of all time on your payroll, I guess you don't need to keep Aldo around as Judy Holliday's leading man.

Ray went on to 1) put on a few pounds, and 2) become essentially a character actor in leading roles -- his finest hour coming as the sergeant in the classic Men In War (1957). Ray was probably the greatest movie sergeant ever -- he seemed to possess an instinctive understanding of that character type. It's not widely known but Ray came very close to playing role of Prewitt in From Here To Eternity -- which would've been a dreadful miscasting. He was far better suited to the role of Sgt. Warden, where inherent cynicism comes into conflict with the need for idealism -- a description that could apply to any of Ray's best performances.

By the time of Men In War, Ray began to look very heavy, and much older on screen than he was in reality, which one presumes was due to his hitting the sauce away from the studio. By the time he was 40 he was pretty much washed up.

I won't go into the unfortunate circumstances of Ray's later life -- but I do hope that someday he gets the respect from film historians that he deserves.

Unfocused, and predictable

[tstrat-64441 · 6/10 · 9 January 2018]

I found the film to be somewhat predictable, and unfocused, as to what it was trying to be. Serio-comic movies are difficult to pull off to begin with, and this one fails overall! Some of the dialog sparkles, but much just lays there, and although only about an hour and a half long by the midpoint the viewer can easily surmise how it will all wind up! Ray's first picture, and possibly the reason he was often typecast as a lunk head. Overall mostly forgettable!

Judy, Judy, Judy

[marcslope · 9/10 · 26 June 2000]

It's widely known that Judy Holliday was the greatest comic actress of all time, but did you know she was also a subtle and moving tragedienne? This movie begins as a screwball comedy about a sparring couple, and all I'll tell you is, it turns into something quite different -- and it pulls it off. Judy's beautiful playing has much to do with this, as does Cukor's deft direction. Aldo Ray is a revelation: You may not think of him as a leading actor of his generation, but with Cukor's touch, he hits all the notes of tenderness, childishness, and bewilderment written into his character. Husband-and-wife screenwriters Kanin and Gordon supply funny lines, ingenious dream sequences, a "Rashomon"-type narrative, and much hard-earned insight into marital discord. Also, unusual for a Hollywood film from the '50s, the kids come off as real kids, not synthetic little dears or bratty little monsters.

Despite all the high-priced talent, it's a cheap-looking movie, with almost verite glimpses of 1952 New York. And the abrupt shift of tone may be off-putting to some. Me, I appreciated the film for treating adults like adults, and for suggesting that life and marriage are not wrapped up in neat little packages. An offbeat movie, and very rewarding for those willing to accept it on its own terms.

There are two theories on arguing with women. Neither of them work.

[Ed-Shullivan · 6/10 · 12 May 2022]

Lesson learned from this film. Don't take yourself too seriously and appreciate the life partner you have before you lose them by saying the wrong thing(s). Judy Holliday plays Florence Keefer a secretary at a busy office and her husband Chet Keefer suffers a debilitating work accident that leaves him almost useless as the family breadwinner. In any marriage there are ups and downs and sometimes depression and dissention get the better of one or both partners. Such is the case with Mr. And Mrs. Keefer who end up in divorce court where a wise judge decides to put off her decision overnight and let both parties sleep on their decision but first they walk Judge Anne B. Carroll (Madge Kennedy) through their marriage and family turmoil from each of their perspectives.

Any film with Judy Holliday is worth watching and the (then) novice Aldo Ray both showed their acting chops. I am sure many moviegoers were wiggling rather uncomfortably in their theater seats reflecting on their own marriages and the silly fights that were relevant on screen to their own life experiences.

This film may be seventy (70) years old now but the trials and tribulations of millions of married and/or cohabitating partners could learn from the film The Marrying Kind.

I give the film a quality 6 out of 10 IMDB rating.

Drastic turns

[mik-19 · 9/10 · 2 May 2005]

Chet marries Florence and for a while all is swell. But due to personal tragedy and Chet's inability to hold on to a job, they find themselves in divorce court.

Time has completely forgotten this truly masterful piece of cinema art. 'Marrying Kind' starts out as a screwball comedy, evolves into gentle and then starker realism, takes a drastic turn towards tragedy, only to try and find its way back. Veteran director Cukor invited all sorts of trouble with this extremely challenging format, with a drama very obviously inspired by King Vidor's ground-breaking late silent 'The Crowd'.

It is a virtuosic and deeply, deeply affecting film, as written by Garson Kanin, directed with an almost uncanny ear for dialogue by the underrated Cukor, and acted by newcomer Aldo Ray and the ever-brilliant Judy Holliday. The ending to this film testifies to an unexpected emotional maturity in Hollywood in the early 50's, and the transfer is perfect.

I daresay nobody with an open mind is ever liable to forgot this film, and remember, before you start moaning about the mixing of genres, Life does its own mixing of tears and laughter every day to every single one of us. In that respect no film ever was more organic than this one!

Flashbacks and actors make this film somewhat enjoyable

[SimonJack · 6/10 · 6 July 2019]

"The Marrying Kind" is a 1952 comedy and drama about everyday life for a young middle-income couple. Judy Holliday had become a star just two years before with her Oscar-winning performance in "Born Yesterday." But this was Aldo Ray's first leading role, and it won him some recognition.

The plot for this film has a nice device - perhaps one of the first to use flashbacks a great deal. Madge Kennedy plays Judge Anne Carroll who sits Florence and Chet Keefer (Holliday and Ray) down in her office during a lunch break in the divorce court. She wants to see if the couple can't resolve their problem ahead of impending divorce. What is interesting and very telling about the flashbacks, is that each of the Keefer's stories as seen through their eyes are not what the audience is seeing played out in flashback. Each of the partners sees himself/herself as good and in the right, and the other partner at fault.

Judge Carroll intersperses questions to bring up the next recollection. And, as these episodes continue, the couple's stories and the flashbacks begin to seem more and more alike. One can guess where this will lead eventually, and it does.

For their acting and this clever device, "The Marrying Kind" is a good film. But, it's not great as a comedy or drama or combination. The movie came in 64th in 1952 in gross box office receipts. It more than covered its budget, but obviously was not a blockbuster hit. While some reviewers on IMDb rave about this film, one suspects that most audiences in the early 1950s (as indeed today) probably didn't enjoy this type of film. Rip-roaring comedies about marital strife, yes. Or very serious drama, yes. But movies that try to inject humor between serious and everyday humdrum matters, no. They don't have enough oomph to make them entertaining or enjoyable.

Judy Holliday had a short career on stage and on the silver screen, dying of breast cancer in 1965 at age 43. She was a very good actress, often playing a naïve (not dumb) blonde in sophisticated comedies. In general, those are comedies that are built around dialog that is witty, clever, sometimes profound, and funny in varying degrees. Seldom do such comedies have audiences rolling in the aisles with laughter. But well done, they are entertaining. They mostly seem to be shows of egos for playwrights (and directors, somewhat).

While she was a very good actress, Holliday was not a comedienne. Nor was she a great comedy actress, as some people think. I've seen all of her credited films, and not one ever evoked more than a chuckle or smile from me. So, it's not wise to put Holliday in the company of the great comedy actresses who could conjure up laughter right and left - not only from their lines, but from their expressions, body language and antics. Jean Arthur, Carol Lombard, Irene Dunne, Greer Garson, Ginger Rogers, Myrna Loy, Lorretta Young, Rosalind Russell, Claudette Colbert, Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck, Doris Day and others have given audiences much to laugh about in film. One will notice that Katherine Hepburn is not in this list. That's because the bulk of her comedy was of the intellectual, witty, overly clever type. It evokes smiles and chuckles, but not great laughter.

This is a good film with some good acting. It has a tragedy and some serious drama. If one is in the mood for such a movie, it will be enjoyable. But, if one is looking for laughs, there are many outright comedy films that should be considered.

Here are some favorite lines:

Florence, "But down there in Atlantic City, I got into quite a lot of thinking. You know what I mean? I don't mean just stewin' around, I mean thinking. And to tell ya the truth, I was surprised how enjoyable it was."

Florence, "And I made up a rule. I'm gonna do at least a half hour's thinking every day. All by myself. Just quietly." Mrs. Derringer, "What're you gonna think about?" Florence, "I don't know. Everything."

Judy Holiday's Most Tragic Role and Aldo Ray's First Star Turn

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 7 September 2007]

THE MARRYING KIND is the saddest part Judy Holiday ever played because of one sequence in the middle of the film that is every parent's nightmare. I won't go into the details about that scene, except that when it winds up the way it does the audience has no idea of what is about to happen.

George Cukor, if any director, was the one who most frequently directed Holiday in her films from ADAM'S RIB to IT SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU. She was a New York City based actress/entertainer, and Cukor had a love affair with the City, using it as a live backdrop whenever he could (such as using an old theater that was going to be demolished in A DOUBLE LIFE). Here we get glimpses of the city in the early 1950s in Central Park, on Ninth Avenue, in the Butter and Egg district, and elsewhere. But Cukor was also using the film as a hoped for runway to stardom for actor Aldo Ray. Ray had made about four films, mostly in bit parts, and this was his first star turn.

The film follows how Holiday's and Ray's seven year marriage is facing obliteration in Madge Kennedy's divorce court. Kennedy is closing the court for the day as the couple's lawyers are arguing, and she notices how the couple is not responding at all. So she closes down, but returns and sits with the couple and asks why they want the divorce.

We then follow the story of their early courting (they meet in Central Park), their early dating, the decision to marry, their honeymoon (paid by Holiday's brother-in-law George Alexander) in Atlantic City, their apartment in Peter Cooper Village in Manhattan, and Ray's attempts to better his job and financial position. The early section shows the marriage got off well enough, but that certain strains began (Holiday's yakking causes Ray to seek out a gag gift of ear plugs his fellow workers gave him). The years add growing problems as Ray keeps just missing some financial success that might put them into an easier way of life (an invention he comes up with is also developed and marketed by a better organized rival). Family problems and jealousies undermine the marriage, and the tragedy does not help. Finally, of all things a legacy to Holiday from a former employer is the last straw.

But Kennedy is not convinced the two still don't love each other, and she decides to try to push them to settle it quietly - will she succeed or fail?

The film has nice moments, like Holiday singing "Dolores" (briefly) on a ukulele, Ray doing the Rumba at a party at Alexander's, and Ray's brother-in-law Mickey Shaughnessy giving a really nice little speech of how he is not ashamed of being a humble little butcher in Manhattan, daily, rather than reaching for the stars. The supporting cast includes several familiar faces (some in bit parts) like Peggy Cass, Frank Fergusson, Charles Bronson, Frank Ferguson, and Nancy Culp. Holiday and Ray make an appealing couple, and one ends up hoping they come to their senses in time. On the whole it is a very worthy piece of work by it's stars and directors, and a fine film.

A Dramedy Lacking In Appeal

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 18 May 2016]

After the success of "Born Yesterday", a film adaptation of the play co-written by Garson Kanin and starring Judy Holliday, Columbia wanted to replicate those results and hired Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon to write a film specifically for Judy. The result is "The Marrying Kind".

"Born Yesterday" was worthy of its praise. The script was wonderful and the three main stars--Holliday, William Holden and Broderick Crawford--turn in performances that play off each other and perfectly define their characters. "The Marrying Kind", on the other hand, falls short and fails to use Judy's talents to their best advantage.

The film is what we now refer to as a dramedy. Judy Holliday certainly has that within her range and she tries (as Florrie)--with Aldo Ray who plays her husband (Chet) in the film--to honestly portray the blue collar couple that is the film's focus.

The first failure is the way the film makes Aldo Ray an insensitive oaf. And that makes Judy Holliday's character a woman who settles and who is not very discriminating. As viewers, we can't care as much as we should about their fates. As great as Kanin and Gordon are, this offering is not up to their usual standards, even if it might be daring.

The tale of their relationship is too desperate. And it contains little that can be considered romance. Chet is inattentive and clueless.

The story is told in flashbacks to a judge who will decide the outcome of their marriage. She is used as a tool lay out their history for consideration. The first problem is that Chet has a horrible memory, always recalling events from a position of bias. And when their relationship encounters a real tragedy, their is little substance to help the couple survive.

Fans of Judy Holliday or Aldo Ray (in his first fully credited role) may still enjoy this film on some level. It's also fun to look for Charles Bronson (uncredited) and Peggy Cass (uncredited and in her first film role).

A not a good remake of "The Crowd'

[bumdog · 5/10 · 14 April 2009]

I saw this film maybe about a year ago. It was very mixed. Like the earlier comment said it at first seems like it going to be a screwball comedy, but is throughout a intense melodrama of the disintegration of a marriage. Its like Cukor wants to make a serious film, but throws some screwball in a few places to lighten it up. It doesn't really work..he is not Billy Wilder, a director who was so apt at dramedies.

I was just watching King Vidor's "The Crowd" on Youtube, and I kept saying to myself, "Ive seen this in another movie. But which one?". Then I realize it was this one. This is a offbeat remake of the "The Crowd". The ordinary Joe trying to get ahead in some dead end job. The suddenly wealth of an inheritance (in "The Crowd"it was a grand prize of $500), and the careless death of a child.

If you actually liked this film you should see "The Crowd", I thought this film was quirky, but gave it credit for being ahead of its time. But now that I know that its a REMAKE of a film 30 years earlier, I have to say my opinion of it is diminished.

Strange film, worth seeing

[alan-morton · 16 September 2004]

The dizzy title of this film might suggest a screwball comedy, but it's deceptive. Despite claims to the contrary, this is definitely not a screwball comedy. It starts with plenty of jokes and humorous moments, but among other things, the pacing is all wrong. Also, screwballs often involve moneyed folk with big houses and good accents, and these are working-class characters in a small and under-furnished apartment. Knocking a few drinks back is an amusing foible in screwballs: here it usually complicates the lives of the characters. Instead of driving places, they take the bus or feel guilty about spending money on cabs. Screwball couples may have a pet dog or a leopard in tow; how many of them have small children (as here) whose sleep is interrupted by the bitter arguments of their parents? This might even be called anti-screwball.

The unevenness of tone certainly disconcerted me the first time I saw it, and it has clearly worried several of the other people who've commented on the film. Though Judy Holliday is great (as usual), it helps an appreciation of the film if one does not expect a replay of Born Yesterday's raucous laughter or even the gentler-paced humour of Bells Are Ringing.

Scenes of the discordance and trials of married life are played for laughs, but with an increasingly harder edge until the comedy has very nearly been wrung out of the whole thing. Slowly, the humour departs from the story and we're left with a very watchable study of a marriage spiralling into crisis, even if the treatment does become rather soapy at times.

After several viewings of this strange film, I'm still not sure if I've enjoyed the experience, though I constantly feel that I've been watching something significant. I can't give it a score, as I really don't know how to estimate an accurate score. It's worth seeing, even if you don't expect to like it: that's the only way I can summarise it.

Proving that most divorces really are....over nothing....

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 14 December 2012]

The magnificent Judy Holliday had been entertaining audiences for nearly a decade before she came to Hollywood's attention as the gun-toting wife in "Adam's Rib". The following year, she shot to stardom by winning an Oscar for "Born Yesterday". For her third major screen appearance, she helped a young actor named Aldo Ray shoot somewhat into fame if not to stardom, and if he isn't a well known name today it certainly isn't because he doesn't have any talent.

This is a comedy about a marriage which begins in divorce court as a series of flashbacks told to the judge. Holliday and Ray meet in a way that just screams "romance"; walking with a friend through Central Park, and turning around after noticing the other. Before long, they are married with two children, and then the trouble begins. There are a lot of laughs along the way, but it is a tragedy which is the stepping stone to their visit to divorce court. What really comes out is that Ray is not comfortable with Holliday ending up the breadwinner (thanks to a sudden inheritance) so he must come to terms with that and she must respect his manly pride.

What could be a generic comedy comes out to be so much more because of some masterful writing (by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon), realistic performances and superb direction by the master, George Cukor. The same story was basically done as "Penny Serenade" a bit more romantically. This takes the similar plot (minus the adoption angle) and gives it a more realistic touch. Holliday continues her performances of lovably quirky characters that you might run into at your grocery store, while Ray's sort of gruff young husband is quite different than the usual handsome leading man Hollywood was still searching for in the early 1950's.

he says, she says

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 14 October 2016]

Florrie Keefer (Judy Holliday) and Chet Keefer (Aldo Ray) attend New York Court of Domestic Relations in front of Judge Anne B. Carroll (Madge Kennedy). They recount their story to the judge. Chet and his friend George met Florrie and her friend in Central Park. Chet is a poor post office worker and quickly married Florrie. There is the general up and down of a new marriage. The couple invent a roller skate but the demonstration does not go well. They have young children.

This is a bit of he says, she says movie. The ups and downs are not that dramatic for most of the movie. This may possibly be edgy for its times. Holliday's brassy voice can lead to some fun comedy. It would have been nice to have actual funny jokes. Holliday and Ray have good combative chemistry which does lead to believability to their split. It's not that compelling but it is interesting.

The Marrying Kind

[CinemaSerf · 7/10 · 6 February 2024]

Judy Hollday is on good form here as the petitioning wife "Florrie" who is seeking a divorce from husband "Chet" (Aldo Ray). They are amidst the legal wrangling before a judge when the day ends, and she (Madge Kennedy) gets shot of the lawyers and sits the couple down. Is it really all irredeemable? That question starts them reminiscing about how they met, fell in love and of what drove them to their current situation. It's that journey down their memory lane that works well here. No, I don't suppose there's very much jeopardy but there is a distinct chemistry between the two as we watch their lives unfold in an engaging and often quite amusing fashion. George Cukor captures the trials and tribulations of their domesticity well. The innocuous nature of simple family life, the arrival (and domination) of their kids - all things most will recognise as a family unit lives day by day. It's a tragedy that sets the couple on different tram-lines and again that's delivered quite plausibly. We are spared the detail and neither character descends into the sort of set-piece, alcohol driven, temper tantrum behaviour that is so often the refuge for writers and directors when trauma raises it's head. There's quite a touching little scene with Holliday singing a song on a ukulele that rather sums up the sentiment of this film and I quite enjoyed it.

Third time's the charm for Cukor and Holliday!

[Goodbye_Ruby_Tuesday · 9/10 · 3 August 2008]

George Cukor has made a film about inconsistent narrators. As Florence "Florrie" (Judy Holliday) and Chester "Chet" (Aldo Ray) are about to get a divorce, both bicker and biasedly argue over details of their time together, their memories of love and bittersweet loss. However, the audience is lucky to have George Cukor as a reliable tour guide into the 7-year marriage of Chet and Florrie, for along with A STAR IS BORN, this is his most emotionally raw and truthful film. Some have complained that Aldo Ray seemed better fit for a war movie, and both actors had very unique speaking voices that typecast them, but I like the fact that Holliday and Ray are both a bit off; Unlike the very similar-plotted PENNY SERENADE, neither really had the aura of a huge superstar like Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, and they feel like real people, which is essential to the roles and neither felt like they were two actors playing dress-up (or down), and their flaws and insecurities are so human and real. Their fights don't feel scripted, but rather the audience is interrupting their neighbor's loud argument. The tragedies are not manipulative or forced unlike PENNY SERENADE but instead infused with honesty and a painful eye for details of the way a married couple acts and reacts like Stanley Donen's TWO FOR THE ROAD. Cukor's two screenwriters, Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon brilliantly use flashbacks and voice-overs to show how memories can be biased and that people can be cruel to try to avoid getting hurt, but that the truth (the flashbacks that we do see) is more bittersweet in its objectivity. Florrie and Chet may argue constantly and bicker to cover up their own vulnerability, but that's what makes them so perfect for each other, and why Florrie believes so much in Chet's ambitions and how Chet knows that Florrie brings out the best in him. The best movie couples are the ones whose respective films acknowledge the frailties of human beings--and also realize the potential to grow and evolve with love and redemption, which is what THE MARRYING KIND does with a refreshing sense of candid accuracy; this is a marriage straight from real life, not the Hollywood version of it.

A Separation story 6 decades before an Iranian masterpiece, with that typical comedy and pulpy Happy ending.

[SAMTHEBESTEST · 6/10 · 9 October 2023]

The Marrying Kind (1952) : Brief Rev5-

A Separation story 6 decades before an Iranian masterpiece, with that typical comedy and pulpy Happy ending. The Iranian masterpiece "A Separation" (2011) is a universal classic, and I remember feeling numb at the end of the movie. The basic problems that cause arguments and indifferences between a man and his wife were covered with simplicity there. But George Cukor did it 6 decades ago, and that too with a comedy movie. It's funny and interesting, though, especially with the kind of cast it has. The only problem is that it's too simple and typical. You just knew it was going to have that rushed, quick, happy ending. And it happens with a blink of an eye. Well, that was quite normal those days, but then I think about some of the 30s and 40s classics and good films that were so meaningful and substantial with similar subjects. The Marrying Kind is about a couple appealing for a divorce in court. The female judge asks them to tell their story, and they begin telling it from the pass-by point. During the narration, they and the judge also realise that the problems are not that big. It was more about ego and self-obsession that caused insouciance between the love birds. Judy Holliday does what she was known for. Comedy! Only this time, she is far more sensible than her regular peculiar genius or ingenious characters. Aldo Ray couldn't match her, but he did well for himself. Madge Kennedy's Lady Judge was convincing, even though the character was written as being forcefully supportive. Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin's script is non-fancy, simple, and too natural to have many variations. The dialogue could've been better and crisper. George Cukor had many great movies by the time the 50s began, and he had nothing to prove his grand stature. So he makes a film for couples to make them realise the importance of saving their marriage. A fine watch for any season.

RATING - 6/10*

By - #samthebestest.

This movie is excellent!

[yardbirdsraveup · 10/10 · 14 January 2007]

Judy Holiday never let us down when it came to her movie performances. This is no exception. Holiday made acting look easy and, like Bette Davis, always acted the part with no difficulties. She died much too young and we lost not only an accomplished actress, but also a beautiful person. I know that volumes have been written both about her and her films, so I won't go much into the movie itself.

Many of us have the impression that life was not as complicated back in the early '50's; that it was more wholesome and that people, in general, had better scruples than today. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aldo Ray plays a husband who has pent up anger about being married, not because of incompatibility, but because of financial problems. His obvious obsession with making money clearly shows in this film. The same holds true today. Many people believe that financial success is tantamount to a successful marriage. Again, this is fallacious and proved by the hordes of wealthy who get divorces every year.

The part of Ray's visit to the butcher proves that a successful marriage is based on many things, money not included. He is set straight not only by this incident, but also his friends, his daughter and the divorce judge.

All I can say is, see this gem! It is worth the time to see it. And yes! this film is available on DVD!

HOLLIDAY & RAY MADE FOR EACH OTHER...?

[masonfisk · 7/10 · 3 June 2021]

From 1952 director George Cukor (A Star is Born/The Philadelphia Story) directs Judy Holliday (who he reunites w/after her Oscar winning turn in his Born Yesterday) & Aldo Ray (in his screen debut) in this drama about a marriage fraying at the edges. Opening up at a divorce hearing at court, a judge takes the feuding couple into an office & there they lay out the genesis of their union & what led up to where they are now. We see their blue collar straits, he works at the post office while she's a stay at home Mom rearing a boy & a girl. She wants to move ahead & yearns for a chance to do so (in one episode she calls into a radio show to answer a question & Ray feeds her the wrong answer) while he seems to be happy at his status quo. Things take a turn when their son dies in a freak accident at a lake which causes all the recriminations & regrets to boil over into constant arguments which culminates when she receives a check from a deceased boss which stirs Ray to think the worst of Holliday figuring she was romantically linked to him. Will the union give up the ghost or save itself in the final moments? Cukor was wise to cast these earthy actors (in the heated throes of argument you can almost hear your neighbors going at it in any big city) dig into these meaty roles (a turning of the tide was on the horizon for the accurate portrayal of real people, working class American accents & all, to be seen on the big screen). Co-written by Ruth Gordon (the some time actress) & Garson Kanin, this yarn set in the boroughs of the Big Apple crackles w/authenticity & heart.

Men and women thinking of breaking up should watch this one.

[amsnare · 9/10 · 14 January 2007]

Having watched "The Marrying Kind" this morn, I realize how lucky I am. And I think everyone contemplating marriage should watch this movie, and comment on it..

Had the husband Keefer the intellect to listen to his butcher, he would have been so much happier. The butchers words may have been "simple", with just a high school education, but a man could drown in their depth.. The little boys drowning show what happens when man places himself ahead of his responsibilities. He,Keefer,(hope this is correct) had the common problem of referring to his child as "the kid". Not a good thing,IMO.. A successful marriage consists of a third member - the family - little else matters.. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed this one.. Thank you, TCM...

Jarring, mood-shifting, and disarming

[aromatic-2 · 5/10 · 13 April 2001]

This movie reminds me a lot of Penny Serenade, but Aldo Ray is no Cary Grant. And, while Judy Holliday is one of the greatest comedy actresses of all time, and is marvelous at showing a broad range of emotions, this character is disturbingly all over the compass, and it is impossible to get a handle on her. The gallows-humour-out-of-the blue turn that this movie takes is jarring and disturbing. Certainly the dialogue is sharp and well-written, and the supporting cast is terrific. Maybe the interjuxtaposition of satire, screwball comedy, tragedy, and pathos is sheer genius, but I just was left numb.

very good and knowing film

[rsternesq · 1 June 2008]

Some reviewers note that any couple thinking divorce should see this film and while that is good advice, the truth is few husbands about to leave are as conflicted as this one who really never wants to go and whose affection is demonstrated by the jealousy that is the last straw. I agree with those who say Judy is a charmer. That is a fact with which no one should even quibble. By the way, the accent was exaggerated here and elsewhere and could easily have been tamed had it not been in keeping with her roles. Aldo on the other hand is a revelation. He is natural, impressive and very believable. More's the pity that his career was so uneven but here he happens to be perfect. He is blond (not unusual in Hollywood's past, think Steve McQueen) but rare now for a macho star. It turns out that his look is perfect for this part and his manliness comes through just fine. In this role this reviewer thinks he was perfect and the facial expression when buying the whirly-gig is proof that had his career and persona been better managed he would have been a far bigger star. That said, watch, enjoy and remember how much love can survive and endure when people understood that divorce was the cowardly way out and usually bad for all concerned. Again, highly recommended.