What do you think?
Rate this book
Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage
During the ’30s and ’40s, Hollywood produced a genre of madcap comedies that emphasized reuniting the central couple after divorce or separation. Their female protagonists were strong, independent, and sophisticated. Here, Stanley Cavell names this new genre of American film — “the comedy of remarriage” — and examines seven classic movies for their cinematic techniques and for such varied themes as feminism, liberty, and interdependence.
Included are Adam’s Rib, The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, It Happened One Night, The Lady Eve, and The Philadelphia Story.
Included are Adam’s Rib, The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, It Happened One Night, The Lady Eve, and The Philadelphia Story.
283 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1981
32 people are currently reading
1213 people want to read
About the author
Stanley Cavell
97 books105 followersStanley Cavell was an American philosopher. He was the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University. He worked in the fields of ethics, aesthetics, and ordinary language philosophy. As an interpreter, he produced influential works on Wittgenstein, Austin, Emerson, Thoreau, and Heidegger. His work is characterized by its conversational tone and frequent literary references.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 16, 2018
Bir sinema sever olarak bu kitabı çok sevdiğimi söyleyebilirim. Filmlerin yorumları sırasında felsefeye çokça başvurulduğu için kolay bir kitap olmadığını söyleyebilirim. Ayrıca ilgi alanınız değilse sıkabileceğini belirtmek isterim.
November 13, 2012
Not only is this a jaw droppingly gorgeous book about the very sophisticated and enlightened Romantic Comedy of the early-mid 20th C...but I'll be doggone if it isn't the best book on MARRIAGE itself I've ever read.
We start with the premise that all the couples in the films he discusses are independent, usually wealthy and childless. This means that each partner has a no compulsion to be in the relationship...and that it is the process of choosing a life and each other that spins at the center of the comedy.
We start with the premise that all the couples in the films he discusses are independent, usually wealthy and childless. This means that each partner has a no compulsion to be in the relationship...and that it is the process of choosing a life and each other that spins at the center of the comedy.
August 3, 2018
This is the best book I've read in a very long time, and I'm here to tell you why. This is a close reading by the philosopher Stanley Cavell of 7 films from the 30s and 40s which he calls "comedies of remarriage". Admittedly, I love the films in this genre independently (in no small part because of the frequency with which Katharine Hepburn turns up in these), but what makes this book spectacular is how it fills a largely unnoticed gap, which I believe exists, in the way we are able to talk about love and marriage. I try to lay out the background in part I, and you can skip it if you just want to know about the book itself.
I admit I feel some trepidation in even writing this review, because this work is so intricate that any description of it which isn't a reproduction of the entire text is bound to be an irresponsible gloss on its genius. And yet, here it is.
Part I: My idiosyncratic topography of ideas
The traditional conservative picture of marriage, if we follow Genesis, can be thought of as the union of man and woman, the literal becoming of one flesh. Unfortunately, considering that this involved two distinct individuals, the union usually called for the elimination of the woman as distinct, and her subsumption under the authority of man. Naturally, with the ascension of feminism, this view grew increasingly less credible.
As this conservative picture withered, the left didn't substitute its own picture, but instead buckling under the weight of all of the various possible configurations, simply stopped trying to engage with the question of "what is love/marriage?". Instead we had two paths- the first embraced a kind of radical particularism, where individual relationships could be studied, as in literature, but no generalizations allowed to be drawn. Second, it started using the language of power and oppression, somewhat exclusively and obsessively.
My concern with the former is that we need a general working conception of a thing to be able to think and talk about it, even if it's inadequate. As for the latter, it isn't that there isn't oppression in the world, but it seems to me as though many academics simply seem unable to think in any way that isn't yoked to anti-oppression politics. Which isn't bad, but does seem quite impoverished. And so it's true there are new pieces written defending the further inclusion of some hitherto ignored community all the time, but while their theses are new in a certain sense, because there's simply no language left to specify the general and hence exclude, there's also a sense in which these theses are also incredibly banal.
In the space left by the right's irrelevance, and the left's silence, the public language left to talk about relationships, love, and marriage turns towards the platitude. Our pop songs are quite adept at describing feelings of attraction and need and heartbreak, but are suspiciously silent on what happens in between.
Consider for instance the cultural debate on same-sex marriage. The left actually adopted the laughable position that changing marriage norms would affect no one who was heterosexual, as though fundamental changes in the meanings and institutions by which people take their bearings would have no effect on them. Meanwhile, the conservatives who correctly saw the scope of the change, foolishly blamed same-sex couples instead of recognizing that it was the lost legitimacy of their own worldview which got people to see same-sex marriage as legitimate in the first place, making their "critique" less diagnosis and more epiphenomenon.
There is then a void at the heart of public discourse, where we as non-conservatives desperately want to talk about entanglement, love, and marriage, but can't do so, except maybe in the sparse (even if important) talk about consent and power differentials. I see this book as an attempt in filling this gap. If this seems like a somewhat too-elaborate introduction, I steel myself with Cavell's observation that "still, my experience is that most texts, like most lives, are underread, not overread."
Part II: Why this book is fantastic
Cavell threads the needle on multiple fronts by appropriating from the conservatives and liberals I described above (not explicitly, of course). For him, a set of Hollywood comedy films from the 30s and 40s portray a kind of relationship that's worthwhile to study and think about, since they involve the "two most impressive affirmations known to me of the task of human experience, the acceptance of human relatedness, and that of repetition." He locates at their core an ideal of conversation, and the point of separation/divorce and the subsequent remarriage is the pair's choice to continue that conservation.
The idea of a conversation proves fruitful for Cavell, precisely because it is both determinate and indeterminate enough to be both general, and yet leave room for specifics. It requires two individuals, who are bound to a common purpose or activity. Their distinctness is required to maintain a conversation, which is after all an exchange, and yet there needs to be commonness for a conversation to be intelligible, and the conversation itself can create commonness and differences when sustained over time. The people in the conversation are in one sense cut away from the world, but are also situated in it, and "talking" about the world and themselves in it. A conversation is static, in that it remains what it is, and yet can be novel and exciting as well.
It's all this ambiguity that gets exploited by Cavell, and he mines for a vision of marriage and human life itself which is both particular, since it is gleaned from each individual film, and yet general because of his willingness to keep the films themselves in conversation with each other, and with philosophy itself. And all throughout, he's explicit about his working, being open to the reader about his own doubts.
Part III: Here are some excerpts to give a taste of this work
The acknowledgement that we go into this perplexed:
On the genre:
On the dynamism at play in marriage and remarriage:
On how a sustained conversation cleaves a world for the pair, a home from which others are cut off:
On the form of the ideal, the conversation, which remains independent of content:
Of the complex/ambiguous relationship between the private and the public when it comes to marriage:
On how this conversation/marriage isn't done and dusted, but one where the lumps are always felt and dealt with:
On why remarriage isn't a foregone conclusion, or at least why there's drama:
I admit I feel some trepidation in even writing this review, because this work is so intricate that any description of it which isn't a reproduction of the entire text is bound to be an irresponsible gloss on its genius. And yet, here it is.
Part I: My idiosyncratic topography of ideas
The traditional conservative picture of marriage, if we follow Genesis, can be thought of as the union of man and woman, the literal becoming of one flesh. Unfortunately, considering that this involved two distinct individuals, the union usually called for the elimination of the woman as distinct, and her subsumption under the authority of man. Naturally, with the ascension of feminism, this view grew increasingly less credible.
As this conservative picture withered, the left didn't substitute its own picture, but instead buckling under the weight of all of the various possible configurations, simply stopped trying to engage with the question of "what is love/marriage?". Instead we had two paths- the first embraced a kind of radical particularism, where individual relationships could be studied, as in literature, but no generalizations allowed to be drawn. Second, it started using the language of power and oppression, somewhat exclusively and obsessively.
My concern with the former is that we need a general working conception of a thing to be able to think and talk about it, even if it's inadequate. As for the latter, it isn't that there isn't oppression in the world, but it seems to me as though many academics simply seem unable to think in any way that isn't yoked to anti-oppression politics. Which isn't bad, but does seem quite impoverished. And so it's true there are new pieces written defending the further inclusion of some hitherto ignored community all the time, but while their theses are new in a certain sense, because there's simply no language left to specify the general and hence exclude, there's also a sense in which these theses are also incredibly banal.
In the space left by the right's irrelevance, and the left's silence, the public language left to talk about relationships, love, and marriage turns towards the platitude. Our pop songs are quite adept at describing feelings of attraction and need and heartbreak, but are suspiciously silent on what happens in between.
Consider for instance the cultural debate on same-sex marriage. The left actually adopted the laughable position that changing marriage norms would affect no one who was heterosexual, as though fundamental changes in the meanings and institutions by which people take their bearings would have no effect on them. Meanwhile, the conservatives who correctly saw the scope of the change, foolishly blamed same-sex couples instead of recognizing that it was the lost legitimacy of their own worldview which got people to see same-sex marriage as legitimate in the first place, making their "critique" less diagnosis and more epiphenomenon.
There is then a void at the heart of public discourse, where we as non-conservatives desperately want to talk about entanglement, love, and marriage, but can't do so, except maybe in the sparse (even if important) talk about consent and power differentials. I see this book as an attempt in filling this gap. If this seems like a somewhat too-elaborate introduction, I steel myself with Cavell's observation that "still, my experience is that most texts, like most lives, are underread, not overread."
Part II: Why this book is fantastic
Cavell threads the needle on multiple fronts by appropriating from the conservatives and liberals I described above (not explicitly, of course). For him, a set of Hollywood comedy films from the 30s and 40s portray a kind of relationship that's worthwhile to study and think about, since they involve the "two most impressive affirmations known to me of the task of human experience, the acceptance of human relatedness, and that of repetition." He locates at their core an ideal of conversation, and the point of separation/divorce and the subsequent remarriage is the pair's choice to continue that conservation.
The idea of a conversation proves fruitful for Cavell, precisely because it is both determinate and indeterminate enough to be both general, and yet leave room for specifics. It requires two individuals, who are bound to a common purpose or activity. Their distinctness is required to maintain a conversation, which is after all an exchange, and yet there needs to be commonness for a conversation to be intelligible, and the conversation itself can create commonness and differences when sustained over time. The people in the conversation are in one sense cut away from the world, but are also situated in it, and "talking" about the world and themselves in it. A conversation is static, in that it remains what it is, and yet can be novel and exciting as well.
It's all this ambiguity that gets exploited by Cavell, and he mines for a vision of marriage and human life itself which is both particular, since it is gleaned from each individual film, and yet general because of his willingness to keep the films themselves in conversation with each other, and with philosophy itself. And all throughout, he's explicit about his working, being open to the reader about his own doubts.
Part III: Here are some excerpts to give a taste of this work
The acknowledgement that we go into this perplexed:
Not knowing whether human knowledge and human community require the recognizing or the dismantling of limits; not knowing what it means that these limits are sometimes picturable as a barrier and sometimes not; not knowing whether we are more afraid of being isolated or of being absorbed by our knowledge and by society - these lines of ignorance are the background against which I wish to consider Frank Capra's It Happened One Night.
On the genre:
"The tracking of the comedic to its roots in the everyday." This is my formulation of the further interpretation of the genre of remarriage worked out in The Awful Truth. I intend it to account for several features of the genre that differentiate it from other comic forms. For example, the stability of the conclusion is not suggested by the formula "they lived happily ever after" but rather requires words to the effect that this is the way they lived, where "this" covers of course whatever one is prepared to call the conclusion of the work but covers it as itself a summary or epitome of the work as a whole. There is no other life for them, and this one suffices. It is a happy thought; it is this comedy's thought of happiness.
On the dynamism at play in marriage and remarriage:
Again, I have pointed several times to the absence, or the compromise, of the festival with which classical comedy may be expected to conclude, say a wedding...In attacking the magical or mechanical view of the sacraments, Luther says, "All our life should be baptism." I might take a variation of it as a motto for the romance of marriage: all our life should be festival. When Lucy acknowledges to Aunt Patsy her love for Jerry after all, what she says is, "We had some grand laughs." One laugh at life - that would be a laugh of cynicism. But a run of laughs within life; finding occasions in the way we are together. He is the one with whom that is possible for me, crazy as he is; that is the Awful truth.
On how a sustained conversation cleaves a world for the pair, a home from which others are cut off:
Their guest is one whose value they disagree about, but they dispute it within a family agreement - within, I wish to teach us to say, a conversation - a profundity and complexity the guest cannot begin to fathom. The kicks on the shin Hildy gives Walter under the table are familiar gestures of propriety and intimacy; and the pair communicate not only by way of feet and hand signals but in a lingo and tempo, and about events present and past, that Bruce can have no part in. They simply appreciate one another more than either of them appreciates anyone else, and they would rather be appreciated by one another more than by anyone else. They just are at home with one another, whether or not they can live together under the same roof, that is, find a roof they can live together under.
On the form of the ideal, the conversation, which remains independent of content:
What this pair does together is less important than the fact that they do whatever it is together, that they know how to spend time together, even that they would rather waste time together than do anything else - except that no time they are together could be wasted.
Hatted, as for departure, away from us, they resume their adventure of desire, their pursuit of happiness, sometimes talking, sometimes not, always in conversation.
Of the complex/ambiguous relationship between the private and the public when it comes to marriage:
We think of marriage, or have thought of it, as the entering simultaneously into a new public and a new private connection, the creation at once of new spaces of communality and of exclusiveness, of a new outside and inside to a life, spaces expressible by the private ownership of a house, literally an apartment, a place that is part of and apart within a larger habitation.
On how this conversation/marriage isn't done and dusted, but one where the lumps are always felt and dealt with:
Since Amanda's remark upon donning the hat is to ask about the Democrats, we are entitled to take its donning as a challenge, a show of, independence, while at the same time it reaccepts his gift to her. But a challenge to what? Independence from what? To and from the very fact that a conversation has resumed, and that while that is cause for happiness, that happiness is not to be presumed upon? Lines are to be drawn, or what's a conversation for? Something, I think, like that.
On why remarriage isn't a foregone conclusion, or at least why there's drama:
Can human beings change? The humor, and the sadness, of remarriage - comedies can be said to result from the fact that we have no good answer to that question.
It is a premise of farce that marriage kills romance. It is a project of the genre of remarriage to refuse to draw a conclusion from this premise but rather to turn the tables on farce, to turn marriage itself into romance, into adventure, which for Walter and Hildy means to preserve within it something of the illicit, to find as it were a moral equivalent of the immoral.
July 23, 2018
Brilliant analysis and serious discussion of the great American dialogue comedies of the thirties and forties.
Read
November 1, 2009"bir metinden fazladan anlam çıkarmak, sanki orada olmayan bir şeyi metnin içine yerleştirmek gibi birşeyi canlandırır. sonra orada ne olduğunu söylersiniz ve metinden başka birşey olmadığı anlaşılır.
ancak metnin 'satır aralarını okumak', bir eleştiri terimi olarak, oldukça dikkate değer birşeyi, gerçek bir iz üzerinde bile olsa aşırıya kaçmak gibi bir şeyi ortaya atar. öyleyse sorulacak soru, çoğu kez felsefi bir soru olan, okumanın nasıl sonlandırılacağı sorusudur. bu durum, eleştiriye dışardan yapılan bir eleştiri olarak değil, eleştirinin bir iç sorunu olarak görülmelidir. benim deneyimlerime göre , satır aralarını okumaktan ya da fazladan anlam çıkarmaktan ya da aşırıya kaçmaktan kaygılanan insanlar genellikle başlamaktan, olduğu gibi okumaktan korkarlar ya da korkmuşlardır, sanki o metinlerin - insanlar gibi, yerler ve zamanlar gibi- bazı anlamları olmasından ve dahası bunların bilinenden daha fazla olmasından korkarlar."
stanley cavell / pursuits of happiness / the hollywood comedy of remarriage
ancak metnin 'satır aralarını okumak', bir eleştiri terimi olarak, oldukça dikkate değer birşeyi, gerçek bir iz üzerinde bile olsa aşırıya kaçmak gibi bir şeyi ortaya atar. öyleyse sorulacak soru, çoğu kez felsefi bir soru olan, okumanın nasıl sonlandırılacağı sorusudur. bu durum, eleştiriye dışardan yapılan bir eleştiri olarak değil, eleştirinin bir iç sorunu olarak görülmelidir. benim deneyimlerime göre , satır aralarını okumaktan ya da fazladan anlam çıkarmaktan ya da aşırıya kaçmaktan kaygılanan insanlar genellikle başlamaktan, olduğu gibi okumaktan korkarlar ya da korkmuşlardır, sanki o metinlerin - insanlar gibi, yerler ve zamanlar gibi- bazı anlamları olmasından ve dahası bunların bilinenden daha fazla olmasından korkarlar."
stanley cavell / pursuits of happiness / the hollywood comedy of remarriage
August 6, 2007
I hope no one ever makes me pick between screwball comedies and pre-Code dramas. This is a great analysis of the former.
May 7, 2022
Cavell, Stanley. Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage. Harvard University Press, 1981.
In Pursuits of Happiness, Stanley Cavell (1926-2018), a Harvard professor of philosophy, provides a close and insightful analysis of some of the best romantic comedies of the 1930s and ‘40s. The films include It Happened One Night, The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, The Lady Eve, Adam’s Rib, The Philadelphia Story, and His Girl Friday. They are all what he calls comedies of remarriage in which couples learn what it takes to reestablish their intimacy. He argues that they are a blend of two types of romantic comedy found in Shakespeare—especially the ones in which the heroine is either disguised or must undergo a symbolic death and resurrection. Often, both lovers must discover and admit their weaknesses to accept the other’s strength and offer of intimacy. I found his analysis of Adam’s Rib and Bringing Up Baby especially enlightening.
Writing in 1981, Cavell seems concerned that philosophical analysis of these works of popular culture will not be taken seriously, and in his last chapter, he offers a defense of university-level film study. If he had written the book a few years later, I doubt he would have had such qualms, even at Harvard. I wish he were still around to do a new edition. I would like to know how his treatment of gender performance in these films might have changed and how the easy availability of downloadable media would have altered his analysis, if at all. I think he might have put less emphasis on film as a communal experience, since so much of it is now consumed in private. His use of the term “screenings” now seems quaint. The book is a classic. 5 stars.
In Pursuits of Happiness, Stanley Cavell (1926-2018), a Harvard professor of philosophy, provides a close and insightful analysis of some of the best romantic comedies of the 1930s and ‘40s. The films include It Happened One Night, The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, The Lady Eve, Adam’s Rib, The Philadelphia Story, and His Girl Friday. They are all what he calls comedies of remarriage in which couples learn what it takes to reestablish their intimacy. He argues that they are a blend of two types of romantic comedy found in Shakespeare—especially the ones in which the heroine is either disguised or must undergo a symbolic death and resurrection. Often, both lovers must discover and admit their weaknesses to accept the other’s strength and offer of intimacy. I found his analysis of Adam’s Rib and Bringing Up Baby especially enlightening.
Writing in 1981, Cavell seems concerned that philosophical analysis of these works of popular culture will not be taken seriously, and in his last chapter, he offers a defense of university-level film study. If he had written the book a few years later, I doubt he would have had such qualms, even at Harvard. I wish he were still around to do a new edition. I would like to know how his treatment of gender performance in these films might have changed and how the easy availability of downloadable media would have altered his analysis, if at all. I think he might have put less emphasis on film as a communal experience, since so much of it is now consumed in private. His use of the term “screenings” now seems quaint. The book is a classic. 5 stars.
Read
July 20, 2018The subject matter is definitely interesting and worth pursuing. It's also not just about these movies, the book uses the subject matter to work through Cavell's broader philosophy (a resuscitation of the ordinary, a freshening of what has always been there, the pragmatic formation of the "next self"). But I couldn't do it. This book will remain unfinished for now as it is a case where the prose does not have the levity necessary for dealing with its subject matter.
He is worried that he is bringing too heavy a lens to so light a subject and he is right. There was nothing wrong with searching for depth in these films. But even while the book seeks to defend the prerogative of criticism (and brilliantly does it in places), some of these essays could easily confirm someone skeptical of the value of film criticism in their view. There isn't enough humor in his delivery to defray how humorous his tactics are. This is coming from someone well-versed in the philosophical cannon that Cavell drew from. If you don't have a solid grasp of either continental philosophy or transcendentalism, then this will be even more of a slog. The book is such a lugubrious read, turning convoluted sentences around differing views of a solitary frame that is usually just a gag, an instance of broad humor imbued with the artistry of the golden age greats of the form now just turned into interminable exposition, that it's hard to notice how transgressive this text can be regarding this social institution (marriage) about which very little thinking is done anymore, even by those who continue to undertake it.
He is worried that he is bringing too heavy a lens to so light a subject and he is right. There was nothing wrong with searching for depth in these films. But even while the book seeks to defend the prerogative of criticism (and brilliantly does it in places), some of these essays could easily confirm someone skeptical of the value of film criticism in their view. There isn't enough humor in his delivery to defray how humorous his tactics are. This is coming from someone well-versed in the philosophical cannon that Cavell drew from. If you don't have a solid grasp of either continental philosophy or transcendentalism, then this will be even more of a slog. The book is such a lugubrious read, turning convoluted sentences around differing views of a solitary frame that is usually just a gag, an instance of broad humor imbued with the artistry of the golden age greats of the form now just turned into interminable exposition, that it's hard to notice how transgressive this text can be regarding this social institution (marriage) about which very little thinking is done anymore, even by those who continue to undertake it.
October 18, 2021
"A performance of a piece of music is an interpretation of it, the manifestation of one way of hearing it, and it arises (if it is serious) from a process of analysis. Say that my readings, my secondary texts, arise from processes of analysis. Then I would like to say that what I am doing in reading a film is performing it (if you wish, performing it inside myself.) (I welcome here the sense in the idea of performance that it is the meeting of a responsibility.)"
March 3, 2019
For me this book was about redefining “education” something something what it means to come into knowledge about another person
Read
November 19, 2019Finalllyyyyyyyyyyy omg
January 19, 2023
so good… renewed my faith in humanities work, writing, marriage, etc. also interesting to see his defense of film as a worthy subject of humanistic study and how far film studies have come since!
February 9, 2025
Excellent analysis of seven films by a philosopher and teacher. Not a casual read, but very rewarding.
August 1, 2023
Finally finished this fucking book. It’s not bad I’ve just never read philosophy before and it is a challenge. The topic is actually rly interesting though so if you’re dedicated to the material I’d recommend
September 20, 2015
Glad that I took so long to finish this! The time in between reading other things makes the experience so much richer. Cavell obviously understands the connection between Kierkegaard's repetition, Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, and perhaps Heidegger's authenticity. While he says little with respect to recollection in Plato, he connects this with the Hollywood screwball comedies that effectively make divorce necessary for true marriage - in much the same way that only the second baptism is the first one because there is no rebirth without a death (doubt). I wish C. had said more about the absence of children in these films (in Kierkegaard's Judge Williams as well!!) and also the element of media in them - as the gaze of the outside world towards the world of intimacy, how it matters and does not matter. But one can't do everything, and Cavell is always inspiring enough to make me think more.
I could never get a feel for his prose style. It is obviously very distinctive and personal, occasionally beautiful in its complex elegance, but also jarring and almost syncopated in its rhythm. I definitely feel there is an abuse of commas and appositions that either confuse me or are C.'s deliberate attempt to slow the reader down, which is not always a bad thing.
I could never get a feel for his prose style. It is obviously very distinctive and personal, occasionally beautiful in its complex elegance, but also jarring and almost syncopated in its rhythm. I definitely feel there is an abuse of commas and appositions that either confuse me or are C.'s deliberate attempt to slow the reader down, which is not always a bad thing.
May 13, 2015
If you have any interest in marriage, getting married or being married, this is an absolute must-read. As much as this is a deep reading of seven remarkably entertaining films of early Hollywood, it's also a deep reading of what it is to spend your life with someone and what justifies such a commitment. The films that compose the genre examined here all challenge whether two people should really be together, and they offer to us what it takes to prove that they should. These aren't just lessons for film theory. They're lessons we should take into our own lives.
I think it's absolutely necessary to watch each movie before reading its chapter because for as deeply as Cavell goes into his analyses it's impossible to convey exactly what happens on the screen. I had seen most of these movies prior to reading the book, but I rewatched them all as I went because they really needed to be fresh for me to understand everything that was being talked about. On another level this book really teaches you how to conduct a deep reading of a film itself, which is just another one of the many things I'm taking away from this book.
I think it's absolutely necessary to watch each movie before reading its chapter because for as deeply as Cavell goes into his analyses it's impossible to convey exactly what happens on the screen. I had seen most of these movies prior to reading the book, but I rewatched them all as I went because they really needed to be fresh for me to understand everything that was being talked about. On another level this book really teaches you how to conduct a deep reading of a film itself, which is just another one of the many things I'm taking away from this book.
Read
January 8, 2009isn't it funny that life is unfair......but looking forward to the journey we endure we may realized that everything happened has a purpose that indeed God still has a good plan for us.Even in the midst of troubles, pressures, disappointments or even uncertain things that happens in our way still God has a good plan for us....while looking at the movie i remember the word that God promise us saying "plan to prosper us and not to harm us, plan to give us hope and a future" quoted "Jeremiah 29:11". Living the real thing, doesn’t consist of things at all, because things cannot truly satisfy. Only through God can we find real joy, true happiness, and the eternal fulfillment that only He can give.
March 16, 2012
My one regret after reading Stanley Cavell's Purstuis of Happiness was that I hadn't seen all the movies recently enough to always remember what specific moments he referred to at every moment. The movie I know the best, The Awful Truth, was also the one essay that included a synopsis. I do now want to go back and watch the other films keeping in mind everything I read about them.
It definitely gave me a new way to think about the genre--and exciting way that makes me want to see all the movies again and appreciate them even more. It confirms my feeling that these movies are some of the most optimistic, joyful, and also intelligent comments on romance and marriage as an ongoing negotiation between two equals that are never boring.
It definitely gave me a new way to think about the genre--and exciting way that makes me want to see all the movies again and appreciate them even more. It confirms my feeling that these movies are some of the most optimistic, joyful, and also intelligent comments on romance and marriage as an ongoing negotiation between two equals that are never boring.
May 10, 2012
This book has been very influential in film theory and is definitely worthwhile reading if you have an interesting in the Classical Hollywood period. Cavell makes some really insightful points and identifies a number of common themes and ideas in the screwball comedies of the '40s. However, I found it pretty hard-going - the language is very flowery and Cavell approaches film theory from a philosophical and literary background, which is vastly different to the semiotic, ideological and psychoanalytical approaches more commonly used when analysing film. Pursuits of Happiness is a necessary read for those studying Classical Hollywood but not necessarily an enjoyable one.
September 30, 2010
Cavell's reading of these films is challenging and delightful. If you've any appreciation for the old screwball comedy/romance movies discussed in this book (It Happened One Night, The Philadelphia Story, The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, etc.) you would do well to pick up this book and watch the films in concert with reading it. Cavell demonstrates wonderfully what a sophisticated and philosophically astute reading can add to already enjoyable works of art.
And if you haven't seen the films, well, here's a good excuse to correct that oversight!
And if you haven't seen the films, well, here's a good excuse to correct that oversight!
September 18, 2011
Cavell on Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday:
"These two simply appreciate one another more than either of them appreciates anyone else, and they would rather be appreciated by one another more than by anyone else. They just are at home with one another, whether or not they can ever live together under the same roof -- that is, ever find a roof they can live together under."
One of the best books about film -- and about marriage -- ever written, in my less-than-humble opinion. Staggering.
"These two simply appreciate one another more than either of them appreciates anyone else, and they would rather be appreciated by one another more than by anyone else. They just are at home with one another, whether or not they can ever live together under the same roof -- that is, ever find a roof they can live together under."
One of the best books about film -- and about marriage -- ever written, in my less-than-humble opinion. Staggering.
February 9, 2017
Wouldn't call film criticism "life-affirming" too much, but Cavell's essay on THE AWFUL TRUTH (1937, Cary Grant/Irene Dunne) is, like the film itself, so good as to be required reading not just for film students but for anyone who cares about any narrative art form at all. I'm going to have to buy a new copy of this because my current one has so many notes and underlines that it's almost unreadable.
March 13, 2008
This book examines the remarriage comedies of the 30s and 40s - The Philadelphia Story, The Awful Truth, Adam's Rib, It Happened One Night, among others. Cavell reads the films using Kant and Freud, Milton and Luther. It's an interesting book, and one that you could even use as a sort of primer on marriage generally.
April 27, 2011
This book, while wonderfully erudite, does have one flaw. At times the prose clogs and you feel like you are reading a dense, philosophical treatise. Otherwise, it's perfect, with the best essay on "The Awful Truth" -- the greatest movie ever made -- that I have ever read. And it features this line on the ultimate screwball hero: Cary Grant "has the holiday in his eye."
January 18, 2009
Although the writing can be turgid, this books is as much marriage manual as film history. My own copy has fallen apart I've consulted it so many times.
November 10, 2008
N and I are taking a class on Screwball comedies. Love screwball comedies, love Cavell!
November 16, 2013
A great feminist take on seven classical Hollywood films. Only Robin Wood does a comparable job of rewriting films of the period along the lines of gender.
September 8, 2012
Can't say enough good things about this book.
Read
November 13, 2017intresting about this one
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews