Billy wilder is one of my favorite directors. Like all artists, he had some hits and some misses. I was interested in this book to find more insight into why. I guess because of the length of his career, very little time is spent on each movie. Consequently, very little is learned about his now timeless gems like one,two, three; the fortune cookie; and irma la douce vs his duds like kiss me stupid, private life of sherlock holmes, and avanti. The book paints a picture of wilder always challenging the code and legion of decency. THat is not particularly unique. Otto Preminger spent a career doing this and none of his films are funny or even that interesting. Too much of the discussion is written with an eye at the time with no perspective of a few decades.
For example, both irma la douce and kiss me stupid are about risque sexual subjects and unpredictable narratives. Why does one work and the other not? The obvious answer is the main character. First played perfectly by jack lemon, and the second played flatly by ray walston. Walston was always a strange choice. His dead pan style in his body of work always brighten their stories. In kiss me stupid, he is asked to play an angry jealous frantic song writer. Why was he cast? There was no explanation other than the problems they had with peter sellers. There was a comment saying that wilder demanded an exact performance with dozen and dozen of takes. An interesting comment from Shirley maclaine was that wilder ignored her performance and always asked lemon to redo and redo his takes. Consequently her performance seemed more fresh.
The section on sherlock holmes was quite long so i was hopeful to get some insight into the creation. Particularly the casting and the writing. Both of the two main characters were cast from the Shakespeare company. Like kiss me stupid, it seems like dozen and dozens of takes were requested. That undermined the casts confidence and may have lead to stale performances. Still, for one of the most versatile writer/ director, his story on the over done sherlock holmes does not stand out. The book tries to explain the genius the how holmes falls for a woman. This maybe okay if sir arthur conan doyle had not done the plot first! It was mentioned that the original movie was over three hours. Why? Wilder first commandment is thou shall not bore. Even the trimmed movie and all of the scenes were dull. There is a explanation that he wanted to introduce some subtext of homosexuality but even that didn’t seem very interesting.
One two three is one of my favorite movies. It has the pacing and unpredictability of a great wilder movie. Why did this work so well? Guess there is no easy answer. I think that Cagneys performance was one of the best of his career. But his experience was so bad, he never saw the movie and stopped acting for decades. It seemed wilder demanded take after take and cagney being the professional complied. It was interesting that arlene francis, who was perfect in the movie, only had experience on what’s my line. That is inspirational casting.
Finally, i wanted to know more about his decline. Avanti is not really a wilder movie. It is more liike a jack lemon vehicle where he gets to do his sad sack role. It works in some like it hot or irma la douce but he cant carry a picture on that performance. Unlike a wilder picture, it is completely predictable. Would you believe boy mets girl, boy looses girl, boy gets girl? Wow! The script has something about lemon’s character being married but that was downplayed. It seemed like the author had a sentimental feeling toward to movie since he pulls out a number of adjectives in describing the movie and the co star’s performance.
In summary, a good book to know some background about billy wilder’s movies but light on analysis.