A study of the screwball heroine. Was it a woman's game?

The screwball comedy was a genre of film that emerged in the 1930’s and grew in prominence through the next few decades with its reliable physical, witty humour. Screwball comedies often saw a couple undergo a series of over the top and comical adventures, often involving funny situations with animals, until they ultimately fall in (or back in) love with each other. Some key stars of such screwball comedies were Katherine Hepburn and Irene Dunne who saw the invention of a new kind of woman in film, one who was, as James Harvey explains “funny and glamorous at the same time” (Harvey, 1987). The screwball comedy favoured such female characters, putting them at the forefront of their narratives, displaying their intelligence and wit: often mirroring what these stars were like in real life. In this essay I will attempt to evaluate whether Harvey’s claim of screwball heroines is true, by studying these two stars and the films in which they appear. I hope to reach a conclusion as to whether women truly are represented as equal to their male counterparts or not; do women really “win” (Harvey, 1987) in screwball comedies or does it just appear so at first glance?

 

Though perhaps not a screwball comedy, the comedy Stage Door (La Cava, 1937) is relevant in analysing Hepburn’s star performance and her subsequent impact on the Screwball genre. In Stage Door, Andrew Britton notes in his workings on Hepburn that “Stage Door represents a decision to isolate the ideological negatives” (Britton, 1995: 72) of Hepburn in order to “confront them head on” (Britton, 1995: 72). Over her career, Hepburn was associated with masculinity, confidence and intellect (Britton, 1995: 72) and though such qualities in modern society would not receive such criticism, in 1930’s America, these radical qualities were often seen as undesirable and were portrayed in the press in a negative light. Stage Door, therefore, is interesting in its portrayal Hepburn because her self-assured nature is not presented as unattractive, in fact in this film it is desirable because she is able to use her intellect and confidence to negotiate her way into being cast as the lead in the play. Britton argues that Hepburn’s early work was a radical challenge to feminine norms of the time and social expectations of women (Britton, 1995). By wearing masculine clothes and overtly displaying intelligence and independence, Hepburn’s Tracey actively goes against the typical female character we would see in other films of the period. Hepburn’s star performance that she developed in Stage Door subsequently translated into the Screwball comedies that she starred in in the following years to come. As James Harvey argues, “screwball was a special kind of women’s game, nearly always favouring the heroine to win” (Harvey, 1987). This claim can be successfully identified in Bringing up Baby (Hawks, 1938) where Katherine Hepburn brings the star persona that we see so clearly in Stage Door of an intelligent, independent woman to the role of Susan Vance.

 

At around twenty minutes into Bringing Up Baby, Hepburn sits at her dresser on the phone to David when she first tells him about the leopard. Immediately we see a stark contrast between her costume and set design with David’s. Her room is much brighter and busier: expensive curtains, large windows and tall lamps decorate her space whereas David’s room is plain apart from a single plant. She wears an extravagant dress: puffy polka dot sleeves drape over her arms and a large bow ties up the front of the dress whereas David’s suit is plain and dull. As she talks about the leopard she plays with her dress, showing off the expensive floaty fabric while David messes with the simple cardboard box that he is holding. After David refuses to help her with the leopard, she trips over pretends she needs help. She crashes a tray on to the floor, runs her phone across the fireplace shield and screams, however her face is calm and composed as she puts the phone back to her ear whereas David stutters and fidgets looking for a way to help before he also falls over in a panic, adding to his worry. This is a prime example of how Hepburn’s star persona translates on screen: not only is she established as wealthy and upper class but also intelligent and quick-thinking. She is cleverer than David as she manages to manipulate him into coming over. This scene also makes its audience laugh at David for thinking that Susan is dependent on him when in fact we know she has the leopard under control. This supports Harvey’s point that screwball comedies took a different, more liberal approach to their portrayal of women.

 

Furthermore, Stanley Cavell writes extensively on the genre of screwball comedies and the role of women within them though he decides to re-name the genre, instead referring to them as comedies of remarriage (Cavell, 1981). Agreeing with Harvey, Cavell states that women in screwball comedy often undergo some kind of transformation or rebirth. However, this does not happen in the patriarchal sense we may expect in a traditional romantic comedy where the woman may change to suit the man’s needs. Instead a screwball heroine undergoes some change in a positive way for herself. In the case of Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby, this rebirth can be seen when Hepburn brings Grant the bone, showing that she understands the responsibilities he has while at the same time Grant puts her before his work when he saves her rather than protecting the giant skeleton. This shows that the couple have overcome their obstacles and started a new equal partnership. Cavell links this idea of rebirth to the immediate post-feminist generation of women in the 1930s where they are trying to discover a new equality of consciousness with men (Cavell, 1981). Therefore, perhaps the screwball comedy favours the heroine to win because the women both starring in and watching these films were part of this post-feminist generation, seeking to find roles of more liberal women that they could relate to and inspire to be.

 

Moreover, Cavell goes on to explain the difference between comedies of remarriage (screwballs) and romantic comedies in more detail in his writing Pursuits of Happiness. He writes that in the former, patriarchal law has less of an influence over the couple’s relationship: society since the 1920’s and through the 1930’s was becoming increasingly secular (Cavell, 1981). This societal change is represented in the The Awful Truth (McCarey, 1937) starring Irene Dunne. Instead of patriarchal law, the obstacles that the couple must resolve are personal problems between them or within themselves (Cavell, 1981). The importance of marriage and/or divorce was diminishing due to a decreasing influence of the church, which is why, in The Awful Truth, such patriarchal problems are no longer the focus. Instead, the couple must realise for themselves what they desire from each other and learn to overcome the obstacles between them. Cavell summarises these ideas through an example from the film, he says that “a court of law is no more capable of telling [the couple] whether their marriage has taken, or is worth the taking, else the leaving, that it is of determining reasonably the custody of a dog” (Cavell, 1981: 243). In a comical approach, The Awful Truth suggests that a court of law is not even capable of deciding on the custody of a dog therefore certainly should not be in charge of rectifying the couple’s relationship. Juxtaposing traditional romantic comedies, in this screwball comedy, the court of law is not in charge of their relationship: they must resolve their issues amongst themselves. These writings from Cavell agree with Harvey by noting the decreasing influence of patriarchal laws over our screwball heroine as Irene Dunne is free to choose to remain married or to divorce; the comedy of remarriage gives the heroine more freedom.

 

Not only do we see this shift in McCarey’s film but also in Howard Hawks’s films. Robin Wood explains this argument in his writing on Hawkes, where he states that these films present a “protest… against any authoritarian interference with the rights of the individual” (Wood 1968: 29). This suggests that Hawks’s films were more liberal in terms of equality between men and women because of his belief that society should not withhold an individual’s rights. As well as Irene Dunne, this refusal of authoritarian ruling can also be seen with Katherine Hepburn. Interestingly, in Hawks’s Bringing Up Baby, Susan does not get married at the end of the film, ensuring that she maintains her rights as an individual. Instead the last scene of this film is interesting through its reconciliation. When Hepburn comes into the museum to see David his instant reaction is to run up the ladder away from her, however Hepburn mirrors his movements and climbs up the ladder opposite him to remain close to him. This mirroring of movement shows the couples compatibility and their likeness to each other. What follows this is a heartfelt series of confessions, first from Susan who explains that she has finally found the bone and brought it back to David so that his museum doesn’t lose any money, while David then responds that the day they had together was the best day of his life. Significantly, neither character has the upper hand at this point, the two are equals in their revelations of each other. Furthermore, once Susan starts to sway on her ladder, David once again mirrors her movements and sways with her as he confesses his love to her. This is important because Hepburn had made the first move in following Grant up the ladder but now Grant returns the gesture by mirroring her movement: once again solidifying their equal union. Lastly, as the giant skeleton falls to the ground, David saves Susan rather than the dinosaur, showing where his loyalties truly lie. What is interesting about this ending is that the couple choose equality over their work or their annoyances – their eventual union is not patriarchal it is a personal decision that the two make because it is what they both, equally desire. 

 

Emily Carman explains why screwball comedies favoured the “heroine to win” (Harvey, 1987) in her writing on independent stardom. She explains that “the industry presumed that women moviegoers made up the overwhelming majority of the motion picture audience in the 1930’s; as a result, films were tailored to female consumers and thus gave privileged status to female actors” (Carman, 2016: 9). Therefore, because women were believed to be the primary audience, they needed to be represented on screen in a realistic and satisfactory way. Carman also notes that Hollywood producers designed films around particular stars personae (Carman, 2016) therefore, what grew out of this, was a prominence of feminist female stars (like Hepburn and Dunne) taking on more complex, liberal and equal roles on screen to ensure women would want to watch their films, therefore generating a sizeable profit. Moreover, as Harvey explains in his reading on Hollywood comedies, independent heroines emerged in screwball comedies due to their real-life counter parts. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen explain in their writing on film theory and criticism that characters “are but empty and incorporeal outlines… assuming the character of reality only when filled with the lifeblood of an actor” (Mast and Cohen, 1985). This suggests, therefore, that the female characters in screwball comedies were more liberal because of the actresses that brought them to life. In Bringing up Baby, Hepburn’s acting style, character and persona are all interlinked. In the scene where Hepburn bargains her way out of jail, she stands up and confidently walks over to the policeman to begin her plan. In contrast, the camera then cuts to David, who is sat down in his cell with a shocked and confused look on his face. This juxtaposition emphasises how Susan is more intelligent than David, she lounges on the prison bars whereas David is sat down, rigid, sitting upright and stressed. Hepburn’s body language shows she is relaxed in her intelligence.

 

Media at the time associated Hepburn with intelligence, feminism and independence, all of which we can see in this scene. David Thomson suggests that “the cinema is about appearance, but stardom is a matter of consistent appearance – the same person and personality must turn up” (Thomson, 1977: 241). The fact of stardom is that audiences expect something when they go to see a film; they have an expectation of how an actor should behave based on how they are represented in the media. Therefore, because Hepburn was known for her outspokenness and liberal nature, the roles that she embodied in screwball comedies also appeared this way. Further on in the scene, Hepburn swings gracefully out of prison on her cell door. The camera moves with her which contrasts the previous static shot of David. This once again emphasises her intelligence because she was able to come up with a plan while he remains in his cell. The camera is also positioned in a wide shot for the first time in this scene in order for the audience to see Hepburn’s entire body, emphasising her athleticism. As well as independence, upper class and theatre, the media also associated Hepburn with athleticism which was rare for female film stars of the time. This shot is also the first time the camera has moved along with an actor’s movement which also exaggerates Hepburn’s movement and nimbleness. Braudy notes that “strong film actors can never do anything out of character. Their presence defines their character and the audience is always ready for them to reveal more” (Braudy, 1976). When we watch Katherine Hepburn, we expect something familiar, we expect to see lots of movement and physicality in the roles she chooses because this is how the media presents her. Bringing Up Baby is an example of how screwball heroines were a result of “that sort of woman star” (Harvey, 1987: 287) present in 1930’s Hollywood where roles were written specifically to suit a star’s persona. 

 

Another female Hollywood star who matches this description was Irene Dunne. James Harvey writes extensively on Irene Dunne and her performance style, he says: “the ‘wild’ Theodora is that ultimate glamorous figure: the one who sees the joke – better than anyone else around. More than that: Dunne doesn’t just see the joke – she is radiant with it, possessed by it and glowing with it”. Dunne’s performances, including the one in Theodora Goes Wild (Boleslawski, 1936) which Harvey talks about, are more self-aware than Hepburn’s. Dunne knows what she is doing is humorous; she seems like she is about to burst into laughter at any given moment. This self-aware way of performing presents her as intelligent; she gets the joke before anyone else; she controls the room. This is certainly the case in Theodora Goes Wild and in particular in the scene where she crashes the ball. After she meets the Grants with the Governor, she appears collected and calm however she practically bounces up and down with excitement. This subtle physicality shows Dunne’s omniscient style of performing; she giggles and jokes because she has planned for this moment and she is in control. As V.F Perkins notably remarks, it is impossible to separate what film actors do in a scene and what their characters do; in the finished film they are the same thing (Perkins, 1981). Therefore, not only is she playing the part of someone artful and intelligent, but this was Dunne’s personality in real-life too.

 

As Emily Carman writes, Dunne was an independent freelance star who negotiated very generous salaries for her roles (Carman, 2012: 20). Working off of percentages from individual films, Dunne was part of a group of women who were becoming “more involved in the creative and financial components of filmmaking” (Carman, 2012: 20). For a female star of the 1930’s this was not awfully common and so marks Dunne as part of an extremely intelligent group of stars who knew how to work the industry for their advantage. This sense of intelligence translates into her performance of Theodora: further on in the ball scene, Dunne pretends she innocently wants a moment alone with Michael however what she actually wants is to expose him to the cameras. After they are photographed, she keeps her arms wrapped around Michael to make sure that everyone sees them together, an intelligent but manipulative move. Dunne was not the typical female actress and so she did not take on traditional roles. Harvey explains that “what she was for audiences at the time – is an embodiment of the genteel feminine, the nice (but not too nice) young woman” (Harvey, 1987); though she is playful she also knows what she wants and is not afraid to be bold to achieve this. This scene of Theodora Goes Wild embodies these ideas completely: Dunne is fun and playful but at the same time clever and cunning. She is still “nice” (Harvey, 1987) because she wants what is best for Michael but “not too nice” (Harvey, 1987) because she tricks him into being discovered so that he can be with her. It is because of this that Harvey concludes that “Irene Dunne is the most dazzling screwball comedienne of them all” (Harvey, 1987: 224): she is gentle but not weak she is playful but self-assured and it is these qualities that transgress from actor to character.

 

While “screwball heroines rarely miss the point” (Harvey, 1987: 287) Harvey also notes that our “screwball heroes, on the other hand, often do” (Harvey, 1987:287). These ideas are presented in Bringing up Baby as Andrew Britton points out: “the Hepburn character’s assertion of her identity is accompanied by the disintegration of the hero’s, whose professional integrity, class allegiances, gender role and control of narrative functions all give way together” (Britton, 1995: 49). David’s character is continuously degraded and made fun of throughout the film. David is shown to be more afraid of the leopard, he is shown to be less capable of handling the dog and he is presented as less skilled in the outdoors. Not only this, but Britton also points out that David is humiliated and figuratively castrated in the film through the loss of his bone (Britton, 1995). suggesting he is less masculine and authoritative than Susan. Furthermore, in the film, while David is showering, Susan takes his clothes: David peeps through a gap in the door and asks for his clothes to which she responds that they are being cleaned in town. This shows how Hepburn is controlling the narrative, not Grant; her decisions and mistakes dictate David’s behaviour and actions. Susan then nonchalantly wonders off to take her own shower leaving David floundering looking for something to wear. Once again Hepburn is very confident and calm while Grant is perpetually stressed and full of worry. The camera lingers on the door frame as we hear David mumble worriedly to himself before emerging in a fluffy pink robe. This extremely comical choice by the costume designer humiliates David and emasculates him, switching the gender roles of the film: Grant is seemingly the woman in this situation, very much under Hepburn’s control.

 

These ideas are further exaggerated when Hepburn emerges from the shower in a much more masculine robe, with a large pointed collar similar to that of a suit jacket. It is very obvious in this sketch that Grant is being presented as the ‘woman’ while Hepburn is the ‘man’. William Rothman has also noted that in Howard Hawks’ films, the hero’s self-sufficiency is revealed to be an act, and in fact the hero needs to accept that they need help from others around them (Rothman, 1989). This can be seen in Bringing up Baby as David constantly requires help from Susan: to get out of jail, to capture the leopard and to find his lost bone. Another screwball where the male hero falls short of superiority is Theodora Goes Wild. James Harvey explains that the film starts off as a traditional romantic comedy, with the man teaching the woman how to behave. However, what is interesting is that as soon as Theodora complies to his wishes, “Michael looks trapped and miserable” (Harvey, 1987). Though “Michael does liberate Theodora… the joke on him liberates the movie itself” (Harvey, 1987) because Michael is not able to follow his own advice. He remains in a fake, loveless marriage while Theodora ‘goes wild’. After Theodora stands up to her neighbourhood, she returns to Michael to tell him all about it. She sits next to him closely, leaning on his arm. Theodora is center frame while Michael is on the left-hand side. Though our eyes are drawn to Theodora initially Michael takes up more space in the frame and so our eyes are eventually drawn to him. Through this composition, we are shown Theodora’s happiness first before seeing Michael’s expression of dismay. His replies are short and flat conveying his regret. After a wide shot shows her leaving, we cut back to a medium shot of Michael as he leans back slowly, seemingly breathing out before rocking back and forth slightly. These subtle movements show how his mind is racing, thinking about how he can escape this situation that he has gotten himself into, knowing of course that he is actually married. This is interestingly ironic because Michael wanted Theodora to do this but instantly regrets it when she does, indicating that perhaps he is not as intelligent as we may have first thought. This also shows the strength of Dunne’s character who is able to break free from her constraints while at the same time emphasising Michael’s inability do the same. 

 

Another approach to Harvey’s claim would be to decipher that the men and women in screwball films are actually equal rather than the man appearing inferior. Cavell argues in comedies of remarriage, “the pair [seek] to find happiness alone, unsponsored, in one another, out of their capacities for improvising a world, beyond ceremony” (Cavell, 1981). By this Cavell explains that screwball comedies had begun to place less importance on the act of a wedding ceremony. What Cavell sees as more important is that marriage should have its roots in equality and independence, and these qualities should be perpetually renewed during the relationship (Cavell, 1981). We can see these ideas played out in The Awful Truth (McCarey, 1937) where the couple do not get married and instead, they reunite at the end of the film by sleeping together and by negating the need for this patriarchal ceremony, The Awful Truth achieves equality between the hero and heroine. Kathrina Giltre delves deeper into the ideas put forward by Cavell in her writings on Hollywood Romantic Comedy. She quotes Linsey and Evans’ writing from 1928: “companionate marriage is legal marriage, with legalized birth control, and with the right to divorce by mutual consent for childless couples” (Glitre, 2006). This is significant because this shift towards equality within marriage undoubtedly influenced these films. George Wilson suggests that these screwball comedies portray an “image of the kind of spontaneous, good-natured cooperation, cooperation that produces a large harmony, which is, in the end, endorsed by the film as an ideal of human activity” (Wilson, 1992: 214). 

 

The Awful Truth embodies this through the coming together of our hero and heroine without the need for interference from patriarchal law. In a slightly different approach, The Philadelphia Story (Cukor, 1940) starring Katherine Hepburn shows an equality between Tracy and James Stewart’s character. In the scene where Stewart exclaims that he believes she is made of ‘flesh and blood’ stands out from the remainder of the film because we see a different side to Hepburn. At first Hepburn keeps moving firstly towards Stewart before backing away suggesting that she does not want to open up to him, she is afraid of what he will think to her. However, once he admits he does not see her as made of bronze, there are a lot of close-ups on Hepburn’s face, showing lots of emotion and we finally see her vulnerable, human side. The lighting and focus are also very soft creating an intimate, romantic moment between the two mimicking Hepburn’s new soft nature. After Stewart kisses her, she becomes weak in his arms, contrasting her usual rigid, athletic posture. This shows how in the company of Stewart’s character Hepburn is able to be more authentic, more human and more vulnerable without being viewed as weak. Cavell argues that this film focuses on “whether America has achieved its new human being, its more perfect union and its domestic tranquillity, its new birth of freedom, whether it has been successful in securing the pursuit of happiness” (Cavell, 1981: 152-153). Cavell makes the point that Tracy represents society at the time. Hepburn’s struggle to find equality within a relationship with one of these men references the national struggle for equality. 

 

Despite these arguments, it is possible however to disagree with Harvey’s view because screwball comedies do not necessarily all favour “the heroine to win” (Harvey, 1987: 287). The public did not know how to handle Katherine Hepburn and she was labelled box office poison because her confidence was often seen, instead, as arrogance and a result of her upper-class nature. Because of this, in a lot of Hepburn’s screwball comedies, she is chastised by her other co-stars as a way of agreeing with the audience and acknowledging Hepburn’s coldness. Britton writes that The Philadelphia Story is “devoted to making the beauty accessible to male control” (Britton, 1995: 33) as throughout the film she is called a ‘golden girl’, a ‘married maiden’, a ‘virgin goddess’ and a ‘perennial spinster’. Despite Hepburn’s attempt to portray a confident and intelligent woman, such comments like these throughout the film denote her to nothing more than a cold, unlovable statue. As Britton summarises: “Hepburn is to embody the magnificently impetuous and confident American girls whose affront to patriarchal destiny cannot, sadly and fortunately, be realised” (Britton, 1995: 12). An example of this in The Philadelphia Story is the final scene where she remarries Dexter. Despite her outspokenness and desire to not be seen in the unfair way that Dexter views her, in the end her outbursts are confined to life as her husband’s wife. Furthermore, Britton also explains the mistake in placing this struggle for equality in an upper-class setting, as is the case in almost all screwball comedies. He argues that because of this setting, it suggests that characters have to be free to have conversations all day; they need the leisure time to talk and discuss these issues.

 

Unfortunately, this then raises the question that only rich people with enough free time and the right materials can achieve equality (Britton, 1995). The problem with this is that Hepburn’s feminism becomes a spoiled arrogance of the virgin goddess, something that must be humanised or democratised; she must be tamed (Britton, 1995). In the case of The Philadelphia Story, her outspokenness is tamed through her eventual marriage to Dexter and her reintroduction into a patriarchal structure. James Naremore presents a similar argument as he notably remarks that when Hepburn was with RKO, they tried to make her conform to gender norms of femininity (Naremore, 1990) and many of her mid-thirties films tried to joke about and ridicule her manner in an attempt to realign her with traditional feminine values. He also explains that “her acting technique exacerbated these tensions, because it was too clearly associated with “legitimate” theatre. Vocally and expressive, she was too lofty for the populist mid-thirties” (Naremore, 1990: 175). Therefore, even her acting style exacerbated the idea that feminism was only a possibility, or problem for the rich. Therefore, despite our initial agreement with Harvey’s claim about screwball comedies being “a special kind of women’s game” (Harvey, 1987: 287), it seems that this is perhaps only true on the surface of these films. When we delve deeper into the true meaning and underlying messages of films like The Philadelphia Story, it seems that any outspokenness or independence displayed by female characters is followed up by chastisement. Robin Wood, in his writing on Hepburn, further exemplifies this argument as he says that the aim of The Philadelphia Story is “essentially her chastisement and conversion into what patriarchal culture defines as a ‘real woman’” (Wood, 1997). Her outburst and night of freedom and ‘rebelliousness’ with James Stewart’s character is ultimately subdued when she conforms to her marriage with Dexter, essentially becoming a man’s property once again. 

 

To conclude, it seems that Harvey’s argument is somewhat true of screwball comedies, the genre certainly saw a step forward for women in terms of equality between the sexes because women in Screwball comedies are undoubtedly given more freedom than ever before, or in traditional romantic comedies. We see this most clearly, I believe, in the case of Irene Dunne in Theodora Goes Wild which subverts the traditional romantic. What is so interesting about Dunne’s film is that she is able to liberate herself while her male counterpart is not, and Dunne must take on the traditionally masculine role in her attempt to liberate him. However, I do not believe that we can say the same for all screwball heroines, in particular Katherine Hepburn. Her on-screen presence was one of independence, confidence and feminism and so at first glance we may presume that she was certainly “favoured to win” (Harvey, 1987: 287), however when we dig deeper it is clear that it is not this simple. The public did not know how to react to her: she came across as an arrogant heiress who complained too much, and directors knew this. Therefore, films attempted to control her, to present her qualities as unamerican and something that needed to be destroyed. Robin Wood puts forward an interesting conclusion in the case of Howard Hawkes’s films such as Bringing up Baby where he notes that in settings far away from civilization, his characters “exist outside any social context in a world where the supreme value is spontaneous natural impulse” (Wood, 1973: 31). Therefore, perhaps when our screwball heroine and hero and removed from society, equality can be achieved. We can see this in the case of Bringing Up Babywhere they go to Connecticut and in The Awful Truth where they reconcile in the motel. Therefore, I believe we can agree with Harvey to an extent: our heroines, though not entirely free, are able to win when they travel to a different place away from patriarchal structures and societal expectations. 

 

 

​

​

 

Bibliography 

Braudy, L., (1976) The World in a Frame: What we See in Films. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Bringing Up Baby. 1938. [DVD] Directed by H. Hawks. California: RKO.

Britton, A., (1995) Katharine Hepburn. London: Studio Vista; first published 1984.

Carman, Em., (2012) “Women Rule Hollywood”: Ageing and Freelance Stardom in the Studio System’ Celebrity Studies 3:1, 13-24.

Carman, E., (2016) Independent Stardom: Freelance Women in the Hollywood Studio System. Austin: University of Texas Press. 

Cavell, S., (1981) Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage. Cambridge: Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 135 – 263

Glitre, K., (2006) Hollywood Romantic Comedy: States of the Union, 1934-1965. Manchester: Manchester UP.

Harvey, J., (1987) ‘Chapter 11: Irene Dunne’ in Romantic Comedy in Hollywood: From Lubitsch to Sturges. New York: Da Capo Press, 221-248.

Lane, C., (2016) ‘A Modern Marriage for the Masses: Carole Lombard, Clark Gable and the Cultural Front’ Quarterly Review of Film and Video 33:5, 401-436.

Mast, G. & Cohen, M., (1992) Film theory and criticism: introductory readings., 4th, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 151 - 169

Naremore, J., (1990) Acting in the Cinema. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Perkins, V.F., (1981) ‘Moments of Choice’, The Movie 58, 1141-1145.

Rothman, W., (1988) The “I” of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothman, W., (1989) ‘To Have and Have Not Adapted a Film from a Novel’ in Rothman, William The “I” of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History and Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; first published 1988, 108-116. 

Smyth, J.E., (2016) ‘Organisation Women and Belle Rebels: Hollywood’s Working Women in the 1930s’ in Morgan, Iwan and Davies, Philip John (eds) Hollywood and the Great Depression: American Film, Politics and Society in the 1930s. Edinburgh UP, 66-85

Stage Door. 1937. [DVD] Directed by G. La Cava. California: RKO.

The Awful Truth. 1937. [DVD] Directed by L. McCarey. California: Columbia.

Theodora Goes Wild. 1936. [DVD] Directed by L. McCarey. California: Columbia.

The Philadelphia Story. 1940. [DVD] Directed by G. Cukor. California: MGM.

Thomson, D., (1977) ‘The Look On An Actor’s Face’, Sight and Sound 46:4, autumn, 240-244.

Wilson, G. M., (1992) Narration in Light: Studies in Cinematic Point of View. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press; first published 1986.

Wood, R., (1973) ‘To Have (Written) and Have Not (Directed): Reflections on Authorship’ Film Comment 9:3, May, 30-35.

Wood, R., (1981) Howard Hawks. London: BFI; first published in 1968.

Wood, R., (1997) ‘Katherine Hepburn’ in Unterburger, Amy L. (ed.) The International Dictionary of Films and Film-Makers – Volume 3 – Actors and Actresses, Third Edition: London: St James Press, 544.

​

​