Adam’s Rib

Adam’s Rib was a 1940s rom com starring one of classic Hollywood’s favorite pairings, Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Both being very acclaimed actors of their time, they had a very strong relationship off the screen that was never officially disclosed as a relationship due to complications in both of their personal lives, but the writing was clearly on the wall for them as well as everyone who knew them. This companionship stayed strong until Tracy’s death in 1967, but people even to this day still remember their dynamic, mainly due to the films that they starred in together. Hollywood saw the potential that came with these two and paired them together in a total of nine films over the course of several years: Woman of the Year (1942), Keeper of the Flame (1942), Without Love (1945), The Sea of Grass (1947), State of the Union (1948), Pat and Mike (1952), Desk Set (1957), Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), and the previously mentioned Adam’s Rib in 1949. Most of these films seem to be aware of both actor’s famous personas and use them accordingly, and Adam’s Rib kind of does the same. The movie follows a married couple who both work as lawyers. The husband, Adam (played by Spencer Tracy) is an assistant district attorney who sticks heavily to the law, while his wife, Amanda (played by Katharine Hepburn) is a solo-practicing defence attorney who likes standing up for her beliefs, especially the equality of women. Their conflicting methods of delivering justice come to a clash when both end up on opposing each other in a case, where an ‘at-her-limit’ housewife named Doris Attinger (played by Judy Holliday) has shot her dead-beat husband and is now being charged with attempted murder. With Amanda noticing the double standards that women and men face with adultery, believing that Mrs. Attinger was driven to commit the act due to the pressure and emotional abuse she received from her husband, and being frustrated that Adam wishes to convict her in order to uphold the standards of the law without any leeway, Amanda decides to defend her, putting Adam in a very precarious predicament. The two end up using their talents to try and overrule the other and see who can come out on top, with it turning into something much more than another day at the office when it starts to spread into their home life as well. Created under the banner of MGM and written specifically as a vehicle for its leads by married screenwriters Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon, Adam’s Rib proved to a highly successful film (earning an Oscar nomination for Best Story and Screenplay) and is still seen today as a classic romantic comedy using a very likeable duo in an effective and comedic manner. While it is a decently enjoyable picture with some fun elements, it is held back by its inability to play this concept in the manner that would best suit it.

With the premise coming together after being inspired by a real event that occurred between some of Gordon’s friends, this concept is full of comedic potential. The idea of two lawyers who also happen to be married being forced to face each other on opposite sides of a court case which brings their conflicting ideologies to the surface, turning what should be a serious trial of attempted murder into a challenge of who has the strength and willpower to beat the other, takes the ”battle of the sexes” trope and matches it with a lifestyle and environment that literally requires debating, resulting in a perfect match. It has a lot of possibilities for plenty of over-the-top antics, quick and witty writing, and an overblown atmosphere, which in many ways, the film does feature and somewhat takes advantage of. This film was directed by George Cukor, a man who is known for his diverse film library and is no stranger to female-oriented jovial films with a smarter than anticipated edge with Little Women (1933), The Philadelphia Story (1940), A Star is Born (1954), and My Fair Lady (1964) under his belt. He has a talent for directing these stories in a very passionate and lively manner (as well as respecting both genders both on and off the screen), and it results in his pictures being very colorful in nature, tight in dialogue, passionate in performances, and memorable in presentation, and since this film was released during a period when MGM was cutting back on their releases and shrinking their budgets, he knows how to make an otherwise small-scale movie still pop. The pace of the film is very concise, the run-time is appropriately short which allows this clever but simple premise to stretch for as long as it can and present some memorable scenes and characters, and the movie does tackle some very progressive themes for its age, especially in regard to women’s equality in the eyes of the law. However, despite being titled a rom-com and a fairly light-hearted one at that, there are quite a few aspects of this story that haven’t aged great. Even if it is progressive in small instances, it’s still a movie from the 40s, so it feels pretty ignorant to how important its topics actually are, leading to a few moments that treat the entire situation as a ”silly pipedream” and a resolution that is nowhere near as cheery as it is presented to be. The conflict between the leads feels pretty imbalanced and the debate between what is legally right and wrong isn’t properly thought out or written very tightly as its stance on gender politics seems contradictory given how the film decides to conclude. Even though it talks about real issues, the whimsical nature of the story and hijinks-heavy nature of the characters means things can’t be treated seriously, and therefore is led in a manner that treats otherwise hurtful statements and backwards thought processes as ”stubborn qualities” rather than ”problematic ideals”. Having a male/female combo (who are also married) write the film was a good idea, and for a majority of it, you can feel the strengths of both Gordon and Kanin as screenwriters, but the last act isn’t that strong and there are portions of this film that feel pretty unlikeable for the wrong reasons.

A lot of the movie feels uneven due to its handling of the tone and delivery of the story, and nowhere is that felt more than in the two leads. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn feel like actors that would work great in this kind of environment and would work off each other fantastically, but the movie isn’t quite as balanced as it should be despite Cukor, Gordon and Kanin all working with them in films prior. On the one hand, Katharine Hepburn is great in this film, as she has a great character, she brings a lot of personality and strength to the role, her conviction and power as this woman in charge works great for this set-up, and she has some great timing both comedically and even dramatically as well. It clearly feels like she runs this movie as she’s the character with a purpose, with something to fight for, with something to fight against, and the one who gets the most focus, so on that regard, the movie succeeds wonderfully with her. On the other hand, Spencer Tracy is really unlikeable in this, as his character is bland, annoying and pretty misogynistic, Tracy’s acting doesn’t bring anything to the role that gives him many redeeming qualities, his morals and actions are hypocritical and never seem to fully make sense, he doesn’t get many good lines or moments that allow people to laugh with or understand him, his purpose in the film doesn’t feel realistic but rather purely fabricated just to get this concept to exist, and the movie for some reason expects the audience to side with him come the end of the film (again showing some of the dated nature where a woman in the workforce needed to be ”brought back down to earth” to remember the status quo). The movie unfortunately juggles between a story that could honestly work great as a legitimate trial movie that tackles the inequalities of the law system of the era, and a goofy comedy that doesn’t really care about logistics or consequences and just has fun with itself. It dips its toe in both and therefore comes out leaving some things to be desired on both ends. While Hepburn’s character pleads her case with reasonable responses and queries, Tracy’s response is just ‘’because’’ and hits back with truly accusatory responses that paint him as someone who is defending an obviously abusive man just because ‘’it’s the law so it has to be right’’. It’s pretty unbalanced, makes him and every man a one-note mindless stereotype, and doesn’t earn its ”happy” ending because of it.

To be fair to this movie, it doesn’t need to tackle any real themes or try and set itself in reality because of its comedic tone, but comedy works at its strongest when it comes from either a relatable or uncomfortable situation, and because this film isn’t authentically delivering this set up in a way that makes sense logically or even comedically, some holes start to form. Other comedies of the era usually can have plots that are seen as ridiculous and over-the-top (even for back then), but what holds them in place is the passionate performances the tight scripting which can often times be so quick-paced and well worded that you’re caught off guard before you can process what was said, and the direction that needs to be able to convey what can be perceived as manically absurdity in a  way that feels genuine. In the case of this film, it has some of these features and is definitely a movie that doesn’t take itself seriously, but the script, while great in premise, is not really that funny. Either due to certain elements not aging very well or just through the dialogue not having very many clever things to say, the movie is more likeably quirky than anything that hilarious. With that said, the atmosphere for the movie is quite likeable, the actors are clearing playing cartoon characters but some of them are done very effectively (especially some of the actors in the courtroom) and while nothing funny is really being said, the timing and framing of certain scenes does show good comedic talent. It is quite a good-looking movie for the time period and considering the budget would’ve been smaller than usual, as the cinematography by George J. Folsey feels a lot more dynamic than what you’d normally see in a more casual courtroom film of the era and allows for some really fun shots.

For a closing statement, Adam’s Rib is a likeable enough film with good performances, a great concept, and lively visuals to make it an enjoyable watch. Ironically, the movie probably should have been called Amanda’s Rib (or maybe get really ironic and call it ‘Eve’s Rib’’) because Hepburn is the real star of the movie while Tracy just feels like he’s left out to dry with an awful character. Maybe the movie could benefit from a modern update with a fresher perspective and more of an authentic balance of what side is truly in the right (Tracy’s points ironically could have some real ethical merit if he wasn’t written as so one-note and didn’t use such misogynistic viewpoints), but as it is, it’s a messy but overall solid film to go back to. Check it out, see two acting legends from their era work off each other (despite neither really feeling like they’re in love with the other) and see why you think this battle of the sexes was presented so one-sidedly.