The Americanization of Emily is a 1964 film directed by Arthur Hiller (Tobruk, 1967) and written by Paddy Chayefsky that is not easily categorized. However, one simple way to categorize it is as a “really good movie.” It’s funny, interesting and it doesn’t hurt that it stars James Garner (36 Hours, The Great Escape) and Julie Andrews (The Sound of Music) along with costar James Coburn (The Great Escape, Cross of Iron).
It is sometimes labelled as a dark comedy, or a satire and/or an anti-war film. I don’t think those labels help you predict your reaction too it. I don’t like black comedies; I often don’t find them funny—just black. It’s not even that I don’t like them—I don’t get them. I am seriously considering not reviewing a number of important World War II black comedies because I am not sure I can be trusted. I’m not sure if I’m the person to ask if Castle Keep or A Midnight Clear or The Captain are good because I find myself squinting at the screen, unsure what to think. “Was that supposed to be funny?” I’m so bad at them, I’m not even sure two of those three are black comedies.
I like The Americanization of Emily; it’s often funny–sometimes zany–and it’s interesting, and satire is probably a better term than black comedy because this movie is not particularly dark though it’s a pretty strong satire.
However dark, cynical or satirical it may be, it is clearly a romantic comedy–two very charming and attractive people don’t like each other, then fall in love, then there are complications that threaten their capacity to live happily ever after–but then they do once the less-than-ideal male proves he is worthy of the love of the pretty much ideal female. The film slightly violates the typical rules of a romantic comedy, but I’m not giving it away because it is part of the allure and power of this film. If you like romantic comedies, you should like this, and if you don’t, you may still because it is a rich movie.
Not exactly an action movie
It just now occurred to me that people who will dislike this film will find it too didactic–too preachy, and that’s probably fair. But the preachy parts are well written. Chayefsky wrote The Hospital (1971) and Network (1976), which are also well written but probably too preachy for some. I respect that position, but Chayefsky was great and this movie has a great screenplay.
Garner’s character, Charlie, contains multitudes—he’s noble and ignoble, confident and cowardly (something Garner was consistently good at). He holds the high moral ground while literally being a pimp. He has an unapologetic honesty when he shrugs off Emily’s (Andrews) criticism, calling her Mrs. Miniver, and when he is talking to her mother, who lost both her husband and son to war, in one of the movie’s signature scenes. Charlie is somehow not a hypocrite, and though Garner does great with the role he’s given, Chayefsky has given him a great role. An actor with less charm may have fallen flat in this role–but Garner doesn’t and delivers lines that are cutting and heartfelt with tremendous–and now I need to find another word for “charm”–charisma. “Charisma” is fine.
He is also casually sexist in a way we’re probably not supposed to find all that charming even at this time period. At one point he casually slaps Andrew’s character (Emily) on the bottom (he slaps Mary Poppins on the ass!). She slaps his face, and he clearly likes that she has the moxie to do so. He falls for her because he respects her–their romance and chemistry are tremendous, but at one point Garner flatly says “you’re a bitch,” and it bothers me–but I think it was supposed to bother audiences then too. He is crass and cruel in an emotional moment.
I’m struggling with this because the movie may be too sexist, but it is a marked contrast to the sexism in Never so Few, where we’re supposed to admire and emulate Frank Sinatra’s harassing Gina Lollobrigida’s character. Here our hero is sexist except he kind of isn’t because he doesn’t particularly respect men either. But James Garner, as you may know, has a lovable screen presence, and an honesty about not being heroic here and in many of his other signature roles.
Emily is a little bit Americanized here, but the American sure is drinking tea.
Andrews has a good role and is good in the film–no one is bad in this movie, but Andrews is luminous, and charming–I’m not hiding from the word “charming” anymore.
It is a well directed and written movie, but you’ll only love it if you love the stars. That is kind of saying “you’ll love it” because it’s James Garner (The Rockford Files) and Julie Andrews (Mary Poppins). I don’t know how many more ways I can say they are magnetic and charming; if you don’t love them, I don’t know if we can be friends.
Recommendation
See this movie, maybe not as part of a D-Day marathon, but see it; it’s a charming, thoughtful and slightly cynical film. If you only want action movies, fine don’t see it, but you’re missing a pretty good film.