Blu-ray Review: Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Distributor: Warner Brothers

Release Date: June 25, 2024

 Region: Region A

Length: 01:35:21

 Video: 1080P (MPEG-4, AVC)

Main Audio: 2.0 English DTS-HD Master Audio

Subtitles: English SDH

Ratio: 1.37:1

Notes: This Warner Archives release marks the film’s North American Blu-ray debut.

The Favor: Hitchcock’s Neglected Screwball Comedy

“In 1938, J, B. Priestley wrote a farce called ‘When We Are Married’ in which some stuffy Yorkshire bigwigs suddenly find that their marriages are invalid, and they are ‘living in sin.’ Perhaps coincidentally, American playwright Norman Krasna used a similar situation soon afterwards in his screenplay for a screwball comedy … about a New York couple. It was this screenplay that RKO bought for Carole Lombard, and which was later filmed by Hitchcock as Mr. and Mrs. Smith.” —Ken Mogg (The Alfred Hitchcock Story, 1999)

You didn’t misread Ken Mogg’s quotation. He did say “screwball comedy.” Is this really so difficult for people to wrap their heads around? It certainly wasn’t a typical project for the director. What’s more, very little has been written about the film’s production.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941) is easily Alfred Hitchcock’s most neglected American movie. It has been brushed aside by scholars as a rather awkward anomaly in the director’s American output, and this is an attitude that they have adopted from the director himself. However, while most of the scholars and historians dismiss the film because it is a “screwball comedy” and not a “suspense thriller,” Hitchcock dismissed it because the film wasn’t a project that he had nurtured and guided from its inception. (He preferred to guide his films through each and every stage of the creative process beginning with the success of The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934). “You must understand that it was not really a film for myself,” the director later explained. “That picture was done as a friendly gesture to Carole Lombard.”

The project’s origins really begin when Alfred Hitchcock moved with his family from England to America so that he could begin his career in Hollywood after signing to work for David O. Selznick. Before finding a permanent residence, they rented Carole Lombard’s Bel Air home at 609 St. Cloud Road (the actress had recently married Clark Gable and had taken up residence with him). As a result, the Hitchcocks became close friends with both Lombard and Gable. “I liked her very much,” remembered the director. “She had a bawdy sense of humor and used the language men use with each other. I’d never heard a woman speak that way. She was a forceful personality, stronger, I felt, than Gable.”

In fact, the actress had been a fan of Hitchcock’s British films before he made the journey to Hollywood, and Hitchcock had revealed a desire to work with the actress while still working in Britain:

“I should like to cast Lombard not in the type of superficial comedy which she so often plays but in a much meatier comedy-drama, giving her plenty of scope for characterizations. I believe that, imaginatively treated, Lombard is capable of giving a performance equal to that of any of the best male actors, like [Paul] Muni and Leslie Howard.” —Alfred Hitchcock (as quoted in “Hitchcock’s Stars,” 2014)

While Hitchcock was likely hoping to direct the actress in one of his humor-laced thrillers, Carole Lombard was coming out of a series of dramas that failed to successfully connect with audiences. The actress was anxious to work with the director, but she felt that her career was in dire need of another comic hit.

“I had just finished, in rapid succession, Rebecca and Foreign Correspondent when Carole Lombard, who had become my friend, said to me, ‘Why don’t you direct me in a film’,” Hitchcock would later insist. “In a weak moment I accepted, and I more or less followed Norman Krasna’s screenplay. Since I really didn’t understand the type of people who were portrayed in the film, all I did was to photograph the scenes as written.”

While this isn’t an inaccurate assessment of the motivating factors behind Hitchcock’s decision to make the film, it is certainly an oversimplification. There were other factors motivating Hitchcock’s decision to take Lombard up on her offer (she was an uncredited producer on this particular project). The director even hinted at these other factors during his infamous interview with Truffaut when he said “In a weak moment I accepted…”

Donald Spoto would have us believe that the director was actually “even more enthusiastic than Lombard was about the original story and screenplay by Norman Krasna,” and he cites a publicity interview that Hitchcock gave during the film’s first week of production to support this claim. “I want to direct a typical American comedy about typical Americans,” the director told reporters.

This may be true. After all, Hitchcock was just beginning his American career. He may have felt that he had something to prove. However, this is the sort of statement that filmmakers are expected to make while promoting a film. The idea is to sell the movie to a fickle public. He couldn’t dismiss the movie as a “favor.” It was also important that the studio have faith in his enthusiasm — and he was able to muster up a certain amount of enthusiasm for the project. However, it is more likely that Hitchcock’s enthusiasm for the project was born out of career necessity. In other words, there is evidence to suggest that it was a strategic career move.

Norman Krasna was a respected screenwriter in the industry at the time. He had a number of hit films under his belt (The Richest Girl in the World, Hands Across the Table, Fury, and You and Me are examples) when he submitted a treatment entitled “No for an Answer” to RKO Pictures. The fact that this was an RKO property was actually a primary factor in Hitchcock’s decision to make the film as a director for hire.

“A studio nearly bankrupt in the 1930s, RKO emerged from receivership in January 1940 and became a haven for independent filmmakers. … Working at RKO Hitchcock must have believed — would not only eliminate front-office interference but perhaps even allow him to lay groundwork for his own independent production company.

RKO producer Harry Edington lunched with Hitchcock in late spring 1940 and urged his superiors to close with Selznick. ‘If [it] takes liquor,’ he wired J. J. Nolan in June, ‘I will pay [the] bill.’” —Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

Hitchcock had become extremely interested making a film from a novel by Anthony Berkeley (writing as Francis Iles) entitled “Before the Fact,” and this property was owned by RKO. Meanwhile, Lombard had signed on to produce (uncredited) and star in what would become Mr. and Mrs. Smith — although the project was still called “No for an Answer” at this point.

“By the time Lombard had read and agreed to do it, the property had been variously called ‘Who Was That Lady I Seen You With?,’ ‘And So to Wed,’ ‘Here We Go Again!,’ ‘The Lady Said No!,’ ‘Some Call It Love,’ ‘Two of a Kind,’ ‘That Was My Wife!,’ ‘Return Engagement,’ ‘Temporarily Yours,’ ‘Dangerous but Passable,’ and ‘Slightly Married’ — all rather sophomoric variations on the typical marital-comedy titles of the time.” —Donald Spoto (The Dark Side of the Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock, 1983)

The actress signed onto the project with the understanding that the film would finish production in thirty days. Meanwhile, David O. Selznick was making life miserable for Hitchcock. The threat of suspension loomed large over the director (who had a better idea as to which projects were appropriate for his particular gifts than Selznick did at this time). The producer kept stalling negotiations with RKO because he wanted his prized director to helm only prestigious properties (read Oscar bait). For example, he was negotiating with Warner Brothers and Twentieth Century Fox for Hitchcock to helm The Constant Nymph (eventually directed by Edmund Goulding and released in 1943) and How Green Was My Valley (eventually directed by John Ford and released in 1941). Neither of these projects interested Hitchcock, and he told Selznick this in no uncertain terms. The producer was also interested in remaking The Lodger with Hitchcock — but Hitchcock didn’t want to turn his silent classic into another Selznick film. If he was to remake The Lodger, he would do so at a studio that would give him carte blanch to make a Hitchcock film.

As a result of his reasonable insistence that he should make only films that appealed to his own particular interests, the director was in hot water. Selznick felt he took too long to complete his previous two efforts, and now he was giving him trouble about what properties that he was willing to embrace. When Lombard came to him with Mr. and Mrs. Smith, this was almost like a sign from the heavens. RKO wanted to make two films with the director, and this could be the second film under that contract. After all, it could be made very quickly. He was willing to do anything to make this deal go through.

“He offered to review the preliminary budgets of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and ‘Before the Fact’ — which all had now agreed would be his assignments — and show RKO how to remove sufficient fat to compensate for his heady salary [most of which would go to Selznick]. The stalemate [with the stubborn producer] persisted. An embittered Hitchcock told O’Shea that ‘he was seriously thinking of going back to England to fight in the War.’ Unlike Olivier, the director said, he ‘was really serious about it.’” —Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

Selznick only relented when it became clear that Warner and Fox had abandoned all interest in working with the director (at least on those projects). He even reduced his $100,000 price tag for Hitchcock’s services. What’s more, he promised the director a $15,000 bonus if he could complete both RKO productions within a year’s time. This sealed the director’s intentions to direct Mr. and Mrs. Smith. The script was already finished and ready to go, so it was the perfect way to prove that he was an efficient director while also pocketing a much-needed bonus.

“RKO then agreed to hire the director at $5,000 a week, precisely what Wanger had paid Selznick nine months before [for Foreign Correspondent]. Under the contract that he had just renewed for another year, Hitchcock would earn $2,475 of that $5,000. Already the disparity chafed him. Yet Selznick had discussed extending his salary from forty to fifty-two weeks annually. The possibility of additional income, the expectation of minimal supervision at RKO, and the content of the second of his two RKO assignments lifted his spirits…

…Hollywood professionals like Gregory La Cava and Howard Hawks directed sophisticated comedy as well as straight drama; on Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Hitchcock could demonstrate not only his speed but also his versatility.” —Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

Originally, Suspicion (called “Before the Fact” at this point) was intended to be his first project for RKO, but he switched to Mr. and Mrs. Smith when it became clear that the project would have numerous developmental hurdles to overcome. Unfortunately, these script hurdles would eventually cause Hitchcock to miss out on the bonus that Selznick had promised.

In the meantime, a memo to RKO suits outlined what would be his approach to directing Krasna’s screenplay. “The typical comedy has its character slip, figuratively speaking, on a banana peel, and thereby gets its laugh. But the slip is not funny to the victim. I prefer to have my comedy examine his reaction,” the director enthused.

“The press was informed that in his new approach to comedy: ‘He does not want his stars to screw their faces around in funny ways. He doesn’t want them to read funny lines as though they had just popped them out of a joke book. He says that, when two people live and work together, they are not conscious of being funny; people are funniest when they’re serious.’” —Lesley L. Coffin (Hitchcock’s Stars, 2014)

While the screenplay was shot pretty much as Krasna had written it, Donald Spoto noted a few minor revisions that Hitchcock made to the script and explained the personal implications that they represent in “The Dark Side of the Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock.”

“A comparison of Norman Krasna’s completed screenplay with the final film reveals the interesting details added at Hitchcock’s explicit demand; as always, they are markers of motifs in his personal life. During filming, he and Alma made plans to resume celebrating their December 02 wedding anniversary with a holiday to Saint Moritz, a custom that had been interrupted for the previous several years. The trip seems to have been something of a peace offering from Hitchcock to his wife, who had had very little to do on the first three American films — and although she appeared to her acquaintances quite happy to be running the house, spending time with Pat, and reading novels for potential screenplay material, there was no doubt that she was, as one actress said, decidedly second to Joan Harrison in Hitchcock’s professional lineup.

But he assured Alma that they would return to Saint Moritz for the first two weeks of December, and in fact he memorialized that promise in his alterations to the final scenes of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in which Robert Montgomery, feigning unconsciousness, mumbles not once but four times: ‘We’ll go away the first two weeks in December . . . Playing in the snow, we’ll have a lot of fun . . . The first two weeks in December, we’ll go away to that ski resort . . . yes, the first two weeks in December.’ [Despite Hitchcock’s intentions, the trip to Saint Moritz had to be postponed to another year: European travel was not advisable that December.]

Earlier in the script, Hitchcock added a pointed reference to the setting of his own marriage proposal — a proposal whose consequences seem to have been very much on his mind in 1940. ‘Remember how sick you were on that night boat?’ Montgomery asks Lombard, and the dialogue recalls Alma’s condition the night of her husband’s shipboard proposal fifteen years earlier…

…More perversely, Hitchcock also created the odd scene in which Gene Raymond, Lucile Watson, and Philip Merivale retreat to an office bathroom for a private discussion. Their conversation is made difficult by a noisy flushing toilet on the floor above. Hitchcock had been warned by RKO that the Hollywood Production Code was quite strict about the sight and sound of the toilet, believing that device too indelicate for the American screen…” —Donald Spoto (The Dark Side of the Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock, 1983)

Spoto also felt obligated to mention that the screenplay includes “the first occurrence in a Hitchcock film” of alcohol as medicine. He insists that it is a personal touch despite the fact that it was likely already written into the script by Krasna before he had even signed on to direct.

“[The] idle remark … would be inserted into subsequent films with an obsessive insistence. Justifying the drinking of a beaker full of brandy, Lombard says to Raymond: ‘This isn’t alcohol — it’s medicine. It kills the germs. All in one gulp, now!’ In a dozen films, from Mr. and Mrs. Smith to Vertigo (where James Stewart, urging a glass of brandy, says to Kim Novak, ‘Here, Judy, drink this straight down — it’s just like medicine’), the dialogue is punctuated with the classic validating excuse that Hitchcock’s off-screen companions heard so often: ‘It isn’t alcohol, it’s like medicine!’ And in one gulp, a Hitchcock cocktail disappeared. As everyone knew who lunched or dined with him, especially in the privacy of his home, he preferred this medicine to any other.” —Donald Spoto (The Dark Side of the Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock, 1983)

Obviously, Carol Lombard was in place from the beginning, but both Hitchcock and Lombard originally agreed that Cary Grant should be signed to play the role of David. Unfortunately, Grant was too busy to fit the film into his schedule at the time, so they considered other options — including George Brent and Fredric March — before finally signing Robert Montgomery with only a week to spare. He would receive $110,000 for his eight week commitment (more than twice what Hitchcock would be paid for his contribution). Gene Raymond would be cast as Jefferson Custer (the third corner of a pesky love triangle).

The most interesting bit of casting for those who know anything about Hitchcock’s career is the appearance of Betty Compson as Gertie.

“By 1915, [Compson] was appearing in silent slapstick comedies, sometimes appearing in more than three dozen two-reelers a year. Promoted as the ‘Prettiest Girl in Pictures,’ within five years she was producing her own movies. In 1924, a star starved British film industry imported her to play the difficult double role in Woman to Woman; Hitchcock, the young screenwriter and assistant director on that film, was particularly taken by her pale blonde looks, and the two became close friends. [Their friendship continued when she was cast in the production of The White Shadow the same year. Hitchcock performed the same duties on that film as well.]

Although Compson was an Academy Award nominee for 1928’s The Barker, a marriage to the alcoholic (and tax avoiding) director James Cruze left her bankrupt at the start of the 1930s; a long string of forgettable pictures badly hampered her career. By the 1940s, any Hollywood work was hard to come by; the recently arrived Hitchcock made a point of giving her a small part in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, so she could keep her Screen Actors Guild benefits.” —Stephen Whitty (The Alfred Hitchcock Encyclopedia, 2016)

There is some contradiction as to when principal photography began on the film. An announcement that appeared in Variety stated that production commenced on September 03, 1940, but most biographies insist that filming started on September 05 of that same year. As a rule, it was an incredibly fun production. The only possible person who may have had some slight disagreement on this point is Gene Raymond. He was scorned by Hitchcock when one of his scenes with Robert Montgomery wasn’t up to snuff. However, this isn’t so much an issue as a natural part of the process. It only made him work harder in his role.

Certainly, Carole Lombard and Alfred Hitchcock had an absolute blast with both pranking the other and basically enjoying each other’s company.

“There’s an amusing little sidelight on that picture. A few years prior to my arrival in Hollywood, I had been quoted as saying that all actors are cattle. I’m not quite sure in what context I might have made such a statement. … When I arrived on the set, the first day of shooting, Carole Lombard had had a corral built, with three sections, and in each one there was a live young cow. Round the neck of each of them there was a white disk tied on with a ribbon, with three names: Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery, and the name of a third member of the cast, Gene Raymond.

I should add that my comment was a generalization, and Carole Lombard’s spectacular repartee was her way of kidding me. She probably agreed with me.” —Alfred Hitchcock (Le Cinéma selon Hitchcock, 1966)

This particular prank doubled as an extremely effective publicity stunt as it was well covered by the press. It is one of the primary reasons that his “actors are cattle” quotation became as famous in America as it was in Britain. It would follow him past the grave and into this very article all of these decades later.

Hitchcock wasn’t the only victim of Lombard’s playful antics.

“[Lombard] also kept up a running political gag with Montgomery. As the November presidential election approached, she increased her enthusiastic support of Franklin Roosevelt while Montgomery continued to endorse Wendell Willkie. After Montgomery had parked his car in the lot each morning, Lombard sneaked out and pasted Roosevelt stickers to the fenders; Montgomery painstakingly removed them each night, and she cheerfully reapplied a new batch the next day. They never mentioned what they both knew, nor did it spoil the friendly atmosphere of their work together.” —Donald Spoto (The Dark Side of the Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock, 1983)

Hitchcock was also a merciless jokester on the set.

“One day, on the pretext that Carole Lombard, the most professional of screen actresses, had fluffed a line a couple of times, he insisted on having all her lines chalked up on an ‘idiot board’ out of camera range for her to read while she acted the scene — a procedure which threw her completely, so that she forgot all her lines.” —John Russell Taylor (Hitch: The Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock, 1978)

Of course, Lombard would retaliate when the director allowed her to direct his cameo. Various versions of this particular anecdote exist, and a few of them don’t match up with his appearance as it exists in the final film. An article entitled “Carole Lombard Gets Revenge by Directing Alfred Hitchcock” (which was published at the time of the film’s production) describes a scene in which Hitchcock portrays a panhandler who receives a dime from Robert Montgomery’s character. Of course, this scene — if it was ever shot — never appears in the final film.

“Lombard was relentless in her direction of Hitchcock: ‘Try again. Now Alfie, when he gives you that dime, I want you in a pensive mood, Alfie. [Hitchcock tries to follow Lombard’s direction.] I don’t like it. Stop your mumbling. [He protests.] I’d like it a little clearer. This is for an American audience.’ The situation would have played even funnier for period readers, since the dialogue for early 1930s British imports was often criticized for being hard to understand.” —Wes D. Gehring (Hitchcock and Humor: Modes of Comedy in Twelve Defining Films, 2019)

John Russell Taylor discusses this same scene as if it were a part of the movie in “Hitch: The Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock.” The only difference is that in this account of the scene, Hitchcock doesn’t receive the dime. This only confuses things more! Is it possible that such a scene was shot? We know that photographers and journalists were on the set during the filming of Hitchcock’s cameo because there are photographs of Lombard “directing” Hitchcock. However, it wasn’t at all uncommon for such scenes to be staged especially for the press. Since this particular version of his cameo is not in the finished film, one has to wonder if this might be the case here. Was this scene an honest effort at getting Hitchcock’s cameo in the can, or was it invented to amuse visiting journalists?

The cameo as it appears in the final movie is a somewhat shaky crane shot as Robert Montgomery leaves his apartment building. (Crane shots in Hitchcock films are usually much smoother than this.) Hitchcock doesn’t interact with Montgomery at all. He simply strolls past the building. All that we can say for sure is that Lombard had her fun directing the shot.

 “Straight faced and utterly serious, she put him through several hours of exercise, requesting that he walk repeatedly, eight, ten, fifteen times until, she said, he had it just right.” —Donald Spoto (Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies, 2008)

Meanwhile, Charlotte Chandler suggests in her biography that Hitchcock originally didn’t even intend to use the scene in the film, but it ended up making the cut. “She might have become a director one day,” she quotes the director as saying. “She had the personality for it.”

Lombard made it a point to shock her director at every turn.

“Coming out of the projection room one day, [Hitchcock] bumped into [Carol Lombard]. ‘Oh, you’ve looked at the rushes without me,’ she cried. ‘Everything’s fine,’ Hitchcock assured her, commenting on the photography, the lighting, [and] the performances. ‘I don’t give a f**k about that. How did my new tits look?’” —Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

The one thing that all scholars agree upon is that Alfred Hitchcock and Carole Lombard were a match made in heaven. Unfortunately, the fun couldn’t last forever. Principal photography finally ended on November 02, 1940, and Selznick was breathed a sigh of relief.

“From Culver City, Selznick and O’Shea watched the director and from afar applauded his progress. ‘Hitchcock has been bearing down on the cost of Mr. and Mrs. Smith,’ O’Shea told Selznick seven days into the picture, ‘in order to demonstrate to the world after Rebecca and Foreign Correspondent that he is not only a great director but a reasonably priced one.’ Neither producer Harry Edington (virtually a figurehead) nor RKO executives interfered with Hitchcock, who shot Smith in eight weeks, over schedule yet not terribly over budget. RKO seemed pleased with the result.” —Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

It hadn’t all been a walk in the park. After all, there was this thing called “The Production Code.” It would silently plague Hitchcock throughout the entire filmmaking process.

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith was lighter fare than most of Hitchcock’s films, but the Production Code office was just as diligent in finding fault with this comedy as with his suspenseful thrillers. The Code reviewers found the basic story acceptable but cited eighteen unacceptable items in Norman Krasna’s screenplay. These items included the words stinks, old bat, and bedroom slippers, a derogatory reference to the Girl Scouts, and matters of dress for both Ann and David. ‘Ann should not be shown ‘‘clad in scant panties and brassiere,’’ but should be wearing a negligee,’ the censors wrote. And David should be wearing an undershirt in one scene, and in another, ‘should not be shown unhooking the top of his trousers,’ presumably so that there is ‘nothing sex suggestive about David’s reactions … getting ready for bed.’

Krasna was noted for his racy dialogue and the censors objected to the underlined words in the following three exchanges on the grounds that their context made them ‘sex-suggestive or otherwise unacceptable’:

ANN (to Jefferson, after he declines to kiss her because he has a cold): That’s another difference between you and David. Colds never stopped him. He got the measles once. How I never got the measles I’ll never know.

DAVID (to his friend Chuck after speaking with a blind date on the phone): She liked my voice.

CHUCK: That’s not all she’ll like.

ANN (to Jefferson on a horse-drawn sleigh ride): I love the smell of snow!

JEFFERSON (sniffing the air and wincing): That’s the horse.

Krasna changed the line ‘That’s the horse’ to ‘That’s not the snow’ but retained the other objectionable lines. Still, he made enough changes in the second draft of the script to whittle the censors’ objections down to three:

01.) The second draft of the screenplay showed David doodling Ann’s maiden name, Miss Ann Krausheimer, changing it to MisTress Ann Krausheimer. The censors responded, ‘The gag on the use of the word ‘‘mistress’’ is unacceptable.’

02.) The line ‘That’s not all she’ll like’ had survived the script revision but was marked for omission as ‘sex suggestive.’

03.) ‘The gag with the plumbing must NOT suggest the flushing of the toilet.’

Hitchcock and Krasna effectively ignored these objections, and the initial print of the film included the ‘mistress’ gag, the ‘sex suggestive’ line, and the sound of a flushing toilet.

Upon viewing the rough cut, the censors required three changes before they could award the Code’s Seal of Approval. These were:

01.) The elimination of a ‘revealing shot of the camera panning between Miss Lombard’s legs.’

02.) The omission of a reference to Mamma Lucy’s ‘big bazooms.’

03.) The cutting of ‘three sounds of the toilet flushing.’

Hitchcock and Krasna made changes one and two and substituted clanging pipes for the sound of a toilet flushing. It would be another twenty years before the director would crack the Code’s bathroom barrier by not only showing a toilet on-screen in Psycho, but also filming the actual flushing of evidence.

More than half of the lines the Code office objected to in the original script remained in the finished film.” —John Billheimer (Hitchcock and the Censors, 2019)

While Hitchcock won in his battle of wills with the censors, there was still trouble looming in the horizon. It seems that the studio had accidentally made the prints of Mr. and Mrs. Smith on grainy newsreel stock instead of the finer grained stock that was typically used for features. Needless to say, this wouldn’t help the film’s appearance. Even so, RKO was incredibly enthusiastic about the film’s box-office potential.

“A studio-commissioned Gallup poll taken in October 1940 forecast a predominantly female audience for the film, with the Hitchcock name a fillip to attract male audiences. A second poll quantified the power of that name. At RKO’s request, Gallup asked a cross section of the population to identify four men and their films: Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and Lewis Milestone. Hitchcock outscored Ford by four-to-one and Milestone by eight-to-one. The Hitchcock name added a tangible ‘cash plus’ to Smith, Gallup said, and merited ‘conspicuous billing.’ Though Hitchcock must have smiled — he considered his peers his rivals — the difference between his value and his salary only served to highlight his promotion by David Selznick.” —Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

Release, Reception, and Legacy

A sneak preview for the film was held in New Rochelle, NY on December 30, and the audience raved that Mr. and Mrs. Smith (along with Rebecca and Foreign Correspondent) was one of the year’s best films. It sold out the first nine days when it opened at Radio City Music Hall on January 20, 1941, and went on to do terrific numbers at this venue. It would make a tidy if somewhat modest $670,000 profit for RKO, and the film was considered a financial success.

Biographers and film theorists tend to contradict one another as to the film’s critical reception. Those who aren’t particularly enamored with the film tend to feel that reviews leaned towards the negative end of the spectrum. However, scholars who feel that the film is undervalued seem to believe that the film was embraced by critics. Our own estimation is that the reviews were mixed, but that even the most condescending reviews often had a few nice things to say (even if this praise was qualified).

While it is impossible to expound on what John Mosher wrote after announcing that the film is “as commonplace a film as one may find anywhere” in The New Yorker due to the fact that the complete article isn’t available (and none of the biographies that we had at our disposal bothered to offer a more complete overview of this decidedly negative opinion), we can offer a more complete look at a rather hostile review that appeared in Modern Screen magazine:

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a comedy — and a pretty good one in spots — but it hasn’t the pace or the timing which comedy (especially in American films) must have. The story of Mr. and Mrs. Smith is the same comedy premise we’ve been kicking around in films for a year or so – two people are married, but they’re not married, or are they? There have been about a dozen variations on this theme of late, and chances are that this is the picture which’ll wash ’em all up. There can’t be any more ways of twisting the theme around, we hope … Thinking back on the film, it becomes obvious that there is a lot of good stuff in it; some of the business is screamingly funny. But a good deal of it is in shockingly bad taste — and almost all of it is paced in so lethargic and happy-go-lucky manner as to annoy. The only way this sort of thing can be sold is by playing it so fast that the audience doesn’t get a chance to think. The audience will do a lot of thinking through this one.” —Staff Writer (as quoted in “Carole Lombard: Twentieth Century Star,” Modern Screen, 1941 / 2016)

The Hollywood Reporter was less belligerent, but it wasn’t exactly a love letter either:

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith is not the most brilliant comedy to hit the screen, nor is it the best directed, acted, or produced. It may be disappointing to many of the followers of Norman Krasna, Alfred Hitchcock, and Carole Lombard who expected extreme brilliance from that trio, but there’s enough fun in it to send you home happy with your entertainment.

The main trouble with this RKO show, in the eyes of this reviewer, is that it’s a situation comedy with not enough comedy situations to spread over the picture. There are great spots here and there, but not enough spots. And, too, the Hitchcock fans, and there must be hundreds of thousands as a result of his Hollywood work the past two years, will vote to keep comedy away from their idol and continue him in the groove in which he excels — the mystery plots and the beautiful romantic yarns.

Carole Lombard was perfectly cast as Mrs. Smith and looks beautiful. Robert Montgomery seemed bored with the whole thing and appeared just to walk through his part. Gene Raymond is capable of doing better things than the part dished out to him here. He was miscast. The rest of the roles were just bits. … The photography was not up to the standard, being too dark in places and entirely too light in others.

Certainly Lombard, Hitchcock, and Krasna have enough box office to give the picture a good start. While there may not be raves, ticket buyers will be satisfied, so you can chalk up another good attraction for RKO to follow Kitty Foyle.”  —Staff Writer (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Hollywood Reporter, February 16, 1941)

Keep in mind that their complaints about the film’s photography was probably the unfortunate result of RKO’s blunder in having the film printed on newsreel stock. Even so, this particular critic was clearly not enchanted with the film in general. It is interesting to note, however, that most of the trade reviews that we were able to find were more positive. Variety’s coverage is a perfect example (even if it offers only mild praise):

“Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are teamed successfully here in a light and gay marital farce, with accent on the laugh side through generation of continual bickering of the pair… Alfred Hitchcock pilots the story in a straight farcical groove — with resort to slapstick interludes or overplaying by the characters. Pacing his assignment at a steady gait, Hitchcock catches all of the laugh values from the above par script of Norman Krasna.” —Staff Writer (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Variety, December 31, 1940)

 Film Bulletin followed with coverage that could probably be described as “mixed,” but certainly offered more praise than criticism:

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith adds another to the long list of brittle and so-called ‘screwball’ comedies of married life that have been produced in the last few years. Unfortunately, there aren’t quite enough funny situations, and the picture drags a little at times, but Alfred Hitchcock’s expert direction and the fine comedy performances of Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery, and Gene Raymond make the picture somewhat more entertaining than many of its predecessors of the same general type.

Norman Krasna has contributed a story based on a very slight plot, which contains some novel twists, clever dialogue, and amusing situations. On the whole it’s good entertainment and will come as welcome refreshment from many of the current heavy films. The names of Lombard, Montgomery, and Hitchcock will bring ticket buyers to the box-office and the picture should gross well above average in most locations…

…Carole Lombard is perfectly cast as Mrs. Smith and she gives a fine comedy performance and looks very beautiful in an assortment of smart clothes. Robert Montgomery romps through his part with ease and gusto. Gene Raymond does a good job in his characterization of the milk-sop young lawyer. Jack Carson puts across a vivid picture of the vulgar playboy. Philip Merivale and Lucile Watson have a couple of good scenes as Raymond’s parents, shocked at the confused situation in which their son finds himself.” —Crawford (‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ Amusing Farce Comedy, Film Bulletin, January 25, 1941)

A review that appeared in Motion Picture followed suit:

“Don’t let the title mislead you. This is no dull story about plain ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith,’ that nice couple next door. We don’t want to shock you, but the truth of the matter is that Ann and David Smith weren’t even married. … It’s a thin story we’ll admit, but with Norman Krasna’s sparkling dialogue and screwy situations, and with Alfred Hitchcock’s deft direction, you may be sure that the most is made of this farce. Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are excellent as Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Gene Raymond scores as Jefferson Custer, David’s law partner and about-to-be-successor. There’s also Charles Halton, Jack Carson, Philip Merivale and Lucille Watson keeping Mr. and Mrs. Smith company.” —Staff Writer (Picture Parade: Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Motion Picture, February 1941)

The coverage that appeared in Harrison’s Reports was similar, but they noted a need for special marketing to clarify the fact that the film is a light comedy and not a suspense thriller:

“Good! It is another one in the long line of marital comedies that have been produced recently. The story itself is thin, depending on different farcical situations for most of its entertainment value. The fact that it holds one’s attention throughout is owed to the deft direction and the engaging performances. Another attraction is the picture’s lavishness. Audiences who know Alfred Hitchcock as a director of thrilling melodramas may expect this to be another one in that class; for that reason, exhibitors should stress the fact that it is a comedy so as not to disappoint their patrons.” —Staff Writer (‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ with Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery, Harrison’s Reports, February 01, 1941)

A review that appeared in American Cinematographer was incredibly enthusiastic in its praise, and it contradicts The Hollywood Reporter’s assertion that the film’s photography “not up to the standard.”

“While this is not the first production Harry Stradling, A.S.C, has made in Hollywood since his return from Europe, it happens to be the first this reviewer has seen — and it makes one wonder why our own studios ever let the French and British studios take an artist like Stradling away from them and keep him so long.

His handling of every phase of Mr. and Mrs. Smith is skillful and imaginative in high degree. In collaboration with the always clever Alfred Hitchcock, he has made very subtle use of camera-angles in the early sequences to aid in planting the impression that the chief protagonists are, to say the least, slightly pixillated characters. The angles he uses in presenting these characters in that vital first few hundred feet while the audience is getting acquainted with them does fully as much as dialog and action to get this impression across.

His treatment of Carole Lombard is a definite asset to that young lady. She is not, and never has been a subject suited to conventional camerawork and lighting. Stradling gives her a simple, forceful key-lighting rather reminiscent of the style with which Josef von Sternberg, A.S.C, made Marlene Dietrich famous. For Miss Lombard, this treatment does two things: it first accentuates her good features (while concealing her less favorable ones), and secondly, gives her a more decided visual personality, which is greatly to her advantage. To put it bluntly, she looks better in this picture than she has in many another.

Special-process cinematographer Vernon L. Walker, A.S.C, also makes notable contribution to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. In addition to several process sequences in autos, sleighs, and the like — all very well executed — he had to bring to the screen one of the dramatic highlights of the script, in which Miss Lombard and Gene Raymond find themselves marooned in midair as the ‘parachute jump’ ride of last year’s New York World’s Fair jams, leaving them suspended half-way down. His work here is excellent, for although you know it must be a process-shot, you are never forcibly reminded of the fact.” —Staff Writer (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, American Cinematographer, February 01, 1941)

The mainstream publications that we were able to sample follow suit. For example, Theodore Strauss offered a decidedly mixed review that offers a certain amount of condescending praise:

“…There arrived yesterday on the Music Hall screen another squabbling Punch and Judy — or rather, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. And without bothering to peer behind those slightly frayed curtains one knows immediately that the manipulator of these shrill puppets is no ordinary sideshow mountebank but a fellow with Machiavellian cunning, a fellow no less than Alfred Hitchcock. Who could be so slyly tantalizing, so devilishly witty, or who could so nearly succeed in making us forget that Judy has been buffeted by the slapstick a great many times since The Awful Truth, which was further back than we care to remember. For the awful truth in the present instance is that for all of Mr. Hitchcock’s comic subtleties, Mr. and Mrs. Smith‘s farandole about the marriage bed bears more than a passing resemblance to previous excursions into the realm of the striptease…

…Out of this molehill situation there develops a mountain of nonsense with Mr. Smith desperately trying to clamber up its slope to regain his outraged spouse. What distinguishes Mr. Hitchcock’s magic mountain is the angle at which he has set his camera, the means by which he has underscored the ludicrousness of a situation which could be set aright in a twinkle by a grain of common sense.

When Mr. and Mrs. Smith try to recapture an ardent courtship in a half-forgotten spaghetti tavern, the director sets a most sinister cat on their table to stare at the soup. David’s successive nights away from home are registered by the missing key of the rack at the Beefeater’s Club. When David jauntily anticipates the success of his schemes for a rapprochement, Mr. Hitchcock gives you the denouement with a mocking little tune; when the two make up, he shows you a friendly toe under the table.

To spin this off-center comedy, one needs actors who can catch a jest on the wing. Mr. Hitchcock has them. Carole Lombard caromes through the role of Mrs. Smith as if she hadn’t a brain in her head, which is what she is supposed to do. Robert Montgomery as the confused husband has never been funnier than in that moment when he tries to escape an embarrassing situation by courageously punching his own nose. Gene Raymond, however, as the intruding male, is too colorless to serve as a really convincing foil.

But after a long cycle of similar ventures, the bloom is off the rose. Despite the performances, despite the endless camera magic with which Mr. Hitchcock tries to conceal the thinness of his material, Mr. and Mrs. Smith have their moments of dullness. The result is a chucklesome comedy that fails to mount into a coruscating wave of laughter.” —Theodore Strauss (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, New York Times, February 21, 1941)

Most of the press coming out of New York was much more positive. Irene Thirer’s review in the New York Post is a case in point:

“…An American farce, gay and witty and sophisticated: he’s (Robert Montgomery) an attorney, she’s (Carole Lombard) a spitfire…  Reconciled after a chair throwing quarrel (it happens often) … she asks him sweetly: ‘Darling, tell me the truth. If you were single again, would you marry me?’ To which he honestly (ducking) replies: ‘No’ … It’s a smart little picture.” —Irene Thirer (as quoted in “Hitchcock and Humor,” New York Post, 1941 / 2019)

Meanwhile, the New York Herald Tribune was equally enthusiastic:

“Chalk up another triumph for one of the screen’s top craftsmen…  As in the past, the great director has avoided using dialogue when pictorial pantomime would suffice. Thus, the sequences bridging the temporary separation of the Smiths are narrated frequently in pure imagery. It makes for a refreshing and even exciting treatment of farcical material.” —Staff Writer (as quoted in “Hitchcock and Humor,” New York Herald Tribune, 1941 / 2019)

Interestingly, the New York Daily News also notes the film’s use of pantomime:

“Hitchcock’s knowing directorial hand has made it into an interesting screen exhibit. He has reverted to the technique of silent films, as most of the comedy is engendered by the facial expressions of his players … [Lombard, Montgomery, and Raymond] prove themselves adept at pantomime.” —Staff Writer (as quoted in “Hitchcock and Humor,” New York Daily News, 1941 / 2019)

William Boehnel’s review in the New York World-Telegram went even further. Not only did Boehnel praise the film, but he also shamed those who complained about the fact that it wasn’t a thriller:

“Portly Alfred Hitchcock abandons melodrama, but not entertainment, in the frisky, scampish, gleeful comedy … about that brand of guerilla warfare known as marriage… But Hitch never lets it descend to the crazy level. Instead, he introduces us to people who are drawn from life, so that its comedy springs from [real, even edgy] characters … [Some might] feel that Hitch should stick to mysteries. A plague on them!” —William Boehnel (as quoted in “Hitchcock and Humor” and “Carole Lombard: The Hoosier Tornado,“ New York World-Telegram, 1941 / 2019)

While it was impossible to find any material about the film’s reception in Los Angeles (or any other major American city for that matter), we can report that Hollywood Magazine was mostly positive:

“…Bob Montgomery’s deft handling of the misunderstood husband is superb. Carole Lombard returns to her former screen antics and executes the familiar Lombard contortions in admirable fashion. Gene Raymond makes his return screen debut in Mr. and Mrs. Smith with a new dye job. The improvement of his darkened locks, however, does not accomplish any improvement in Gene’s acting technique.

Hilarity is rampant in this mad comedy of domesticated love. Its risqué banter and intimate intrigue will evoke the double-entendres [that] director Alfred Hitchcock intended. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a good antidote for the country’s current day war jitters.” —Staff Writer (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Hollywood Magazine, April 1941)

Frankly, one doesn’t feel like the single jab made at Gene Raymond’s acting ability was entirely unwarranted. Meanwhile, a mixed review that appeared in Screenland was one of the only reviews to criticize Carole Lombard’s performance (although, it did manage to offer the film a bit of reserved praise):

“…If you prefer style to substance, giggles to guffaws … Maestro of movie melodrama, Alfred Hitchcock, turns to farce with satisfactory if not important results. His celebrated technique carries off inconsequential scenes with a certain dash and there are few dull moments in which to worry about wasted artistry. Carole Lombard is decorative and clever as the wife but before the film is finished her brittle charm wears a little thin.” —Staff Writer (as quoted in “Carole Lombard: Twentieth Century Star,” Screenland, 1941 / 2016)

Look magazine’s coverage was positive enough to inspire Warner Brothers to use it on home video packaging:

“The striking thing about this film is that Hitchcock has employed the same strategy that marks his blood-chilling melodramas. … Here again are his unmistakable touches — the same casual approach, the same pell-mell finish, the same corner-of-the-eye viewpoint, the same direction by indirection. The net effect is the same, too: another Alfred Hitchcock hit.” —Staff Writer (Look, 1941)

Finally, one review which appeared in a Leeds-based paper offers an opinion from Hitchcock’s native Britain:

“Alfred Hitchcock, the British director, who is showing the Hollywoodians how to make pictures (he has just won the award for the year’s best with Rebecca), has made another good one. It is Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and … Although it is not Hitch’s best work, it is an amusing comedy. … There are plenty of piquant situations, humorous incidents, and clever dialogue, and generally it is an entertaining film, but one could not help thinking that some men would have found a much easier way of going about the business.” —Staff Writer (Hitchcock Again, Yorkshire Evening Post, March 08, 1941)

After surveying these reviews, one feels that it can safely be said that the film received a respectable critical reception. However, it is perhaps more important for us to offer an overview of how the film has withstood the test of time in the minds of critics and scholars.

Sixteen years after the release of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol wrote in “Hitchcock: The First Forty-Four Films” that the film is “quite curious” before explaining their reasoning:

“Hitch did not want to follow the usual technique of the genre, a technique based on simplicity and speed; only the acting style of the performers was to remain faithful to the tradition. … The originality of the form is obvious from the very first scene. A slow panoramic dolly shot shows a bedroom in disorder: clothes and various other objects are piled on the floor or draped over the furniture. The camera stops a second in front of a bed from which the top of a woman’s head emerges. The camera moves forward, an eye appears, and then Carole Lombard’s face. The slowness of this first shot is a radical departure from the reigning laws of American comedy. It conveys a sort of anxiety and might just as well be used to begin a ‘suspense’ film. The rest of the movie follows the same principle…” —Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol (Hitchcock: The First Forty-Four Films, 1957 / 1979)

Frederick W. Ott dismissed the film in “The Films of Carole Lombard” by insisting that “Krasna’s scenario [was] mediocre at best… The story, unfortunately, never really succeeded.” Robert A. Harris & Michael S. Lasky agreed:

“The film is a typical forties screwball comedy, but not as fast paced as such earlier classics as Bringing Up Baby or The Awful Truth. Parts of it simply don’t work. When they don’t, though, it is more the fault of the Norman Krasna script than Hitchcock’s direction.” —Robert A. Harris & Michael S. Lasky (The Films of Alfred Hitchcock, 1976)

Donald Spoto didn’t seem to feel that Mr. and Mrs. Smith warranted analysis:

“It’s easy to see where this kind of thing will go. Not very far. Thank heavens we have Robert Montgomery and Carole Lombard to look at; otherwise, terminal boredom may have dispatched us.

It would also be easy to affect a kind of gold-digging attitude about Mr. and Mrs. Smith, panning through the slightest nuggets for Hitchcockian markers and signs of something deeper; such an enterprise would also be funnier than the film, which warrants only minimal discussion. Neither wild enough to be called screwball comedy nor inventive enough to engage even Hitchcock’s interest…

…Had anyone else directed the picture, it would have been more like corduroy than the seamless velvet, low-keyed trifle it is. There were no pretensions about this movie, and the director’s admirers and his critics oughtn’t to have any.” —Donald Spoto (The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, 1976 / 1991)

He was kinder when writing about the film decades later, but there is nothing to suggest that his opinion about the film had changed:

“Seen almost seventy years later, it is a harmless, faintly amusing bit of moviemaking — verbose, sweet-minded, perhaps too traditionally moral for its own good, but superbly acted by everyone, including the bit players.” —Donald Spoto (Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies, 2008)

John Russell Taylor seems to share Rohmer and Chabrol’s position that Hitchcock’s direction gives the comedy a very different tonality than one might expect from any other director:

“It does seem that the film shows in certain areas the mark of Hitch’s personality and preoccupations. In particular, the story … is given a particularly ruthless tone. The retort to that might be that it is all in the script, but one need only think of many similar subjects in 1930s Hollywood comedy and how they came across on screen. Something like The Awful Truth, for example, has the heroine behaving just as monstrously in a comparable situation, but Irene Dunne’s performance and Leo McCarey’s directorial angle of vision seem to take it for granted and project to the audience that she is quite charming… Hitch, aided and abetted by an unsparing, hard-edged performance from Carole Lombard (no sentimentalist ever in her films), makes it quite clear that the woman is a monster, and the film leaves a sharp, bitter after-taste in the mouth.” —John Russell Taylor (Hitch: The Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock, 1978)

Jim McDevitt and Eric San Juan felt that the film is a rare misfire in the director’s catalogue:

“Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Alfred Hitchcock’s lone foray in the world of screwball comedy, is not quite up to the level of the better pictures of this forgotten era of American film history. This is unfortunate, because from a technical standpoint, the film is well made. The problem is it isn’t funny. Hitchcock may have been adept at bringing humor to otherwise dramatic films, but in shooting for humor alone, here he falls short. … Mr. & Mrs. Smith is among the least Hitchcockian films of his career.” —Jim McDevitt and Eric San Juan (A Year of Hitchcock: 52 Weeks with The Master of Suspense, 2009)

Stephen Whitty’s opinion of the film wasn’t any better:

“Although Mr. and Mrs. Smith did well on release, it — like the Smiths’ favorite restaurant — hasn’t aged well. The situations feel forced, and the characters aren’t very likable. (There’s no real reason, beyond wishing for an end to the movie, to even want the Smiths to reunite.)” —Stephen Whitty (The Alfred Hitchcock Encyclopedia, 2016)

John Billheimer fell in line (although, he did admire Lombard’s performance):

“Krasna’s script was wildly uneven, and so is the picture. A few bits, like the nightclub scene, which begins with Robert Montgomery pretending to be the escort of an attractive woman at the table next to him and ends with a self-inflicted nosebleed, elicit laughter, but too many fall flat. Nonetheless, Lombard is delightful throughout. She is clearly enjoying herself, and her wit and intelligence shine through her performance.” —John Billheimer (Hitchcock and the Censors, 2019)

Ken Mogg, on the other hand, felt that the film deserves a much better reputation:

“The film is hugely underrated and belongs with Hitch’s own brand of ‘remarriage comedies’ (The Farmer’s Wife and Rich and Strange). … A defense of Mr. and Mrs. Smith may start by noting that the film is defining the commonplace in marriage, and in a manner worthy of a philosopher (Kierkegaard, say). Thus, it emphasizes the egotism of both David and Ann, and it implies that marriage, however inglorious, is the best medicine for that…” —Ken Mogg (The Alfred Hitchcock Story, 1999)

This sentiment was shared by Wes D. Gehring:

“Ever since forever, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Alfred Hitchcock’s first set in-America film, has been treated like an aberration in the director’s filmography — seen simply as a mere screwball/farce past its heyday, and seemingly so at odds with … Hitchcock’s auteur image of suspense and horror. … Nothing could be further from the truth…

… One cannot close this chapter on such a multifaceted film without noting a period significance lost on modern viewers. From the coverage of Smith’s production, starting with day one, this picture arguably helped America fully embrace a great director who was thus far, a difficult character to get a handle on. There was his gargantuan consumption of food, the odd pleasure he claimed to get from breaking crockery, his seeming indifference to actors, and so on.

In contrast, Lombard was adored by a public that was especially happy to see her returning to screwball comedy… And no single person better helped Hitchcock be fully embraced by the general American public than Lombard.” —Wes D. Gehring (Hitchcock and Humor: Modes of Comedy in Twelve Defining Films, 2019)

Finally, Dan Callahan also felt that Hitchcock’s “screwball comedy” deserves a better reputation:

“Can you feel Hitchcock in it? Yes and no. If you didn’t see Hitchcock’s name in the credits, you most likely wouldn’t know he had directed it. But if you do know that he was behind it, suddenly all kinds of Hitchcock inflections become apparent… Mr. and Mrs. Smith has often been dismissed or overlooked, and it shouldn’t be. It is filled with rich and troubling detail and bolstered by strictly controlled, first-rate farcical performances by Lombard and Montgomery that could not be bettered. … Having Hitchcock there on the set … probably brought out darker details in their work that would not have been there otherwise.” —Dan Callahan (The Camera Lies: Acting for Hitchcock, 2020)

When one balances these opinions, it becomes fairly clear that it isn’t one of Alfred Hitchcock’s most well-regarded films, but the few scholars who felt that this reputation was unfair make strong cases for reassessment. One agrees that it doesn’t belong on the shortlist of the director’s best work, but keep in mind that his best work includes some of the best movies ever made. That’s a fairly high standard for comparison. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a good “screwball comedy.” It’s a fun ninety-four minutes, and the fact that Alfred Hitchcock directed it adds another layer of interest. “It was a pretty successful picture commercially, but it wasn’t considered a Hitchcock picture,” the director said only a decade after the film’s release. Perhaps people should simply view it as a Carole Lombard comedy and not a “Hitchcock picture.” It would probably stand more of a chance.

Unfortunately, it would be one of Lombard’s final films. After making To Be or Not To Be (1942) for Ernst Lubitsch, she would be killed tragically in a plane crash while selling War Bonds. The Hitchcock’s had lost one of their closest friends in Hollywood. Worse, Hitchcock would never have the opportunity to cast her in one of his thrillers.

“My parents were so devastated. It was a huge loss not only because she was so young and such a gifted and beautiful actress, but because she was an extraordinary human being.” —Patricia Hitchcock O’Connell (Alma Hitchcock: The Woman Behind the Man, 2003)

The good news is that her films are still with us. Let’s not take that blessing for granted.

The Presentation:

4.5 of 5 Stars

Warner Archives protects the Blu-ray disc in a standard Blu-ray case that includes an insert sleeve showcasing artwork taken from the film’s original theatrical one sheet! One wishes that more home video releases would adopt this approach instead of creating new cheap looking artwork. This looks great!

The menu utilizes a horizontal reconfiguration of the same artwork. It is reasonably attractive and easy to navigate.

Picture Quality:

4.5 of 5 Stars

Warner Archives has a terrific track record when it comes to the quality of most of their transfers. This one was taken from a 4K scan of best nitrate preservation elements that was completed this year, so it is an understatement when we say that this release represents a substantial improvement over the previous DVD editions of the film. The film is presented it the original theatrical ratio of 1.37:1. There is a considerable boost in fine detail when one compares this transfer to the DVD (although the titles are a bit softer than the level of detail seen throughout the rest of the film). Contrast is well handled with healthy black levels and nice gradients between the different shades of grey. This is also a very clean image for a film of this vintage, and there aren’t any noticeable digital anomalies to complain about. Hitchcock fans should be really happy.

Sound Quality:

4 of 5 Stars

The 2.0 Mono is supported by the DTS-HD Master Audio codec with all elements nicely prioritized. While one can hear some very minor hiss in quieter sequences, this never becomes distracting. In fact, we hesitate to mention it since those who aren’t listening for such things aren’t likely to notice it. In any case, there aren’t any other age-related anomalies to mention.

Special Features:

4 of 5 Stars

Mr. Hitchcock Meets the Smiths — (16:06)

Hitchcock fans who are familiar with Laurent Bouzereau’s comprehensive “making of” documentaries for Universal’s Hitchcock catalogue may find that this somewhat chintzy “featurette” falls short of their expectations. Instead of an account of the film’s production history and release, we are given a somewhat vague “appreciation” of the film that is peppered with the occasional bit of production trivia. There are reasons for this that go beyond the fact that the golden age of worthwhile supplemental material was coming to an end by 2003 (when Warner Brothers finally decided to release their Hitchcock titles on DVD).

It is important to remember that the individuals interviewed for this program — Peter Bogdanovich, Richard Schickel, Robert Osborne, Richard Franklin, Patricia Hitchcock, and Mary Stone — were not directly involved with the production. They had to rely on documented history for their information, and (as we mention in the article above), Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s production has been largely ignored by scholars. There really isn’t very much information available, and there was even less information available in 2003. What’s more, nearly all of the cast and crew had passed away by the time this featurette was produced, so it was impossible to rely on firsthand recollections. Nowadays, they wouldn’t even bother to produce this featurette. Fans are lucky to have this carried over from another era.

Original Theatrical Trailer — (00:47)

The original trailer for Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a bit unusual in that it uses stills to sell the film. It’s great to have it included.

Two Radio Adaptations:

Lux Radio Theater Radio Broadcast (1941) — (59:46)

The most “faithful” of the two radio adaptations included here is this Lux Radio Theater adaptation from June 09, 1941. Carole Lombard reprises her role from the film with Bob Hope in the Robert Montgomery role and Jack Arnold taking over for Gene Raymond.

Screen Guild Players Radio Broadcast (1942) — (29:34)

This radio re-imagining from February 08, 1942, stars Lana Turner and Errol Flynn in the two primary roles.

Night at the Movies

Many Warner Brothers Blu-rays attempt to replicate what it was like for audiences to attend the cinema during the time of any given movie’s release, and this particular disc follows in that tradition:

Short Subject:

Cinderella’s Feller (1940) — (19:34)

Warner Brothers tells the story of Cinderella in this short directed by William C. McGann. It features Juanita Quigley as Cinderella and Scotty Beckett (Prince Charming). Beckett was fairly well known at the time for his appearances in several Our Gang shorts, but this was a much bigger project for him. In fact, it was one of the most opulent productions of a short subject attempted by Warner Brothers during this era. It was treated almost like a feature. It had top quality sets and costumes, special effects, and it was filmed in three-strip Technicolor!

Animated Shorts:

Holiday Highlights (1940) — (07:35)

Tex Avery’s cartoon sends up various holidays in the calendar year. While some of the jokes may fly past the heads of modern audiences, viewers at the time would have recognized the various send-ups — including Katherine Hepburn in the Valentine’s Day segment, a radio show called “Fibber McGee and Molly” in the April Fool’s Day segment, John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in the Mother’s Day segment, and many more.

Stage Fright (1940) — (07:23)

This Merrie Melodies short was originally released on September 28, 1940, and was directed by Chuck Jones. It is about two playful puppies who fight over a bone inside a vaudeville theater.

Final Words:

“I took it. I went on the set. I yelled ‘Roll it’ and ‘Cut,’ and I made it. As simple as that.” —Alfred Hitchcock (Hitch, Hitch, Hitch, Hurrah!, Écran, July &August 1972)

The director tended to dismiss Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and this had terrible repercussions on subsequent scholarship. The film is Alfred Hitchcock’s only “screwball comedy,” and it is for this reason that biographers and historians are all too willing to take the director’s dismissal at face value and neglect to give it any serious study. This is a shame because the film’s status as an anomaly in Alfred Hitchcock’s filmography is actually a terrific reason to give it some serious attention.

It is an unusual entry into the so-called “screwball” canon, but it is also an interesting one that is full of a certain kind of off-beat charm. This new Blu-ray from Warner Archives is the best way to experience the film at home if you haven’t already had the pleasure. It is also the last of Alfred Hitchcock’s American films to be released on the format.

Review by: Devon Powell

Source Materials

Unknown (Miscellany: Hitchcock to Direct Two Films for RKO, Variety, July 03, 1940)

Unknown (Pictures: Carole-Montgomery Set, Variety, September 04, 1940)

Unknown (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Variety, December 31, 1940)

Crawford (‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ Amusing Farce Comedy, Film Bulletin, January 25, 1941)

Unknown (Picture Parade: Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Motion Picture, February 1941)

Unknown (‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ with Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery, Harrison’s Reports, February 01, 1941)

Unknown (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, American Cinematographer, February 01, 1941)

Unknown (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Hollywood Reporter, February 16, 1941)

Unknown (Hitchcock Again, Yorkshire Evening Post, March 08, 1941)

Theodore Strauss (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, New York Times, February 21, 1941)

Unknown (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Hollywood Magazine, April 1941)

Unknown (Pictures: RKO’s ‘Foyle,’ Goldwyn’s ‘Foxes,’ Welles’ ‘Kane,’ Variety, September 03, 1941)

David Brady (Core of the Movie — The Chase, New York Times Magazine, October 29, 1950)

Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol (Hitchcock: The First Forty-Four Films, 1957 / 1979)

Peter Bogdanovich (The Cinema of Alfred Hitchcock, 1963)

François Truffaut (Le Cinéma selon Hitchcock, 1966)

Rui Nogueira and Nicoletta Zalaffi (Hitch, Hitch, Hitch, Hurrah!, Écran, July &August 1972)

Frederick W. Ott (The Films of Carole Lombard, 1972)

Larry Swindell (Screwball: The Life of Carole Lombard, 1975)

Robert A. Harris & Michael S. Lasky (The Films of Alfred Hitchcock, 1976)

Donald Spoto (The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, 1976 / 1991)

John Russell Taylor (Hitch: The Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock, 1978)

Donald Spoto (The Dark Side of the Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock, 1983)

Patrick Humphries (The Films of Alfred Hitchcock, 1986)

Leonard J. Leff (Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, 1987)

Sidney Gottlieb (Hitchcock on Hitchcock: Selected Writings and Interviews, 1995)

Peter Bogdanovich (Who the Devil Made It, 1997)

Ken Mogg (The Alfred Hitchcock Story, 1999)

Martin Grams, Jr. and Patrik Wikstrom (The Alfred Hitchcock Presents Companion, 2001)

Sidney Gottlieb (Alfred Hitchcock Interviews, 2003)

Patricia Hitchcock O’Connell & Laurent Bouzereau (Alma Hitchcock: The Woman Behind the Man, 2003)

Patrick McGilligan (Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light, 2003)

Wes D. Gehring (Carole Lombard: The Hoosier Tornado, 2003)

Charlotte Chandler (It’s Only a Movie: Alfred Hitchcock — A Personal Biography, 2005)

Donald Spoto (Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies, 2008)

Jim McDevitt and Eric San Juan (A Year of Hitchcock: 52 Weeks with the Master of Suspense, 2009)

Lesley L. Coffin (Hitchcock’s Stars, 2014)

Stephen Whitty (The Alfred Hitchcock Encyclopedia, 2016)

Michelle Morgan (Carole Lombard: Twentieth Century Star, 2016)

Robert Matzen (Fireball: Carole Lombard and the Mystery of Flight 3, 2017)

John Billheimer (Hitchcock and the Censors, 2019)

Wes D. Gehring (Hitchcock and Humor: Modes of Comedy in Twelve Defining Films, 2019)

Dan Callahan (The Camera Lies: Acting for Hitchcock, 2020)

Note: While we were provided with a screener for review purposes, this had no bearing on our review process. We do not feel under any obligation to hand out positive reviews.