Wonderful character development!

Disturbing yet enthralling

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Sometimes I wish that millennials, gen-xers, etc. wouldn't bother watching classic films, at least the nay-sayers writing reviews. They don't get it. Their comments reveal no understanding of context. They self-absorbed seem to expect that films produced before they were born should have been made in anticipation of their 21st century sensibilities (or lack of them), their devotion to CGI, action, and their limited attention spans.I've been watching a lot of old films lately (most I've seen before having been raised by my parents to appreciate them) and I have been surprised by the kernels of relevancy they may contain; even a not very good Dr. Kildare film has Dr. Gillespie espousing that comprehensive health care should be a right for all.Watching Born Yesterday again after many years, I see the themes of greed - for wealth, for power, corruption in government, domestic violence, women empowering themselves.Watching Broderick Crawford's bullying business tycoon Harry Brock, I see Donald Trump.That's a timely film.

It's a long time since I reviewed Born Yesterday. This time through, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's not just a message movie! It's actually thoroughly entertaining from go to almost last. I would have preferred a less obvious conclusion and a little less righteousness, but I seem to be in a minority of one. But I agree with everyone else about Judy Holiday. I thought Judy was absolutely wonderful. Bill Holden and Brod Crawford were also ideally cast, and even Howard St. John (pronounced "Sinjin") likewise delivered his lines with just the right touch. But it's Holiday's movie. Notwithstanding the fact that she played the role on Broadway no less than 1,642 times, she gives a fresh, vigorous and – dare I say it – enchanting performance! She is brilliant and thoroughly deserved all her multiple awards for Best Actress. This movie is available on an excellent Columbia DVD.

Are you folks sure this is a good movie? I'm halfway through and it just gets worse and worse, moving slower and slower and slower to the point that I'm afraid it will never end.Comedy? Maybe people actually laughed in the movie theater 60 years ago, but it's mighty quiet here.Hasn't anyone in this movie heard of "subtlety"? Talk about over-acting. Judy Holliday and Broderick Crawford look like they came out of a prequel to Dumb and Dumber. And William Holden is wishy washy, never clearly defining his character or motivation for any of the things he is doing, aside from getting laid by a not especially pretty moll of a gangster, which is a pretty darn stupid thing to do for a supposedly in the know Washington reporter. (This is either a violation of basic journalistic ethics or a deposit on some concrete galoshes.)Neither Holden nor Holliday fit their parts. Put Marilyn Monroe and Kirk Douglas in them and this might sizzle. Monroe knew how to play the dual levels of a smart inner dame and an outer ditsy dame, as seen in Bus Stop. And Douglas wrote the book on cynical reporting in Ace in the Hole. As it is, there is no chemistry between them, zero, and none between Holliday and Crawford, either. Crawford "really loves" Holliday? Why? She is as charming as screeching chalk on a blackboard.So Cukor rehearsed the cast before a live audience to get the timing. That might have had some relevance when this was shown in a theater. But on home video half a century later all this cast produces is puzzled silence.I suppose there was something edgy about taking on political corruption in a more innocent time. Except it had been done, far better, two years before in State of the Union, and earlier by Frank Capra in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Meet John Doe. Whatever shock value there might once have been (were voters every really that naive?) is long gone in today's world of rampant scandals. OK, I'll try to finish it. And I'll try to like it. But I have the feeling it's not going to be easy.Update:OK, I finished it. Spoiler alert:It ends just like you think it is going to end, the plot unfolding with about the excitement of a AAA road map.There's a reason most people have never seen this "classic": It's boring. To be specific, the acting is boring, the plot is boring, the script is boring, the characters are boring and the directing is boring. I don't remember if the music is boring. Was there any music?But who am I to judge? Apparently, some people just love boring movies. After all, there are a lot of boring people in the world.

I expect the movie's serious side took a backseat to Holliday's overpowering comedic performance. Her Billy Dawn is certainly Oscar-worthy in that year's heavy competition. Who can forget the Minnie Mouse voice, the big saucer eyes and sweetly naïve manner. Together, they combine into a career performance in what's a slyly demanding role. But especially, I love that gin game with the exasperated Harry. Billy seems so scatter-brained and he so focused, it's almost like seeing Al Capone get bested by Daffy Duck. What an expert piece of comedic architecture— in my book, it's the movie's and Crawford's best moments.Speaking of Crawford, he's so consistently loud and abusive, his Harry the junk man (how appropriate) amounts to almost a cartoon character in itself. Director Cukor was known as a woman's director, so maybe that's why Crawford goes over the top. But whatever the reason, he's much too much. The overbearing Harry is supposed to be dislikable but not so dislikable that he becomes a caricature. On a slightly different plane, note how the sexual conventions of the time are slyly finessed—the sleeping arrangements, Billy's withholding sex after the gin game, the suspicious hundred dollars her dad refuses, etc. These amount to a more suggestive screenplay than usual for that straitjacketed time. As funny as the movie is, it still adds up to more than just an expert amusement. There's a substantial subtext worth remarking on. For example, the moral of the screenplay is a clear one—no tyranny over people's minds. That lesson, of course, applies to Billy in spades, though she acts it out in highly amusing fashion. As the domineering Harry's silken mistress, she shows a tyrannized, inhibited silence in the film's first part— which is also why she so cleverly annoys Harry during that delicious card game. The ex-show girl may be a well-kept victim (check out her suitcases in the hotel lobby), but she's a victim no less, not only of Harry's abuse, but of her own difficult background, as well. The trouble is she's also a victim of her own assumptions and expectations about herself.Thus, when writer- educator Paul (Holden) arrives on the scene, he arrives as a potential liberator, bringing her both respect and ideas. But he's got to free her not only from Harry, but from her past dependent self, as well. Those tutoring scenes in the nation's capital with its inscribed democratic ideals are well chosen. The ideals, as we learn, apply not only to nations, but to individuals, as well. So when Billy finally recognizes how the two converge, she opens up a new independence of mind and personhood she never realized were waiting there to be freed. And when she finally leaves Harry for Paul, with just a few clothes, she's in effect chosen the 'happy peasant' over the powerful man (Napoleon) and the movie's moral parable is complete. Nonetheless, there are limits to these lessons. For example, the national monument scenes need not be so reverential since democracy itself remains an ideal, not a religion to be worshipped; at the same time, the 'founding fathers', for all their gifts, were only mortal men and not the gods of a religion. Moreover, the happy peasants of the script don't usually take the risks that drive a history of social and economic progress. Harry may not exemplify this worthy type of risk-taking, but there are limits, I believe, to the 'happy peasant' as a paradigm for an entire society. Of course, the comedic side of the movie means these more serious points can't be made too subtle or controversial, otherwise the funny parts would be undermined. But I can't help wondering just for the fun of it about the casting. Suppose that instead of the handsome Holden as Billy's catalyst, an ordinary looking man were there instead. Then I wonder how Billy would respond. Or instead of the bullying Crawford, suppose someone less good at being obnoxious were cast. But, of course, much of the movie's satisfaction comes from seeing this nasty guy and his plush prison get rejected.None of this is meant to take away from the superb comedic side of the movie. But the exceptional appeal of the material (Kanin and Mannheimer) is that it so neatly combines the laughs into food for thought and both of them into a single entertaining package. But above all, the movie remains a superb showcase for one of the best comediennes of that day or this. What a loss that she died so young. Fortunately, the laughs remain.