Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Peter Bogdanovich left behind one last cinematic gem
Peter Bogdanovich left behind one last cinematic gem
Jul 9, 2026 2:18 AM

If you haven’t seen “She’s Funny That Way,” and you probably haven’t, then you’re in for both a treat and a retreat into the world of Old Hollywood farce in the spirit of Sturges and Lubitsch.

Read More…

Peter Bogdanovich has died, America’s only famous chronicler of Old Hollywood, a young friend of Orson Welles and an admirer of John Ford, and a director in his own turn of celebrated dramas like The Last Picture Show (1971), ing-of-age story about bored kids who don’t like their small town and have only their good looks to mend them, a Hollywood specialty that won him Oscar nominations for Best Director and Best Screenplay, and What’s Up, Doc? (1972), an attempt to bring back edy.

Bogdanovich came up in cinema the old-fashioned way, by luck, pluck, and a knack for deception. He was born in 1939, in Kingston, N.Y., and spent his teenage years watching movies and learning acting both by study and by apprenticing in various theaters around the country. He got lucky in 1959, when he directed a production of Clifford Odets’ The Big Knife, which critics liked. He then showed some pluck in the ’60s, writing articles, later screenplays, but especially monographs on famous directors, as an education for ing artists or a eulogy for the death of Old Hollywood—Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Allan Dwan. He also wrote profiles of the stars they directed. Then he did it again when the Baby Boomer interest in Old Hollywood was revived, writing Who the Devil Made It (1997) and Who the Devil’s in It (2004), volumes of his conversations with the directors and the stars that made Hollywood what it was.

But on the occasion of his passing, I want to speak in praise of the director Bogdanovich—he had an unusual ability to edy, specializing in farces that mixed outrageous love with unbelievable gags requiring expert timing and the most careful plotting so that it’s hard to follow ing on, who’s going out, who’s chasing whom, and how things are going to turn out. Well, you can pretty much guess that things are going to turn out well, after edy more or less guarantees a happy end. But you won’t guess how es about, and you won’t believe how many laughs it takes to get there. Comedy is mostly gone from our entertainment, edy as good as canceled, and farce above all is a lost art—we find it hard to laugh at ourselves anymore.

In 2014, Bogdanovich made one last attempt to restore farce to its rightful place in cinema with his last hilarious movie, She’s Funny That Way, produced by his young friends Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach. This is a story about actors falling to pieces, women following their dreams, and the magic required for cinema to continue charming us as we continue with our way of life, looking for love, fulfillment, and happiness.

She’s Funny That Way stars Izzy, played by the lovely Imogen Poots as ic version of Queens itself—walk, accent, and mannerisms—straight out of a ic routine of the unpolished, rough-around-the-edges part of New York, or even vaudeville. Izzy goes to Manhattan, where she’s a prostitute with a heart of gold who ends up succeeding in Hollywood, a town that loves an actress with a past. America is the land of opportunity, after all, even for those who are not respectable, indeed, the magic of America is somehow tied up with the fact that the lowest can ascend to the highest, as our celebrities not infrequently do. This dizzying rise from low to high is also the specialty edy, which always reminds us that respectability isn’t the same thing as pleasure and that there is something in us that yearns to buck convention and reach for the stars instead. We’re a restless people.

Izzy tells her story to a very cynical, not to say bitter, reporter, a woman of a certain age played by Joanna Lumley, who cannot believe what she’s hearing: Izzy was seduced by a man who promised her a chance to fulfill the American dream and then lived up to it at some cost to himself. Unbeknownst to her, he’s a famous theater director, Arnold Albertson, played by Owen Wilson in his best movie. He believes in beauty, but cannot himself make beauty—he depends on writers, actors, everyone else to make the magic happen, and the same is true in his love of prostitutes who dream of making it somewhere in the great American economy.

This is a great conservative insight, that the difference between actors and prostitutes is one of degree, not of kind, since they counterfeit love and beauty respectively but don’t live up to their beliefs. So in Bogdanovich’s movie, it turns out that Arnold is directing a play about a prostitute who finds her way to success—it’s not just a coincidence, but somehow essential to our world, where the young especially dream of celebrity rather than more serious things and the only thing you are not allowed to do is judge people.

It gets worse: Izzy auditions for Arnold’s new play without realizing she’s showing up for an embarrassment, meeting an illicit lover at his job. Worse still, Izzy gets the part because the very romantic and hangdog playwright, played by Will Forte, and the lead actors, Delta and Seth, played by Kathryn Hahn and Rhys Ifans, love her very realistic performance. Worst of all, Arnold’s wife, Delta, is the star of the show, and her co-star Seth seizes on Arnold’s adultery with Izzy to tempt Delta to e an adulteress herself, forgetting about the two children she is raising with Arnold.

That’s the farce—everyone has to pretend to be fine in order to go on with this play, which is supposed to celebrate the modern, liberal, nonjudgmental, sex-positive America, but love and revenge are rife behind scenes and portend a catastrophe nobody can escape. This Progressive ideology, faced with emotional reality, leads to tears and hilarity. Conservatism has its revenge over liberal hubris in the form of laughter! As you might expect, the madness, once started, proves hard to contain—it spreads beyond the stage, and soon the playwright’s psychologist girlfriend, played by Jennifer Aniston, gets involved. On the one hand, Izzy is her client, but on the other, her playwright boyfriend falls for Izzy, so any notion of professionalism goes out the window, and psychology is replaced by, well, psychopathy.

Then there’s the judge! In a surprising turn, the movie turns out to be not just about the stage, but about the bench as well! An old man, Judge Pendergast, played by Austin Pendleton, is obsessed with the prostitute Izzy, because he needs a muse to inspire him when he writes his decisions, because justice can be quite grim without a beautiful young woman. The judge hires a private detective to follow her: Justice, don’t you know, is blind, and therefore in need of surveillance! But this detective, an equally old man, played by George Morfogen, turns out to be the playwright’s father and is caught in a conflict between helping his client, the judge, or his son, who’s also in love with the girl.

You can see how this situation might blow up. Don’t worry, Quentin Tarantino shows up to save the day—he plays himself. The movie is wonderfully fast-paced and witty, so you can bet on watching it once a year and discovering new hilarious situations each time, and appreciating the actors more—their timing, mitment to the absurd situation, and their realism about the madness of liberal America once love was turned into a Progressive ideology. Love drives them all mad, or at least makes them abandon respectability. The story is decidedly anti-Romantic but pro-nature: Love will only work out if people, instead of pretending to be very important, acquire some humility and then some self-knowledge.

I won’t spoil all the surprises—indeed, the shocks, laughs, and moments of disbelief move so fast you cannot count them all—but I will say that the movie is explicitly a tribute to the first, greatest director of farces in Hollywood, Ernst Lubitsch, whose movie Cluny Brown (1945), starring Charles Boyer, the most suave actor in old Hollywood, and Jennifer Jones, the ically earnest of the pretty girls, provides not just the funniest lines in the movie but the inspiration for the story as a whole.

She’s Funny That Way is indeed intended as an introduction to the movies of ic masters—Lubitsch and Wilder, Hawks and McCarey, Cukor and Preston Sturges—which was Bogdanovich’s most important work. Bogdanovich tried all his life to resurrect the old taste, or at least to persuade people to give that older America a chance—through his movies, through his writing, through his documentaries and work for TCM, indeed, every chance he got, he tirelessly tried to remind America how witty cinema used to be. Today, no less than before, wit makes love into a edy. Bogdanovich knew this, and there’s no better way to celebrate his memory than to enjoy his most delightful work!

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Bradley Cited in News Roundup on Millenials Leaving Church
Last week, Rachel Held Evans wrote an article discussing millennials leaving the church. This piece quickly went viral prompting responses from mentators, debating “why those belonging to the millennial generation are leaving the church and what should be done about it.” Research fellow at Acton, Anthony Bradley, discusses Evans’ piece in “United Methodists Wearing A Millennial Evangelical Face.” Jeff Schapiro, at the Christian Post, discusses this debate and summarizes mentators’ opinions, including Bradley’s: Anthony Bradley, associate professor of Theology and...
For America’s Elites, Religious Freedom is a Non-Issue
America’s Founding Fathers considered religious liberty to be our “first freedom.” But as Ken Blackwell notes, that view is no longer shared by our media and foreign policy elites: All such understandings of the religious freedom foundation of American civil liberty and foreign policy seem long forgotten by the elites of today. The media cares little about religious freedom. The famous Rothman-Lichter study of 1981 surveyed 240 journalists from the prestige press. Of course, 80 percent of them voted one...
Lord Acton and America’s Moral Absolutes Concerning Liberty
Lord Acton once said of the American revolution: “No people was so free as the insurgents, no government less oppressive than the government which they overthrew.” It was America’s high view of liberty and its ideas that cultivated this unprecedented freedom ripe for flourishing. Colonists railed over 1 and 2 percent tax rates and were willing to take up arms in a protracted and bloody conflict to secure independence and self-government. In a chapter on Lord Acton in The Moral...
Review & Audio: Evaluating the Fair Trade Movement
Samuel Kampa recently reviewed Victor Claar’s monograph, Fair Trade? Its Prospects as a Poverty Solution. Kampa begins menting on how quickly the “fair trade” moment has gained popularity, especially among the college and post-college aged, but also in the munity. He says that young people “are doing one thing right: expressing sincere concern about world poverty. If this concern can be channeled into effective action, great things can happen. Of course, effective is the key word.” First, he offers a...
The Rise of Free-Market Alternatives to Obamacare
Referring to the Affordable Care Act, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) stated earlier this year, “Unless we implement this properly, it’s going to be a train wreck.” And indeed, from looking at the Obamacare implementation timeline alone, the law seems to have gotten off to a shaky start. The implementation of the so-called employer mandate, which would require businesses with more than 50 workers to offer insurance to all full-time employees, or else pay a fine...
Was Gordon Gekko Catholic?
Is greed really good? Does self-interest equal sin? Samuel Gregg takes on these questions at Aleteia.org, in an excerpt from his new book, Tea Party Catholic: the Catholic Case for Limited Government, a Free Economy and Human Flourishing. In many ways, the free economy does rely upon people pursuing their self-interest rather than being immediately focused upon promoting the wellbeing of others. One response to this challenge is to recognize that fallen humanity cannot realize perfect justice in this world....
Dispersing Poor People And Crime
Emily Badger at The Atlantic Wire posts mon sense story regarding the debate about whether or not the dispersing of poor people out of inner-city housing projects into suburban neighborhoods, through government housing voucher programs, increases crime rates. The article reflects recent research by Michael Lens, an assistant professor of urban planning at UCLA. A growing stack of research now supports [the] hypothesis that housing vouchers do not in fact lead to crime. Lens has just added another study to...
Disability and Discipleship: God Don’t Make No Junk
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Disability, Service, and Stewardship,” I write, “Our service of others may or may not be recognized by the marketplace as something valuable or worth paying for. But each one of us has something to offer someone else. All of us have ministries of one kind or another. Our very existence itself must be seen as a blessing from God.” During a sermon a couple weeks ago at my church, the preacher made an important point...
What Distributists Get Wrong
Last week, we took a look at what distributists get right in terms of economics, through the eyes of David Deavel at Intercollegiate Review. Now, Deavel discusses where distributism goes off the rails in that same series. It is a rather long list, but here are the highlights. First, Deavel says that simple economics escapes distributists. Despite the fact that economics teaches that actions in the real world have real world consequences, distributists tend to ignore this fact. They scoff...
Spirit-and-Body Economics
Over at the Kern Pastors Network, Greg Forster points to Rev. Robert Sirico’s speech from this year’s Acton University, drawing particularly on Sirico’s emphasis on Christian anthropology.“One may not say that we are spirits inside of flesh,” Sirico said, “but that we are spirits and flesh.” Forster summarizes: Christianity teaches that the human person is, in Sirico’s words, both corporeal and transcendent. We cannot make sense of ourselves if we are only bodies. How could a strictly material body think...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved