A slightly slower-paced screwball than Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday, Ball of Fire is, nevertheless, a thoroughly enjoyable wisecracking movie. Many of the elements that make a classic Howard Hawks film might be somewhat diluted, but the dialogue and comic timing of the lead actors is perfectly pitched. Playing a professor and a nightclub singer respectively, Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck deliver sassy one-liners with aplomb, even if their on-screen chemistry doesn’t quite pass muster.
Those sharp one-liners came courtesy of Billy Wilder – working in collaboration with Charles Brackett, Ball of Fire marked Wilder’s last foray into screenplay-only films. After completing this movie he moved into a writer-director role (and provided us with classics including Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard). Wilder took the Ball of Fire gig with the condition that he’d get unlimited access to visit the set to observe Hawks at work – although reports suggest he was unimpressed with the final version.
The story, a take on Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, revolves around a group of professors who are working on an encyclopaedia. They live and work together in a somewhat claustrophobic house, with little interaction with the outside world – until Professor Bertram Potts (Cooper) goes on a field experiment whilst researching American slang. During his jaunt into the real world he meets Sugarpuss O’Shea (Stanwyck) and is captivated by her performance of ‘Congo Boogie’. He invites Sugarpuss to participate in a round-table discussion the following day, and is surprised when she turns up on his doorstep later that night after she initially refused to participate. She’s decided that the professors are the perfect cover for a woman who’s avoiding the police, and brazenly invites herself in. The adventure that follows is predictable but also charming, and a wonderful fusion of intellect and physical impulses.
Ball of Fire is one of the few Hawks films that lends a level of heroism to intellectual characters. Most of the director’s other films deal with ‘active’ professions (think pilots, race-car drivers and cowboys) rather than men of science and learning. Here we have not just one but eight of them (indeed the gravitas that Hawks needed to give the characters for them to be convincing probably contributed to the film’s slow pacing), each one incapable of understanding women, much less being able to negotiate *whispers* sex. The widowed Professor Oddly, shy and timid, describes how his treatment of his own wife: “I kissed her hand each night, astonished at my own boldness”. This childish and simplistic view of relationships is really absurd but as Robin Wood notes in Howard Hawks, when viewed as a collective their actions take on a certain dignity.
Alongside Wilder’s script, the film’s highlight is Stanwyck. Interestingly, both Ginger Rogers and Carole Lombard turned down the role, and Hawks considered other actresses (including Betty Field and Lucille Ball) before deciding on Stanwyck. In truth, she was the perfect choice for the role, able to convey a combination of sass and tenderness. Even when she treats Potts badly, the audience is always on her side. It helps, of course, that Stanwyck looks the part too – her wonderful costumes were designed by long-term collaborator and friend Edith Head, who knew exactly how to fix the actress’ figure ‘flaws’ (the main problem was a long waist). Head first dressed Stanwyck for Internes Can’t Take Money (Alfred Santell, 1937) – when Stanwyck told Head that she couldn’t wear fancy clothes, the designer replied, “Of course you can wear them.” From then until the ’50s, Head dressed Stanwyck almost exclusively, following her from studio to studio. She also designed many outfits for the star’s public appearances. Although Ball of Fire only required five costume changes, each look adds depth and meaning to Sugarpuss, keeping the audience guessing about ‘who’ she really is. Which one is your favourite?
Look one: show-off sequin stripes
Stanwyck’s opening outfit is as showy as her stage routine. The glittering, sequin dress included a striped bustier with chiffon sleeves and a cut-out waist and a fringed skirt – both details designed to emphasise Stanwyck’s assets (legs and waist). A typical nightclub singer she’s as dazzling as the sequin she wears – everyone’s eyes are on her, except for Bertram Potts, who’s absorbed in his notebook, desperate to catch every example of slang he can. They are quite simply from different worlds – a comparison that’s drawn through their contrasting costumes but also through his awkward behaviour. This isn’t Potts’ natural habitat – and he isn’t much more comfortable backstage, where his close proximity to Sugarpuss ties his tongue in knots. Sugarpuss’ outdoor wear (a large fur coat and a chiffon headscarf) is suitably glamorous, but the professors aren’t prepared for the barely-there garment that’s underneath, or for her to peel off her stocking. She’s using every trick in her not insignificant arsenal, and they’ve fallen hook, line and sinker.
Look two : butter wouldn’t melt
A simple, demure and ladylike outfit that’s the polar opposite to the opening number. There’s a schoolgirl charm to the elegant blouse (complete with a monogrammed sleeve) and softly pleated skirt with a wide striped waistband but, ever the ingenue, Sugarpuss manages to inject some sass and scandal. She brazenly asks the professors to help her with the outfit’s zipper, causing much consternation amongst the collective. Her vivacious flirting (surely a quality only Stanwyck could bring to the role) by turns charms and flummoxes them, and housekeeper Miss Bragg is mightily vexed.
Look three: casual daywear, O’Shea style
This outfit is very similar to the previous ensemble: a fluid-fitting blouse paired with a pleated skirt, cinched at the waist. This time the stripes appear on the blouse and the belt has metallic loops and a looped chain. Whether Head was dressing Stanwyck up or down, she always knew how to make the most of her figure. It probably helped that Head and Stanwyck were good friends. The designer successfully turned the ‘plain Jane’ actress into a sex symbol for The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges, 1941), Head employed a few costume tricks to improve Stanwyck’s naturally trim figure (namely widening the waistbands at the front and narrowing them at the back) and the public saw the actress in a whole new light. The Lady Eve bought the designer the acclaim that had eluded her since she took over from Paramount’s legendary head designer Travis Banton in 1938. In Edith Head’s Hollywood, Stanwyck recalls that: ‘From then on I had Edith Head’s name written into every contract, no matter what studio I was working for’.
Look three: what, this old thing?
Flouncy marabou feather sleeves, a full length skirt with a trailing chiffon train: they don’t make nightgowns like this any more (or if they do, no-one I know is wearing them). This outfit is a return to form for Sugarpuss, but it’s not showy for showiness sake – Edith Head was more talented than that. This gown is about emphasising contrast, about bringing ambiguities to a character and making us question our assumptions. There’s the obvious contrast between Sugarpuss’ flamboyant gown and the stuffy professor’s house, between her extravagant attire and Pottsie’s sensible (and well worn) threads. Yet other distinctions – the innocent simplicity of her pulled back hair versus the vamp nightgown; the tenderness with which she places the humble but thoughtful ring Pottsie uses to propose on her finger versus the greedy delight with which she had previously received Joe Lilac’s token – suggest that Sugarpuss might not be the gal we’ve pegged her as. That the glamorous facade might conceal a sensitive core, that her good conscience will tussle with her material desires… But then she’s punches Miss Bragg and locks her in the cupboard and harmony is restored. Pottsie deserves so much better! Sugarpuss’ long, shapely legs have adled his brain.
Fitting her fluctuating emotions, Sugarpuss’ final look can dressed up or down. In the car on the way to New Jersey, the day dress is accessorised with a dramatic veiled hat, a fur stole and embellished cuffs (probably bangles) but, as she comes to accept her feelings for ‘Pottsie’, she loses the fripperies until the dress is simply adorned (at least by Sugarpusses’ standards). This is actually to be her wedding dress – despite the urgency of the ceremony surely Sugarpuss would’ve insisted on something more glam. Whether she wants to admit it or not, she’s already given her heart to someone else (hint: he’s name isn’t Lilac).
This post is part of the Remembering Barbara Stanwyck blogathon, hosted by the wonderful In The Good Old Days Of Classic Hollywood to honour the 26th anniversary of the actresses’ death. Check out all the other posts here, and let’s celebrate the career of one of Hollywood’s most versatile actresses!
27 thoughts on “Ball of Fire: Barbara Stanwck as Sugarpuss O’Shea”
This is my favorite classic film (though admittedly, that changes), and I love the attention you’ve given here to the costumes. I had never thought about how that wedding dress reveals Sugarpuss’ intentions before she knows them herself. That’s so true. Each outfit is lovely & perfect for Stanwyck’s energy in the film, but the sequin one is just played to such comedic effect with the professors that it’s my favorite by far.
I think it’s my favourite too – pretty much for the same reasons. Her trick with the stocking always makes me laugh! It’s funny, you don’t necessarily think about this film when you think about ‘good costume design’ but Head was just too good and every film she was involved in looks superb.
Great job! I love that nightgown set. She looks great in anything. Gary Cooper is a doll, too.
It’s pretty extravagant although I can imagine quite impractical. No doubt I’d be trailing feathers in my coffee 😉 Perhaps that’s should be the benchmark test for glamour – can you wear a marabou feather nightgown without ruining it?
I wonder what shoes she was wearing? I’m picturing 1 inch slippers with matching marabou feathers. 🙂
Splendid. Wonderful take, and look, at a favorite Stanwyck performance and film.
Thank you for reading, glad you enjoyed the post 🙂
Great focus to enhance our love of this awesome screwball comedy!
It’s a good one right? Although in my boo, Stanwyck could do no wrong!
Thank you for reading 🙂
I want the glittery outfit. I need the glittery outfit. But I’m sad because I probably won’t be able to go to college wearing it.
Ball of Fire is probably my favorite screwball comedy. I think about its genious constantly, especially the funny lines. As a twist in the Snow White tale, I can say nothing would be more perfect and modern. Stanwyck rocks!
Embrace the glamour Lê! Don’t worry about anyone else’s opinion or the practicalities of such a gown. If classic movie stars could get away with it then I’m pretty sure we could too!
I can never pick my favourite screwball – sometimes it’s His Girl Friday, sometimes My Man Godfrey. What can I say, I’m fickle!
Great job on this classic that I love to revisit on occasion. 🙂
Thank you! It’s certainly worth a re-watch, Wilder’s script is wonderful.
Because I’d look horrible in a dress, I’ll go with Look #14: Oskar Homolka’s sweatshirt ensemble! A fun review, Victoria…it’s been a while since I’ve seen this one, so I’ll have to track it down and give it another go!
I don’t know – the opening sequin number could be perfect for a quick trip to the supermarket? 😉
This is worth a re-watch. It might not surpass the genius of the better known screwball films but it does have lots of merits (Hawks could’ve been a bit stricter with the edits, it feels about 10 mins too long). But what’s 10 minutes when Stanwyck and Cooper are involved?!
What a great way to study this film – through the costumes! Very fun post to read, and agree 100% on Ms. Stanwyck’s balance of “sass and tenderness.”
Thanks for reading and glad you liked the angle. So much has been written about Stanwyck, I thought it would be nice to try something different.
One of my favorite movies (the top of my list changes frequently, but this has been near the top for years)… very interesting angle, the costume analysis. I just wrote up Strange Love of Martha Ivers, and Head’s costumes for her in that are also exquisite. Always a good idea to have enough clout to bring your designer along with you! Stanwyck had both the taste *and* the clout, and she knew how to use them.
I know – I wish I had a designer with the ability to solve my figure flaws on call. But I guess that’s a perk that comes with being a successful movie star. Look forward to checking out your post…
Wilder and Hawks make for a great combination. Wilder’s lines are always sharply written. I have forgotten how many times I have seen it. Thanks!
I love this movie!!! Her casual daywear is my favorite, she looks so good in it!
I think this is one of Barbara Stanwyck’s best performances.
This is one fine article, superbly written stuff. I really need to see this movie now.
Love the gif of Barbara throwing that great right hook. I love that scene.
You’re right about Barbara and Gary Cooper not having powerful chemistry. This is a terrific film with lots of great lines, but I don’t quite buy into Cooper’s character. I quite often want to smack him upside the head.
Terrific review. I loved the analysis of her wardrobe!
Great idea to analyse this film through the fabulous costumes – I think the nightdress is possibly my favourite because it’s just so supremely impractical! Stanwyck is wonderful in this, one of her best roles. Must say I love Cooper in this too, but then again I do love him in general. Nice to see him so surprisingly cast as a professor instead of a cowboy. Loved your review.
Absolutely fabulous post. Loved it.
Sorry for the late reply. I have only just returned to blogging after a long hiatus and have only just gotten around to reading the entries now. I love this film and you definitely did it justice with such an excellent analysis. Thanks for joining in.
Oh by the way, I’ve just announced another blogathon for April, and would love to invite you to participate. The link is below with more details.