Ball of Fire - "Brain Candy"

Ball of Fire (1941)

H: I thought this was going to be a serious movie, from what I read about it. I also heard that, while good, it was deeply flawed. After watching it, it's a solid movie. It was funny, the pace of the movie was right, it was quick, it was witty and different than other movies.

K: This movie is really funny and it has a really good pace. Things just kept happening in it. Things moved along quickly and even though you might know where it's going, it got there right away and didn't stall.

H: This movie makes reference to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), which is a really apt parallel.

K: It's directly inspired by "Snow White". The marketing stuff for the film had each of the characters sit next to the Disney movie version of the dwarf they represented. Billy Wilder wrote it based on that story.

H: It's a good model for understanding this movie. You have each old man at the house writing the encyclopedia being a caricature of his specialty, almost to the point where you could call them History, Math, and English just like the dwarfs were called Sleepy, Bashful, and Grumpy. They're working on an Encyclopedia, when already in our time Encyclopedias are outmoded. They can't be updated as fast as the information in them is changing.

K: Ball of Fire was a really good movie and it's one of those movies like All About Eve (1950) where it transcends its

time, where it's good today still. It talked about topical things of the time, which is slang. Even though it's really good now, it's founded in slang, and slang is only important when it's current. If it were remade today, it would be corny or silly, because it would be using slang of today. Your average person today is better versed in slang today than they were then.

H: I want to say "Hoy Toy Toy". This movie is like a fine wine - it only improves with age, because we're so removed from that slang. I found myself saying, "What does that mean?" It's funnier because I don't know exactly what "Hoy Toy Toy" means, but from context I can kind of figure it out.

What would a movie like this being made today be like? It would be insulting because it would use what people would call ebonics - African-American slang - and border on racism. People would say "Fo' shizzle my nizzle" and things like that.

K: Slang at that time was being studied because it wasn't an ethnic thing. It was kind of a class thing and maybe a regional thing, but today even the stock person would know what "OMG" means. People know even the simplest slang whereas then they were just embracing slang as the new thing. I don't know why, but I feel like at that time slang was just being discovered and talked about.

H: Back then it seems like it wasn't fashionable to use slang, but now it's fashionable to verbally "slum it" and use slang. You always hear the rich kids what they learn in rap music. I wonder if it's how we get our slang today. I feel like rap music is our primary source for what's popularly known as slang.

K: We've established this with other romantic comedies, but this movie is a good example of the characters in a couple meeting each other at the same level. She's this dancer and he's this well-informed librarian guy, and she becomes more moral or follows the right code and he becomes more flexible and he learns to take in whatever. They both change. Both characters are equally interesting.

The scene where she steps on the books to be his height and kiss him is really romantic and I'm surprised I haven't seen or heard or read anything about that scene before. You hear "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" and I'm surprised that this isn't as known because it's really sound and really well written.

H: I just wonder in general if we're ever going to get tired of the device where they're getting along great but someone has a terrible secret that will definitely break them apart. It does for a little and then they get back together. Do we ever get tired of that or is it always different in such a way that it's believable every time.

K: Is there a current movie that you can think of that does this?

H: Every romantic comedy...like Knocked Up (2007). They're getting along ok and then he fails to show up for her doctor's appointment and doesn't get a job because he was smoking pot. They go their separate ways and then something brings them back together. Some movies pull it off and some don't and it's in the details. This movie pulls it off. The more a movie makes you think they won't get back together, when they do it's more rewarding and more believable. The more you suffer with the characters, the more rewarding it is.

I wanted to ask you about the title because after watching the movie I think I'm still puzzling over why it's called "Ball of Fire. You think it'd be called...

K: "Hoy Toy Toy"?

H: "The Slang Encyclopedia" maybe or "The Dancer and the Seven Dwarfs". I wonder if this movie had alternate titles and they ended up with this. Do you have any ideas as to why the title?

K: For some reason I'm assuming she's a redhead, even though it's in black and white.

H: I thought that too, probably because we've seen pictures of Barbara Stanwyck in color or maybe the cover is colorized. Maybe because she's "fiery"?

K: Yeah, it's kind of slangish. She's a "ball of fire". He wouldn't describer her that way at the beginning of the movie, he would describe her as reckless.

H: That's the official, bookish term.

K: Yeah, it's what "ball of fire" means but now it's a term of endearment at the end. It sounds nicer to say she's a "ball of fire" than a reckless woman.

H: At the start, she's a "ball of fire" in a bad way because she comes in distracting the other guys and him from their task of finishing the encyclopedia. If you think of it literally, she's destroying or altering their work. Fire has destructive power at the beginning, but it also has the power to burn out the old growth and allows new growth on top of that, destroying the old but allowing the new. Her persona is destructive at the beginning because they're trying to finish the encyclopedia. I found myself saying "Come on guys, get back to work." But at the end, you realize she allows him to mature and become a true adult who's life isn't purely wound up in academia.

K: What did you think about the premise of writing an enclyclopedia? Also, what did you think about the character of the daughter who has to finish the encyclopedia for her father? Also, what about the supporting actors?

H:The encyclopedia thing was an interesting premise. When you first start watching the movie, it seems very simple. You have these real bookish guys and they have to finish it. It goes in an unexpected direction, the whole slang thing and the dancer. It posits the idea that you can either be in the world but not accomplishing a whole lot or you can separate yourself from the world, like a monk, to know everything and get things done. You need to get away from the world to know everything, but by doing so you know nothing about the current world. You know about all of these rules and all of this history, but you don't know what's happening now and you can't relate to people. I always feel like it's one or the other. You can be part of the population or part of getting someting accomplished.

K: What about the daughter? She has to finish what her father started, but she doesn't really believe in it.

H: Yeah, it's his legacy not hers.

K: Do you think that's how Encyclopedias work? People want them made but they don't want to have to make them?

H: Nobody wants to compile the knowledge, but they want to take advantage of it once it is compiled.

As for the supporting characters, I liked all the old guys and thought they were funny. I like the scene where they're at the bachelor party and one guy was talking about his wife and they kept toasting one another. You felt really bad because they were all so happy and you knew her secret. It was the whole dramatic irony thing where you knew the secret and at any time things would collapse.

It has that gangster element in it, where you have the two thugs working for her boyfriend. Do you know that he's a bad guy all along?

K: At the end of her show, she has to worry about the police asking her questions, so you know that whenever there's police involvement that you're dealing with a gangster that's bad.

H: Why do you think she reforms? She's with this bad dude and she goes for the nerdy do-gooder. Why that change? Is it believable?

K: Take it from me, I know where she's coming from.

There are some stories where that change happens and you don't believe it and there's no supporting evidence and there are some stories where you do believe the change and still there's no good reason. This is the second one. She punches that lady out, the maid. And that's towards the end where she's supposed to be reforming. You think "Yikes! That's pretty aggressive." You don't want it to be because of the old men, you want it to be because she loves him, but they have so much to do with her believing in herself and that's really close to Gary Cooper's character. It's a believable change because she's wanted and needed now and cared for, and not just for her dancing abilities.

H: I think it was because she stopped being eye candy to someone and started being brain candy to someone.

K: That's why I changed.