The Fear of Modernism and Critique of Capitalism Through Film in "What A Way To Go!" (1964)

If any film is to be dubbed as “underrated”, J. Lee Thompson’s What A Way To Go! (1964) is definitely it. Despite performing well at the box office upon its release, as well as its star studded cast and extravagant cinematography, it does not appear to be the topic of much discussion, even within the film/Old Hollywood “community” (I could not find one scholarly piece of writing even mentioning it). The film follows the past husbands of Louisa May Foster (Shirley MacLaine) and their eventual demise as a result of their own selfishness. While on the surface it may seem like just an ornamental Hollywood comedy, it offers an interesting interrogation and suspicion of the rise of modernity and capitalism from the early to mid 20th century, and it does so in a sort of meta way, with many references and flashbacks to previous film periods — all of which contribute to the themes of modernity and capitalism and the social anxiety surrounding them. 

The main way that the film successfully does this is by showing the happy flashbacks of the relationships in sequences referencing past film periods, essentially equating the past as positive and the present (modern) as negative; her first husband, Edgar (Dick Van Dyke), is representative of the silent film era, very clearly paying homage to the days of Charlie Chaplin, in particularly his final Tramp film Modern Times (1936), another film that showcases the uneasiness of modernity and the transition to talkies (sound film) at the time; her second husband, Larry (Paul Newman), is presented in the style of French New Wave; the third, Rod (Robert Mitchum) presents in the typical Classical Hollywood style; her fourth husband, Pinky (Gene Kelly, is presented (in Louisa’s words), as “a gay musical number from one of those big Hollywood movie musicals”, again very reminiscent and perhaps critical of the previously mentioned glitzy Classical Hollywood era. This illustrating the earlier, happiest parts of the relationships with these older film periods equates the past (both within the narrative of the film and within the timeline of film itself) as good, and the aftermath (that is, the present/modern) as bad.

Additionally, these sequences effectively paint a picture that equates modernity with loneliness and a lack of morals. This is particularly evident in the Classical Hollywood sequence flashback with Rod; this sequence seemingly has a very large budget, with Louisa and Rod’s extravagant costumes, elite club membership, and rich looking sets. Despite all of this, however, it has the least amount of proper story than any of the other sequences and instead features the couple essentially repeatedly  telling each other they love each other. In addition to this poking fun at the melodramatic aspects of Classical Hollywood, it also portrays richness in line with a loss of meaning, and thereby further illustrates the present (the film was made towards the end of the Classical Hollywood period) as less than by calling into question the issue of spectacle for spectacle’s sake. Moreover, the film repeatedly shows the couple’s increasing wealth with an increase in loneliness, with Louisa even saying herself that she and Edgar hardly ever see each other due to him working so much. Although they are rich and living comfortably, Louisa still is not happy, as she is constantly alone in their giant house, further demonstrating the dangers of modernity.

These dangers only become increasingly apparent as the film goes on, as each previously anti-capitalist husband is killed as a result of their own capitalist greed. Edgar, despite previously claiming that love conquers all, puts that love aside once he becomes rich, then only focusing on his work, comparing his workers to machines that have to keep up with modern living, and instead saying that “a little hard work never killed anybody”, only to later overwork himself to death. Larry is all about his art, arguably the most explicitly anti capitalist as he exclaims his not caring about making money from his art — until he does make money from it, later being killed by a machine he made to make his art for him to bring him even more money (another moment similar to Chaplin’s weariness of the increasing reliance on machines, and one that is of particular interest in a day of increasing popularity of AI). Pinky eventually falls victim to his fame and his fans (quite literally, as he is killed by a mob of fans he called over), flaunting his wealth by painting everything he owns pink and refusing to slip out the back door to avoid the crowds, even though he had previously criticized such behaviour before his own rise to fame. Rod is perhaps the one exception, as he was never portrayed to be anti-capitalist and uncaring for fame like the others. Rather, he is already rich, which at first is comforting to Louisa as she assumes this means he will not be changed by money, instead, he is portrayed as the previously discussed meaningless Hollywood — all of which further contribute to the anxieties surrounding and dangers of modernity and the rising capitalism that goes with it. 

These themes become wrapped up at the ending when Louisa finally ends up with Leonard (Dean Martin), who claims that his life became better after losing his money to Edgar earlier on in the film, as it taught him how to live a happy, simple life. The fear of wealth and capitalism is made most explicitly clear here when the couple finds oil on their land and become scared that they are going to become rich and their relationship will be destroyed. Instead, however, they become relieved when they discover the pipe belongs to a big company instead of them as it means they can be happy together, despite being poor, since they do not have to worry about the threat posed by increased wealth as a result of rising modernity. The film’s warnings regarding modernity and capitalism, as well as its praise for the happy, old ways, come to a clear close with Leonard. What A Way To Go successfully pays homage to the periods of film that came before it while simultaneously calling into question the social anxieties about increasing modernity and capitalism, especially in regard to the working class and within film itself. 

Despite these interesting critiques, What A Way To Go is a great underrated film and a very easy watch, both aesthetically and narratively. It is available on YouTube for free so if you are ever looking for the 60s Hollywood art style with a comedic social commentary, I definitely recommend it.