If there is a theme with which Hollywood has had its longest and most passionate love affair, it would be that of its ingenuity. The industry loves the sound of its voice, and the more celebratory a work based around the concept of filmmaking is, the more admired it tends to be. We can see this in Paris When It Sizzles, in which Richard Quine (one of the more reliable journeyman directors of his generation, and not the Billy Wilder’s knock-off that some of his detractors seem to position him as being) works with George Axelrod to create a hilarious and bittersweet satire on the very process of filmmaking, focusing on the interactions between a heavy-drinking but charismatic screenwriter and his new assistant, hired to help him complete a script, but soon finds herself not only inserted into his world but actively helping in the process of defining it, becoming his creative collaborator, the pair of them constructing an entire world in which they become the characters. Seemingly overlooked when it comes to discussing the witty, charming European-set romantic comedies that populated the 1960s for entirely unknown reasons, but yet still so captivating. It has mercifully not been lost to time but rather exists as a film that is cherished by a small but vocal contingent of supporters, all of whom are incredibly dedicated to singing this film’s praises, celebrating its ingenuity, complexity and remarkably progressive vision, since there are elements in Paris When It Sizzles that would not become standard in studio filmmaking for about a decade, making this one of the first examples of the intersection between the classical era and the period of New Hollywood, where these subversive and complex stories were given a platform and the space to discuss some themes that were otherwise dismissed in earlier efforts.

In looking at Paris When It Sizzles, we need to consider its source material – Quine and Axelrod were not working from an original story, but rather adapting a film by Julien Duvivier, Holiday for Henrietta, which also focused on the experiences of two writers as they work together (and sometimes in fierce opposition) in the creation of a screenplay that celebrates the Parisian way of life, adding elements of intrigue and romance to an already very compelling story. This is perhaps why this film doesn’t feel like a rote, overly conventional romantic comedy that follows a strict formula, but rather inherits many of its best ideas from a more libertine European method of storytelling – some of the funniest films ever produced were made in France, with their wit and candour being undeniably endearing for those who have the patience to work their way through these sometimes quite challenging films. This film is a satire (albeit a most tender one – Hollywood certainly does not want to portray itself as anything other than the place where dreams are made, even if we know this is unequivocally not true), and as such, it found ways to take very sharp jabs at certain subjects, none of them all that complex or strange, but rather quite captivating on a comedic level. It’s a very well-written film, and Quine (who was at his peak during this period – nearly everything he made in this decade-long stretch was memorable in some way, even those that have been written off as failures, but subsequently reappropriated as more misunderstood works) and while he may not be the most gifted satirist, nor is Axelrod the sharpest writer, their collaboration yields very positive results since they can set well-defined boundaries with this material, which subsequently develops into a very charming comedy.

One of Hollywood’s most consistent techniques when it comes to comedies is to populate them with recognizable actors, who don’t need to do too much work to develop their characters in most instances (since this was an era where several of the biggest stars made their careers playing derivatives of the same kind of characters), and essentially just need to be present. This is more than just a marketing tactic, but also a method to ensure that even when the narrative itself may not be particularly strong, it will be worth it to see the actors in their element. In this regard, Audrey Hepburn and William Holden were two of the finest actors of their generation, and their pairing in Paris When It Sizzles is certainly inspired. Reuniting exactly a decade after their spellbinding work in Sabrina (which was one of Hepburn’s first major roles following her enormous breakthrough in Roman Holiday the year before), they demonstrate the same exceptional chemistry, portraying these two characters with enough dedication to compensate for some of the small but notable shortcomings that we find throughout the story. These roles call for actors who could handle every aspect – the comedy and romance needed to feel authentic, and the dialogue-heavy script and more complex approach to the storytelling structure made it a challenging task for the actors, who still find the authenticity beneath these characters, elevating them beyond stock archetypes and instead making them well-constructed, three-dimensional figures. They work so well together, to the point where the best parts of Paris When It Sizzles are not the gorgeous Parisian landscapes or thrilling, action-packed chase scenes, but rather the moments where Hepburn and Holden connect on a spiritual and emotional level, leading to a really terrific but otherwise minor entry into their respective careers, which were never defined by this film, but certainly managed to be enriched by its strengths and unique approach to certain ideas.

However, it’s not enough to cast actors who are both gifted and have exceptional chemistry with one another if you are not going to give them something to do, and neither Holden nor Hepburn were particularly interested in works that were distinctively by-the-numbers, since this likely indicates that they weren’t worth their time (and both had done their fair share of tedious work earlier in their careers), which was certainly not the case here. The root of the subversive tone at the heart of Paris When It Sizzles is essentially focused on seeing how the story unfolds, providing a detailed (but undeniably glamourised) depiction of the screenwriting process. Like with the original film, this story is split between the screenwriters working on the script, and imaginative depictions of the scenes they are describing – and Quine does not miss any opportunity to create something that is as much a critical examination of Hollywood culture as it is a fervent satire. There’s an intelligence that defines this film, where it can sometimes be overwhelming to keep up with the narrative, which moves with great rapidity (likely being a remnant of the screwball comedy genre, which had only recently found itself decreasing in popularity), but still doesn’t leave us behind for too long. Even if the central romance that pulsates throughout the film is not to the viewer’s taste, especially considering how hopelessly predictable it is, Paris When It Sizzles is worth the time solely to see the clever and imaginative references or the few memorable cameos from the likes of Marlene Dietrich (whose appearance was an enormous surprise, to the point where I was scrambling to figure out if it was her, or a lookalike), or the way the narrative twists reality to fit a specific thematic agenda, interweaving so many complex themes in a relatively small space, while still never giving off the impression that it is rushed or lacklustre.

For many, the idea of a film focused on two bickering writers trying to determine the best approach to a screenplay seems pointless and dull – and in many circumstances, this might be the case. However, Paris When It Sizzles is a different kind of film – there is a level of complexity beneath this film that is difficult to view as anything other than genuine, and the fact that it is a big-budget comedy made quite a while before the emergence of more subversive, smaller-scale films that tackle similar narrative and thematic territory, is immediately a sign of enormous promise. Quine is a director who did exceptionally good work (being the mastermind behind some of the best work done by many of Hollywood’s greatest actors), but who has seemingly been forgotten, his reputation being defined by the almost derogatory label of a “director-for-hire”, which refers to his tendency to sign onto projects in which he didn’t have any real contribution to the conception of the story, but rather acted as the shepherd, committed to bring a certain story to the screen in as simple a way as possible. However, this is reductive, since he was a far more capable director, and as Paris When It Sizzles proves, he was capable of crafting quite a subversive set of ideas, which emerged almost entirely through the visual channel, rather than being the product of the writer, who was instead focused on sharp-witted dialogue that said just enough for us to understand and appreciate the narrative complexity of such a story. Paris When It Sizzles is an absolute delight – effervescent, funny and deeply romantic, it is one of the more inventive satires of its era, and a film that is still relevant and undeniably effective, even by modern standards.