Tom Sennett’s Lunatics and Lovers is devoted to the genre of “screwball” comedies. Chapter 6, “Bats in their Belfry” discusses the concept of family in the 1930s. Sennett opens with the argument that a family was able to become closer and more cohesive when confronted with adversarial living conditions. As such, films grew to incorporate this optimistic model. However, this concept of cohesion became closely linked with wealth. It is said that unity was possible when the family was poor and struggled, but wealthier families lacked such turmoil and as a result the members became frivolous and lacked charm.

Sennett also expounded that the worlds of the wealthy and that of the lower classes often collided in films of the 1930s. He describes this popular film premise as a “double illusion.” This is where the charming, lucky, childish innocence of the poor taught the rich, who were described as lacking charm and in need of no luck or a lesson. However, he does continue to describe the fall of such a premise due to the “common cause,” also known as World War II.

Later in the chapter, Sennett presents My Man Godfrey as a film that dealt with the “antics of upper-class families.” The double illusion can be best seen when Sennett describes and comments on the scene in the film involving Godfrey berating Cornelia, calling her “a spoiled child who has grown up in ease and luxury, who has always had her own way and whose misdirected energies are so childish that they hardly deserve the comment even of a butler—on his off Thursday.” Sennett continues to piece apart various pieces of the film and inject his own commentary and successfully points out the significance of the scenes.

Wes D. Gehring’s Screwball Comedy presents a thorough analysis of the said genre. Chapter 6, “The Screwball Genre and Comedy Theory,” applies comedy theory to screwball comedy. The first part of the chapter presents a “superiority theory” and applies it to the genre of screwball comedy. The model focuses on three key aspects: “the concept of implosion, genre space and conflict, and the comic tendencies of pivotal directors.”

Screwball makes fun of the status quo—in particular of the wealthy. However, it is done as to “grow fond of these wealthy wackos, in a superior sort of way.” Moreover, Gehring believes that screwball minimizes “socioeconomic differences of the leading duo and key on their initial conflicts concerning eccentric behavior.”

Gehring then reverts back to political implosion and space and conflict. It is argued that the leftist movement of the 1930s was upset that Hollywood focused on the Depression despite the public’s fondness of such topics. Gehring then discusses how screwball doesn’t have “determinate space” and isn’t concerned with “threatened space,” but rather society and attempting to adjust to the “cultural milieu.”

The chapter then moves to discuss Henri Bergson’s Theory of Superiority. There are three components of character development that can be applied to screwball comedy: absentmindedness, inversion, and supporting comedy characters as satellites of the lead performer. It is described that absentmindedness usually comes from the lead male performer. It can be seen through rigidity, as is the case with the slightly aloof Godfrey. Inversion is then described as when “‘certain characters in a certain situations’ pull a switch.” This can appear when the antihero male believes he is in charge of his life, but isn’t. Gehring then describes the incident in Godfrey when Irene (Carole Lombard) tells Godfrey (William Powell) that he “is my responsibility now.”

Gehring then presents three key items that differentiate female “activity” from that of the male. Firstly, the female assumes the eccentricity mainly to win over the male. Despite her zealousness, Irene (Lombard) displays rationality, telling her sister “you can’t rush a man like Godfrey.” Secondly, there is a double standard with respect to the reversal of “stereotype gender activity.” Thus, the female heroine is allowed to be aggressive. Lastly, is the” battle of the sexes.” It is argued that the female eccentricity is not anti-social because of her desire towards marriage—a societal foundation.

The final part of the chapter deals with satellite characters. Gehring describes the supporting characters as antiheroic and sometimes fatherly. This applies to Godfrey as the father character, Alexander Bullet, is indeed the true forgotten man as well as a satellite father figure.