William Rothman’s essay titled “Howard Hawks and Bringing Up Baby” focuses on the symbols and signs that tend to appear in Hawks’s films. One of the most prominent characteristics is Hawks’s use of a reaction shot which serves to reveal the emotions of a character that would have otherwise remain hidden. In Bringing Up Baby, the first example of this is a vivid close-up on the face of Katharine Hepburn’s character, Susan Vance. Her reaction is one of sadness and disappointment, for it is then that she learns Dr. Huxley, played by Cary Grant, is actually engaged to be married. Hawks also contrasts the reaction shots of Grant and Hepburn throughout the film to further develop the differences between the two characters, and also to create an even more satisfying ending when the two eventually get together in spite of these very differences. Rothman also brings up various signs that Hawks uses throughout many of his films—images of fire to represent sexuality, flowers as a symbol of purity, birds in the case of Dr. Huxley to represent humiliation, and water as a means of seduction. In one scene in particular, both Dr. Huxley and Susan fall into deep water, which according to Rothman, spurs on their courtship.

Rothman discusses Hawks’s reputation as a “functional director” as well. To most, his films appear simple, straightforward, and almost “unintellectual” in value because they appear to sacrifice cinematic technique for the telling of the story itself. In reality, Hawks’s films are filled with dramatic details in each frame, ranging from the look of the spatial environment down to the clothing of each character. Yet, amidst all this complication, Hawks’s camera always seems to have the ability to “appear neutral” while still picking up important details and seamlessly preserving the narrative (96).

Rothman also analyzes the presence of double entendres within Bringing Up Baby and other films made by Howard Hawks. The entire film can be read as a sexual allegory due to the seemingly duplicitous dialogue, actions, gestures, etc. Rothman further emphasizes that despite the obvious presence of allegories within the film, the characters are still very unaware of them. There is “a radical separation between the literal and the allegorical levels, in the sense that the characters are innocent of the doubleness of their words and acts” (104). The comedy, Rothman argues, is essentially derived from this ignorance. In other words, the fact that the characters are so apparently naive and completely unaware of themselves adds to the crazy and comedic nature of the film.