One of the functions of getting older is losing track of current slang.  For example, my nieces have friends that refer to me as “Unc.”  I suppose it can mean somebody who is an “uncle,” which is a title applied to me by not just my sister’s daughters, but the children of other friends of mine.  However, my research has revealed to me that it can also be defined as somebody who is considered an aged male.  I do not consider myself over-the-hill, and when I first heard the generational colloquialism used, I bristled a little, particularly with the spirit of mockery behind it.  This partially explains why I enjoyed Ball of Fire (1941), which will become clearer during the synopsis.  The other part of it is the cast of academics who puzzle over this kind of language, which speaks to the pitfalls (if they may be called that) of my terminal degree.  Either way, I enjoyed this one and I am happy to talk about it.

There is not much talking at the beginning of Ball of Fire, which might belie the title.  Instead, you have the aforementioned group of scholars taking their morning constitutional in Central Park.  Keeping the easily distracted brainiacs in line is the youngest of their number, Professor Bertram Potts (Gary Cooper), an expert on grammar.  They live in a mansion that is paid for by a philanthropic effort for these eight men to produce an encyclopedia.  They have been at this for years, and representatives of those writing the checks have arrived to voice their frustrations at the slow progress.  Their saving grace is that Miss Totten (Mary Field), the daughter of their main benefactor, is sweet on Professor Potts.  He is not entirely oblivious to her feelings, but remains dedicated to his work, which is what convinces the overseers to keep funding their research.  Not long after Miss Totten’s departure, the garbage man (Allen Jenkins) enters the study.  He has come asking for help from these learned men on trivia questions in the newspaper that involve a cash prize.  It is not the information he seeks that interests Professor Potts, but the way he speaks about his motives for doing so.  The garbage man is trying to earn a little extra “moolah” for a date, and that word, among many, has Professor Potts questioning the completeness of his contributions to the encyclopedia.  With that, he tells his colleagues that he is going out, and takes to the streets of New York to collect as much slang as possible.  His wanderings eventually bring him to a night club where he listens to a song performed by Katherine “Sugarpuss” O’Shea (Barbara Stanwyck).  My Catholic propriety will have me referring to her as Katherine.  So many of the lyrics stood out in the tune that he is wanting to meet her backstage after the show.  She has her own problems.  As a sometimes girlfriend of local gangster Joe Lilac (Dana Andrews), she is wanted by authorities in connection to a murder of which he is accused.  Thus, when Professor Potts knocks on her dressing room door, she assumes that he is a cop.  It takes some stuttering explaining in the face of a beautiful woman for her to understand that he is merely a well-meaning scholar.  As she shoos him away, he leaves his card.  He is exiting the premises as the authorities get there, but she has snuck out the back window with a couple of Joe’s flunkies sent to help her hide.  Instead of taking her to one of their usual safe houses, she comes up with the idea of going to Professor Potts’ institute, rousing them after midnight.  It is Professor Potts who tries to get her to go away, but the others are enthusiastically encouraging her to stay.  She references the rain outside, and her sore throat, and Professor Potts relents.  She also promises to be a part of his slang research, which helps.  As she settles in with the scholars, Joe is being questioned by the district attorney (Addison Richards).  Joe has a patsy taking the blame for him, and for the moment, he is allowed to go free.  Upon being granted his freedom, he calls Katherine to arrange for a marriage to her, thinking that the government would not go after a husband and wife.  Speaking of marriage, though this might appear to be inevitable, Professor Potts has begun to fall in love with Katherine.  These feelings are stirred by her when she convinces him to let her stay a little longer by kissing him.  The next day, not long after an engagement ring from Joe arrives for her, Professor Potts makes his own proposal with a more modest piece of jewelry.  At the same time, he is reminded of convention and asks to speak to her father.  This is when “daddy” phones, who is Joe.  During the conversation between the two men, it is arranged that Professor Potts and company will transport her to New Jersey.  He believes they are going to have a wedding in the Garden State.  On the way, their party is forced to stop for the night at roadside inn following an accident, which is where Joe and his men find Katherine and the scholars.  This is also when the truth of the situation between Joe and Katherine is revealed, but not before Professor Potts has declared the depth of his love for her.  Because Joe and company have guns, Professor Potts and his colleagues are forced to concede.  Upon getting back to the institute, dejected, one of the others reveals the ring Katherine had given him to return to Professor Potts.  When it is discovered that the item in question is not the same as the one Professor Potts had given, they realize that she still loves him.  Outwitting Joe’s henchman, the scholars travel back to New Jersey to break up the nuptials between Joe and Katherine.  It ends with the bad guys being arrested, and Katherine and Professor Potts together.

The happy conclusion to Ball of Fire is to be expected from this era of Hollywood.  That is not a complaint, but I enjoyed this one for other reasons.  My own scholarly disposition loved the idea of a group of intellectuals collected to produce an encyclopedia.  Their effort is described as them trying to collect all knowledge.  In a sense, I feel an affinity with these men because one of the missions of The Legionnaire is to provide a Catholic perspective on every movie ever made.  It would be logical to question the feasibility of such a project unless I could somehow lock myself away from the world and do nothing but watch films for the rest of my life.  That is absurd, but it is not without a Catholic equivalent.  Early on in Christianity, men and women gathered in communities, not unlike what you see with Professor Potts and company.  Indeed, he even describes their work in a monk-like manner, saying that the distractions of the world can be a problem.  Monks and nuns formed monasteries where they could also be free from distractions and pray for the world.  Their actions might seem counter-productive to the growth of Christianity, but it actually contributed to not only keeping ancient traditions alive, but safeguarding Western culture behind the safety of their walls.  A parallel between this latter effort can be drawn with writing an encyclopedia as you see in the movie, particularly as described by Professor Potts.  However, Christianity is not always meant to be confined within monastery boundaries.  Faith is about relationships, not only with God but with others.  That is how it is spread.  In the film, this idea works in reverse.  Our monk in the form of Professor Potts has to find that there is more to life by venturing into the world.  God can be found there, too, if you know how to look.

I also recommend taking a look at Ball of Fire.  It is a classic in every sense of the word, and a delight.  I would also be remiss if I did not compliment Cooper on his performance.  He was known more for his action films, particularly Westerns, but he does a great job as a bumbling professor.  I see no flaw in this movie.