So I killed this one last night and am pleased to report that I liked it as much as I was expecting to.
It was refreshing for me to see that America has always been so celebrity obsessed. Maybe refreshing isn't the right word for it, but you know what I mean. The film's treatment of celebrity worship, especially in the opening scene, was awesome. I loved how sarcastic and condescending they were towards it, like when the woman doing all the red carpet announcing said that Lamont and Lockwood are as common in American homes as "Bacon and eggs." A line that killed me was in the premiere of the movie at the beginning of the film a girl in the audience says of Lina "She's so refined. I think I'll kill myself." Loved it.
Now, I haven't seen a lot of musicals from around this time, but aside from The Sound of Music--which I recall having some pretty epic, swooping shots--they all seem kind of bland visually. I usually get the impression that the camera is just there to get every dance move, but with this one I felt like there was more of an effort to make it stand out. There were a lot of angles and shots that, especially for 1952, seemed pretty impressive for something like a big budget musical. Look at it compared to White Christmas. As light and fun as White Christmas is it never really takes you anywhere visually. It's blocked out, like I said before, just to get all the dancing in the frame. It never even convinces you that it's not being filmed on a sound stage. Singin' in the Rain really felt like a movie, where I was looking at people occupying spaces that were actually what they were supposed to be. White Christmas feels like a pageant with a lot of cardboard scenery.
Of all the musical scenes, I'd say my lest favorite was "Gotta Dance." It felt really long, which is a bummer because I thought that it had a really cool look to it. But the problem with it was it took me out of the movie. It felt like it didn't quite fit. That and it came after Singin' in the Rain, which is just such a wonderful example of "movie magic"...tough act to follow.
From Mom:
I'm glad that you liked it.
Nothing much has changed in Hollywood as you said. I found the fact that they wouldn't use the less pretty girl with the best voice, as the gold standard in movies.As a matter of fact, Julie Andrews was turned down for the movie version of My Fair Lady for Audrey Hepburn( who had a voice double), even though she had been on the broadway stage as Eliza Doolittle. She wasn't pretty enough!! Ironically Julie won an oscar that year for best actress in a little movie called Mary Poppins!! But I digress.....
I agree with you that this movie had a real feel to it. I really enjoyed the relationship that the 3 main characters shared. I really liked Donald O'connors performanc in this movie too.He always played 2nd banana roles, and I think he was a great dancer more deserving of some leads, but again, he wasn't leading man handsome and that always put him into the best friend, or comic relief role.
Gene Kelly is absolutely amazing in this movie. He really was a "movie star" as far as I am concerned.
He can dance, sing, act, and he directed numerous movies. He changed the way song and dance films were made.This is one of my go to movies when I have a rainy Sunday and want to watch something that totally entertains me.One of my most favorite scenes is Make em laugh. Sheer bliss for a wannabe hoofer!! Glad you enjoyed it...I'm off to watch This is Spinal Tap!!!! Is that a musical?????
From Tony:
Oh yeah, "Make 'em Laugh" was a lot of fun. Such a goofy, physical number.
What gets me about the whole "not as pretty but better voice" thing is that Hollywood's concept of plain or less pretty means not famous. Debbie Reynolds was adorable in this. Way better looking than what's her face! It's particularly admirable how she was able to keep up with O'Connor and Kelly since she wasn't a dancer before this movie (though I've read that Gene Kelly was a real dick to her.)
And here's another thing in terms of how Hollywood and the idea of celebrity are different now than in the 20s when the movie was set: Don tells about how he was born for the screen, brought up to sing and dance by an affluent family but what we see is a very humble, rags to riches sort of story play out over his phoney voice over. I get the impression that, like his fake off-screen romance with Lina, this was something the studio cooked up to over glamorize him to the public. I can't see American's eating that up today. I would think that we wouldn't be impressed by someone who was essentially bred for stardom whereas his real life story--playing dives, getting booed off stage, etc--would be much more compelling to us now. Though I suppose actors were more like property back then, talent owned by studios, so they had to put on whatever mask the studio told them to. Any insight on this?
And no, Spinal Tap is not a musical, though they toy with the idea in one scene.
From Mom:
You're right. The movie stars of yesteryear were totally beholden to the studio they worked for.
They couldn't marry if they were pop idols so as not to lessen their appeal to the groupies.
That's why so many actors were outed for their sexual persuasion after they died. The studios wouldn't allow their private lives to be anything except what the execs made up for them. The child actors became drug and booze addicts because of the rigorous schedules that the studios made them keep . All of their real names were changed in order to appeal to the audience. No ethnic names allowed, whereas now, ethnicity is usually in the actors favor. Nowadays their real life stories are sometimes more important than their body of work. So the rags to riches concept would absolutely fly today as opposed to the being born for the screen concept. It's almost like a wink wink, nod nod,when a child of a famous star goes into the business. Until they prove themself, the general public pooh poohs them saying that Daddy/Mommy pulled strings to get them the part.
Not to mention that yesterdays movie stars made squat for money.And they were under contract for years by the studios,who mandated their every move.
Oh and by the way, I was only joking when I asked if Spinal Tap was a musical. A feeble attempt at humor son!
From Tony:
Oh yeah, "Make 'em Laugh" was a lot of fun. Such a goofy, physical number.
What gets me about the whole "not as pretty but better voice" thing is that Hollywood's concept of plain or less pretty means not famous. Debbie Reynolds was adorable in this. Way better looking than what's her face! It's particularly admirable how she was able to keep up with O'Connor and Kelly since she wasn't a dancer before this movie (though I've read that Gene Kelly was a real dick to her.)
And here's another thing in terms of how Hollywood and the idea of celebrity are different now than in the 20s when the movie was set: Don tells about how he was born for the screen, brought up to sing and dance by an affluent family but what we see is a very humble, rags to riches sort of story play out over his phoney voice over. I get the impression that, like his fake off-screen romance with Lina, this was something the studio cooked up to over glamorize him to the public. I can't see American's eating that up today. I would think that we wouldn't be impressed by someone who was essentially bred for stardom whereas his real life story--playing dives, getting booed off stage, etc--would be much more compelling to us now. Though I suppose actors were more like property back then, talent owned by studios, so they had to put on whatever mask the studio told them to. Any insight on this?
And no, Spinal Tap is not a musical, though they toy with the idea in one scene.
From Mom:
You're right. The movie stars of yesteryear were totally beholden to the studio they worked for.
They couldn't marry if they were pop idols so as not to lessen their appeal to the groupies.
That's why so many actors were outed for their sexual persuasion after they died. The studios wouldn't allow their private lives to be anything except what the execs made up for them. The child actors became drug and booze addicts because of the rigorous schedules that the studios made them keep . All of their real names were changed in order to appeal to the audience. No ethnic names allowed, whereas now, ethnicity is usually in the actors favor. Nowadays their real life stories are sometimes more important than their body of work. So the rags to riches concept would absolutely fly today as opposed to the being born for the screen concept. It's almost like a wink wink, nod nod,when a child of a famous star goes into the business. Until they prove themself, the general public pooh poohs them saying that Daddy/Mommy pulled strings to get them the part.
Not to mention that yesterdays movie stars made squat for money.And they were under contract for years by the studios,who mandated their every move.
Oh and by the way, I was only joking when I asked if Spinal Tap was a musical. A feeble attempt at humor son!
No comments:
Post a Comment