Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Notorious (1946)

Notorious (1946)

“A man doesn’t tell a woman what to do; she tells herself.”

Synopsis:
The American daughter (Ingrid Bergman) of a convicted Nazi criminal is recruited by an FBI agent (Cary Grant) to infiltrate a ring of Nazi leaders in Brazil — including a man (Claude Rains) who was once in love with her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • Claude Rains Films
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Homicidal Spouses
  • Ingrid Bergman Films
  • Louis Calhern Films
  • Nazis
  • Nuclear Threat
  • Romance
  • Spies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “favorite Hitchcock film” of many critics is, “unlike most of his other suspense films”, lacking in humor, given that its “characters are playing for keeps”. Indeed, Notorious is a surprisingly serious film about a “depressed, heavy-drinking young woman” (Bergman) who, given her “fervent loyalty to America”, agrees to take on a potentially lethal undercover assignment proposed to her by a suave stranger (Grant) at a party. Much of the film’s tension revolves around the fact that Bergman “has fallen for Grant” (who may or may not feel the same way in return); unfortunately, however, this critical narrative element is never sufficiently established. Bergman and Grant’s instant romance — epitomized by their early on-again-off-again kissing scene, which was strategically filmed to evade the Hayes Code stipulation that onscreen kisses couldn’t last more than three seconds — never really rings true, given that Grant offers precious little in the way of charm or charisma in his role here. (Indeed, as Peary notes, his character is actually “too serious and a bit of a lunkhead”.) While the film’s infamous, “extremely tense” ending does allow Grant to “prove himself to us and to Bergman”, this ultimately emerges as too little, too late.

With that significant caveat out of the way, however, I’m ready to concede that Notorious remains one of Hitchcock’s most tightly crafted and suspenseful thrillers. Bergman is simply marvelous in the lead role, and Peary rightfully gives her the Best Actress award in his Alternate Oscars book, where he points out that Bergman “went against type” (having previously been viewed as “good, pure, and wholesome”) to play “a woman who [is] somewhat alcoholic, [has] slept around, and takes a sleazy job that requires that she give her body to a man she doesn’t love”. Nonetheless, her nuanced character here “has strength, resilience, and courage”; she’s someone who “refuses to hate herself or lose her self-respect”, despite the repeated “spite and condescension” she receives from Grant. She “sees no reason to defend herself”, instead “just carry[ing] on, doing what’s right and expecting nothing in return”. It’s a fascinating portrayal, to be sure.

Claude Rains is note-perfect in the critical yet challenging supporting role as “one of Hitchcock’s most refined villains”, a man who allows lust and a serious crush to cloud his better judgment, only to realize far too late what a fool he has been. Meanwhile, Austrian actress Leopoldine Konstantin will probably be forever associated (by Americans, at least) with her role here as Rains’ “venomous mother” (in real-life, she was only four years older than him, but so it goes); she’s the epitome of a truly nightmarish mother-in-law, and fits in nicely with the “slimy bunch” of Nazis Bergman must ingratiate herself with. While the film’s climactic (and controversial — see IMDb’s message board) ending is justifiably lauded, watch for the “even more exciting… party sequence in which lovers Grant and Bergman slip off to snoop in the wine cellar and the jealous Rains walks towards the cellar to get more wine”; as Peary notes, “it’s one of Hitchcock’s classic suspense scenes with action taking place all over the house”, and remains perhaps the film’s most memorable sequence.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ingrid Bergman as Alicia Huberman
  • Claude Rains as Alexander Sebastian
  • Leopoldine Konstantin as Madame Sebastian
  • Ted Tetzlaff’s atmospheric cinematography
  • Masterful direction by Hitchcock

Must See?
Yes, as one of Hitchcock’s most highly regarded films.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Star is Born, A (1954)

Star is Born, A (1954)

“He saw something in me nobody else ever did. He made me see it, too. He made me believe it!”

Synopsis:
An alcoholic movie star (James Mason) falls in love with an aspiring singer (Judy Garland) and helps her break through in Hollywood — but his own success is quickly fading, and soon they find their marriage and loyalty tested.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
  • Aspiring Stars
  • Charles Bickford Films
  • George Cukor Films
  • Hollywood
  • Jack Carson Films
  • James Mason Films
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Musicals
  • Rise-and-Fall
  • Romance

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “gracefully directed epic remake of the 1937 classic” by citing its infamous 1983 restoration by Ron Haver, pointing out that “as a result we can discover one of the fifties’ finest films”. The remainder of his review focuses primarily on the unique relation between Garland’s “small-time band singer Esther Blodgett” and James Mason’s “fading actor Norman Maine, who sees her sing and detects greatness.” Indeed, while its storyline is firmly rooted within Hollywood — and doesn’t flinch from presenting the seamier sides of the town’s questionable glory — it is the central romance between Blodgett and Maine that trumps all else. As Peary notes, “What makes this film so special and so timely is how mutually supportive Vicki [nee Esther] and Norman are: their initial excitement about and respect for each other never fades away”, even when you’d most expect Norman to become incurably jealous of his wife. Miraculously, “he never feels spiteful about her success, even when feeling self-pity”; meanwhile, “she recognizes that her success is due to him… and won’t desert him when everyone else has”. It’s a refreshingly heartwarming romance, yet one which never descends into undue sentimentality.

A Star is Born benefits from masterful direction by George Cukor, impressive early use of the Cinemascope process, vibrant cinematography and art direction, and a top-notch, “cynical yet compassionate you-and-me-against-the-world (Hollywood) script” by Moss Hart — yet it is the “wonderful, deeply affecting performances” by Garland and Mason that I believe are ultimately responsible for making this film such a timeless classic. Garland’s performance is the one that generally receives the most attention, for multiple reasons: it was her “come-back” role several years after leaving MGM, and her presumed victory in the Oscars race was trumped by Grace Kelly’s unmerited win for The Country Girl. Garland is indeed marvelous here; as noted by Peary in his Alternate Oscars (where he instantly hands her the award she so clearly deserved), she gives “the finest performance” in her career, playing a woman with “amazing depth, wit, resilience, [and] graciousness”. While “Garland always played nice girls”, he argues that “this was the first time [her] character’s goodness comes from the soul”, and notes that “Esther-Vicki is Garland’s most mature character and the one who has the most passion”. In addition, he points out that “playing Esther-Vicki let Garland demonstrate her remarkable musical versatility”; while “we are told Janet Gaynor’s Esther-Vicki has talent in the 1937 film, Garland proves her star talent”.

However, Mason’s performance is equally impressive — and if it weren’t for Marlon Brando’s astonishing turn as Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront (another of my all-time favorite films), I would argue that Mason equally deserved top recognition at the Oscars that year. Not a single moment of his performance here is anything less than nuanced and revelatory; the fact that he emerges as one of cinema’s most sympathetic has-beens is especially astonishing after watching his cringe-worthy entrance on the screen during the film’s opening sequence, when he and Garland “meet cute” (if you could dare to call it that). One fully expects this man to be someone Garland should stay miles and miles away from; therefore, his emergence as a man truly dedicated to his wife’s success, despite his own significant career challenges, is a pleasantly unexpected development. From his refreshingly authentic reaction to the egregious “transformation” attempted on Esther-Vicki by the studios, to the final heartbreaking scene in their beachside bungalow (watch his expression as he overhears Garland talking with studio head Charles Bickford), this is a man worthy of so much more respect than his insidious disease allowed him to maintain.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Garland as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester
  • James Mason as Norman Maine
  • Esther singing “The Man that Got Away”
  • Masterful use of Cinemascope
  • Innovative cinematography
  • Moss Hart’s screenplay

Must See?
Absolutely; this one is a gem on multiple levels.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Sullivan’s Travels (1941)

Sullivan’s Travels (1941)

“There’s a lot to be said for making people laugh.”

Synopsis:
A successful comedy film director (Joel McCrea) hoping to make more “meaningful” social dramas decides to dress in hobo clothing and hit the road to learn first-hand what poverty is like. Soon he meets a beautiful young ingenue (Veronica Lake) who accompanies him on his travails — but events quickly turn much more serious than he intended.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Comedy
  • Depression Era
  • Hollywood
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Movie Directors
  • Preston Sturges Films
  • Veronica Lake Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary votes this “marvelous social satire” by Preston Sturges as Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book, though he wishes he could call it a tie with Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be Or Not To Be, which he considers an equally worthy contender. He argues that Sturges proves “that a good Hollywood film can mix outrageous comedy with a social message”, given that we “laugh at the hysterical dialogue, the farcical situations…, the satirical barbs against Hollywood, and the slapstick”, yet also “pay attention to the parade of poverty’s victims during Sullivan’s Swiftian journey”. However, I’m not quite sure I agree with this latter point. At the risk of sounding like a Grinch about a Certified American Classic, I don’t actually believe audiences are forced to pay enough attention to “poverty’s victims” in this film — which is all about Sullivan, all the time. While Peary notes that Sturges “democratically gives all his characters, even his supporting players, important and wise things to say”, the voices of the downtrodden he’s so interested in speaking to and learning about are, with just a couple of exceptions, noticeably absent.

Now that my gripe is over, however, I’ll concede that there is much to admire about the film. Its Hawksian dialogue does indeed “have humor and rhythm”; Peary accurately describes it “like a relay race, with words used like batons”, in which “the second one character finishes a sentence, another starts his; characters join in, there are no gaps, and the pace becomes frenetic”. He also notes that “McCrea, who is well over six feet tall, and Lake at five-foot-two and 90 pounds [though pregnant!]… make a wonderful screen team”, given that they “have sweet feelings toward each other from the beginning, and are always protective of one another”; they are indeed “an ideal couple”. As Peary notes, this “was the picture that confirmed [they] were versatile performers”. Watch for a host of fine supporting performances, lovely b&w cinematography, and numerous memorable scenes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joel McCrea as John Sullivan (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Veronica Lake as “the Girl” (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Wonderful supporting performances throughout

  • John Seitz’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, of course — as an undisputed classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Sabrina (1954)

Sabrina (1954)

“I want him; I’ve been in love with him all my life.”

Synopsis:
The daughter (Audrey Hepburn) of the chauffeur (John Williams) for a family of wealthy industrialists is sent to cooking school in Paris, where she continues to pine away for the family’s playboy son, David (William Holden). Upon her return, David — despite being strategically engaged to the daughter (Martha Hyer) of another industrialist scion — is suddenly smitten by Hepburn’s chic transformation, and vows to marry her; but his more practical older brother (Humphrey Bogart) is determined to intervene.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Audrey Hepburn Films
  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Siblings
  • William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this “Billy Wilder comedy” — adapted from a Samuel Taylor play — by noting that “only in America could the daughter of a mere chauffeur be courted by not one but two millionaires and have the opportunity to marry into an established Eastern family. Sure, sure — if you happen to have the beauty and charm of Audrey Hepburn”. Indeed, it’s Hepburn’s undeniable charisma — and flattering appearance in Givenchy, her designer of choice — that fuel this “Hollywood fluff”, which will appeal most “to those who prefer glamour to content, actors to characters”. The storyline itself is pure fairy tale — and as Peary notes, “Hepburn, of course, is ideal, once again playing a variation on Cinderella”, an archetype she portrayed to cinematic perfection throughout the 1950s. Unfortunately, other than Hepburn, there’s precious little else to hold on to here, given that Sabrina’s schoolgirl crush on David (while understandable) is so clearly wrong-headed, Bogart’s “self-sacrificing” character remains a cypher throughout, and the romantic direction things eventually go in doesn’t make much sense. Film fanatics will be primarily interested in this one simply to see Hepburn at her loveliest — and to catch a glimpse of some truly stunning Givenchy gowns.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Audrey Hepburn as Sabrina
  • Lovely Givenchy dresses

  • Charles Lang’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended, and famous enough that most film fanatics will probably be curious to at least check it out.

Links:

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

“Wilfrid the Fox! That’s what they call him, and that’s what he is!”

Synopsis:
An ailing barrister (Charles Laughton) receiving full-time care from a nurse (Elsa Lanchester) reluctantly agrees to defend a man (Tyrone Power) accused of murdering a wealthy dowager (Norma Varden).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Billy Wilder Films
  • Charles Laughton Films
  • Courtroom Dramas
  • Elsa Lanchester Films
  • Lawyers
  • Marlene Dietrich Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Play Adaptation
  • Tyrone Power Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary boldly asserts — and I think I may agree — that “there is no courtroom drama more enjoyable than this adaptation of Agatha Christie’s play,” directed as a “high comedy” by Billy Wilder (who co-wrote the script with Harry Kurnitz). He notes that “like all Christie stories, this [one] has innumerable twists and a surprise ending”, and argues that “the most fun comes from trying to figure out if the obvious overacting by the defendant and witnesses is being done by the actors or by the characters they’re portraying”. He specifically highlights Laughton’s central turn as “an aged London barrister with a heart condition”, noting that he “is just marvelous, making a difficult role — one which most actors (and you’d expect, Laughton) would have hammed up — seem easy”, and pointing out that “his comical scenes with wife Elsa Lanchester, who plays his doting nurse, are gems”. In addition to Laughton’s noteworthy performance, this “well cast” film features a host of fine supporting performances — including that given by Dietrich, who, “in her last strong movie role, seems comfortable working again with Wilder” (she starred in his A Foreign Affair back in 1948). Tyrone Power, meanwhile — in his final role before dying of a heart attack at the age of just 44 — is appropriately “foppish” in the critical role of Leonard Vole.

Naturally, the less said about the plot of this gripping whodunit, the better. If you haven’t seen it in a while (and have thus forgotten all the many plot twists), you’re in for a treat; enjoy!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfrid: “I’m constantly surprised that women’s hats don’t provoke more murders”
  • Marlene Dietrich as Christine Helm Vole
  • Tyrone Power as Leonard Vole
  • Norma Varden as Mrs. French
  • Elsa Lanchester as Nurse Plimsoll
  • Una O’Connor as Janet
  • A wonderfully suspenseful and tightly crafted script

Must See?
Yes, as a top-notch murder mystery and courtroom drama.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Black Narcissus (1947)

Black Narcissus (1947)

“There’s something in the atmosphere that makes everything seem exaggerated.”

Synopsis:
A nun (Deborah Kerr) is sent to establish a convent high in the Himalayas, where she and her fellow nuns — Sister Philippa (Flora Robson), Sister Honey (Jenny Laird), Sister Briony (Judith Furse), and Sister Ruth (Kathleen Byron) — each confront their personal demons.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Deborah Kerr Films
  • Flora Robson Films
  • India
  • Jean Simmons Films
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Michael Powell Films
  • Nuns
  • Sabu Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
The opening line of Peary’s review of Black Narcissus simply exclaims, “An erotic masterpiece about nuns!” Indeed. The creative team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger managed to produce a remarkably “intense adaptation of Rumer Godden‘s novel”, in which a youthful head sister (Kerr) and her four charges “find their commitment to the order greatly tested” as they’re placed in “an exotic setting” — a former “residence of a potentate’s harem… situated on an isolated mountain ledge” which is “dark and haunted by its sinful past”, and where “an eerie wind blows constantly through the empty corridors”. Peary accurately argues that the picture “is splendidly acted, uncompromisingly written…, and ranks as one of the most stunningly beautiful color films of all time, thanks to cinematographer Jack Cardiff” (about whom a recent must-see documentary — Cameraman: The Life and Work of Jack Cardiff [2010] — was just released) “and art director Alfred Junge“. Yet as Peary notes, “viewers” (myself included) “are usually shocked to discover that for the most part the picture was made inside a studio so that Cardiff could better establish the nuns’ terrible sense of claustrophobia”.

In his Alternate Oscars, Peary awards Kerr Best Actress of the Year — after venting about how that year’s Oscar was “wasted” on Loretta Young, who “made only a half-dozen noteworthy movies, and wasn’t all that impressive in any of them”, though he jokingly concedes perhaps she “deserved an Emmy for years of twirling through a door without once ripping her dress as the hostess of… The Loretta Young Show” — ouch! At any rate, in this text, Peary lauds Kerr’s ability to “not… let Kathleen Byron overwhelm her in a much showier part”; yet while Kerr holds her own admirably — she does phenomenal, subtle work representing her character’s emotional arc throughout the narrative — it’s hard to deny that Byron is the protagonist who first comes to mind when thinking back on this film. Her mental derangement — so brilliantly filmed and conceived by all involved (including the make-up artists; see stills below) — provides an unforgettable climax to a truly unique film, one which (surprisingly enough) may ultimately best “belong” to the horror genre (as suggested so persuasively by DVD Savant).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Deborah Kerr as Sister Clodagh (voted Best Actress of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Kathleen Byron as Sister Ruth
  • Flora Robson as Sister Philippa
  • David Farrar as Mr. Dean
  • Stunning cinematography by Jack Cardiff
  • Alfred Junge’s production design
  • The surreal climax

Must See?
Most definitely. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Easter Parade (1948)

Easter Parade (1948)

“Who says I can’t get along without her? See those girls? Any one of them has as much talent as she has.”

Synopsis:
When his longtime partner (Ann Miller) leaves him to go solo, a dancer (Fred Astaire) takes a chorus girl (Judy Garland) under his wing and decides to turn her into his protegee.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Miller Films
  • Aspiring Stars
  • Dancers
  • Fred Astaire Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Mentors
  • Musicals
  • Peter Lawford Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that the result of the triple-switcheroo behind Easter Parade (Fred Astaire replaced Gene Kelly at the last minute when Kelly broke his ankle, while Cyd Charisse was replaced by Ann Miller, and director Charles Walters replaced Vincente Minnelli at the advice of Judy Garland’s psychoanalyst!) resulted in “one of MGM’s brightest, cheeriest musicals”. He’s right to state that “Astaire and Garland” — despite their age gap (Astaire was officially retired at the time) — “are a most engaging screen couple”, and that “it seems Garland is really enjoying herself — which is nice to see”.

He notes that there are many “fine musical numbers” — most notably Astaire’s “particularly exciting” solo, ‘Steppin’ Out With My Baby’, in which he “dances in slow motion while the chorus behind him dances at full speed” (impressively ‘daring’ stuff!):

and “Ann Miller’s sexy tap solo to ‘Shaking the Blues Away'” (which she unfortunately performed in a great deal of pain, though you’d never know it).

He further adds that “the Astaire-Garland numbers are special, too” (‘A Couple of Swells’ remains iconic), and he notes that “the uplifting Irving Berlin score” (fabulous!) is “first-rate and used to perfection” (though he admits to not being “a fan of Peter Lawford’s singing”, a sentiment I can get behind; fortunately, Lawford sings just one short, innocuous song).

Peary points out that the “simple storyline… is essentially Pygmalion,” given that it’s about an accomplished professional (in this case, a dancer) who dares his partner that “he can take an unknown non-professional… and make her… a big star”. Despite its familiarity, it’s handled well enough — and with enough humor — that it feels fresh and engaging. Fleshing out this central storyline is a rather pedestrian, if complicated and unrealistic, love quadrangle (Lawford loves Garland at first sight, but Garland secretly loves Astaire, who is still in love with Miller — though God only knows why! — and Miller has a massive crush on Lawford). This angle of the film is best left under-analyzed, as it’s really just a prop for the non-stop songs and dances (that Berlin score!) that thankfully dominate the screentime.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fred Astaire as Don
  • Judy Garland as Hannah
  • Astaire singing and dancing to “Drum Crazy” in a toy store
  • Astaire and Garland’s many fine dances together


  • Astaire’s surreal, oh-so-cool slo-mo dance “Steppin’ Out With My Baby”

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyably escapist musical — and oh, that Irving Berlin score!

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

“I don’t want to be just introduced to him. I want it to be something strange and romantic and something I’ll always remember!”

Synopsis:
In turn-of-the-century St. Louis, a teenager (Judy Garland) in love with the boy next door (Tom Drake) is distraught when her father (Leon Ames) declares that she and her family — including her sisters (Lucille Bremer, Joan Carroll, and Margaret O’Brien), her brother (Henry H. Daniels, Jr.), her mother (Mary Astor), and their housekeeper (Marjorie Main) — will be moving to New York City.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Family Problems
  • Historical Drama
  • Hugh Marlowe Films
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Margaret O’Brien Films
  • Mary Astor Films
  • Musicals
  • Vincente Minnelli Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes this “wonderful M-G-M musical” — which he argues is the best musical by director Vincente Minnelli, and the second-best for Garland (after The Wizard of Oz) — as “a warm, unsentimental” [really???] “tribute to family, home, and tree-lined America”. He doesn’t go into much detail in his analysis of the film, instead simply calling out certain notable aspects, such as the “magnificent $100,000 set designed by Lemuel Ayres and Cedric Gibbons”, the “striking color photography” by George Folsey (which “contributes to the picture’s early-century flavor”), and the performance given by “cute, feisty O’Brien, who won a Special Oscar” for her role here as the youngest child in Garland’s family, thanks in part to “two exceptional dramatic scenes”: “one set on a scary Halloween night and another in which she destroys her snowman because she’s so upset about the family’s moving”.

Adapted from “Sally Benson’s short stories about her youth”, the narrative of Meet Me in St. Louis is similarly vignette-driven, divided into four seasons (introduced by old-fashioned title cards), and primarily concerned with showing a nostalgia-riddled vision of a bygone era (which, one should recall, was just 40 years earlier at the time the film was released). At this latter goal, it succeeds admirably: viewers would be hard-pressed to find anything at all unappealing about the lives lived by the Smith family, who are close-knit, wear gorgeous period clothing, live in a “large-but-cozy” house, and have a stern but kind housekeeper (Main) to watch over them. Their biggest concerns — other than the imminent move to NYC, of course — are whether a batch of ketchup stirred up by Astor is too sweet or too sharp; whether Bremer’s long-distance boyfriend will propose to her over the phone; whether the “boy next door” will finally realize Garland is alive; and whether young Tootie and Agnes (Carroll) will survive that year’s Halloween “festivities” (which provide us with a fascinating glimpse at what used to serve as entertainment for young kids on this ghoulish night; getting eggs thrown at your windows no longer seems quite so bad in comparison.)

For a rare dissenting (or at least refreshingly critical) view of the film, be sure to check out DVD Savant’s review. While he rates the film “Excellent” and acknowledges its many virtues, he points out that its primary function at the time was to serve as a subtle wartime reminder “that staying home and staying the same is a great ambition”, and that “Americans were supposed to be lovable small town hicks, the kind who would keep buying tickets to MGM movies indefinitely.” He’s also not afraid to specifically call out some of the storyline’s more troublesome elements — such as during the climactic high school dance, when (as we watch Garland dancing with a series of “undesirable” boys she was originally planning to hoist onto her rival), “the movie… dooms a whole social underclass of boys … to ‘inhuman’ status, in the kind of casual discrimination that the writers had no trouble milking for laughs.”

DVD Savant also admits, “When I first saw the film, I thought Margaret O’Brien was delightful, but her precocious morbidity no longer seems so funny.” Indeed, O’Brien’s iconic performance here continues to divide viewers into two distinct camps (as evidenced by a heated discussion on IMDb’s message board for the film): those who find her “annoying and disturbed”, and those who prefer to view her behavior more forgivingly, as simply a product of the film’s escapism and time period. I’ll admit to agreeing with Savant’s overall sentiment: while I thought she was the cutest thing ever when I first saw this film years ago, upon rewatching it recently I found her surprisingly irritating during certain early scenes. With that said, her heartfelt performance during the two dramatic scenes called out by Peary (particularly the latter one with the snowmen — a precursor to her teary presence while Garland sings the heart-rending “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”) do show clear evidence of her acting abilities, and I believe she deserved the honorary Oscar she was given.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Garland as Esther
  • Margaret O’Brien as Tootie
  • Garland’s first meaningful interaction with Drake, as he helps her put out the lights in her home
  • Fine sets and period detail
  • Garland singing “The Boy Next Door”, “The Trolley Song”, and “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” — three memorable classics


  • George Folsey’s rich Technicolor cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as an acknowledged American classic. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Clock, The (1945)

Clock, The (1945)

“Why can’t we have this one last day together — couldn’t we?”

Synopsis:
During World War II, a soldier (Robert Walker) on leave for two days in New York City meets a pretty young secretary (Judy Garland) and falls in love; soon they’re desperately trying to find a way to get married before he’s shipped back to active duty.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Judy Garland Films
  • Keenan Wynn Films
  • New York City
  • Race-Against-Time
  • Robert Walker Films
  • Romance
  • Soldiers
  • Vincente Minnelli Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
I was surprised to find myself largely in agreement with Peary’s cynical review of this early Vincente Minnelli film, a rare non-musical for Judy Garland (who Minnelli married shortly afterwards). Peary argues that while “Garland is extremely fetching” (true), the “romance is too calculated to endear us through simplicity”, and the picture itself is ultimately “too proud of itself for its ‘realistic’ characters, innocent romance, [and] ‘honest’ common-folks dialogue”. He forewarns us that “despite the fine cast and a few touching moments, [the] picture may grate on your nerves”. The Clock is the type of film you desperately want to enjoy, given that its heart is clearly in the right place — who wouldn’t root for a pair of such likable protagonists under such imposed duress? Thanks to sensitive performances by both Garland and Walker, we like these individuals right away; and it’s refreshing to see Garland only gradually coming to the realization this random “Joe” is someone she may be seriously interested in getting to know better.

As the granddaughter-in-law of a wartime bride, I’ve heard much about the reality of the romantic climate at the time, which was very much one of grabbing opportunities as they presented themselves — and the storyline is faithful to that general sentiment. I’m sure it hit a nerve with audiences at the time. What ultimately undoes the film, however — as Peary points out — is its attempt to engage the leading couple in a series of “authentic” NYC adventures, most of which simply never ring quite true. While James Gleason is believably wholesome as a milkman who picks up Walker and Garland late at night (and I had no problem buying the idea that he’d take them along for a ride; such night-time jobs can get pretty lonesome), the excitement they subsequently undergo quickly feels calculated to drive the plot forward. Meanwhile, Minnelli’s attempts to infuse humor into the script — such as through the weird performance of a prim older woman (Moyna MacGill, Angela Lansbury’s mother) who glances repeatedly up to the heavens while attempting to eat her dinner through the ruckus caused by drunk Keenan Wynn (perfectly cast) — often fall flat, and seem better suited for a different type of indie film altogether.

With all that said, The Clock does get several things right — most notably the palpable sense on the part of both Walker and Garland’s characters that they’ve been thrown into a unique pocket-hole of fate, one they’d be stupid to turn against or ignore. In the midst of war and leave and loneliness, finding a “soulmate” — even for a few days — would surely feel larger-than-life, and it absolutely comes across as authentic that they’d scramble to find a way to consummate (and legitimate) their brief union. So, despite my overall grumpiness, I’ll concede that The Clock is worth a look on numerous levels, even if it fails to deliver an entirely satisfying package.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Garland as Alice
  • Robert Walker as Joe
  • Fine character performances
  • An effective view of both the charms and frustrations of New York City

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly recommended for one-time viewing — and a must for Garland fans, naturally.

Links:

For Me and My Gal (1942)

For Me and My Gal (1942)

“You think anything’s going to stand in the way of us playing the Palace this time? Oh no, not even a war.”

Synopsis:
An ambitious vaudevillian (Gene Kelly) falls in love with a young singer (Judy Garland) and promises to marry her once they’ve hit the big time; but when World War One arrives and Kelly attempts to temporarily dodge the draft, he loses not only the respect of everyone around him, but the love of his life as well.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Busby Berkeley Films
  • Character Arc
  • Gene Kelly Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Judy Garland Films
  • Musicals
  • Vaudeville and Burlesque
  • World War I

Response to Peary’s Review:
For Me and My Gal — directed “with surprising restraint by Busby Berkeley” — is primarily notable as the film in which “Judy Garland got her first solo star billing and Gene Kelly made his screen debut” (after impressing audiences in Broadway’s “Pal Joey”). As Peary notes, the film’s storyline is “obvious, sentimental, [and] patriotic”, but “is bolstered by [the] charisma of the two energetic stars and some fine musical numbers” — most notably “the cheerful title song”. Much has been made about the fact that Kelly’s character is too much of a self-centered heel to be worth rooting for as Garland’s love interest — but at least his character stays consistently opportunistic throughout, and comes across as refreshingly human (until the laughably unrealistic finale, which simply adds an irritating twist of delusional escapism to the entire affair). More frustrating to me than Kelly’s character is the lack of development afforded to George Murphy, playing Garland’s former partner and would-be love interest; Murphy is highly sympathetic in his tiny supporting role, but ultimately never poses enough of a threat to Kelly.

Note: Don’t bother trying to avoid spoilers about what exactly Kelly does that’s just so awful, as it’s broadcast everywhere, even in Peary’ review — though I’ll refrain from mentioning it here.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Judy Garland as Jo
  • George Murphy as Jimmy
  • Garland and Kelly singing “For Me and My Gal”

Must See?
No — though naturally fans of Garland and/or Kelly will want to check it out.

Links: