Monday, March 26, 2018
The Philadelphia Story
- Commentary: I never thought I'd own this movie. My reaction to it, until recently, has been ho-hum. My mother loved it, so I pseudo-watched it several times while she was alive (I think she identified with Tracy Lord), but it never occurred to me to buy it while she was alive, considering that it played regularly on TCM.
Recently, though, I've noticed several videos on YouTube, most notably one by Camille Paglia, which is no longer available [note to self, see if someone else has posted it], which intrigued me, so I borrowed the movie from the library and watched it closely a couple of times. It not only jump-started me to prowl through all the Kathatine Hepburn movies I own, but, by the end of my considerations, I decided I wanted to own it.
I've come to deeply appreciate the movie, and Kathatine Hepburn, as a particular type of womanhood that at least three generations of women (my mother's included) glorified and after which they wanted to model themselves. What Camille Paglia says about this movie, including the research she's done on it, is important and, I think, should have more attention paid to it. I don't always agree with Paglia, but, in the case of this movie, I do, and would further say that it was this portrayal of womanhood that led directly to second wave feminism, through the daughters of all the admirers of Tracy Lord.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role James Stewart Macaulay Connor Cary Grant C.K. Dexter Haven Katharine Hepburn Tracy Samantha Lord Ruth Hussey Elizabeth Imbrie John Howard George Kittredge Roland Young William Q. Tracy John Halliday Seth Lord Mary Nash Margaret Lord Virginia Weidler Dinah Lord Henry Daniell Sidney Kidd Lionel Pape The Footman Hilda Plowright Librarian
Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
Release Date: 1940
Directed by George Cukor.
Labels: cary-grant, comedy1, Criterion2, james-stewart, katharine-hepburn, romance1, satire1
An American in Paris
- Commentary: Why did I come by this one? Hmmm ... one day about a month ago I decided to check out La La Land from the library. Mind you, other than it being a musical that was heralded and had won lots of awards, and who starred in it, I knew nothing about it. Hadn't read anything on it, laudatory, critical or otherwise. I happened to mention to my niece, the actor with whom I share a love of films, that I'd borrowed it for a line-up of movie watching. She confessed to me that it was her favorite film and asked to know my reactions once I'd watched it. I trust her tastes and instincts so I was ready to love the film. As well, I knew it was written and directed by the same guy who is responsible for Whiplash, a movie I loved, so I was excited to see it. Still and all, it took me a couple more weeks to get around to watching it. By that time, my anticipation level was through the roof. I should have remembered my experience with Mary Poppins decades ago. Oh well.
Certainly, I enjoyed watching La La Land, but my anticipation was not satisfied. I did, however, notice significant correlations with Singin' in the Rain, which I own, and An American in Paris, which, at the time, I didn't own. I decided I wanted to do a comparison of La La Land with both. I borrowed An American in Paris from the library, watched it and was reminded of how intriguing and masterful that film is. That's when I looked it up, found a reasonably priced copy and decided to buy it. Although I've noticed, since buying and watching it (twice, and once for all the special features, which are very interesting), that Singin' in the Rain is celebrated more than An American in Paris, well, let's just say, An American in Paris is such a treat I'm surprised we never bought it when Mom was alive.
Since watching it, I've become curious about musicals as a form in themselves, and have been working my way back through my own meager collection and checking even more out of the library. Considering what I own, this is a worthy addition.
In case you're curious, here's what my initial verdict on La La Land was to my niece:I just finished my first viewing of "La La Land". I say that because I'm convinced I'll have to watch it again, probably tomorrow, while it's fresh in my mind. That's because I'm, well, ambivalent.
Frankly, I prefer An American in Paris, Singin' in the Rain and, dare I say it, all the other musicals I own, over La La Land. But, it was the watching of La La Land that has launched me on a serious consideration of musicals (I've made a list of several I'm planning on borrowing within the next months) and the ownership of yet another, this one. For that, I'm grateful.
I was prepared to love it because it was written and directed by the same guy who wrote and directed "Whiplash", which I absolutely loved. When I learned that he is responsible for "La La Land", without knowing anything about the movie (including before I watched it this evening) [I know, hard to believe but I didn't look it up anywhere before I watched it and didn't run across any material about it prior, even though it was such a smash], except that it is a musical, I figured the movie must have a really interesting take on Hollywood musicals because, well, holy shit, this guy did "Whiplash"! So, I was shocked to discover how wrong I was. That realization is taking some getting used to. It is obvious, though, that the writer/director has serious chops, being able to do "Whiplash", then turn around and do "La La Land".
Right off the bat, here are some things I loved about the movie. Ryan Gosling, for one, but, I love him in anything. He could play a mushroom and I'd love him. "The Fools Who Dream" song, for another; that whole sequence, in fact. Sounds like my theme song! Sounds like I'm Mia's aunt, except for the whole Paris thing. Even better, though, I'm your aunt, and Emma Stone is merely a stand-in for you in that movie! I'll just go to Paris, and invite you!
The movie is clearly a revival of the old-time Hollywood musical. I easily recognized many parts of "An American in Paris" (which I saw with Mom too many times to recall, on TCM; it was a regular, so we never needed to own it) and just about every Ginger Rogers/Fred Astaire movie in existence (all of which I saw more than once with Mom on TCM). The brilliant color is taken right out of just about every musical Gene Kelly ever made. Sadly, neither Emma Stone nor Ryan Gosling are very good singers or dancers. [Frankly, Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire were only passable actors, but Ginger Rogers was good; even more so, Leslie Caron.] That was mildly disturbing. But, I think I can forgive them that, since both are, clearly, well developed and flexible actors. It would have been nice, though, if great actors who were also stellar singers and dancers had been given the parts. Hollywood should spend more time checking out stage musical actors. I'm not sure why such people weren't sought out for roles like this. I really like those old musicals, too, so I was ready to be wowed by this reinterpretation ... but I wasn't. I loved how Chazelle worked in the day-dream sequences, how he introduced them, what he did with them. The final one when Mia and her husband were watching Sebastian in his club was lovely. That's right out of "An American in Paris", including the use of the road. He must have a thing for that movie. In fact, I'm surprised he didn't attempt to resurrect Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. To be fair, there was stuff from "Singin' in the Rain", too, specifically Gene Kelly's work. And, the dancing on stars and clouds? Ginger Rodgers and Fred Astaire.
Initial impressions of the story: Sad, sometimes sober, sometimes delightfully silly, sweet, sweet, sweet. The music? Aside from the "The Fools Who Dream", which I loved, okay. Definitely enjoyable. The production was made for the big screen, rather than the home screen, I think. My TV screen sometimes had trouble with the spotlighting techniques used. It seemed to me that there were places where the movie story went flat, but it never stayed that way and I'm willing to concede, upon a second viewing, that it may have just been me.
One more tiny, tiny thing about the movie: The end disappointed me. I don't usually have problems with movies in which initial relationships wither and evolve into others, like the branches of a tree. For some reason, though, and I'll have to reconfirm this with a second watching, Chazelle did not prep his audience well for it in this movie. It was, frankly, an unpleasant denouement to see Mia with a throw-away husband and kid, even as she was a famous actor. And the suggestion that Sebastian was alone in his personal life. Yes, I know, I saw the two something-or-others he was frying up in the pan before going to his nightclub, but, where was his throw-away wife and kid? Better yet, there never was a really good explanation for why Mia and Sebastian weren't married to each other with a kidlet, and an international acting career, and a successful night club. Not good story construction. Chazelle needs to work on crafting realistic, believable and successful love relationships.
Update 11/18/21: By the way, each mention of the name of this movie in this write-up is linked to a different review (including the last link, which is the Wikipedia write-up). This is such a famous movie and so many people are familiar with it, I thought it would be fun to scatter the availability of internet reviews throughout this write-up. I know, my sense of fun doesn't have much to recommend it, but it's mine and I enjoy it.
Update 6/4/22: Yet another movie made during the year I was born!
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Gene Kelly Jerry Mulligan Leslie Caron Lise Bouvier Oscar Levant Adam Cook Georges Guétary Henri Baurel Nina Foch Milo Roberts Eugene Borden Georges Mattieu John Eldredge Jack Jansen Anna Q. Nilsson Kay Jansen
An American in Paris [Wikipedia write-up attached] is breathtaking. I'm glad I own it.
Release Date: 1951
Directed by Vincente Minnelli.
Labels: birth-year, dance, dream1, fantasy1, film-art1, mom-favorite1, musical1, popcorn-and-soda2, romance1, spectacle1
