TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[Charlie Baker]

Yep, I don't think Kelly is going to do it for you, aradia22.  I'd say give It's Always Fair Weather a shot as I don't think it's gotten its due as being among his best work, but his character in that probably wouldn't change your mind.

 

Astaire and Kelly may not be the equivalent of apples and oranges, but they are quite different from each other, and I love them both.  And both are best when they dance.  Though Astaire never got enough credit for his singing, IMO.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Charlie Baker

[Rinaldo]

I sure agree on that last point, Charlie Baker -- on all your points actually.

 

If we're discussing personal reactions to Gene Kelly, mine vary from movie to movie. I enjoy him (and Rita Hayworth) thoroughly in Cover Girl. Everything about Singin' in the Rain is fun (except "Moses Supposes"), him included. I don't like An American in Paris (what in the world did Nina Foch do to get treated so abominably by everyone?), but it contains my favorite 5 minutes of Gene Kelly: performing "I Got Rhythm" with the French kids. Somehow they redirect his energy so it's not all about him. And It's Always Fair Weather is certainly different and intriguing (like a bitter sequel to On the Town), but it starts feeding into the side of him that puts me off, what with the song about liking himself. I hate On the Town as a movie, because of jettisoning almost all the Bernstein songs and replacing them, so I can't enjoy anyone in it. And after that, it's a matter of finding a moment here or there that works. I'm fundamentally an Astaire person too, I guess.

[Julia]

I wonder if maybe people have an image of Gene Kelly with a goofy grin stomping in puddles, and maybe expect him to be that sunny guy, which I don't think is what he plays. I tend to see his characters as often as not as the pissed off working class guy who has issues with authority and/or massive class issues, and very cynical. Which I can see being offputting, but I kind of like that about him.

[Charlie Baker]

Good points, Julia.  And hey, he played Pal Joey on stage, didn't he?

[jah1986]

There's no denying his dance ability but Gene Kelly always comes off so smug, for lack of a better word, and it's just off-putting. That said I do really like Summer Stock.  

 

I always thought he was a more athletic dancer where Fred Astaire (a favorite of mine) seems more graceful and fluid, if that makes sense.

 

I've never seen An American In Paris (ducks) maybe I'll give it a try.

[Julia]

If you liked Summer Stock, maybe try For Me and My Gal. His character is cocky, but it's meant to be a flaw, and he and Judy Garland are magical together.

[Milburn Stone]

If you liked Summer Stock, maybe try For Me and My Gal. His character is cocky, but it's meant to be a flaw...

 

That's what I don't get about the people who don't get Gene Kelly. The cocky/smug thing is part of his shtick. We're meant to dislike him a bit for it, or find him a bit foolish because of it--so that we can like him all the more when he's brought low and redeemed. 

 

I'm not saying the actual man didn't have an ego--I'm sure he did--but he quite purposefully and skillfully put it in the service of his screen persona.

[Rinaldo]

The cocky/smug thing is part of his shtick. We're meant to dislike him a bit for it, or find him a bit foolish because of it--so that we can like him all the more when he's brought low and redeemed. 

That's a generous reading, but at best I find that scenario played out in two or three of the Kelly pictures I've seen (I haven't seen every one, I admit). In An American in Paris it's others who have to be brought low (quite undeservedly, in my opinion, but I've sung that song before) so he can triumph. Nor do I find it part of the story in Singin' in the Rain. Cocky and smug may be a plot element in some other cases, but it's also what he can't avoid projecting (I'm not talking about his offscreen life, about which I don't care -- I mean, how he comes across as a performer).

Edited January 18, 2015 by Rinaldo

[jah1986]

If you liked Summer Stock, maybe try For Me and My Gal. His character is cocky, but it's meant to be a flaw, and he and Judy Garland are magical together.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try to find that one instead.

[Rinaldo]

I will agree that he and Judy Garland make an excellent partnership (much better than her with Fred). Their voices and dance styles work well together.

[Athena]

I wonder if maybe people have an image of Gene Kelly with a goofy grin stomping in puddles, and maybe expect him to be that sunny guy, which I don't think is what he plays. I tend to see his characters as often as not as the pissed off working class guy who has issues with authority and/or massive class issues, and very cynical. Which I can see being offputting, but I kind of like that about him.

 

Good point except he is often put in the role of romantic leading man, and I agree with aradia22 that he doesn't seem to have much chemistry with his ladies and the smugness comes through. It's not easy to root for him for some reason in this cases. I am only talking about the way he plays his characters; I don't really have an opinion on Gene Kelly as a smug person really.

 

There's no denying his dance ability but Gene Kelly always comes off so smug, for lack of a better word, and it's just off-putting. That said I do really like Summer Stock.  

 

I always thought he was a more athletic dancer where Fred Astaire (a favorite of mine) seems more graceful and fluid, if that makes sense.

 

I've never seen An American In Paris (ducks) maybe I'll give it a try.

 

I don't remember which famous dancer said it, but she made an excellent point that a lot of Kelly's dancing was lower body work and much more athletic while Astaire had that nimbleness worked throughout his numbers. This dancer found Kelly much "sexier" as a result and definitely on his side of the spectrum. Kelly's style is most evident in An American... which I love the soundtrack and music, but as a movie, tedious.

 

That's a generous reading, but at best I find that scenario played out in two or three of the Kelly pictures I've seen (I haven't seen every one, I admit). In An American in Paris it's others who have to be brought low (quite undeservedly, in my opinion, but I've sung that song before) so he can triumph. Nor do I find it part of the story in Singin' in the Rain. Cocky and smug may be a plot element in some other cases, but it's also what he can't avoid projecting (I'm not talking about his offscreen life, about which I don't care -- I mean, how he comes across as a performer).

 

Yes, that's how I feel about him too on screen. Another Kelly film that I remember him in was High Society which was the musical remake to The Philadelphia Story. Frank Sinatra did the best of what he had though. Gene Kelly and Grace Kelly also didn't have a ton of chemistry.

 

I do agree Judy Garland and him did, but I think Judy had chemistry with most of her leading men even when she wasn't at her best. She had such a passionate acting style that meant she generated chemistry with most of her costars I feel.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Never mind, ispansy beat me to it. 

Edited January 19, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[Athena]

Gene Kelley isn't in High Society, that's Bing Crosby.

 

Yeah, I realized this after I posted. Man, that movie was so bland that I even forgot the leading man.

 

I feel the same way about Bing that I do about Gene though, except Bing is even blander for me.

[Rinaldo]

I think Judy had chemistry with most of her leading men even when she wasn't at her best. She had such a passionate acting style that meant she generated chemistry with most of her costars I feel.

As I hinted above, I don't think the pairing of her with Fred Astaire worked out well (I know it was accidental -- Fred coming out of "retirement" when Gene was injured). Astaire was always a "classicist" in his performing: his acting and singing were a bit dry and detached without obvious emoting (emotion would peek through under the surface), and his dancing (I said this in the musicals thread, I think) was classical in that way too: the effect comes from the shaping and structure of the dance moves themselves, rather than from any emoting superimposed on it. (This is why the partnership with Ginger Rogers worked out so well -- she understood, or was coached to understand, dance expression in the same almost abstract way.) By contrast, as you said, Judy was all about putting her emotions out there, so she paired better with others who worked that same way.

[Julia]

I think, though, it served Easter Parade, where he had to learn to compromise his clinical approach to dance to accommodate her more expressive way of performing.

[Athena]

As I hinted above, I don't think the pairing of her with Fred Astaire worked out well (I know it was accidental -- Fred coming out of "retirement" when Gene was injured). Astaire was always a "classicist" in his performing: his acting and singing were a bit dry and detached without obvious emoting (emotion would peek through under the surface), and his dancing (I said this in the musicals thread, I think) was classical in that way too: the effect comes from the shaping and structure of the dance moves themselves, rather than from any emoting superimposed on it.

 

 

I think, though, it served Easter Parade, where he had to learn to compromise his clinical approach to dance to accommodate her more expressive way of performing.

 

Yes, I'm not crazy about Easter Parade because of the pairing. I didn't think it was awful, but the writing and plot left a lot to be desired too. I think it's only been a classic because of the title and the leads. I don't think Judy and Fred were that well matched, but I did think it did serve the plot in some way. I don't watch the movie if I can help. Fred was still a super fit dancer by that age and I remember learning that when Gene reached his age, he found it very difficult to dance. Fred's style meant he was a lot less hard on his body in the longer term.

[Popples]

I love Easter Parade, but I always felt that Judy going off with Peter Lawford would have been a much better ending instead.

[Milburn Stone]

Nor do I find it part of the story in Singin' in the Rain. 

 

I'm kind of surprised you don't see it in SIngin', Rinaldo, because to me it's the quintessential example of my point. (I'm not sure I could find a better one in any Gene Kelly movie, although there are a lot of runners-up.) In the film's opening red-carpet montage, he starts by projecting himself as a Great Film Actor, and then immediately we discover in flashback that he's actually a low vaudevillian. Shortly after this, we get a comeuppance moment once again when it appears that ingenue Kathy Selden doesn't know who he is and couldn't be less impressed. (She's lying, but he doesn't know that.) Usually we have to wait until later in a Gene Kelly movie for that kind of redemption through humiliation to happen. And of course, he's not done being brought down a peg, when it seems his career is to be ruined by a combination of technology and Lina Lamont. The Don Lockwood at the end of the movie is a much more human-scaled mensch, one worthy of Kathy Selden's love, than the personification of Movie Star Ego we meet at the beginning.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Rinaldo]

I did recall the first bits but thought of them as preludes to the real story -- Don's self-promotion and Kathy's obliviousness all happen pretty early, as you say, before the full plot gets going. And the complications posed by technology and Lina in the main story really don't have anything to do with character flaws on his part.

[Julia]

Just, I so enjoy this topic.  

[prican58]

Those of you in the NYC metro area who do not have TCM for whatever reason, Cablevision has a channel I found called MOVIES! It's the local Fox channel 5's version of Antenna TV but with movies. Channel 113. Granted they are not uncut but they do show a wide range of classic era films. Tonight happens to have a John Wayne theme with Dark Command on now.  I love young Wayne. Roy Rogers (damn he was cute), Walter Pidgeon, Claire Trevor are in it.  If you know what you're getting you can deal with any editing.  

 

http://moviestvnetwork.com/

Edited January 20, 2015 by prican58

[Cobb Salad]

Comcast carries MOVIES! too on channel 243 here in central NJ. I've enjoyed some of what they've shown from time to time however it's easy to overlook given its channel placement.

[voiceover]

I never minded Redford's hair (per Ben on The Way We Were)...it was Streisand's nails that bugged me.

 

Some of that movie doesn't bear close examination, but I still love it, and DAMN! those two had Teh Chem.

[aradia22]

 

I never minded Redford's hair (per Ben on The Way We Were)...it was Streisand's nails that bugged me.

As someone who likes nails and beauty, I thought they were fabulous but rather distracting. Especially given that her character isn't really a glamour girl.

[Rinaldo]

I'll definitely speak up for The Way We Were. Here and in The Turning Point, Arthur Laurents had inspired dramatic premises, that he perhaps was not really a great enough writer to give the realization they deserved.

 

In the case of TWWW, it's that people of opposite temperaments can be drawn together ("opposites attract" isn't a myth) precisely because each finds the partner supplying the element they lack themselves. But such pairings are apt to be unstable -- in the long run, what they like about each other is exactly what drives them crazy. She envied his ease and assurance, he liked her commitment and passion. And then it drove her nuts that he didn't care about what she thought he should, and he wished she wouldn't make a big political point out of everything. (Unfortunately the producers cut the scene where they actually talk about why they have to split up.)

 

And they certainly had the alltime perfect pair of movie stars to embody those opposite temperaments. Ideal casting seldom happens like that.

[aradia22]

Weirdly, I found this bit of news while scouring Broadway.com for the theatre board on Trashtalktv.

 

Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer will reunite at the sixth annual TCM Classic Film Festival, which will hold a 50th anniversary gala screening of The Sound of Music on March 26 in Hollywood.

[Milburn Stone]

In the case of TWWW, it's that people of opposite temperaments can be drawn together ("opposites attract" isn't a myth) precisely because each finds the partner supplying the element they lack themselves. But such pairings are apt to be unstable -- in the long run, what they like about each other is exactly what drives them crazy. She envied his ease and assurance, he liked her commitment and passion. And then it drove her nuts that he didn't care about what she thought he should, and he wished she wouldn't make a big political point out of everything. (Unfortunately the producers cut the scene where they actually talk about why they have to split up.)

 

And they certainly had the alltime perfect pair of movie stars to embody those opposite temperaments. Ideal casting seldom happens like that.

 

I love your analysis, Rinaldo, and I think you're right on. The only place we part company is I think a scene where they actually talk about why they have to split up would have been redundant, and the decision to cut it was the correct one. (I never knew there was such a scene, and am interested to learn that from you.) The inevitability of their dynamic--attraction and tragic conclusion--was certainly there on an emotional level, and probably stronger for the audience by not being "explained."

 

I invariably cry during the final, accidental meet-up in front of The Plaza; as it stands, the movie assists me just enough so that I can come to an understanding of their tragedy on my own. I think I would cry less with more help.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Rinaldo]

Actually the cut scene was a mundane practical one, not emotional: it'll help him professionally in Hollywood if she's not in the picture, and she offers the divorce for that reason. As I recall, the scene as released brings us in at just the end of it. Laurents has written about the struggles getting what he wanted onscreen, and the scene is present in his novelization.

 

I guess I feel that the point toward which the whole story has been building shouldn't be skipped over. Still, you may be right: as I said at the start, Laurents had insightful story ideas but not always the skill to avoid soap-opera klunkiness in the line-to-line writing. I wonder what I'd think of the novel now, 40 years after I first read it.

[elle]

 

Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer will reunite at the sixth annual TCM Classic Film Festival, which will hold a 50th anniversary gala screening of The Sound of Music on March 26 in Hollywood.

I keep telling myself that "one day!" I will go to that festival.  Sigh.

 

Singing in the Rain is on.  One of the many movies I have memorized, but can't resist watching all over again.  The costumes, Rita Moreno's small role, Kathy Selden's rebuff of Don Lockwood.  "Here we are Camden and Sunset"  Love it.

 

Thanks to TCM, I have the mixed pleasure of hearing many of the songs in this movie sung in movies made at the time this one is set.  It is a little off balancing to hear Singing in the Rain not sung by Gene Kelly.

Edited January 23, 2015 by elle

[Julia]

My daughter and I have to recite the round tones conversation along with the people onscreen. I have no distance from that movie. 

[chitowngirl]

Sigh. It's really just the most perfect movie musical.

 

I love that Kathy Selden is supposed to be singing for Lena Lamont and it's really Jean Hagen singing for Debbie Reynolds.

 

My mother and I have debated this off and on for years-When Gene Kelly is singing "Gotta Dance", does he mean he HAS a dance(as in a new dance to show off) or does he HAVE TO dance (meaning he has to dance because it's inside him).  

 

And Cyd Cyrisse-those legs!

Edited January 23, 2015 by chitowngirl

[Rinaldo]

... if only it weren't for "Moses Supposes." (I feel like I should object to the ridiculousness of the whole "Broadway Melody/Rhythm" business, but really, who cares? -- it's too much fun to fuss about.)

 

One of the best things about the deluxe DVD of the movie (which I own) is the bonus tracks of most of the songs as first performed in the movies they were written for. "Singin' in the Rain" itself is right there at the start in one of the earliest film musicals, warbled by Cliff Edwards (Ukulele Ike, a/k/a Jiminy Cricket) while showgirls stomp around him with little umbrellas. The "doot-de-doo-doo" countermelody that we all now associate with the song was invented by Roger Edens for Gene Kelly's rendition.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Rinaldo

[elle]

... if only it weren't for "Moses Supposes." (I feel like I should object to the ridiculousness of the whole "Broadway Melody/Rhythm" business, but really, who cares? -- it's too much fun to fuss about.)

 

One of the best things about the deluxe DVD of the movie (which I own) is the bonus tracks of most of the songs as first performed in the movies they were written for. "Singin' in the Rain" itself is right there at the start in one of the earliest film musicals, warbled by Cliff Edwards (Ukulele Ike, a/k/a Jiminy Cricket) while showgirls stomp around him with little umbrellas. The "doot-de-doo-doo" countermelody that we all now associate with the song was invented by Roger Edens for Gene Kelly's rendition.

Are you suggesting that you don't like the "Moses Supposes" dance scene?  'cause if so, mmv...  and you  would guess that it is my favorite part of the movie. ;0)  It also is the scene that really made me appreciate Donald O'Conner as the excellent dancer that he is.

 

Jimmy Durante also has a recording of "Singin' in the Rain"!  Does the DVD cover any of the other songs?  For example, "All I do is dream of you" was in the Joan Crawford movie "Sadie McKee".

[ratgirlagogo]

 

One of the best things about the deluxe DVD of the movie (which I own) is the bonus tracks of most of the songs as first performed in the movies they were written for. "Singin' in the Rain" itself is right there at the start in one of the earliest film musicals, warbled by Cliff Edwards (Ukulele Ike, a/k/a Jiminy Cricket) while showgirls stomp around him with little umbrellas

Also available on the soundtrack CD.  I much prefer the earlier versions of all these all these songs as performed in The Hollywood Revue of 1929 (as you say one of the earliest film musicals - one of the earliest sound films in fact) which I first saw at the old Theatre 80 St. Marks in NYC.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019993/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_15

 

I just prefer the whole 20s and 30s sound on every level - the arrangements, the instrumentation, the offhand vocals, the cynicism and playing to a rowdy  Runyonesque Broadway crowd that didn't exist after WW2.

 

I do really like Singin' in the Rain but as with so many postwar musicals I like the movie while kind of feeling indifferent about most of the musical numbers. 

Edited January 23, 2015 by ratgirlagogo

[Wiendish Fitch]

It's actually Betty Noyes singing for Debbie Reynolds, not Jean Hagen.

[Rinaldo]

Are you suggesting that you don't like the "Moses Supposes" dance scene?  

 

No, the dance is fine, it's the song itself -- the only one newly written for the movie. It's just lazy lyric writing for a snooty elocution teacher to propose an exercise with the word "toeses." Comden and Green are so revered (and seem to have been lovely people to know) that I feel lonely saying that they were slovenly lyricists; something irks me in the words of almost every song they wrote. (I'll concede that they contributed nice appropriate lyrics to a couple of classic ballads, like "Just in Time" and "Make Someone Happy.")

 

Does the DVD cover any of the other songs?  For example, "All I do is dream of you" was in the Joan Crawford movie "Sadie McKee".

Yes, as I indicated in my previous comment, it covers most of the songs used in the movie -- twelve excerpts total. There's that one, 2 from Going Hollywood, 2 from The Broadway Melody, 3 from Broadway Melody of 1936, and one each from Lord Byron of Broadway, Babes in Arms, Hollywood Revue of 1929, and San Francisco.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Rinaldo

[Julia]

Yes, as I indicated in my previous comment, it covers most of the songs used in the movie -- twelve excerpts total. There's that one, 2 from Going Hollywood, 2 from The Broadway Melody, 3 from Broadway Melody of 1936, and one each from Lord Byron of Broadway, Babes in Arms, Hollywood Revue of 1929, and San Francisco.

 

I have that DVD, and that feature's a lot of fun to watch. It sent me looking for the original movies, which (I'm trying to think of a kind way to put this) were definitely documents of their time. Particularly Going Hollywood. I could definitely see why Bing Crosby had to become a great big star on the radio before they let him be a leading man again.

[Crisopera]

Yes, Betty Noyes dubbed Debbie Reynolds' singing, but Jean Hagen dubbed her speaking voice in the scene where Reynolds dubs Hagen (the scene with "Till the sands of the desert grow cold...").  Gets a little convoluted...

[Julia]

Yes, Betty Noyes dubbed Debbie Reynolds' singing, but Jean Hagen dubbed her speaking voice in the scene where Reynolds dubs Hagen (the scene with "Till the sands of the desert grow cold...").  Gets a little convoluted...

 

"Our love will last til the stars turn cold" (or as Lina would have it, "Ah luv will laest til the stahws tern cowld." God, I love Lina).

[voiceover]

Confession: I've never made it all the way through Singin' in the Rain.   I love the title song, and him singing it, but other than that...

 

[voiceover hands in TCM pass and leaves quietly]

[chitowngirl]

But, but, but....how can that be?????

[Bastet]

I'm not sure I've ever seen more than a few minutes of it.  I'm not generally a fan of musicals; I can count on one hand the movie musicals I've seen and loved (Chicago, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and Love Me Tonight), could count those I've seen and either disliked or, more often, had very little reaction to on both hands, and then there's the lengthy list of those I've never cared to watch.  It's just hard for me to get past people randomly bursting into song, and dance numbers generally bore me, so ... yeah, not my thing.

 

Now, it is on my list of films to watch some day to see how I feel about it since it's such a classic, but I have yet to be in the mood.

[Irlandesa]

The thing I like the most about Singin' In The Rain is that you can take out the songs and you still have a pretty solid comedy.  

 

Jean Hagen was terrific in it and I thought I knew a lot about the film but apparently not everything.  I never knew she dubbed Debbie dubbing Lina.

[Rinaldo]

This isn't a criticism, honest, just something that amuses me privately. The song "Singin' in the Rain" changes levels of reality in the course of the movie. When Gene Kelly does his famous rendition, he's singing it just because he's feeling exuberant and it's a musician -- it's expressing his thoughts. Yet at the end of the movie Kathy requests it as a song to sing for an audience, one the pit orchestra is ready to play; so it's now a sing that realistically exists in the world of the movie. (As we dried-up academics would say, it switches from non-diegetic to diegetic.) Actually several movie musicals have a moment of disjuncture like this. It doesn't bother me a bit, I just smile when I notice it.

[elle]

Confession: I've never made it all the way through Singin' in the Rain.   I love the title song, and him singing it, but other than that...

 

[voiceover hands in TCM pass and leaves quietly]

Now, now, you know we don't do that here.  Keep your pass and just look for the "not so fond of" table of your choice.  (in my case that would "Carole Lombard").

 

No, the dance is fine, it's the song itself -- the only one newly written for the movie. It's just lazy lyric writing for a snooty elocution teacher to propose an exercise with the word "tosses." Comden and Green are so revered (and seem to have been lovely people to know) that I feel lonely saying that they were slovenly lyricists; something irks me in the words of almost every song they wrote. (I'll concede that they contributed nice appropriate lyrics to a couple of classic ballads, like "Just in Time" and "Make Someone Happy.")

 

Yes, as I indicated in my previous comment, it covers most of the songs used in the movie -- twelve excerpts total. There's that one, 2 from Going Hollywood, 2 from The Broadway Melody, 3 from Broadway Melody of 1936, and one each from Lord Byron of Broadway, Babes in Arms, Hollywood Revue of 1929, and San Francisco.

As I said, mmv!   Thanks for the answer about the DVD extra.  The funny thing for me was that I was watching Sadie McKee and out of nowhere comes this song from Singin' in the Rain!  It was for me as if they just started singing "All that Jazz" from Chicago.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

the original movies, which (I'm trying to think of a kind way to put this) were definitely documents of their time. Particularly Going Hollywood. I could definitely see why Bing Crosby had to become a great big star on the radio before they let him be a leading man again.

Hey, Bing already WAS a big star on the radio.  I don't ever expect to have any plus-ones when I post things like this - but I truly prefer his more uncontrolled jazzy vocal style in this than in things like Holiday Inn and High Society.  I just like the sound of the 20s and 30s in pop music more than the 40s and 50s sound.  As I've said more than once here - I learn a lot from reading opinons I don't share and I always enjoy reading all the back and forth on musicals.

[Julia]

Hey, Bing already WAS a big star on the radio.  I don't ever expect to have any plus-ones when I post things like this - but I truly prefer his more uncontrolled jazzy vocal style in this than in things like Holiday Inn and High Society.  I just like the sound of the 20s and 30s in pop music more than the 40s and 50s sound.  As I've said more than once here - I learn a lot from reading opinions I don't share and I always enjoy reading all the back and forth on musicals.

 

Oh, no, he had a beautiful voice - there's a show from Fordham's public radio station which plays twenties music on Sunday nights, and even singing in the affected style of the twenties he was something special. It's just, baby Bing with eyeliner trying to smoulder romantically? There was one particularly heated glance at the camera which made me snort soda. A singer he was, and I'll grant him a comedian, and maybe even an actor (I thought he deserved Best Actor for Country Girl more than Grace Kelly deserved Best Actress). But a romantic leading man? I could never see it.

[Rinaldo]

(I just noticed that my upgraded system, which I'm still getting used to, kindly corrected something in my objection to "Moses Supposes" which made it nonsensical. The word I object to in the lyrics was not tosses but "toeses." Not to beat that topic into the ground, but I want my heretical opinion to at least make internal sense.)

 

As to different period styles in pop music: as a musician whose primary focus (and specialty in research) is orchestration, I enjoy the particular characteristics of each period -- I'm eagerly off to NYC in two weeks to see the Gershwins' show Lady, Be Good! (essentially unrelated to the later movie of similar title) at Encores!, and hearing the reconstructed 1925 arrangements will be a big part of the fun. I prefer not to have that sound updated.

 

But I must admit that the 1950s MGM orchestral magic can be hard to resist (Conrad Salinger and Alexander Courage among the chief contributors). And I take my hat off to Roger Edens: it's unheard of that an accompaniment figure becomes a beloved part of a song, to get remembered & hummed on its own (I can think of only one other example, in fact), but he did it with "Singin' in the Rain," and decades after the song was composed, at that.

[aradia22]

 

I'm not generally a fan of musicals; I can count on one hand the movie musicals I've seen and loved (Chicago, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and Love Me Tonight), could count those I've seen and either disliked or, more often, had very little reaction to on both hands, and then there's the lengthy list of those I've never cared to watch.  It's just hard for me to get past people randomly bursting into song, and dance numbers generally bore me, so ... yeah, not my thing.

Gasp! A witch! A witch! I can't even look at you right now. ;)

[Coffeecup]

I'm not sure I've ever seen more than a few minutes of it.  I'm not generally a fan of musicals; I can count on one hand the movie musicals I've seen and loved (Chicago, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and Love Me Tonight), could count those I've seen and either disliked or, more often, had very little reaction to on both hands, and then there's the lengthy list of those I've never cared to watch.  It's just hard for me to get past people randomly bursting into song, and dance numbers generally bore me, so ... yeah, not my thing.

 

Now, it is on my list of films to watch some day to see how I feel about it since it's such a classic, but I have yet to be in the mood.

Try the 1955 movie musical "Oklahoma."  Most of it is corny, but the dream sequence with the ballet is fantastic.  In the dream ballet, the heroine Laury falls asleep and has a nightmare. She's in her wedding dress, about to marry her true love Curly, when bad guy Jud (who lusts after her) appears, attacks Curly and kills him, and drags Laury off for his own dark purposes. Professional ballet dancers who resemble the actors perform the sequence, except for Rod Steiger, who appears as Jud. Surprisingly, Rod the non-dancer blended in beautifully with the dancers. The choreography was perfect, and very effective emotionally.

 

The cast of this movie: Shirley Jones as Laury (very young and very beautiful), Gordon MacRae as Curly, and Rod Steiger as Jud, with fine supporting actors including Gloria Grahame, Charlotte Greenwood, Eddie Albert and James Whitmore.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Coffeecup