What am I missing: musicals/Singing in the Rain - can see the physical mastery of Gene KELLY but?!1

[UTUSN]

Have never seen any large portion of it, only clips of the splashing sequence which is fine.

Have heard lots of how Debbie R. was a kid scared to death, curled up under piano, maestro Gene working to the bone.

Have heard about the mastery of Gene KELLY, and in the Gotta Dance number, just saw truly fantastic PHYSICAL stuff, the woman with him and the long scarf entwining the two of them, incredible.

The song "With You, would you"

But I'm missing something, hope that aficionados in Lounge will knock me silly to spell it out for me, the question being, what is so great about this beyond the physical acrobatics? I'm asking sincerely.

Beyond this, is Gene KELLY *under*rated as one of the all time greats? He seems to be tops. I'll look up where he ranks in AFI and stuff.

[Aristus]

1. See it all the way through, and let us know what you think then.

You may not like any more than you do already, or understand what makes it such a great film. And that's fine. Tastes in film differ, and that's the way it's supposed to be. But see the whole thing all the way through without interruption. Maybe you will see what all the shouting is about.

I'll just leave this here so you can look for it: "OH! pierre. you SHOUDN'T have COME!"

[brush]

2. The fantastic physical stuff was what made it great. IMO Kelly was tops in his muscular brand of

dancing. Astaire was tops in his graceful, silky smooth style of dancing.

[UTUSN]

3. Tina FEY just said Gene was "a MASSIVE star"

[Docreed2003]

4. It's a must see from start to finish, and yes, I personally believe Kelly was underrated

A tidbit about the "Singin' in the Rain" scene...Kelly had the flu and a temperature of over a hundred, their production demands were extremely tight and it was feared he number might be cut or changed if they didn't film it as planned that day. Also, to get that glistening look to the water, milk was added to the "rain". It essentially ruined all of the costumes from rotten milk!

[msongs]

5. catchy tunes, romantic story with history of the movie biz, great dance moves

and wonderful actors. no profanity. no cheap sex. no gratuitous violence none really, no autotune, live musicians recorded the music, no fake computer graphics. two hours of entertainment for a few bucks then

[UTUSN]

6. Steve MARTIN, 1985 AFI, "Nobody closer to Gene than me. I said, 'Leave the lampost.' "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=93&v=vVk1WDPF5QA

[Binkie The Clown]

7. The experience speaks for itself.

Watch it. Let yourself be immersed in it, and you won't have to ask that question.

For one thing, it was one of the very few playful, fun-loving musicals that didn't take itself too seriously.

[Stuart G]

8. There is something else that few people notice about this film..It moves, it doesn't stand still..

it is easy to watch, and is exceptional in timing. The film is very enjoyable, that it is over so quickly we don't even notice how smoothly the film proceeds from one act to another..It is a joy to watch and a wonderful movie experience...

[UTUSN]

9. AFI: 1985 Gene, "It's all collaboration...nobody knows the names" - 1981 Fred

[Shrike47]

10. As a younger, movie watching person, my favorite was Donald O'Conner.

[UTUSN]

11. Striking, what "names" used to be, carried such gold weight. Here Gene #15 top star

paired with Mae WEST. Fred #5 paired with GARBO. Yeah, superficiality is my middle name to go by rankings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Stars

[sarge43]

15. Yup. O'Conner was amazing.

The "Make 'Em Laugh" scene was done in one shot. It was a loving perfect tribute to the silent era comedies and comedians. He out Chaplin Chaplin.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

12. I think my uncle wanted to be him...

Broadway dancer; directed several movies with people you might have heard of and was in on the start of the DGA. Turned down Sinatra for Paramount but laughed about it over beers later as they worked with him on Manchurian Candidate. If he respected him you can bet he had major talent. Give ON THE TOWN a watch and see.

[UTUSN]

13. Gawsh, just Gene's Wiki page is exhausting. What? he directed STREISAND in Hello Dolly?!1

And he comes across as a wonderfully decent human: Deeply Democratic, stood up against the McCARTHY period, stood up for his wife who was accused of being a Commie, threatened to pull out of a big movie if they didn't reinstate her in hers, broke away from the Catholic Church for not doing enough for the poor in Mexico.

Wow, what a human. I remember some news from his last years that there had been a house fire and his memorabilia was lost.

[NewJeffCT]

14. It was a different era back then

what Kelly did was groundbreaking for its day. While some of the physical stuff may be almost routine these days, it was not so back in day.

[UTUSN]

16. You zeroed-in on my problems:

* "It was a different era..." -

I have trouble relating to the yap-happy antics. Or, whatever melodramatic antics, happy or maudlin.

* "the physical stuff" -

It's like the split between movies that are all special effects/explosions and the ones that are introverted. I have little attraction to that physical stuff, despite its being technically amazing. For me to put myself into an appreciative mode I need to peer at the physical stuff the way one would at the biology of a cell through a microscope. All separate from the narrative.


This gets to whether a PIECE (whatever art) is to be taken on its own terms or by some other rule of value: Like, Lord Chesterfield's saying, "What's too silly to be SAID is SUNG." So, in terms of a narrative, the plot and characters might be irrelevantly silly, so long as opportunities for displaying talents abound.

And HITCHCOCK's concept of the MacGuffin - the thing that propels the characters to chase it throughout the narrative, the excuse, while separately THINGS HAPPEN showcasing talents and technical stuff. It doesn't matter what the MacGuffin is: Somebody killed the hero's relative so he chases the somebody; There's a rare artifact everybody wants (and chases); There's some mystery at the bottom of odd circumstances so nobody rests till we all find out what.

So, is Singing in the Rain in the category of being appreciated for the physical special effects, not for plot/introversion? In which case I probably will not really ever seek it out in its entirety just to be mouth-agape for 90 minutes.

[sarge43]

17. Some thoughts on what is so great, IMO

1. It's a quite accurate portrayal of what went on in Hollywood during the transition to sound - the technical difficulties, the panic, careers made and ruined.

2. Kelly's insistence on dance telling a story, the love ethereal and earthy ballet in the Broadway Melody scene.

3. All the fun it had with different entertainments, Kelly's character starting in burlesque through vaudeville to the Ziegfeld Follies. The Beautiful Girl scene, how the first movie musicals looked and sounded.

4. Jean Hagen. Without Lina Lamont, it would have been an entertaining musical, pretty, fun, a lot of talent and probably only slightly remembered now, except maybe for Kelly's rain dance. She gave it the drama with comedy. Nearly 70 years later, "I am a shimmering stah in the cinahmatick fur mah mint!" still cracks me up.

[UTUSN]

18. Thank you sincerely for what is clearly a deeply felt appreciation for this work. And

I hope that my remarks aren't disparaging. Really, nobody who knows better in appreciating this movie will be affected by my deficiencies in being informed.

[sarge43]

19. You're welcome.

You weren't disparaging. We all have different tastes, different anticipations about entertainment and art. Having honest and civil disagreements allows for another way to look at a particular work.

I'll put it this way about it. Even if there hadn't been the singing and dancing, it still would have been an interesting story. IMHO.

[Paladin]

20. Comprehensive (and hilarious) look at Hollywood's move from silent to talking pictures.

Pleasant songs, decent acting, and spectacular dance numbers. What's not to like?

[lunatica]

21. If you get into the audiences of the time

and know the history of American Cinema and country it stands out as a remarkable movie. It was 1952. The post WWII explosion of all things, including nuclear tests was happening. The US was a newly birthed Super Power with all the possibilities that was bringing. The middle class was in full rising swing. The country felt young and vibrant and people were getting opportunities they never had before and the Baby Boom was in full bloom. It was a feel good movie that also happened to be highly artistically talented. Fun times were here, and being an American felt good. The middle class had taken root and it was a never before in history fenomenon. We were on top of the world. The United Nations was being built. The year of the first Heart Transplant.

The future was a wide open road leading into a dazzling future.

[UTUSN]

22. Yip, a history of a previous period, good for buffs.

Odd, but I can really get into some very specific eras and specialized topics. For example, there's this film "Topsy Turvy" that is about GILBERT and SULLIVAN staging their theater, herding the actors and production, problems with divas on (cocaine?), with inserts of the stage performances - talk about history of a "period" and talk about performing separate from plot!

Iow, Singing is about the period of historical transition in movies and the dancing acrobatics are their own thing. And Topsy is about the period of G&S producing brilliant stuff despite obstacles and the Japanese singing and costumes are their own thing. And BOTH showcase magnificent PERFORMANCES, both on the surface and play-within-play.

So, superficial me, but I find the Japanese inserts in Topsy to be charming, while I am turned off by the American culture in Singing. And the quality of the performances can't overcome any interest in whatever the period is.

[lunatica]

23. Well the fact you've gotten so many responses shows there's a definite appreciation

of the times and a lot of historic interest. I don't think you're being superficial at all. You're critiquing a movie, not disparaging it. Superficiality is definitely an innately American thing. As a culture we love the dazzle, and we love our many gods. Splashy is great!

You introduced a very interesting topic. Perhaps the lack of some kind of specific depth leaves the experience wanting. Though I truly appreciate physicality at it's finest and in it's highest development a thing of beauty all by itself. Gene Kelly's dancing is so unique and so good that I don't much care if the movie lacks something otherwise. It always struck me that his dancing was very male and romantic on top of being technically perfect. He was unique, as was Fred Astaire in his different way. I find it gratifying and fulfilling to watch people excel at something they do so differently from others.

[WinkyDink]

24. Like a joke, if it's gotta be explained,.................. IOW: To each his own.