Movie. Singin’ in the Rain, 1952. (HIx: 2)
The story takes place in the transition from silent movies to talkies. The prima donna has made her mark only because no one has ever heard her talk. But now, to be successful, the current movie (within the movie) needs to be upgraded to a talkie: but how can they, with the awful prima donna that can only deliver such bad diction? (Her accent is a cross between the pinched vowels of Missouri and Archie-Bunker-like twang, and her grammar is extreme hill-billy.)
Gene Kelly, the leading man in the movie-within-the-movie, meets wholesome Debbie Reynolds while trying to escape the prima donna.
Thus, this is boy-meets-girl-next-door and comes-to-like-her more-than glamour-girl, but with an edge. The girl next door is feisty, holds her own, and doesn’t worship the famous leading man just because he is a famous actor.
All the main characters are actors (that is: play-within-play actors), and this signals that the story is going to take itself too seriously, even while pretending to be self-effacing. Actors can not only dream about the worship they will receive whenever they make an appearance in real life, but they can make even their fantasy world do the same. “Lockwood [Gene Kelly] is a sensation” raves one of the movie-in-movie viewers — a particularly absurd sentiment, since Gene Kelly has a weak, Hoagy Carmichael-like voice. This is the curse of narcissism, and it seems as though Hollywood cannot escape that disease, try as it might. At the end of the day, the unremitting narcissistic tone can’t be shaken off, “look at us; aren’t we cute, we hollywood types. You plebieans are right to worship us… but notice that your gods also have feelings.” It delivers an hysterical Preston Sturges-like sarcasm of the rich, even while ratifying the legitimacy of that culture.
Not only is the scorn heaped upon the prima donna unfair (we can easily forget that the nasty disposition she is given has nothing to do with the offensive bad diction), but the heroine status granted to Reynolds is also unearned: she too is really just another Hollywood bimbette looking for a gig. We’re supposed to pity her at one point because her name will not be blazoned in big letters on the marquee. Poor baby!
Additional criticisms: the entertainment tangents tend to be decadent (Siegfeld follies etc.); and there is an excessive amount of extended kissing. It is clearly prurient and intentional.
Having said all that, the music is eminently listenable and well-done; I can recommend viewing this song and dance a couple times.
Ah, my favorite movie of all time.
I can’t tell if your criticisms are criticisms against the movie itself, or if you are simply pointing out the satire within the movie.
And Gene Kelly’s voice is weak? Not at all.
Comment by razzendahcuben — February 7, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
This is one of those movies that everybody seems to love, and I’ve watched and enjoyed it several times. After a few viewings, though, I began to notice the caricaturing of silent films and silent film actors. I noticed it more after I had seen many silent movies; the movie looks down silent films, which were made out to be quaint and corny, and silent actors were the butt of many jokes. The condescension bothered me.
‘Lina Lamont’ was too cartoonish to be remotely believable, with her exaggerated voice and accent.
Another irony I’ve noticed is that Debbie Reynolds’ supposedly superior voice is dubbed in for Lina Lamont’s, when in actuality,Jean Hagen (Lamont) is singing for Debbie on at least one song. (’I Would, Would You?’)
The music in the film is good, but the title song ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is a period song which made its debut back in the 20s.
Comment by Vanishing American — February 8, 2007 @ 1:42 am