Skip to main content

Back home everyone said I didn't have any talent. They might be saying the same thing over here but it sounds better in French.


An American in Paris
(1951)

Vincente Minnelli’s musical won the Best Picture Oscar in 1952 but you’d be hard-pressed to explain just what made the film so deserving. Likely, it was a response to the ever-expanding artistic aspirations of star Gene Kelly, resulting in an extended 17-minute dance sequence at the climax.

Of which, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Minnelli was channelling Michael Powell (except without the visual precision or narrative grasp); fittingly, Kelly screened The Red Shoes to MGM to convince them to make the film. The final sequence is by some distance the most impressive one here, but it is all spectacle and insufficient content. Elsewhere, the moves are as accomplished as you’d expect from Kelly, but the complete routines aren't nearly as winning. And while the Gershwin songs are generally agreeable, they are not, aside from the title song, the most memorable work of George and Ira.

Kelly plays Jerry Mulligan, a WWII veteran settled in Paris as an unsuccessful but typically-cheerful-Kelly-type artist. His associates include Adam, a concert pianist (Oscar Levant), and Henri, a successful singer (Georges Guetary). Fortunes change when he meets wealthy heiress Milo (Nina Foch) who assumes his patronage but has amorous intentions in mind. Jerry, however, is smitten with young French girl Lise (Leslie Caron) whom, unbeknownst to him, Henri is romancing.

So it’s a solid enough set-up, but one that rarely comes alive. The sound stage version of Paris is impressive but claustrophobic (Kelly wanted to film on location). There’s too much cutesy business with Kelly goofing off in front of annoyingly American-French kids. Crucially, there is zero chemistry between Kelly and Caron. In fact, the latter makes little impression at all aside from her teeth. Lise is insipid and bland, and if it weren’t for her dance skills you’d be clueless as to why Caron got the role (Cyd Charisse was cast but dropped out due to pregnancy). There’s something entirely unconvincing about the way  Jerry is instantly smitten and, further, this is made slightly unsettling by the Kelly clearly being twice as old as Caron.

The result is an unbalanced film. You don’t believe in the love story, so the supporting plot threads have to do the trick. Levant is amusing in the best buddy role; he gets much of the smarter dialogue and, in particular, has an amusing “performance” dream where he plays every part on stage and also makes up the entire audience.

Crucially, in terms of the film's greater failure, the performers who spark off each other are the ones destined to remain apart. Jerry is essentially manoeuvred into the position of Milo’s gigolo (the film is far too demure to ever say this explicitly), and we’re clearly not supposed to care about this rich, privileged gal too much; the last we see of her, rejected, is exiting stage right to look for champagne. But Foch (by far the most talented actor in the cast and, though 12 years younger than him, every bit Kelly’s equal) makes her so sympathetic and likeable that you end up concluding that Jerry’s an idiot to ignore someone so alluringly feisty and who is loaded (there are a number of films where the leading man wanders off with the least interesting woman in the cast; at the front of the pack are a couple of Andie McDowell starrers, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Green Card).

If An American in Paris can’t live up to the hype of being showered with Oscars, that’s nothing new. It does remain a strong indication of the direction Kelly (who directed some of the scenes here) was heading in; the following year’s Singin’ in the Rain would prove artistically and commercially satisfying and more than justify it’s reputation over the passing years.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.