Skip to main content

Good heavens, we've completely forgotten it's Christmas!

Meet Me in St. Louis 
(1944)

(SPOILERS) Seasonal fare, in as much as it covers all four of them. Meet Me in St. Louis isn’t the kind of musical designed to win the attention of those, such as myself, already reticent of the genre. Scant of plot, it very loosely follows the dramas – if you can call them that – of the Smith family over the year leading to the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition World’s Fair. I dare say I may have seen the movie before, as a nipper; certainly, many of the songs are familiar, which always helps when a musical otherwise fails to transport one. And then, there are the fringe peculiarities. Can one say mudflood?

Vincent Minnelli’s third feature in a thirty-year career, one where the musicals became most indelible, was based on Sally Benson’s 1942 novel of the same name (itself arising from a series of her New Yorker pieces). The trials of the affluent aren’t really the stuff of greatness, but audiences lapped Meet Me in St. Louis up in its year of release (it came in second only to the also-very-“nice” Going My Way), and it undoubtedly remains something of a favourite. And a Christmas favourite at that.

The Smiths were based on Benson’s own family, and she provided advice to Minnelli, who was exacting in getting her world right. Aonzo (Leon Ames) and Anna (Mary Astor) have four daughters: Rose (Lucille Bremer), Esther (Judy Garland), Agnes (Joan Carroll), and Tootie (Margaret O’Brien). Obviously, the lion’s share of the plot and numbers are devoted to Esther, but there’s a surprising amount of kids’ malarkey revolving around then all-the-rage child star O’Brien. At least as significant a character, minus the romantic entanglements and heartache and replaced with a lot of yelling, she’s a monstrous riot-running infant given to extreme preciousness and an apparently infinite leash. 

Esther is keen on boy-next-door John Truett (Tom Drake), their hit-and-miss flirtation/ courtship culminating in a Christmas Eve ball where she’s accompanied by grandad (Harry Davenport). And then, of course, sings Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas to the uber-brat. The message for whom seems to be that, if you play up, you’re sure to get your own way (her tantrum causes dad to reconsider the planned move to New York, since St Louis is obviously the business).

Tootie: He tried to kill me, and when I screamed, he ran away.

It’s all very (Techni-) colourful of course, boasting the sort of period look you’ll only find in musicals (be it Mary Poppins or Hello, Dolly!) And credit where it’s due, Garland is in tremendous voice. The most striking part for me, though, is what Richard Schickel referred to as its “dreamy, occasionally surreal, darkness”.

Much of this is at the behest of, or involving, nightmare child Tootie, who goes around delivering weird drunk impressions and uttering ’orrible asseverations, as if reliving past traumas from a child’s-eye view (“She was murdered in a den of thieves, and I died of a broken heart. I’ve never even been buried because everyone’s scared to come near me”; “And I’m taking all my dolls, even the dead ones. I’m taking everything”; “… and Mr Braukoff was beating his wife with a red-hot poker…”; even her singing is freaky: “I was drunk last night, dear Mother, I was drunk the night before. But if you forgive me, Mother, I’ll never get drunk no more” (Sister Agnes isn’t much better: “I’ll stab you to death in your sleep, then I’ll tie your body to two wild horses until you’re pulled apart” Sheeeeesh!)

Johnny Tevis: The banshee will haunt you forever.

There’s also the false accusation against John (“He tried to kill me”), instantly believed even though it’s a bare-faced lie, and only remedied after John has received punitive measures. There’s the highly sinister Halloween episode, whereby the assembled youngsters gather round a bonfire in grotesque masks, as if attending some ghoulish witches’ sabbath as they send Tootie on her mission to “kill” Mr Braukoff (throw flour in his face). It would seem right at home in Kill List or Midsommar. Later, Tootie goes on a snowman destruction derby, as if smashing to pieces further spectres of the past.

Most curious of all is the final scene, taking place when Spring has sprung and everyone is gathered at the World’s Fair (the same year’s disastrous Olympics, also in St Louis, is conspicuously unmentioned). The smattering of World’s Fairs occurring during this time are – well, from the 1790s onwards – of course, very suspicious. Astonishingly crafted buildings shooting up for but a brief time, only to be summarily pulled back down again, showcases for an amazing run of inventions that would soon dry up. Were these expos legit, or were they a façade, a means of presenting a history that needed papering over and re-contextualising, while at the same time removing the worst – as in, most glaring – articles pointing to the ugly truth?

At the Fair, the brat – who else – comes running up to the assembled family and announces breathlessly, “Papa, we saw the Galveston Flood. Big waves came up and flooded the whole city, and when the water went back, it was all muddy and horrible and there were dead bodies”. Very much in keeping with the child’s grim bent, of course, but as Michelle Gibson notes, its positioning at this point in the picture is too uncanny to be ascribed to coincidence, or shrugging it off by reasoning “So what? The Galveston flood was only a couple of years earlier”. The salient point is, why here? At this cumulative stage? It’s essentially a declaration to anyone familiar with mudflood and the idea that these expos were merely reintroducing tech (and buildings) of an earlier, decimated or reset civilisation.

Anna: There’s never been anything like it in the whole world ever.
Tootie: Grandpa, they’ll never tear it down, will they?
Grandpa: Well, they better not.
Esther: I can’t believe it. Right here. Where we live. Right here in St Louis.

Naturally, there’s the official reinforcing narrative accompanying this. Yet it only serves to underline the strangeness. Esther says to John, echoing a deleted scene in which they visited the fairgrounds under construction “I liked it better when it was a swamp and just the two of us”. Grandad, meanwhile, waxes lyrical in benefit-of-hindsight fashion, about how “They better not” tear it all down.

So is the nostalgia fest that is Meet Me in St. Louis actually a clarion call to a lost civilisation. And is having a merry little Christmas, because it may be your last (per the original lyric), a reference to the majority of the population being obliterated by such a grubby flood (whether or not they even celebrated Christmas)? Don’t worry, we’ll mudfloodle through somehow. So have yourself a merry little Christmas now.





Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.