CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Singin' In The Rain (1952)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Singin' In The Rain (1952)

post #1 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:00pm
Thread Starter 
Well...it's a classic isn't it.

An amazing, amazing fiilm and to be honest I feel like anything I have to say about the film is going to seem trite. I am however fascinated about what you guys think of the film, so I'll guess I'll embarass myself in trying to explain how much I love this movie.

I remember seeing the film for the first time when I was about eight. It's a film filled with great moments, but for me the sheer manic energy of 'Make 'em Laugh' is the thing that stuck with me. I just love how energetic, and weird, and madcap, and phyiscal the sequence is. It's a massively energetic film anyways, but that sequence (with Donald O'Connor literally running up the walls) just stuck with me.

The iconic sequence shouldn't have as much power as it does, just because of how much it's been homaged, referenced and parodied throughout the years. A bunch of directors have used that sequence as a key indicator of the power of cinema (the first that comes to mind is Leon watching it in The Professional/Leon). What's amazing is that despite that cultural cache the sequence still works for me. It's just electric.

What's great about the film is that aside from the dance numbers the film is massively funny (well to me anyways). Kelly is a massively physical presence (I'm not much of a fan of his but I love him in this film) but the banter he has with O'Connor, Hagen and Reynolds is fantastic. In particular the conversation he was with Hagen whilst their acting is just fantastically good fun.

Erm...not much left to say. Apologies for the mess of an introduction.
Reply
post #2 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:06pm
I saw it for the first time a few weeks ago. Blew me away. An incredibly sharp script and fantastic performances mixed with great dance and song number. I had no idea it was about a hollywood studio and film making, i loved it even more for that. I'm a sucker for Behind the scenes of hollywood films.
Reply
post #3 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:09pm
Yeah, Kelly just fucking owns in this. Then again, I like him in anything. There's Kong on the Empire State Building, Steamboat Willie, and Kelly singin' in the rain.
Reply
post #4 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:13pm
I had to watch this one multiple times in college, and I loved it each time. It's a genuine masterpiece and makes for an interesting double feature with 'All That Jazz'
Reply
post #5 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
The iconic sequence shouldn't have as much power as it does, just because of how much it's been homaged, referenced and parodied throughout the years. A bunch of directors have used that sequence as a key indicator of the power of cinema (the first that comes to mind is Leon watching it in The Professional/Leon). What's amazing is that despite that cultural cache the sequence still works for me. It's just electric.
It's kind of a trite thing to say but I really believe that if watching that scene doesn't make you happy you're probably a sociopath. It has to be the most convincing and contagious expression of pure joy in the history of cinema.
Reply
post #6 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:16pm
"She's so refined. I think I'll kill myself."

It's hard to come up with words, Spike, because every single part of this movie is perfect. From Millard Mitchell (of all the amazing jokes in this movie, Mitchell's "I can't picture it" after the elaborate "Gotta Dance" number is definitely my favorite) to Jean Hagen, every part of this movie is perfect. Even the throwaway performance of "All I Do Is Dream of You" is pure joy.

This is definitely the musical that got me into musicals. I grew up with a children's theater idea of musicals, so seeing Gene Kelly's acrobatic and inventive dancing on "Fit as a Fiddle" was a revelation to me. I always recommend this movie to action movie guys who aren't into musicals because the leap between Gene Kelly and Jackie Chan is a very small one.
Reply
post #7 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:17pm
Kelly walking away from Kathy's doorstep in the rain - diiiidn't get laaaaid, I diiiiidn't get laid...

Like Spike, I saw this at an early age. As a kid those mixed up voices in the [ı]Dueling Cavalier[/i] were just about the funniest shit ever - in fact I'd say it's one of the funniest classic Hollywood musicals straight up. Far too often that genre relies on these music hall stereotypes for its laughs, I love how Singin' In The Rain is full of biting satire and silly wordplay ("ok, you're a cab") and, hell yeah, SLAPSTICK, which considering its physicality should be a no brainer ingredient for musicals.
Reply
post #8 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:26pm
"If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes us feel as though our hard work ain't been in vain for nothin'." Never fails to kill me.
Reply
post #9 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:27pm
Not to mention that Cyd Charisse's scene with Gene Kelly is one of the biggest arguments against the musical being somehow effeminate. What a fucking entrance.
Reply
post #10 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:36pm
Hands down my favorite musical of all time, a perfect film. It says a lot that a tour de force number like "Moses Supposes," which would be the highlight of any other film, isn't even the best sequence.

"Dignity. Always dignity."
Reply
post #11 of 48
6/22/10 at 1:44pm
Gene Kelly no doubt rules in this but Donald O' Connor almost might just steal the movie. He's just always "on" and the faces he makes crack me up.

A perfect movie, through and through. It might be the perfect movie.
Reply
post #12 of 48
6/22/10 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Gene Kelly no doubt rules in this but Donald O' Connor almost might just steal the movie. He's just always "on" and the faces he makes crack me up.

A perfect movie, through and through. It might be the perfect movie.
Three things will get you kicked out of my house:

1) Holocaust denial
2) Insulting my family
3) Saying that "Make 'em Laugh" didn't make you smile.
Reply
post #13 of 48
6/22/10 at 4:40pm
Well, I guess I'm a sociopath. I can't stand this movie's syrupy, unchallenging sweetness.
Reply
post #14 of 48
6/22/10 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Mike View Post
Well, I guess I'm a sociopath. I can't stand this movie's syrupy, unchallenging sweetness.
You're not a sociopath, you just suck.

Why? It's not even that sweet. At it's heart, it's a satire of old Hollywood. What, do you want an unhappy ending or something? I don't get not loving this at all.
Reply
post #15 of 48
6/22/10 at 4:46pm
Maybe the technicolor burns his eyes. Either way, I'm marking your name down on my naughty list, Mr. Angelo.
Reply
post #16 of 48
6/22/10 at 4:48pm
Thread Starter 
I just don't get how you can see a character like Lina Lamont and say the film is syrupy or unchallenging. She's a fantastically loathable character and even though I've seen the film a dozen times and those final five minutes still are kind of tense.
Reply
post #17 of 48
6/22/10 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelo Mike View Post
Well, I guess I'm a sociopath. I can't stand this movie's syrupy, unchallenging sweetness.
You're a libertarian, aren't you?
Reply
post #18 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:08pm
I'm always amazed that Debbie Reynolds was only 19 when she made Singin'. I know I sure as hell wouldn't have been able to hold my own with Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor at that age.

I can never JUST watch Singin' In the Rain though. I usually have to pair it with Adam's Rib and either For Me and My Gal or The Pirate. The first to acknowledge Jean Hagen's greatness and the latter two to make Singin' In the Rain stand out even more.
Reply
post #19 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury318 View Post
I'm always amazed that Debbie Reynolds was only 19 when she made Singin'. I know I sure as hell wouldn't have been able to hold my own with Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor at that age.
Reminds me of her anecdote about the "Good Morning" sequence, and how by the end her dance shoes were filled with blood.
Reply
post #20 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
Reminds me of her anecdote about the "Good Morning" sequence, and how by the end her dance shoes were filled with blood.
I've never heard that one before. Sure she didn't steal that story from Ginger Rogers on the set of George Steven's Swing Time?
Reply
post #21 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:20pm
Considering they did about 40 takes of that sequence, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
Reply
post #22 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:20pm
Thread Starter 
There's also the story that Gene Kelly bullied Reynolds so much about her inability to dance that she went off to cry somewhere and was found by Fred Astaire, who taught her. I'm tempted to watch the documentaries on the 2 disc set, but I always find myself vaguely horrified by hardcore those productions were.
Reply
post #23 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:25pm
I've been in a bit of a slump lately, so I threw on Singin' In The Rain and for the entirety of that movies runtime I just felt great - it's cinematic prozac. There are very few films that can do that and make it seem effortless.

From talking to people who have never seen it, I've been given the impression that people think it's this inoffensive, dated piece of cheese. That couldn't be further from the truth - the film has a razor sharp sense of humour and the big jokes still land for me, each and every time, and it's got more energy on screen than a dozen Crank movies.

It's been said before but it really is a perfect movie, and still feels as fresh and vibrant as the first time I saw it.
Reply
post #24 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:25pm
One of my favorite movies ever made. There was a period in high school where I would watch this movie at least once a week. Obsessive, I know, but to me the movie is perfect, and it begs revisits often.

Kelly's dancing is my ideal. His graceful combination of ballet technique into tap is astounding, and it gives him a far more grounded presence than Fred Astaire. The fact he is so grounded and connected, yet still lighter than air is incredible.
Reply
post #25 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:29pm
Yeah, I always preferred Kelly over Astaire. Astaire always struck me as sort of wispy; Graceful, but minus Kelly's presence and athleticism.
Reply
post #26 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:32pm
One more for the Kelly camp here. Although Astaire was and continues to be one of the coolest people in movie history.
Reply
post #27 of 48
6/22/10 at 5:45pm
The first time I saw it, I was floored how genuinely sharp & hilarious it was. The dream sequence part of "Broadway Melody" is jaw-droppingly gorgeous too,
Reply
post #28 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury318 View Post
I can never JUST watch Singin' In the Rain though. I usually have to pair it with Adam's Rib and either For Me and My Gal or The Pirate.
Oh my God, The Pirate. What a wonderful movie. Judy Garland tearing that room apart is one of my all time favorite scenes in film.
Reply
post #29 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:22pm
I'm an Astaire man, precisely because of his fragility. Kelly was the immaculate perfectionist, all smiles. But Astaire has a more pronounced sexuality, where Kelly's dancing is rarely as sexualized. Kelly was always at his best dancing by himself.

Of course SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is a perfect movie, and I also love IT'S ALWAYS FAIR WEATHER, THE PIRATE, it's not like he made bad movies. It's just preference.
Reply
post #30 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:28pm
I don't think I have the same appreciation of dance as you, so Astaire's dancing always seemed less exciting to me, but you're absolutely right in that Kelly was always better by himself.

I think Astaire's fragility is an interesting point that I never even considered. First time I watched Easter Parade I was blown away by how melancholy it was and how complex some of the characters' relationships were. It's not something you could really imagine Kelly pulling off as well.

But on the other hand, Fred Astaire looks like Matthew Lillard and has a really odd skull.
Reply
post #31 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Not to mention that Cyd Charisse's scene with Gene Kelly is one of the biggest arguments against the musical being somehow effeminate. What a fucking entrance.
Fuck. Yes.
Reply
post #32 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
I'm an Astaire man, precisely because of his fragility. Kelly was the immaculate perfectionist, all smiles. But Astaire has a more pronounced sexuality, where Kelly's dancing is rarely as sexualized. Kelly was always at his best dancing by himself.

Of course SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is a perfect movie, and I also love IT'S ALWAYS FAIR WEATHER, THE PIRATE, it's not like he made bad movies. It's just preference.
I still think An American In Paris is the better movie but I watch The Pirate and Singin' in the Rain more often.
Reply
post #33 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:42pm
I tend to think of the Astaire-Rogers films as cinematic harlequin novels, in that the plots are vapid and rarely profound, but everyone understands the need for excuses to get people dancing. All of this is done with a great deal of charm, but everyone knows they're their for the bodice ripping. As such, Kelly can be said to make more interesting films. Astaire does have Easter Parade and The Band Wagon, but even his later films - like Daddy Long Legs (which is mostly terrible) or Silk Stockings are lighter fair in comparison to Kelly and his dive into films like An American in Paris. Astaire was always buoyant in his wounded features, Kelly was all American. Astaire makes me want to dance, Kelly makes me want to watch.
Reply
post #34 of 48
6/22/10 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
I'm an Astaire man, precisely because of his fragility. Kelly was the immaculate perfectionist, all smiles. But Astaire has a more pronounced sexuality, where Kelly's dancing is rarely as sexualized.
I dunno, man.. dat ass.

Reply
post #35 of 48
6/22/10 at 7:15pm
That's... obscene!!!
Reply
post #36 of 48
6/22/10 at 9:22pm
If anything, this thread has alerted me to THE PIRATE, which I didn't know about before and will be seeing asap. And that I should probably watch American in Paris again.

Of the big Hollywood musicals of the post-Golden Age, this is probably the best. This is one of those movies I'd kill to see on a big screen, one that hit me at just the right time as an impressonable teenage film-goer. I really love it so.

Not as good: THERE'S NO BUISNESS LIKE SHOW BUISNESS, but O'Connor has a fantastic, fantastic, fantastic dance sequence in that. There's also a massive mid-movie set-piece built around "Alexander's Ragtime Band" that will knock your socks off.
Reply
post #37 of 48
6/23/10 at 1:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Not to mention that Cyd Charisse's scene with Gene Kelly is one of the biggest arguments against the musical being somehow effeminate. What a fucking entrance.
The sequence is beautiful, but I always felt it stopped the movie dead. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie. As an audience member, you know they added it just to show off a big, pretty dance and costume number.
Reply
post #38 of 48
6/23/10 at 1:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShiftyEyes View Post
The sequence is beautiful, but I always felt it stopped the movie dead. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie. As an audience member, you know they added it just to show off a big, pretty dance and costume number.
...of course. That's exactly why it's there. It's a musical. If you don't like dance numbers, I suppose it would bother you, but that comes with the territory.
Reply
post #39 of 48
6/23/10 at 2:35am
I like that "The Duelling Rascal", the film we see at the beginning, is lushly produced and accompanied by a full orchestra-- it would have been easy to exaggerate the primitiveness of silent film, turn it into a joke. And the rest of the movie's history is pretty spot-on, too: it really was performers like Don (and Cathy), with stage experience, who benefited from the shift to sound.

The only technical bit I question is the boom mike in the "Beautiful Girls" number, right when the film is otherwise impressing us with the early difficulties of recording live audio. It's also one of the more expendable sequences, musically and narratively.
Reply
post #40 of 48
6/23/10 at 2:54am
This movie is just pure magic. There is nothing about it that doesn't work. You look at the dance sequences in the film and there are barely any cuts. Back then they knew people like Astaire and Kelly could dance and they just shot them. The amazing thing is it never feels static. It's kind of breathtaking.

You look at modern musicals today like CHICAGO and they rely on cutting to cover up the fact that most stars today just don't have it. It's a shame that we live in a world where we don't have one movie star that is known for their dancing skills. There will probably never be a time again where we have people such as Gene Kelly who are movie stars.
Reply
post #41 of 48
6/23/10 at 4:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Woods View Post
This movie is just pure magic. There is nothing about it that doesn't work. You look at the dance sequences in the film and there are barely any cuts. Back then they knew people like Astaire and Kelly could dance and they just shot them. The amazing thing is it never feels static. It's kind of breathtaking.

You look at modern musicals today like CHICAGO and they rely on cutting to cover up the fact that most stars today just don't have it.
Yes yes yes 1,000 times YES. I wrote this in my review for Fame 2009:

Filming a good musical sequence is much like filming a good action sequence: You must have an excellent sense of geography, and you must know the through-line of the action and where to focus at any given moment. Modern musicals rarely understand this. At the risk of sounding like Andy Rooney, the old ones did it better. There is grace to setting the camera on a wide shot of Gene Kelly and simply allowing him to dance. Watching it there is a certain energy that is magically captured on film. That energy is for the most part lost in today’s musicals. The geography and sense of purpose in the movement is replaced with quick jump cuts. The camera doesn’t know how to focus our attention on the vital movement, and it hardly ever allows a moment for breath where we can simply watch the dancers dance. In fact, the camera is dancing more than the actors are, with even less purpose! But a team with a good eye knows how to use the rapid succession of cuts in relation to the movement – its feel and its energy – much like good use of shaky-cam in an action film. Watch the end of All That Jazz and see how well Bob Fosse could do it. Rob Marshall succeeds in Cell Block Tango. Many imitators fall flat on their face. In the best dance piece in Fame 09 (the Fosse-esque piece) there is a fantastic lift that is performed. The camera follows the actress as she is being lifted and we see only her back and her quarter profile. We miss the stunning lift altogether as the camera swiftly follows the most boring thing we could have watched. It’s as if someone shot I Got Rhythm from An American in Paris solely on Kelly from the waist up. You’re missing the actual dancing! But nowadays musicals wrongfully equate frenetic camerawork with the electric energy present when a performer is allowed to perform uninhibited. The camera flourishes, the autotune, the prerecorded tracks . . . it all inhibits the performance when it’s used like it is in this film.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Woods View Post
It's a shame that we live in a world where we don't have one movie star that is known for their dancing skills. There will probably never be a time again where we have people such as Gene Kelly who are movie stars.
Hugh Jackman is probably the closest we have. And that's not great. Not a slam against Jackman, just a critique on the lack of male dance talent . . . There's something huge missing in the stars of this day and age who haven't cut their teeth hoofing it from the ground up.
Reply
post #42 of 48
6/23/10 at 6:27pm
I was pretty impressed by some of the dancing displayed by Foxx and Murphy in Dreamgirls. One of the reasons that movie's better to me than CHICAGO is that Condon knows how to use the wide shot and pan rather than cut, which is really one of the only ways to shoot musicals. When you're panning or shooting wide, then you know it's the performer, and that just adds to the fun of it.

I don't want to derail the thread any further, but while he's not a movie star yet, Neil Patrick Harris has some skills as a song-and-dance man -- it's just a matter of time before someone takes a chance on him. Ditto Aaron Tveit and John Gallagher, Jr., whoare dashingly handsome to boot, and I have a feeling Ben Walker was cast as Beast because of his physicality. If Matt Morrison weren't so boring, he'd have a lot more options, and it's a shame nobody has taken advantage of Patrick Wilson besides Joel Schumacher. And The R.M.'s Will Swenson, of course.
Reply
post #43 of 48
6/23/10 at 10:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
...of course. That's exactly why it's there. It's a musical. If you don't like dance numbers, I suppose it would bother you, but that comes with the territory.
It's not that I mind dance numbers. It's just the sequence has no connection to the narrative or the characters at all and goes on for a considerable length.
Reply
post #44 of 48
6/23/10 at 11:09pm
And is incredibly beautiful. It's called a set-piece.
Reply
post #45 of 48
6/23/10 at 11:52pm
I must side with Shifty here. Love the film. But that sequence did drag for me, gorgeous as it is. But I tend to be that way for musical set-pieces in which lovers flow around one another while singing for 3 minutes or more.

Not to even dare compare the greatness of the film to Schumacher's Phantom of the Opera, but that movie was basically nothing BUT those set-pieces. Along with everything else that was wrong with that film... ugh.
Reply
post #46 of 48
6/25/10 at 12:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I must side with Shifty here. Love the film. But that sequence did drag for me, gorgeous as it is. But I tend to be that way for musical set-pieces in which lovers flow around one another while singing for 3 minutes or more.
Not a fan of the last twenty minutes of An American in Paris then, nooj?
Reply
post #47 of 48
6/25/10 at 12:54am
Yeah, I was going to bring that up as well. I guess you don't need to really enjoy dancing to enjoy Singin' In The Rain, but if you DO enjoy dancing, I can't imagine you not liking that sequence. It's like saying you like the Matrix but all the kung-fu really slows the movie down.
Reply
post #48 of 48
6/25/10 at 12:55am
Well, I'd have to first see An American in Paris before being able to say anything about it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Singin' In The Rain (1952)