Reviewed by Brett Schummer
April 24/14
Original Score: 3/5
April 24/14
Original Score: 3/5
Gene Kelly and Richard Donen produce an uncompromisingly swell musical for the ages with Singin' in the Rain. The film is beloved by many and likely hated by the same amount, that said, no one can deny that it gets the job done.
This is a challenging film. Not quite challenging like 2001: A Space Odyssey in the sense that it is unearthly high concept, or like A Clockwork Orange where I'm disturbed afterwards. No, this film is hard in the sense that I just can't tell if I liked it or not. Sure, I had a great time watching it, and even when it went into strange musical tangents I was still entertained, but I just have a hard time justifying whether or not this kind of Escapism is good for the medium.
To further my point, imagine this: the year is 1993, you are a movie reviewer, you watch Jurassic Park, the special effects are cool and that's it. Was it a good movie? A truly good movie? I would say no, it's a pat on the back Hollywood showcase. Is that not what Singin' in the Rain was to 1952? I mean, if Singin' in the Rain gets away with just being Escapism early on, should we not look back on it the same way we'd critically analyze Jurassic Park's Escapism and say to ourselves, "You know what? Now that the special effects are dated, maybe this isn't so good."
That's one way of looking at this film. Some people might say it's harsh to judge this film so fiercely, but I believe no film should be exempt from critical analysis. If you want to still like and enjoy the film, all power to you, but from a critical perspective anything is open for debate.
With that said, here are my main gripes with this eager little film. You know how when you buy something overly sweet, like a cake or ice cream for example, and the first bite is glorious but by the half way mark you just start forcing it? That's what this film is. It's a disgustingly sugary mountain of ice cream that is melting and has its contents all disarranged and horribly jumbled about, while very occasionally surprising its consumer with a random colour coated treat like a maraschino cherry.
To further my point, imagine this: the year is 1993, you are a movie reviewer, you watch Jurassic Park, the special effects are cool and that's it. Was it a good movie? A truly good movie? I would say no, it's a pat on the back Hollywood showcase. Is that not what Singin' in the Rain was to 1952? I mean, if Singin' in the Rain gets away with just being Escapism early on, should we not look back on it the same way we'd critically analyze Jurassic Park's Escapism and say to ourselves, "You know what? Now that the special effects are dated, maybe this isn't so good."
That's one way of looking at this film. Some people might say it's harsh to judge this film so fiercely, but I believe no film should be exempt from critical analysis. If you want to still like and enjoy the film, all power to you, but from a critical perspective anything is open for debate.
With that said, here are my main gripes with this eager little film. You know how when you buy something overly sweet, like a cake or ice cream for example, and the first bite is glorious but by the half way mark you just start forcing it? That's what this film is. It's a disgustingly sugary mountain of ice cream that is melting and has its contents all disarranged and horribly jumbled about, while very occasionally surprising its consumer with a random colour coated treat like a maraschino cherry.
The lighting and overall cheeriness of the characters in this film are sightlessly saturated. Everyone looks like they leapt off the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and started doing a jig about the rain. The film is supposedly known for integrating dance into its narrative, but in times throughout the film I caught myself wondering, 'What the hell is exactly going on here?' Take the musical numbers Make 'Em Laugh and Moses Supposes for example, both scenes begin with a dialogue between the characters in the scene and end with a musical number. This would be fine, but both detour away from the actual point of the scene into a silly slapstick that has little relevance pertaining to the narrative. Each one also ends abruptly, as if the director had no idea the direction in which the scene was going so he just decided to throw in a number and cut. This took me right out of what I was watching both times.
Not only is the integration between narrative and musical number off, but also the plain narrative scenes by themselves are off. Every scene in the film looks like it is set up on a stage with a set that is stricken down afterwards. It's all so fake, coupled with the nauseating colour palette, that it looks like I'm watching a doll house that is trying pathetically hard to be real. Kind of like a sad Pinocchio. The director clearly had an idea of what a stage musical was and thought to himself, 'This is how film should be' without knowing how good films actually look. Considering there were plenty of great films made before, and at the same time as, this film, it is hard to forgive such a fundamental mistake that takes you right out of the narrative.
Aside from those flaws, there were bits of editing in the film that didn't line up quite right, most notably the Moses Supposes shot where Cosmo is mocking the diction coach. Watch specifically from 1:00 - 1:13 of the following video for an edit that I can't even believe made it into the final version of this film.
Not only is the integration between narrative and musical number off, but also the plain narrative scenes by themselves are off. Every scene in the film looks like it is set up on a stage with a set that is stricken down afterwards. It's all so fake, coupled with the nauseating colour palette, that it looks like I'm watching a doll house that is trying pathetically hard to be real. Kind of like a sad Pinocchio. The director clearly had an idea of what a stage musical was and thought to himself, 'This is how film should be' without knowing how good films actually look. Considering there were plenty of great films made before, and at the same time as, this film, it is hard to forgive such a fundamental mistake that takes you right out of the narrative.
Aside from those flaws, there were bits of editing in the film that didn't line up quite right, most notably the Moses Supposes shot where Cosmo is mocking the diction coach. Watch specifically from 1:00 - 1:13 of the following video for an edit that I can't even believe made it into the final version of this film.
Despite my harsh criticisms of this film it is far from the worst I have seen. I find it exceedingly interesting to highlight faults within this film, and I likely would not do so if I hadn't found all the other films I've reviewed so far to be so excellent. In the end, the film really does no harm and simply provides the fun narrative of a studio coping with the internal and external struggles of the talkie era. The film also decently dabbles in experimentation in the medium of the musical. Like I said at the beginning, this film is challenging. I could have just as easily given it a glowing review as I did a dim one. For that reason, I give this film three stars out of five for being one of the most easily watchable films, despite internal and external flaws.