Showdown: Gene Kelly v. Fred Astaire

Two of the greatest dancers in movie history, both of them experts at the "triple threat": singing, dancing and acting-- Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire go head to head as I watch them each at the height of their abilities, the early 50s.

An American In Paris

Some brilliant sets, especially when ballet is thrown into the mix. Gene Kelly is at his dancing fool best, and I especially loved his banter with Oscar Levant. But if nothing else, this film must be watched for the Gershwin. Some of the best songs in any musical.

Still, I was disappointed by the ending, which seemed thrown on and unreasonable, given all the set up of characters. And what happened to Nina Fonch? I think the film needed another five minutes or so.

I think my favorite part of the film is the ballet sequence introducing Lesie Caron.  Although she doesn't have much of a character in the film, this sequence allows her to dance out her boyfriend's ideal woman.  Each sequence is unique and expressive.  My greatest disappointment (besides the ending) is the long American in Paris ballet.  Although the music is exquisite and the sets wonderful, I felt that Kelly didn't have that much to do.  It was kind of dull.  

Daddy Long Legs

Of all the MGM musicals I have seen, I appreciate this 20th Century Fox one the best.

The story is simple, filled with the obvious complications that a rom com would have with a May-December romance. But as with all the older musicals, it is not the plot that is significant, but what surrounds it. Not only is Astaire my favorite leading man of this genre-- with his smooth dancing style and his decided charm-- but Leslie Caron is a wonderful actress pulling in her ballet to give a unique style.

But the two together have a balance that can be seen in Astaire's dancing with Ginger Rogers, with both displaying their individuality. I love Caron's performance as a headstrong young woman who knows what she want, but underneath isn't confident that she will receive it.

Yes, we know where this movie is going, just like American in Paris, but unlike the Gene Kelly film that this one borrows from heavily, Daddy Long Legs takes it's time, and gives a decent, believable ending. It follows through on the set up in a perfectly timed fashion that most of these musicals do not, rushing to end the film without allowing the characters a believable end.

I loved all the songs, especially Dream and Somethings Gotta Give. And they are fit perfectly into the story. Thank you, Mr. Astaire, for finishing this film, despite the difficult death of your wife. You can see the sadness in your eyes, but it plays perfectly with the doubts of your characters, and deepens his soul.

The Standoff
Watch the brilliant short where the two masters dance together for the only time, in the film Zigfield Folllies.

My Real Question

Especially in watching these two films back-to-back and having the same leading lady in both, I am clear about my preference of Astaire over Kelly.

Why? I ask myself.

Both are excellent dancers, and about the same ability in acting.  Kelly is probably the better singer.  Certainly they have different styles of dancing, with Kelly being more athletic and energetic, while Astaire is more suave and probably more versatile.  

I think it has more to do with the personas each of them present.  The form of acting school they represent is to find a charismatic character and stick with that persona, no matter what occupation or class change you go through.  But since all of these movies are essentially romantic comedies with music and dancing, I want my leading man to be attractive-- not physically, but in character.

Kelly's character has a certain naivete, but essentially he is a forceful person who thinks that his blind enthusiasm will get him what he wants (the girl).  In the end, that assumption puts me off.  I know that some girls go for that kind of guy, but he isn't attractive to me.  Or, more to the point, I wouldn't want my daughter marrying this kind of guy.  (Which will probably be my fate.)

Astaire is not only suave on the dance floor, he is also humble in persona.  He is more forward in his earlier films, but in his later films-- Daddy Long Legs and Funny Face, for example, he is thoughtful and concerned about his girl's place in society.  He is bold, but also kind.  Perhaps this has to do with his age (it certainly does in Daddy Long Legs),  but I find watching his antics and misunderstandings to simply be more comfortable, and thus more entertaining, to watch.

Well, and I find his dancing to simply be more expressive, and better suited to a partner.  Kelly is a brilliant dancer, but usually on his own.  Astaire is the perfect partner for a rom com musical, because he makes the woman look better by him dancing with her.  Now that's romantic. 

Top Hat: A Tale of Two Bigamies

Jerry is a young man who seems to do nothing but hang around his wealthy friends and he is not able to do anything but dance well and sing passably.  So he stars in musical numbers and just hangs around.  Dale seems to make her living off of wearing her designer's clothes so they will look wonderful and women will buy them.  I guess she's a living manikin.  Jerry is determined to be "fancy free", but when he sees Dale, he falls head over heels.  She is offended by his forwardness, but he wins her over when they dance together.  But then she finds out that his married to her good friend, and that is where the comedy of errors begins.

If I wasn't already a fan of musicals, I could see this film making me a fan.  And actually, this kind of musical I haven't been a big fan of.  The musical where the plot is ridiculous, with really no touchstones to reality.  Growing up, been exposed to musicals like Fiddler on the Roof and Funny Girl, which have a lot of silly aspects, but there is always a deep and often depressing connection to reality.  Even the musical numbers almost make sense in their context.  The only Fred Astaire film I saw in my younger days was Easter Parade, which bored me to tears.

This, however, is my first Astaire/Rogers film.  I know, shocking.  But we all need to start somewhere.  I'll put it plainly: the setting is ridiculous, the plot points silly, the jokes were mostly groaners and the acting was awful, and I really, really enjoyed my time with this film.  The fact that everything was over-the-top silly helped.  Either you embrace the silliness or you reject the whole thing.  And when everyone in the film is in on the big joke that is this film, how could you not appreciate it?

About the dancing: I admit, it was a revelation.  Yes, I had heard about Astaire and Rogers and I had seen Astaire with others, but this was something different again.  They have three main dance numbers.  The first dance was a "getting to know you" dance, friendly, ending with a handshake.  The second dance was clearly seductive: she is infuriated with him, but wants to love him and is clearly over her head.  He leads her smoothly, expertly, with all the cockiness and ignorance of a young man in love, and by the end of the dance he clearly wins her over.  The final dance is simply surrendering to joy.  I have never seen so much emotion and variety in a dance routine before, especially that middle dance.  Never have I seen a straight dance number communicate more than the rest of the movie combined.  I am won over, in a big way.

I can't wait to see my next Astaire/Rogers film. 4.5/5

Denying the Subversion: Musicals of 1957

Genre movies have a special place in my heart.  There is a comfort with them, you pretty much know what to expect, and that is a good thing.  There is a time for a film that shakes ones expectations, that brings us to places we’ve never been before, but sometimes we need the familiar.  We need tropes that affirm that the world is regular and follows certain rules—at least the film world, if not the world around us.  A good genre film may not make us laugh or cry, but it is a cozy flame in a fireplace on a winter day.  And sometimes we need just that.

The balance a genre film—whether noir, romantic comedy, western, musical or other—must achieve is to maintain that familiar, but to also be interesting.  There must be both the trope and the novel, the familiar and the surprise.  Because no film should make us so comfortable that we fall asleep.  But where that line is drawn is different for different people.   Some can find the unique in very subtle ways,  while others are more demanding of their genre films, demanding some kind of subversion of what is often expected. 

I usually prefer the remarkable as opposed to the comfortable, but this week I sat down to two musicals very comfortable in their genre: musicals.  In looking at their performers, we know that we shouldn’t expect much in the way of subversion:  Doris Day in The Pajama Game and Fred Astaire in Funny Face.  So I settled in to the familiar, and hoped that there would be enough uniqueness to keep me awake.

First comes The Pajama Game, which from the first scene we know that it is imitating a Broadway-style song-and-dance, which makes sense since the musical and all the performers (except from Doris Day) came straight from the successful stage play.   Doris Day is unexceptional here, but her co-lead John Raitt has a remarkable voice (I found myself wanting to sing along).  But the real star here is Carol Haney in the supporting role of Gladys.  Every time she participates in a song, the film brightens and gathers energy.

And, honestly, it needed some energy.  There is a wonderful scene when there is a revisit of an earlier song, except done at half speed.  In the end, this is how I felt the whole movie to be.  The dancing was uninspired, the songs unexceptional.  And there was something else missing… but I just couldn’t put my finger down on it.  With the exception of a few musical numbers—“Hernando’s Hideaway” and “Steam Heat” especially—this film was pretty much a snooze.

Then came Funny Face with Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn… and Kay Thompson playing a pivotal third wheel.  I have two confessions to make before I begin.  First, this is the first time I have seen Fred Astaire in a film since I saw Easter Parade as a young teen.  And I am not a fan of Audrey Hepburn.  I have seen both Breakfast at Tiffany’s and My Fair Lady and both films are wonderful—except for Ms. Hepburn.  She seems flat in both roles, just filling dresses, but not the characters (and this isn’t because of my deep disappointment that Julie Andrews wasn’t able to reprise her stage role as Eliza).  So I entered into this film not expecting much.

I was quite, quite pleased.  First, the Gershwin songs were clever, jazzy and fun—everything good you expect from Gershwin.  The dance was energetic and fun, a true pleasure to watch, all except Fred Astaire.  Okay, now I get it.  I mean, I’ve seen the rotating room dance, and some tap dancing by the master, but now I know why Astaire is the dance Master—it was like he floated, defying gravity.  When he and Audrey dance upon the water platform and drift to the middle of the stream, I gasped aloud—that was musical perfection.

But I also found in this film what I was unknowingly missing in The Pajama Game—chemistry.  Both movies are musical versions of a typical romantic comedy.  The secret to a good romantic comedy is chemistry.  You can put in as much ridiculous, insane, unrealistic situations and characters around the main characters, but the central relationship has to be believable.  As much musical time as The Pajama Game spent on the central relationship, I just didn’t buy it.  These were strangers, not lovers. 

Funny Face played it almost perfectly.  Fred, the experienced actor, acted the experienced man.  He expected nothing out of Audrey, and his love was pushed deep, coming out only in his plan to make her the next fashionista.   Audrey is the girl next door, even when she is a fashionista, and her performance is perfect in every scene.  Her love is intellectualism, but her attraction to Astaire seemed natural and wonderful.   The only fault I find in their relationship is when they confess their love to each other, which is so sudden and silly I’m surprised the performers didn’t burst out laughing in the midst of it (perhaps that was an earlier take). 

But overlooking that, the film was wonderful.  It was everything I expected from a great musical: perfectly performed and full of joy and great dancing.  I don’t care that a photographer and his subject doesn’t break into dance in the middle of a shot.  In this film, I believed it and I was glad to be with them, appreciating their happiness.