Gentleman's Agreement
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.38 You Save: $12.60 (84%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Gentleman's Agreement
Movie Review: Gift for mom
Summary: 4 Stars
Sent mom this film for the holidays. She loved that it arrived quickly. John Garfield is a cousin of hers. Thanks.Movie Review: Made good by Peck & Garfield in spite of many serious flaws
Summary: 3 Stars
Gentleman's Agreement is Elia Kazan's film from 1947 that stars Gregory Peck as a writer (Green) who pretends to be Jewish to find out about antisemitism. The concept is a good one, but there are many serious flaws to this film. First there is Dorothy McGuire completely miscast as Green's fiancee Kathy. And the idea of confronting relatively subtle antisemitism with no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust which ended just two years before the book and film is like ignoring the six million pound gorilla in the room. But that's not unique to this film; the Holocaust was a taboo subject in film until relatively recently.
The story is an interesting one, but much of it is filled in with preachy dialogue which is overacted and hurts believability. Especially some of the speeches given by the characters, such as when Green tells Ms. Wales (June Havoc), "Feel my hand, it's the same hand, the only thing different is the word 'Christian'". Seems a heavy-handed overreaction to say the least. And an inconsistency here is that Ms. Wales is at first an ally with Green as she tells him about the antisemitic policies of the magazine they work for, but then in the next scene she becomes the antisemite (though she is Jewish). Also the fact that she did the same thing he did (sent out two resumes, one Jewish and one not) seems more contrivance than coincidence.
John Garfield is great as always as Green's Jewish army buddy. But there is a scene with he and Kathy where he tells her to "hit back" at antisemites. Discounting McGuire's mediocre performance ("Can I? Can I?") the answer of hitting back is acceptable, but the film treats it as a profound truth.
Peck and Garfield are both great actors, so the flaws aren't a reflection on them. The film seems to begin on a first rate level, but goes downhill in dialogue quality. I like how Green tells the staff, "I'd feel the same way about this even if I wasn't Jewish myself", and the Jewish guy's reaction, "just let us handle it in our own way". Green's son Tommy is played by Dean Stockwell who was later excellent in "Long Day's Journey into Night". One flaw here is when Green tries to explain to Tommy what antisemitism is. He ends up defining Jewishness in the religious sense, though that's contradicted later by Dr. Lieberman's speech, "since many Jews are not religious there is only such a thing as a Jewish TYPE". I tend to agree with Lieberman (no relation to the rightwing Senator thankfully) on that.
Green's mother is played by the great Anne Revere, who was blacklisted under McCarthy (ironically she's a direct descendant of Paul Revere). The final speech she gives is overly intense and rambling, "suddenly I want to live to be very old...it's not the Russian century or the American century...it's got to be soon"...I don't know, it doesn't work for me.
Garfield was also blacklisted and some still don't forgive Kazan for cooperating with McCarthy. Anyway in spite of all this the film is worth seeing as a rare 1940s take on antisemitism.
Movie Review: Important but stilted
Summary: 3 Stars
This famous film on anti-semitism has garnered many comprehensive reviews on Amazon but first impressions are deceiving. The credits and the hype preview a really moving experience but the range of reviews tell a different story. This is a film which was famous on its release for its daring but the accolades tended to cloud what was actually up on the screen. It has not stood the test of time well and here are some reasons:
- Gregory Peck, for many a perfect FILM actor if only for his leading man looks, was often very dull. In this film, he is wooden beyond belief. A perfect world would have cast Spencer Tracy in the role.
- the film is really a series of conversations between Peck and the other characters. Since Peck barely connects with any of the other actors, it becomes a very tedious conversation indeed.
- the film also is a quite detailed romance between Peck and leading lady Dorothy McGuire. Her role is pivotal to the exposition of middle class prejudice but it is hard to care for this artificial couple so it deflates the effect.
- the director Elia Kazan was from the stage and not really experienced in film and it shows. The film simply does not "move". The direction of McGuire and Peck constantly reminded me of Edmund Goulding's direction of Gene Tierney and Tyrone Power in "The Razor's Edge"; move 3 steps to the right, turn, deliver line etc etc
- the performances are extremely variable with John Garfield probably the best. His realistic style stands out in bas relief to Peck.
- Celeste Holm won an Oscar and she is very entertaining but then she does have the best dialogue.
- the script manages to touch on many issues which is admirable but all the highlights are when the prejudice is actually seen, particularly that in the lobby of a hotel.
- the producer, Daryl F. Zanuck, famous for his editing skills could have applied them more rigorously here. It may be that the integrity of this ambitious project blinded him to the endless talk.
Issued as part of the Fox Studio Classic Series, the DVD print is surprisingly imperfect with a few vertical lines and dirt. The package contains some interesting extras. There are all the usual marketing items but the best extra is Richard Schickel's commentary. While Schickel's delivery is never dynamic, he highlights many of the film's problems, particularly with the awkward acting of the principals and the verbose script. He nails why the film is so dated while still being valid. Scattered within his commentary are additional comments from Celeste Holm and June Havoc, the latter playing Peck's secretary. Neither add much insight other than a welcome personal touch. It is amusing that Celeste Holm notes that Gregory Peck was as humourless offscreen as he was on.
The DVD is available very cheaply in the Classic Quad No 7 and therefore excellent value.
Movie Review: Bravo, Celeste! Bravo, June!
Summary: 3 Stars
Whereas there is much to admire about this movie, I found this flick annoying. The storyline was good enough - definitely worth the effort of sitting through the movie - but (like some other reviewers here have suggested) it is very heavy-handed, at times... clumsily written, at other times... with an unfortunate performance by Dorothy McGuire.
If you've not seen Dorothy McGuire in a movie before, do not judge her by this performance! Instead, watch her in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, and you'll see what a brilliant actress she was. Unfortunately, in Gentleman's Agreement, her onscreen presence was annoying - practically ruining every scene she was in (for me, anyway). To her credit, though, she had one of the worst parts in the movie to convey - a difficult character, but also a badly-written character, too. It's hard to picture any actress being able to say some of the clumsy dialogue they gave her. (It didn't help that her make-up was also unflattering...) In almost all of her scenes, she had the same half-smile, dreamy-eyed look... regardless of what she was saying - as if she were a robot without a thought in her head. Too bad. She is a much, much better actress than what is presented here.
Gregory Peck was fine. John Garfield was fine. Ann Revere was great. Dean Stockwell was also pretty terrific (unusual for a child actor to not be cloying, back in 1940's Hollywood).
BUT, the movie belongs to Celeste Holm. Truthfully, I've never really been a great fan of hers, but now? I feel like I need to re-review anything I've seen her in. She is fantastic in this movie - subtle, witty, intelligent, feeling, and beautiful. I did not know she'd won the Academy Award for this movie, but - after having seen it - I can understand why. The movie may be 50+ years old (and showing its age), but whenever Celeste Holm comes onscreen, the movie is suddenly vibrant and alive. Bravo, Celeste.
Another surprise was June Havoc's performance. Like Celeste Holm, June Havoc makes the movie come alive. Suddenly, Gregory Peck seems a little less wooden, when he's on camera with Havoc. June Havoc is wonderful in this movie.
Unfortunately, much of the movie (in this day & age, now) reminds me of something we would've had to watch in high school, during an American History class... Too preachy. Too heavy-handed. Too slow. With characters too one-dimensional.
See the movie for the sake of Film History - and the performances of Celeste Holm and June Havoc. But for a good night at the movies? Uh... I'd try something else.
Movie Review: Good-hearted but preachy
Summary: 3 Stars
This is a movie about anti-Semitism plain and simple. It hangs its blatant philosophies on a paper-thin storyline that is not really about the characters portrayed by excellent cast, but about an idea. The characters represent types: The idealistic journalist, the put-upon Jewish friend, etc., all used to express the filmmakers' concerns.
Not being alive when this movie was made, I cannot really speak about the accuracy of the way it protrays anti-Semitism back then, though I don't doubt that its depiction is pretty much on the nose, albeit melodramatic. When Gentile journalist Peck goes undercover and starts passing himself off as a Jew in order to write an expose, he encounters all sorts of prejudice--both blatant and subtle. Walking a mile in Jewish moccasins not only opens his eyes to what his Jewish childhood buddy has experienced his whole life (and by extension, all American Jews), it ends up endangering his family and his love life.
The script is for the most part very heavy handed, relying far too much on lecturing rather than showing, and including many tedious, almost embarassing speeches, about what it means to be an American, what the signers of the Constitution stood for, etc.
Still, it's a movie that's bound to generate interesting, and important, conversations about the nature of prejudice. Later audiences might be thinking more about how women, blacks, hispanics,gays, etc., are and have been the victims of such mindless hatred, but the message remains the same over and over again through the decades: Prejudice is an insidious, nasty phenomenon that needs to be routed out wherever it exists and in whatever form.
While, in the case of Gentleman's AGreement, it may not make for superb moviemaking or art, it is certainly a subject that needs to be broached openly and often, as long as prejudice exists, and from that point of view, this is a worthwhile movie, and one that probably needed to be made when it was.