Gentleman's Agreement
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.48 You Save: $12.50 (83%) 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: Groundbreaking Look At Prejudice
Summary: 3 Stars
Elia Kazan's 1947 film Gentleman's Agreement is the story of a journalist who is employed to write a series of articles on the scourge of anti-Semitism in America. The journalist, Phil Green, is played by Gregory Peck and in order to get his information first hand, he poses as Jew. He encounters all forms of prejudice and his blooming romance with the niece of his publisher takes a hit. Kathy (Dorothy McGuire) insists that she harbors no ant-Semitic feelings finds that through her association with Green, that such prejudices bubble underneath the surface. John Garfield gives a standout performance as Green's lifelong friend, Dave Goldman, who has experience prejudice his whole life and has learned to be philosophical about man's failings, but still is willing to fight against blind ignorance as noted in a gripping scene where he is denied a room in a swanky hotel by an unbearable snooty desk clerk who refuses to admit the reason he won't give Dave a room is that he is Jewish even though it is obviously apparent that is the reason why. Celeste Holm won the Best Supporting Actress award for her role as a fashion writer and socialite who is attracted to Green and heavily pursues him. The film was ground-breaking at the time of its release as it was the first Hollywood movie to tackle anti-Semitism head-on. Prior to World War II, it was an unspoken rule that anti-Semitism could only be hinted at even if a film like The Life of Emile Zola was about it. But over the years, the film has lost a lot of its power and it isn't aided by the fact that many of the characters are stock profiles that exude a one-dimensional feel. Despite that fact, it still is an important film and one that can still teach a lesson as well as entertain. Mr. Kazan won the first of his two Best Directing Oscars and the film won Best Picture in 1947.Movie Review: Stuffy Oscar Winner gets same transfer second time around!
Summary: 3 Stars
In ?Gentleman?s Agreement? Gregory Peck stars as Philip Green/Greenberg, a reporter impersonating a Jew in order to gain first hand knowledge into anti-Semitism. At first, snubs seem quite subtle and harmless. But as the film progresses the seething underbelly of dissension against the Jewish faith begins to rear its ugly head. Dorothy McGuire costars as Kathy, his waspish girlfriend who struggles with her own built-in anti-Semitism. John Garfield offers a startling and poignant cameo as Dave Goldberg, while Celeste Holm turns in another fine performance as Anne Dettrey, the only cast member seemingly untouched by prejudice. The film also costars Anne Revere, as Philip?s mother, and Dean Stockwell as his son. Despite excellent source material from the novel by Laura Z. Hobson, and the directorial reigns handed over to one of Hollywood?s best, Eli Kazan, the resulting film is heavy-handed and tiresome in spots. The plot never quite surpasses its very theatrical staging and the performances, particularly McGuire's are stiff and uninspiring. Fox already released this title as a movie only disc, without the making-of featurette. Now, as part of its Studio Series ?Gentlemen?s Agreement? continues to suffer from digital anomalies which plagued the original transfer. However, whereas the old transfer seemed to falter during the latter half with excessive film grain and shimmering of fine details, it is the first hour or so of this re-release that is riddled with edge effects, aliasing, pixelization and digital grit. As far as extras are concerned, this DVD offers little more than a brief back story featurette, audio commentary and theatrical trailer.
Movie Review: An interesting look at anti-semitism
Summary: 3 Stars
Winning the best picture Oscar for 1947 comes the story of a journalist who poses as a jewish man for six months to find out how deep anti-semitism runs in New York City. When the film came out, it was considered controversial. I say more power to the film and was glad it was made. However, keep in mind the film is over 55 years old and while the issue of racism is valid even today in some parts of the country, it comes across as somewhat outdated. The saving grace is the script. It manages to inform without pontificating and really hits on a surprising amount of aspects. Example of a great exchange:"Why, some of my best friends are jewish"
"And some of your best friends are methodist also. But you don't make a point of saying that, do you?"
The romance between the two leads is strained and the chemistry works better when thay are odds with each other. This is the first time I've seen a movie with Dorothy McGuire and while I'm sure she is good in other films, she comes acroos as wooden here. Particularly in contrast to Celeste Holm, who eats up the screen.
I also liked the back story behind the movie. There is an interesting AMC featurette included on the special edition. It very informative and the story of what happened to actor John Garfield is tragic. While this film does not resonate as a "classic" it is a very enjoyable, watchable film. Those collecting Oscar pics or who want a relativley tame film (by todays standards) about the aspects of racism could do worse.
Movie Review: Gentleman's Agreement: A Noble But Failed Attempt at Social Commentary
Summary: 2 Stars
I give this 20th Century Fox DVD issue of Gentleman's Agreement 2 stars. One star is for the DVD quality, which I found excellent -- a clean, sharp black and white high quality print with good sound. The second star is for Celeste Holm's performance, which is the standout performance of the movie.
The plot has been described in great detail in other reviews, so I will not repeat it. What I want to do here is to warn people not to purchase this movie until they have seen it. Gentleman's Agreement tackles the social issue of anti-Semitism, which is a noble undertaking, but it bites off more than it can chew. I have seen all but a few of Gregory Peck's films, and this is his weakest performance ever. In fact, Gregory Peck was one of the all-time great actors, and I have never seen him give anything other than a first-rate performance until I watched Gentleman's Agreement. In this movie he seems very uncomfortable with his character, and his performance is forced and wooden. His character is supposed to be engaged in the noble fight against anti-Semitism, yet he makes his character unlikable. Peck plays his character as preachy, self-righteous and self-serving, even pompous at times. It's difficult for the viewer to develop a sympathy with the character. Early in the movie Peck's character starts to become as ponderous as the anti-semitic characters, which I doubt was the intention of the director. It doesn't help that the plot and dialogue handle the subject in an awkward manner, devoid of anything clever and intelligent. Celeste Holm is the exception. Always a great actress, her performance here is first-rate, and she makes her character interesting, honest, sympathetic and likable. John Garfield's performance is good, but not on a par with his best, and again, I think that has to do with the stiff and predictable plot and script. Dean Stockwell does a very competent job at playing Peck's son. Dorothy McGuire's performance as Peck's love interest has been harshly criticized by many other reviewers. I'm not sure it was a weak performance. I think she may be playing the character exactly as the director intended. It's just that her character is not very likable. And the fact that her unlikable character is Peck's love interest instead of Celeste Holm's lovable character may be a weakness in the script that ultimately pulls down the movie and damages its believability.
Another problem with Gentleman's Agreement is that it drags. It is boring and ponderous. Even Celeste Holm's great performance does not add enough spark and sparkle to this drab film to save it from being a snoozer. About 1/3 into the film you start to wish they would just get on with it and get to the end. Too many points are repeatedly rehashed and beaten into the ground long after the viewer has gotten them.
There also appears to me to be an additional problem: The movie seems to exaggerate the degree of anti-Semitism in order to play on the viewers emotions, thereby reducing much of the movie to melodrama. Granted, the movie was made in 1947 and I was not born until 1949, so I may have missed the intensity of the problem at the time the movie was made. But growing up shortly after that period in the 1950's I did not witness such rampant anti-semitism in practice. I lived in a suburban community and had Jewish neighbors. I swam at a swimming club with jewish friends. I went to school with Jewish kids. My father worked with Jews. Yes, I am non-Jewish, and surely I would have felt it more directly if I were Jewish. But the fact that I was not able to observe any descrimination that was as obvious and rampant as that depicted in the movie leads me to believe that the movie overplays its hand. The movie implies that Jews were routinely denied jobs and housing, and were routinely refused service in hotels and restaurants merely because they had a Jewish name or looked Jewish. The movie appears to exaggerate the problem, even for 1947.
I want to be fair to this movie. Therefore, I encourage people to view it and decide for themselves. My criticism here is merely intended to serve as a helpful warning to those who are thinking of purchasing a copy sight-unseen. I made that mistake and am now sorry. It's a worthwhile movie for one-time viewing, but not good enough to keep in my permanent video library. So my recommendation is to find an inexpensive way to view it before you decide to purchase it. I hope this review is helpful to the perspective buyer.
Movie Review: A lady's disagreement
Summary: 2 Stars
Since when was being Jewish just a religion, not a race? I guess back in the 40's, but then why didn't Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe get ostracized for converting to Judaism and people who were, racially-speaking, a Jew, have to change their names, even if they were Christians? June Havoc's lines were bizarre, using the term "kikey" to refer to those Jews who (I supposed) looked and acted Jewish. I guess because she could pass for white and "act" white, that made her less Jewish? The film was actually more subtle than I expected it would be, but why a white man masquerading as a Jew have any more credibility than an authentic Jew? And why was it assumed all white people were Christian (which is what June Havoc's character does)? Haven't they ever heard of white atheists? I'm sure if Gregory Peck had tried checking in as an atheist (though he probably wouldn't broadcast this bit of information) at the hotel (which had restrictions servicing Jews), had he an "Aryan" name, he wouldn't have had any trouble, even if it was known he was a non-believer, which leads me to believe it was much more about the race (if Jews weren't a race, then why are they the only ones to get Tay-Sachs?), not the religion.
This film is insulting to those who aren't politically correct. Most Americans say things within the privacy of their own homes or in certain company that they may be sensitive enough not to say to any minority group (and I include gays here). "Gentleman's Agreement" promotes a kind of society where we have to be so very careful with everything we say, screen it first to see if it just may happen to offend anyone, before we say it, and those of us who don't make an issue of it by saying anything be dam*ed. The main thing is that people are treated the same, like being able to stay in the same hotel as a white Christian. Most blacks were Christians then, too (the slave owners having taught it to their slave ancestors), but they were treated worse than Jews (they weren't even allowed to marry a white person, whereas, to give an example, when Tony Curtis, a Jew, and Janet Leigh, a Caucasian, were married, it wasn't any more of a deal than two white people marrying), so that throws the whole point of this movie off, and it loses credibility because it says being a Jew is nothing more than being a member of a certain religion.
And the names! It was like they were pulled out of a hat. Kathy Lacey and Schuyler Green. Dorothy McGuire was so unlikable in this film, I could never understand what "Philip Greenberg" ever saw in her, even after she confronted her tolerance of thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Celeste Holm, a warm, loving woman, was such a much better match for Peck, for she fell in love with him when she believed him to be a Jew.
Had this been a legitimate venture into anti-Semitism, it would have been an excellent film, but Anne Revere's lines about sticking around for awhile longer were over the top absurd. I think a narration of the piece Peck wrote, narrated by him, would have lent a little more credibility to the film. It couldn't have been any worse than the screenplay. John Garfield, the only real Jew, was the only good actor in this film. The Oscars have obviously not changed a bit, but are all politically motivated (with the exception of "Gone with the Wind" and some others). Anyone could have played Jeanne Crain's role in "Pinky" (about a so-called black woman--no black woman can pass for white if she doesn't have white in her) and gotten an Oscar nomination because of the controversial (and P.C.) nature of this film. Skip this one. This had to have been done better by someone else.