by John Greco
I have this thing for backstage stories. There is something magical about what goes on before the curtain rises on opening night. The creative puzzle of putting a show together with just the right pieces, the excitement, the panic before facing the audience, the roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd, the tears of joy, or sorrow, depending on the show’s success after the curtain comes down. “Footlight Parade” is all about what happens behind the scenes. It remains one of Warner Brothers great Depression era musicals, filled with Busby Berkeley’s overly impossible yet miraculous production numbers forcing you to sit there stunned and say simply, wow!
James Cagney is Chester Kent, a penniless producer, with Joan Blondell as Nan Prescott, his trusty secretary and dependable right hand. Kent comes up with what he believes is an extraordinary idea. Talkies are the new rage so why not produce an extravagant live production that precedes the movie. Sophisticated audiences will come in droves. Taking it a step further, he will mass produce these shows, called prologues, to movie palaces all over the country! It’s a business paradigm that cannot miss, at least in the movies.
“Footlight Parade” was the last of Warner’s big three classic depression musicals released in 1933. Unlike the glossy MGM fare, Warner’s musicals, though still escapist entertainment from life’s realities, did not ignore the hard times the world was facing. The three women in “Gold Diggers of 1933” lost their jobs, as did Warner Baxter in “42nd Street.” In “Footlight Parade,” Cagney’s pugnacious Chester Kent worries not only about hard times but about rivals stealing his productions before they even open. Chester is also taking a beating from his producers (Guy Kibbee and Hugh Herbert)who are fudging the books so the profits, of which Chester is suppose to get a percentage, are never there for him to collect. Chester also has eyes for the ladies, unfortunately, they are for women who will only do him dirty. First, his wife starts divorce proceedings only to change her mind when she thinks he is back in the money. Nan’s money grubbing roommate make a play for Chester as he remains too blinded by her beauty to see her true gold digging colors. Always behind the scenes and protecting his back with love sick eyes is his ever faithful secretary, Nan.
The movie is divided into two halves, the first a backstage raucous comedy while the second half, really the final half hour, contains the three big musical highlights. This is when Busby Berkeley’s magic takes over from Lloyd Bacon’s sharp direction with three magical and exquisite productions numbers, “Honeymoon Hotel,” “By a Waterfall,” and Shanghai Lil,” one more extravagant and grand than the other. The first two numbers feature young ingénues Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler. The final production, my own personal favorite, gives the audience the pleasure of seeing Cagney and Ruby Keeler as dance partners. It also reflects Warner Brothers support for F.D.R.s New Deal with it flag waving and tribute to the then President.
The Shanghai Lil’ number starts off with Chester Kent forced to substitute for his leading man who arrives for the performance drunk. The character is in Shanghai looking for his girl Lil’. He makes his way through a series of bars and cafes with all the clientele commenting on the beauty and charms of the girl known as Shanghai Lil’, with one sailor in particular commenting that Lil’ is every sailors pal and everybody’s gal! Abruptly, and inexplicitly, Chester is now dressed in a Navy uniform when suddenly from behind she appears, the notorious Shanghai Lil’ (Ruby Keeler), only looking more like a Shirley Temple cutie pie than a sultry Marlene Dietrich seductress, but never mind, it’s the dancing and the production that counts and the thrill of watching Cagney and Keeler dance.
Keeler, along with dancing partner Dick Powell appeared in all three of the classic 1933 Warner musicals (they also appeared together in “Dames” and “Flirtation Walk”) but Keeler’s career would shortly take dive by the late 1930’s and was essentially over while partner Dick Powell’s flourished eventually moving on to dramatic roles.
The cast also included Billy Barty, Frank McHugh, Ruth Donnelly, Guy Kibbee along with then unknown’s Ann Southern and Dorothy Lamour as chorus girls. An interesting side note is the legend about a very quick appearance in the film by a then unknown John Garfield. There is a quick shot of a sailor behind a table that has been credited as being Garfield’s first appearance on screen. However in the TCM documentary, “The John Garfield Story,” this is disputed when Garfield’s daughter states it is not her father in the film. Most likely, Garfield was still 3,000 miles away in New York working in the Group Theater.
The film was made during Hollywood’s pre-code period and there is quite a bit of dialogue and action in the film to substantiate that. Joan Blondell’s Nan remarks to her roommate, who has eyes for Cagney that, “as long as there are sidewalks, you’ve got a job.” Additionally, Dick Powell’s Scotty, in the beginning of the film, is a kept man and is forced on Chester to be in the show by sugar mama, Ruth Donnelly. Then there is a good portion of the “Honeymoon Hotel” number that contains men and women running in and out of hotel rooms.
The movie was photographed by George Barnes who not too long before filming began had married Cagney’s co-star Joan Blondell. The marriage lasted only about four years after which Blondell married her former co-star, Dick Powell.
If there is one person who gets the short straw when this film is discussed, it is director Lloyd Bacon. Credit is always given to Busby Berkeley for his brilliant musical numbers, and they are ever so brilliant however Bacon, who also directed “42nd Street,” the first of the Warner’s golden trio, had a graceful and elegant style which dramatized the backstage hustle and bustle matching well with Cagney’s quick speech pattern. Bacon vision of backstage life is one of little glamour and hard work both here and in “42nd Street
How Footlight Parade made the ‘Elite 70’:
Pat Perry’s No. 13 choice
Marilyn Ferdinand’s No. 14 choice
Judy Geater’s No. 22 choice
Allan Fish’s No. 29 choice
Dennis Polifroni’s No. 46 choice
Sam Juliano’s No. 51 choice
_01.jpg)
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Wonders in the Dark 
Must agree with you that Lloyd Bacon deserves more credit – I tend to think of this as a Busby Berkeley film, but the backstage scenes are a lot of fun, as you say, even if the amazing musical numbers are the first thing everyone thinks of about this film! Really enjoyed your review, which has me wanting to watch this again. For me as a Cagney fan, the highlight is probably him stepping in to dance in ‘Shanghai Lil’ – but I also love all the scenes with him and Blondell together, as I know you do too, John. BTW that idea of the other guy getting drunk so that our hero has to take the stage at the last minute also works out for Fred Astaire in ‘The Broadway Melody of 1940’.:)
Sure Judy everyone thinks if it as a Busby Berkeley film. The musical numbers are spectacular and most memorable. Cagney and Blondell together are one of the great teams of cinema, a pefect pairing. Thanks again!
Although I don’t hold this under the strict definition of musical, I have to say that I am an absolute sucker for this film and I watch it every time it’s shown on TCM.
There’s just a fun factor here that not too many films today can seem to capture. It’s like the players and the crew of this film threw caution to the wind and, like Spanky would do in the OUR GANG comedies, just decided to “Put on a Show!”
Of course, it doesn’t hurt that you have a cast that includes the ever interesting, always engaging and often riotously funny James Cagney going against his tough guy image (well, almost) and having a blast. His sparring with Joan Blondell is absolutely classic acidity whizzing by you and to top it all off you got music numbers to boot. Sure, no small group like the one Cagney’s training could ever pull off the lavish stuff they do here but….
Who the fuck cares? It’s all just one big glorious smile from beginning to end.
Might be one of my three favorite Cagney performances of all…
Great little essay here, JOHN!!!!!! You made my day with this one!!!!!
Dennis, I screwed up my comment here to you putting it in as a separate comment instead of a reply. It’s just below Sam,’s comment.
John: If you have a thing for backstage stories, of course, this is one of the best ever made in that department. But this final of the famous Depression era Berkeley musicals gems is an amazing cultural index of the period. My own favorite sequence (and I can’t blame you at all for going with “Shanghai Lil, which exudes that Warner “toughness”) is “By A Waterfall,” which allows Berkeley to manage a “wet run” for his later Esther Williams spectaculars. It’s an astounding surrealistic kaleidoscope of a sequence, and one of the greatest cinematic passages in the musical genre. Blondell’s wisecracking is a perfect match for Cagney, who again delivers the goods by way of charismatic acting and dancing.
You have again framed a film with your incomparable blend of historical and analytical style, which frankly is tailor made for this kind of a countdown. Again I feel I gave short shrift to this on my ballot, where I now realize it deserved higher placement. Give me my ballot back!
Thanks Sam – The “By A Waterfall” sequence is amazing, frankly I think all three muscials numbers are spectacular. The HONEYMOON HOTEL is a pre-code gem that probalby could not have been done a year or so later. I thank you again for the kind words!
Thanks Dennis! The film is almost split into two parts, so I can easily understand why you do not consider it strictly a musical. However, you are right, the fun factor runs very high here and the comparison to the OUR GANG short, “Put on a Show” is a great one, both a barrel of laughs.
Well, that, and the availability of having Cagney caught on screen doing it is a joy to behold. I must say that I prefer this musical performance by him to his highly praised turn as George Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY. Here, exudes the tough guy personality that he made famous in his gangster performances, eases it a bit and add the song and dance attitude to it and, VIOLA, you get the perfect combo of what Cagney was all about.
I have discussed this extensively with SAM and I think BOTH of us would admit that Cagney is on both our short lists as one of the five or ten greatest American film actors in history…
Aghhhhhhhhh…. Shit… I’m just gonna say it outright…
Along with THE PUBLIC ENEMY, this is definately my favorite Cagney performance and film…
In feel good when I see this film and it never ceases to make me smile…
I also love that whenever Cagney is on screen and dancing it’s almost as if he’s physically saying: “TAKE THAT” to the viewer that thinks he’s only just as good as the last bad guy he played in the gangster flicks…
Amazing actor…
Cagney is a fantastic actor and overall entertainer who just about cannot do any wrong. Though I will say he and Humphrey Bogart were both miscast in THE OKLAHOMA KID. It just reminds me of two city kids playing cowboys, unconvincingly at that. But yes, this role is a fantastic combination of his tough guy, straight in your face, attitude with his brightly spirited dancing. Even in a film like LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME where her plays a not very likeable character, he amazingly magnetic.
And how great is it that Dee Dee has provided that awesome “By A Waterfall” sequence on the sidebar! I just watched it again! Stunning.
Dee Dee has been fantasic with this throughout the countdown!
One of the greatest early musicals. Dennis says Cagney is one of the five or ten greatest actors. I’d say he makes fair claim as the best one of them all. Those three set pieces are the film’s highlight. But the back stage opening is a delight.
This is wonderful appreciation of the film, and what has always endeared it to moviegoers from the pre-code era to the present.
Thanks Frank. Cagney is certainly one of the most versatile performers, drama, comedy, musical he can do it all.
Nice summary of the film’s successes, and how many there are! I’ll second the seconds of Bacon (and LeRoy in GD’33) – while the musical numbers are what make the Berkeleys immortal, they are highly watchable even when people aren’t singing & dancing, which is most of the runtime.
That said, can we really call Footlight Parade “a backstage musical”? OK, in a way that’s a trick question – clearly the whole movie is set backstage. Yet usually the point is seeing how the different elements come together, how this & that build to give us the finished product. In this film, and to a lesser extent the other Berkeleys, it’s all a charade – because what we see onscreen couldn’t possibly have arisen from the brief timetable and rudimentary gestures we’ve seen going on behind the scenes!
From my email exchange with you guys back at the start of the countdown:
“it is quite possibly the most illogical film ever made – I mean, by the end of its 3 “on-stage” numbers we’ve got animation, massed sailors forming portraits of FDR and the NRA eagle which could ONLY be seen from directly overhead, and guns firing…and yet these are among the more plausible things we’re asked to believe could unfold on the stage of a movie theater with oh, I don’t know, 12 hours of rehearsals (and when the hell did they build all those sets)! Either the most brilliantly over-the-top conceit ever or the cause for perhaps fatal cognitive dissonance, maybe both. All I know is I’d like to attend a theater with a gigantic swimming pool behind the screen, one bigger than most theater buildings themselves..”
Joel,
Maybe it’s more of a backlot musical, since that is the only way possible to do these numbers. Sure it’s impossible, all good points. That said, a filmmaker presents a premise which you either buy into it or you don’t. The filmmaker does not have to convince the audience it is realistic. He does need to convince the audience what we are seeing is credible, even if it’s not, for that particular film. The script, the actors and all must be convincing emotionally and aesthetically. In that respect, I think Berkeley has done it here. Yes, the entire idea of putting on a show of that magnitude in a theater within 12 hours, or 12 weeks, is impossible, then again so is the idea of prologues in general too.
Yeah, in a way it’s almost sad if you remind yourself that supposedly these performances are just disposable prologues instead of the main attraction! In 42nd St & Gold Diggers, the shows are big extravaganzas, which will make or break the protagonists, whereas in Footlight the premise is less romantic even if the showpieces are even bigger and better; Cagney will be able to make a living but ultimately he’s just making filler. Though I can’t imagine any feature screening (unless perhaps it’s Footlight Parade itself) could follow up those prologues! It’s almost like Berkeley et al. are winking at us, taking the ordinary-rehearsal-to-breathtaking-showstopper routine to its logical limit, and then beyond…
John
Your affection for the film and for this type of story is definitely felt by reading your wonderful piece. Bravo to you! I find Footlight Parade to be really funny. Cagney’s performance is downright hilarious at times, especially during the scene when he is explaining and demonstrating how the “cat dance” should go. It is a riot of a scene and his hoofing is tremendous. Additionally, this film contains what I feel is the greatest Busby Berkeley scene of all time. Hands down. It is “By a Waterfall”. It is simply jaw dropping and probably the most ambitious and outrageous thing he ever did. It is quite something to behold.
However, the scene also highlights something that I find as a bit of a distraction today, and I’ve mentioned it before in another forum one time. That is the objectification of the women in the scene. By a Waterfall is basically one big wet-dream! I find it to be kind of crude, even though I appreciate the artistry and imagination. I’m sure I’m going to be ripped for this, but it’s how I feel. Don’t get me wrong, I like half-naked (or fully naked) women just as much as the next person, but it’s a troubling element of the scene, and to an extent, the pre-code view of women. I hear the argument all the time that women in the pre-code era “took control of their sexuality”. Really? Seriously? Someone watch “By a Waterfall” and tell me who’s in control? It’s a definitive Male Gaze type of scene using the female body to sell sex without women given a fully rounded characterization. There, I said it. Now I must get some yard work done.
Anyway, this is in no way an indictment of the film, which I like, nor of Berkeley, which I like as well. It’s just something that I think was indicative of the time and place and which must be accounted for in conjunction with this type of film. Great job again John. I always enjoy your writing.
Jon,
See my reply below. I screwed this up again responded as a separate comment instead of a reply. Too much Florida sun yesterday and a very long, long, day have fried my brain.
John, I enjoyed your thoughtful and admiring post on this film. Of the Big Three Warners backstage musicals of that year, this one is my least favorite. That’s an interesting comment you made on the film being split into two parts. For me that great 1-2-3 finale is the real reason to watch this movie (well, and Cagney too–he makes any movie worth watching). But the first part of the film requires a lot patience on my part to sit through before reaching the payoff. I don’t find this the case with “42nd Street” and especially “Gold Diggers of 1933.” I’ve sometimes recorded the movie off TCM then just fast-forwarded to the conclusion. I’m surprised that nobody seems to have commented on Keeler’s stereotyped character (and makeup and accent) in the “Shanghai Lil” number. I like the number, although I prefer the two before it, but her characterization does give me pause. As for the plausibility of the plot and musical numbers, I think you just have to throw logic out the window to enjoy this move. Even seeing this on TV as a kid I realized there was no way those numbers would work with a theater audience or even be performed on a stage. They might purport to be stage routines, but they’re so thoroughly cinematic in conception and execution that they essentially leave the realm of realism. But they’re so enjoyably other-worldly, who cares?
R.D. thanks and yes, logic is out the window, but isn’t that the case with many films, both musicals and others? GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 is my favorite also of the three (a rare chance for Blondell to shine in a lead role). This is a bit of an odd film for a so-called musical with hardly any numbers until the last part of the film. Your right about the “Shanghi Lil” number and while Keeler can dance, as i mention in the essay, she comes off closer to Shirley Temple that some sexy steamy type.
Thanks Jon very much for your kind words. I understand your conflicted feelings (its grandness and exploitation) toward the “By a Waterfall” number. It was not an unusual thing from Berkeley who with the freedom that existed prior to the Hayes Code exploited and/or saluted, depending on how you look at it, sexuality in his production numbers. The “Honeymoon Hotel” number has Powell and Keeler in a hotel with other “married” customers all named “Smith” and in GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933, the chorus girls were just as skimpily clad as the women in FOOTLIGHT PARADE.
Yeah John I definitely agree there’s a lot of this going on in all of these films that we’re talking about here. In fact, the Pettin’ in the Park scene is rather outrageous too, but rather funny as well. “By a Waterfall” seems to be on a whole other level!
Now we’re getting someplace. The shock to his early following of seeing Cagney dance (and eclipse Keeler utterly) is irreproducible, but Footlight Parade transcends whatever novelty value the Cagney casting had in 1933. Criticisms of the Berkeley numbers are valid; he was the Leni Riefensthal and Albert Speer all in one of a certain hedonistic Hollywood totalitarianism, and as such has been the envy of despots to the present day, and I can understand how that inherent inhumanity can turn people off, but those scenes are the ultimate Depression-era fantasies of collective plenitude and I wouldn’t have ’em any other way. This time out Cagney is the redemptive element, if redemption is thought necessary, while the social consciousness of “My Forgotten Man” uplifts Diggers of ’33. But I expect to have further occasions to discuss Berkeley, and one of his is probably my favorite of this genre.
The MY FORGOTTEN MAN sequence is unforgetable.
@FRANK GALLO-While I’d love to give Jimmy Cagney the top slot (and he’s certainly a contender), I also take into account the likes of titans like MARLON BRANDO who changed the game forever with STREETCAR. Now, if we’re going strictly on American actors of the 30Ks and 40’s, then, yes, he’s probably the top dog (with serious competition coming from Tracy, Fonda and, absolutely James Stewart). But I look at the overall picture and try to be realistic understanding the advent of realism coming into play in the 1950’s. Guys like Brando, Hackman, Steiger need to be considered and then… There’s Jack Nicholson who, probably more than any actor, harks back to the kind of acting influenced by guys like Cagney and Bogart. So, placing Cagney in the top 5 or 10 is amazingly high.
@FRANK GALLO-Now, if we figure in English speaking actors from outside the states the competition for Cagney gets tougher through the span of time. Tending only to his high-water mark period (30’s and 40’s) then he contends, really, only with Stewart from the states (maybe Tracy as well) and Olivier from the UK. CHARLES LAUGHTON, however, is another matter completely. In Laughton, the competition for Cagney as top dog is greatly compromised. As you can see, I’ve obsessed over this for a very long time, shuffling back and forth. If a gun were put to my head I’d be risking my life as to who I’d pick. In general though, and for me alone, I’d say the two greatest in the English language at the time were Cagney and Laughton…
Wow yeah I would place Laughton ahead of most actors and definitely would beat out Cagney on my ballet. So we’re talking all-time, right, not just 30’s-40’s? If it’s all time, I would include Jimmy Stewart, Carey Grant, Spencer Tracy, DeNiro, Nicholson, Bogart, Brando, Hackman, Steiger is an interesting pick but I would say yes. All these need to be in the argument. I’m trying to think of European Actors, but my mind keeps getting clouded by Liv Ullman and Bibi Anderson! 🙂
JON-As for American actors, I’d say the first half of the cinematic time-line is capped off with Cagney and the deeply emotional James Stewart whose stretching culminated in his tour-de-force VERTIGO. The second half would be dominated by BRANDO, and the new breed of realism would see the likes Hoffman, DeNiro and Pacino. However, in my mind, the guy that has stood steadier than all of them since Brando is Jack Nicholson. Regardless to what less observant viewers see as repetative, Nicholson is the rare actor to change with every performance, roll with his aging, and be skillful in both highly drmatic and comedic parts. He’s be hand picked by many of the most influential film-makers of our time and, unlike his contemporaries, a full-blown star to boot! Since Jack, I’ve only been excited by a few like Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Anthony Hopkins and, obviously, the great Daniel Day-Lewis.
Yes agreed. You put this very well. Except for Spacey. 😉
JON-Actresses see a shorter life span, career-wise… Meryl Streep has weathered time (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) but her skill pokes out when it has to (I refer you to DOUBT or THE HOURS), and she not afraid to age either. The times really see people like Kate Winslet grabbing the choice material because of youth and great skill. However, because the movies today are more and more dominated by men, the opportunities have become limited. Its not an age for actresses to strut their stuff as freely when Katherine and Bette ruled the roost. I’d have the final heat of all time capped with Hepburn and Liv Ullman as their work has been exemplary, pretty much, their entire career. As for best EVER? No contest. The singular performance of Renee Falconetti in Dreyers LE PASSION DE JEAN D’ARC…
Dennis I would have to agree with Hepburn and Ullman. However, are you saying Falconetti gave the greatest performance ever, or was the best actress ever? I can agree with the former.
Falconetti gives the greatest female performance in all of film history (this sin’t just MY opinion but, basically, the consensus of people in the know, critics and film-makers around the globe). That said, she may not get the prize of greatest actress of all time, but I’d hold any performance from the so-called best of the best up against her work in LE PASSIONDE JEAN D’ARC and they will all look like shit in comparison…
I’d have to tell you that it would be extremely hard for me to pick a greatest actress of all time as my affections for certain ladies span a wide range.
I love Ellen Burstyn and think she’s never been used enough in films (Her best is the haunting RESURRECTION)
Bette Davis is bigger than life but I don’t think film would have any real meaning for me without a showman like her and I love her over-the-topness that very few leading ladies had back then (hard to pick a favorite as she had so many-most likely a three way tie between NOW, VOYAGER, ALL ABOUT EVE and her greatest later performance WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?).
Hepburn is a chameleon unlike any Hollywood actress and I can site a half dozen dramas to match a half dozen comedies that she did as the very best of her long, long, long career. (Personally, I’ll take THE LION IN WINTER as her best dramatic turn, but her career best is her perfected precision in the screwball masterpiece BRINGIN UP BABY).
BARBARA STANWYK, like Hepburn is a chameleon and she fuses the brashness and bawdiness of Davis into the fabric of Hepburns sensativity and, thus, creates a symbiotic coupling thatproduces an animal we haven’t seen before (loved her in THE FURIES, chilled me to the bone with DOUBLE INDEMNITY, broke my heart with STELLA DALLAS… But, the one that doesn’t go away, for me, is THE LADY EVE and she handles every acidic word and camera direction from the great Preston Sturges the same way a ballet dancer glides across a powdered floor…).
SOPHIA LOREN/GIULIETTA MESSINA/ANNA MAGNANI just take realism to the mat and wrestle it to the floor…
LIV ULLMAN could be my favorite of all time and her performances with Bergman are some of the most taxing for a screen repertoire. She handles all of his material like she downing a favorite dessert and relishes in the difficulty of mastering the stuff that lesser actresses would run away in fear from (I could name a few. SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE, AUTUMN SONATA are personal faves. But, one word says it all… PERSONA).
She could be the greatest actress the screen has ever seen.
Meryl Streep (SOPHIES CHOICE, THE HOURS, DOUBT)
Lillian Gish (BROKEN BLOSSUMS, THE WIND)
Gong LI (TO LIVE, RAISE THE RED LANTERN)
Marlene Dietrich (THE BLUE ANGEL, THE SCARLETT EMPRESS)
Judy Garland (THE WIZARD OF OZ, A STAR IS BORN)
Ingrid Bergman (NOTORIOUS, SPELLBOUND, AUTUMN SONATA)
Agnes Moorehead (THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS)
Vivien Leigh (GONE WITH THE WIND, THAT HAMILTON WOMAN, STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE)
These are just a few that could contend or make the nominations for inclusion for consideration. All of them are so interesting I have gone back to them again and again since I first saw them…
Dennis,
I do not argue with Falconetti. It is the single greatest performance in the history of cinema. Male or Female. I prefer actresses to actors. They are able to convey and project far more emotional depth than actors can. I think the long list of contenders for females would be quite long. I love all of your picks below, and would add Greta Garbo from my own list. It’s kind of a personal thing with me, but I think she’s tremendous onscreen and immensely watching
Sorry meant to say “watchable”.
Garbo? Couldn’t agree with you more…
I just forgot to put her on there….
Thanks, John, for reigniting my passion for this film, which I’ve only seen once and years ago. In fact, the By a Waterfall sequence is the only vivid memory I’ve retained.
Regarding the illogic of such a sequence being part of a live stage show, I’m not bothered in the least. In film, suspension of belief is not uncommon to one degree or another. Examples include but aren’t limited to The Purple Rose of Cairo, the final song/dance sequence in Everyone Says I Love You, and, more recently, Midnight in Paris (all Woody Allen films by coincidence). For those in need of a more literal segue to justify the By a Waterfall choreography, camera work, and . . . um, water, the film appears to suggest that when Dick Powell nods off, he dreams the whole thing.
Regarding the “women as sex objects issue,” I simply look at this as a product of its time and enjoy the beauty of it (although half men/half women would’ve been nicer to look at — but then, it’s Powell’s dream, not Keeler’s).
Pierre – thanks very much! Yeah, I agree with the suspension of belief statement. The job of a filmmaker is to make you buy into the concept and here you go with it and fully accept it. Also, with the “women as sex objects,” I agree with you there too, a product of its time as you say, just like the embarrassing racial stereotyping that was so prevalent back in those days. That’s not to say we still don’t have those issues today but it is better.
. . . and I might add, regarding suspension of belief, that during the Great Depression, helping audiences escape from reality was the business of Hollywood.
Very true! People went to the movies, the main form of entertainment back then, to forget their troubles.
John – A wonderful, appreciative post. This is my favorite of the Warner Brothers Depression-era musicals. For me Cagney’s presence and energy kicks this one up a notch, plus the musical number are superb. I’m glad you give proper credit to Lloyd Bacon, too.
Thanks Pat for the kind words. I am fond of all three of these WB depression era musicals, though I would place GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 at the top with this # 2 and 42nd Street number three. It’s no insult to any of them, they are all wonderful works.
On the John Garfield mystery, the Howard Gelman book ‘The Films of John Garfield’ states it was him (he claims Garfield had hitch-hiked to Hollywood before heading for the New York stage) and includes a still of the sailor, which certainly looks like him – but, as his family say it wasn’t, presumably it was just someone bearing a strong resemblance!
Judy – I forget where I read it but apparently a few sources sight this as Garfield being in the film. I watched that segment a few times and it looks like it could be him but since his family states it is not, I tend to go along with what they say. Why deny it if it is him, right?
Yeah, I agree, I can’t see why they should say it wasn’t if it was! You do sometimes get people who look amazingly like others – a Johnny Depp lookalike recently caused a lot of excitement in my part of the world, until he turned out not to be the real thing!