by R.D.Finch
“Every once in a while I suddenly find myself dancing,” Jerry Travers (Fred Astaire) says to Dale Tremont (Ginger Rogers) when they meet cute at a London hotel at the beginning of Top Hat (1935). Jerry, a song-and-dance man, has just arrived in London to star in a show for his producer pal Horace Hardwick (Edward Everett Horton) and has been explaining to Horace his casual philosophy of romance. How else would Fred Astaire express his feelings in a musical film but through song and dance? Here the song is “No Strings (I’m Fancy Free)”—”No ties to my affections / I’m fancy free and free for anything fa-a-a-ncy”—and the dance is a raucous tap routine that has disturbed the sleep of the young woman in the room below, Dale. This is why Jerry feels the need to explain to her his occasional compulsion to sing and dance. At this first meeting, Dale responds to Jerry frostily. He responds to her with a level of interest that has him rethinking his no strings attitude to romance.
The rest of the movie might be described as Fred persists, Ginger resists, with complications. It’s those complications that are wrung for every last drop of plot to sustain this light-as-air confection of a movie. The main complication is one of the oldest in the book—mistaken identity. Just when Dale is beginning to reconsider her opinion of Jerry, circumstances lead her to believe that Jerry is actually Horace, who happens to be the husband of her best friend Madge (Helen Broderick), and narrative coincidences conspire to perpetuate her error. Naturally, she finds her pursuer a cad and continues to reject his advances, while Jerry can’t understand why she won’t thaw in the face of his tenacity. Things definitely reach an impasse when Dale impulsively decides to marry a sexually ambiguous dress designer to avoid Jerry.
Besides the sublime team of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Top Hat has a great deal else to recommend it. For one thing, there’s the delightful score by Irving Berlin. It might not have the number of standards found in Shall We Dance or Swing Time, but its five songs are all tuneful and lyrically catchy, and one, “Cheek to Cheek,” not only provides the music for the most memorable dance routine in the film but became a much-recorded standard. The song was nominated for an Oscar but came in second behind “Lullaby of Broadway,” a well-crafted song which, however, doesn’t strike me as having the lasting appeal of “Cheek to Cheek.” But who ever credited the Academy with foresight? And its chances were probably hurt by the fact that the winner was the centerpiece of a mind-blowing 14-minute long Busby Berkeley production number in a movie directed by the master himself (Gold Diggers of 1935) and also that the only other nominee, “Lovely to Look At,” was from another Astaire-Rogers movie, Roberta.
The art direction in Top Hat, which also received an Oscar nomination, is by Carroll Clark and Van Nest Polglase, who was head of the art department at RKO from 1932 to 1943. (Among the 331 films Polglase is credited with are all nine of the Astaire-Rogers musicals made at RKO in the 1930s as well as Citizen Kane, also made at RKO.) The great film director Michael Powell wrote in his autobiography that “the most genuinely creative member of a film unit, if the author of the original story and screenplay is excluded, is the art director . . . the creator of those miraculous images up there on the big screen.” Top Hat is a great illustration of the truth of that statement, for the art direction of this film is largely responsible for its considerable visual appeal.
The first half of Top Hat takes place in London, mostly in a swanky hotel, and the decor here is pure Art Deco, all angles and planes and architectonic silhouettes arrayed in open, spacious settings. When the action moves to Venice in the second half of the film, the decor becomes rococo frou-frou full of sensuous curves and ornamentation, a look that might have been inspired by the decoration on a wedding cake. Throughout, the color scheme is pale—white on white on white. Dark colors are restricted largely to the costumes, which helps the actors stand out amid all that pallid visual splendor. The set decoration reaches its zenith in the elaborate sound stage representation of a fantasy Venice, a set so vast that two sound stages were required to house it.
In the Greatest Musicals Countdown there has been some discussion of the use of the sound stage in musicals and whether this is a practice antithetical to the innate realism of the film medium. But let’s face it—the musical film is an inherently artificial genre. In the traditional musical like Top Hat, the fundamental mode of expression is fantasy, not realism. This is due at least in part to its antecedents in opera and in the operettas, variety shows, and musical comedies of the stage. I’m not saying that real locations don’t enhance outdoor scenes and the serious subjects of the modern social realist musical like West Side Story. But the basic aim of the musical film is to heighten reality through contrived and often frivolous plots, simplified characterization, and the combining of song with speech and movement with dance. Artifice, stylization, and exaggeration are the engines that drive musical films like Top Hat.
Now on to the great cast of Top Hat. Anyone reading this is likely well-acquainted with the talent and teamwork of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. But one thing that makes their films work so well is the support they get from the character actors cast in smaller roles, and none of their pictures has a better supporting cast than this one. Erik Rhodes plays the fashion designer Ginger marries (you’ll have to watch the movie to see the clever ruse used to get around this so that Fred and Ginger can get together at the end of the movie), an excitable Italian named Beddini, essentially a reprise of his excitable Italian Tonetti from The Gay Divorcée. Helen Broderick plays Madge Hardwick, making wry moues and snapping out wisecracks as though it were second nature. Best of all are fussy Edward Everett Horton, firing off exclamations like “Oh, dear dear!” and “My word!” while doing double-takes, and Eric Blore, as Horton’s sassy valet Bates. Horton and Blore make a wonderful comedy team, Horton feeding Blore straight lines and Blore rolling his eyes, pulling faces, and drawling back punch lines in his hilariously over-precise diction. And I mustn’t forget to mention a platinum blonde Lucille Ball in a tiny role as a florist’s assistant. (She must have had fond memories of this picture. Horton later appeared with her in a memorable episode of I Love Lucy, and in another episode Desi Arnaz sang “Cheek to Cheek” to a pregnant Lucy.)
Finally, there are the dance numbers, choreographed by Astaire and the great Hermes Pan, who worked on all ten of the Astaire-Rogers movies. The five musical numbers here represent just about every style of dance then current in musical movies. “No Strings” begins as an energetic tap dance and ends as a hushed soft-shoe with Fred lulling Ginger to sleep by dancing on sand. “Isn’t This a Lovely Day (to Be Caught in the Rain)?” starts off almost as a competition between the two, with Fred attempting to use his dance technique as a tactic for seduction. Ginger begins mimicking his moves to prove her dancing mettle but ends up dancing in unison with him, a choreographic strategy perhaps intended to show how close Fred came to succeeding. It’s a good thing that thunderstorm passed before things went too far! “Top Hat, White Tie and Tails” is done as a stage number in Jerry and Horace’s musical revue, in the style of the Warners backstage musicals, Astaire performing solo with a male chorus. The legendary “Cheek to Cheek” is the ultimate romantic dance, with Fred in tails and Ginger in that famous feathered dress, together gliding, swooping, and whirling with ethereal grace, like a pair of exotic birds performing a mating ritual. The film’s final number, “The Piccolino,” sung by Ginger and performed on that huge Venetian set, is a lavish production number on the grand scale, almost an homage to Busby Berkeley.
Top Hat, nominated for an Oscar as best picture, was the fifth of ten musicals Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made together and one of five directed by Mark Sandrich. It is in the opinion of just about everybody one of the two best of the lot, the other being Swing Time (1936). I’d go along with that opinion, but if pressed to choose one as the absolute best, I’d go for Top Hat over Swing Time, as much as I like that George Stevens-directed delight. Top Hat is a more comfortable fit with the airiness I consider typical of Astaire-Rogers vehicles, and of all the Astaire-Rogers movies, it’s the funniest and the most risqué.
How Top Hat made the ‘Elite 70’:
Judy Geater’s No. 4 choice
Greg Ferrara’s No. 5 choice
Allan Fish’s No. 5 choice
Pat Perry’s No. 9 choice
Dennis Polifroni’s No. 9 choice
Sam Juliano’s No. 43 choice
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
It makes no real sense. The sets are way out of control for where they’re sopposed to be. The situations are completely ludicrous and the acting is over the top.
And, yet, I still love this film.
I’m not the biggest supporter of Astaire as I think he’s a notch under the total talent of Gene Kelly… But, with TOP HAT he makes me almost forget everything else that competes with him and the “Cheek to Cheek” number could be one of my all time favorties in any musical…
R.D. has certainly nailed this film in this all encompassing review…
This one gets in your head and never goes away. And, once the dancing starts, who cares about the logic of it all. Nice to see you mentioned Edward EVerett Horton as well as he’s always been a favorite comedian of mine from this period…
Dennis has been pushing the “Kelly is a notch better than Astaire” argument for quite some time now. I have stayed clear as I don’t wish to promote hard feelings or controversy. However, in the wake of his latest salvo under the thread of Astaire’s most celebrated film, I feel I must address it. Comparing the two is like comparing Beethoven with Mozart or Michelangelo with Rembrandt, Melville with Hawthorne, Ozu with Mizoguchi. They are BOTH superstars in their field, and saying one is better than the other is artistic blasphemy. Dennis did not say that he “preferred” Kelly over Astaire, he said here that, and I quote, “Astaire is a notch under the total talent of Gene Kelly.” Astaire is most assuredly NOT under Kelly in talent. Nothing could be further than the truth, as this magnificent review from R.D. Finch attests to. Most dance experts have always made a strong case for Astaire’s superiority to Kelly, but I have always felt again that comparing the two is ludicrous.
Dennis and I began this argument earlier this week in the “On the Town” piece. At that time, I left off with saying neither could do exactly what the other did. They both specialized in their own styles of dancing. I think they’re both talented, but I do tend to prefer Kelly’s screen persona. However, there’s nothing better than watching Astaire and Rogers dance. They are a team the likes of which Kelly never had the privilege of finding. Astaire and Kelly are each remarkably talented in their own ways as you so aptly put it Sam.
Jon—
Ha! I remember the discussion well. As far as “screen persona” and personality, a strong case could well be made for Kelly’s pre-eminence. I’d be torn to venture and opinion. But solely as a dancer with nothing else attached, Astaire may well be the greatest of them all. But I love Kelly more than I can express here.
Sam, hope you and all the others on the east coast are safe and your power comes back on soon. Best wishes and thoughts/prayers are with you.
Thanks so much for that Jon!
Unfortunately my home is still without power, and all of us are staying at the school where Lucille is Principal. We have a terrific smart board big screen television, dozens of PCs and a cafeteria. So we are getting by. There are so many downed trees in the town and in neighboring towns, blocking so many streets that it looks like a war zone. Halloween (tomorrow) will be a hairy proposition I know.
Heck, I think I’ll watch TOP HAT here later tonight!
Dennis, I saw this for the first time on the big screen at a revival theater–I believe it was the first Astaire-Rogers movie I ever saw, double-billed with “Singin’ in the Rain”!–and I’ve seen it several times at home since. My initial reaction was that it was delightful but awfully artificial. But in rewatching it I’ve learned to get into the escapist spirit of the film, and every time I watch it I like it more. As for Kelly vs. Astaire–for me this is sort of like the Chaplin vs. Keaton debate. I like them both.
“The first half of Top Hat takes place in London, mostly in a swanky hotel, and the decor here is pure Art Deco, all angles and planes and architectonic silhouettes arrayed in open, spacious settings. When the action moves to Venice in the second half of the film, the decor becomes rococo frou-frou full of sensuous curves and ornamentation, a look that might have been inspired by the decoration on a wedding cake. Throughout, the color scheme is pale—white on white on white. Dark colors are restricted largely to the costumes, which helps the actors stand out amid all that pallid visual splendor. The set decoration reaches its zenith in the elaborate sound stage representation of a fantasy Venice, a set so vast that two sound stages were required to house it.”
This is as beautifully written (It’s “Tip Top” in fact!) a passage as we’ve yet seen during this countdown. But one would be hard pressed to find a more effusive and artistically cogent an essay on this legendary film, one that has held the stage as a true classic and a model of it’s kind. R.D. prefers it to SWING TIME, and I’d say on balance that most would agree. In framing TOP HAT from every pertinent perspective – the iconic Astaire-Rogers chemistry and talent, the spectacular art direction, the historical underpinning, the critical reception and of course the music and dance numbers, R.D. has treated the film community with a definitive appreciative of this screen masterpiece, and has urged us all on to treat ourselves to another viewing. I’m on board for just about everything that is said here. This effervescent, whimsical musical was the perfect panacea for Depression era audiences, and in many ways it still hasn’t been equalled.
With a terrific review -his first and only one for this countdown- and perhaps the most consistently brilliant comments throughout, R.D. has really made this venture fly
Sam, it was a pleasure to be able to contribute to the countdown. I find writing about musicals a daunting task, a bit easier than writing on comedy because there’s always the singing and dancing to discuss. But I’m not that knowledgeable about either and can write only from the perspective of an appreciative amateur. I’m glad you liked the post. I did put extra effort into polishing it, knowing it was for WitD and being acquainted with the high standard of writing set by you, Allan, and the rest of your contributors.
R. D. Admitted, I have always preferred Gene Kelly to Astaire but that takes nothing away from this film which is the best of the Astaire/Rogers films with “Swing Time” running a close second. It probably has to do with Kelly’s more “regular guy” façade versus Astaire’s top hat and tails persona. Even when he appears in a film that is not filled with the “sophisticated” set he just does not come off as a guy I can relate too. Astaire and Rogers do make a great team, your essay is a tremendous read and does the film justice. Enjoyed!
John, I know what you mean about Kelly’s screen persona being warmer than Astaire’s. Even when Astaire is essaying a “regular guy,” he can come off as forced, a sophisticate slumming. But I did find him pretty convincing in “Follow the Fleet” and especially “Swing Time.” I like to think of Astaire’s characters as introverts trying to act like extroverts and not being totally comfortable at it. It’s only through singing and dancing that he finds authentic expressiveness.
For me this is Astaire and Rogers’ finest movie together, and you have written a great piece about it, R.D. I really liked your point that “The five musical numbers here represent just about every style of dance then current in musical movies.”
The ‘Cheek to Cheek’ number in particular is amazing, to see how fluidly the two of them move together – and I don’t think we’d ever know that the feathers were literally flying everywhere as they danced, although you can possibly spot one or two stray feathers on the floor at the end! The Irving Berlin score is wonderful too and I love Astaire’s singing of both ‘Cheek to Cheek’ and ‘Top Hat’. I’m just reading Astaire’s autobiography ‘Steps In Time’, and he mentions in that how he originally dreamed up the idea for the Top Hat dance number at 4am one night, as something to include in a stage show, and later he and Hermes Pan reworked it for the movie and Berlin wrote the song for it.
Judy, I think the fact that there are only five song-and-dance numbers in the film is one of its virtues. Each one is choice, distinctive, and nicely developed, so that the musical numbers lift the film up rather than weighing it down, as can happen when a film is overloaded with these. Maybe that’s why original screen musicals tend to work so much better for me than adaptations of stage musicals, which can have 10 or 15 songs of varying appeal. As for wedding cakes, did you notice how in that photo of the cast Fred and Ginger are posed like the bride and groom on a wedding cake?
No, I hadn’t noticed that about the photo, but yes, I can see it now! Thanks, R.D.
Personally I feel Astaire is greater than Kelly as a dancer. One can prefer one to the other (as John Greco did) but to say that one had more talent than the other is unacceptable. “Cheek to Cheek” is one of the most famous dance numbers, comparable even to the “Singin in the Rain” number with Kelly.
A very great review by Mr. Finch that illustrates just why this is such a movie classic.
Frank, by saying Astaire is greater, isn’t that like saying he’s more talented? You’ve said the same thing, no?
Precisely Jon. You can equate one with the other, but it applies to his dancing, not to his overall persona.
Frank, yes, “Cheek to Cheek” and the title number from “Singin’ in the Rain”–the yin and yang of Hollywood movie musical numbers.
I meant to add, interesting to see your mention of a wedding cake, R.D., as Astaire says in his autobiography that he made his professional dancing debut, aged five-and-a-half, in a number where he and sister Adele had to dance on top of two wedding cakes, at a theatre on a pier in New Jersey – he had to wear a top hat then, too! Although he writes about it all in an amusing way, it sounds as if he and his sister had a tough childhood, touring all over the country in vaudeville and living in hotels – the list of venues they appeared at alone is mind-boggling.
“Artifice, stylization, and exaggeration are the engines that drive musical films like Top Hat.”
Perfectly said here R.D. Finch and you’re right there has been much debate over the musical medium and how it works, but I think you summed it up great. I’ve said if you don’t like over-the-topness, then you don’t like musicals. Anways. Brilliant essay and I really enjoyed reading it. You went into the “Cheek to Cheek” scene and it was well documented that Astaire nearly had a hissy fit over the feathers that were getting all over during the shooting of that scene. His perfection tendencies were pushed to the limit there.
I still prefer Swing Time, although just by a little. You mentioned that Top Hat is the epitome of their airy style. I think I like Swing Time the best because it’s a bit of a departure, and actually has a bit of melancholy and a twinge of emotion at play. Maybe that’s just me. I have a feeling we will hear about this film soon;)
Again, Great Essay!
Jon, as I said, “Swing Time” is for me a close second to “Top Hat” among Astaire-Rogers musicals. What I didn’t say is that I like it for the opposite reason I like “Top Hat”! Whereas for me “Top Hat” is the most typical Astaire-Rogers movie, “Swing Time” is in many ways the least typical. It sounds like this is close to your view too. I’ll save further discussion for another post!
Very enjoyable and illuminating essay, R.D. I really liked your guiding us to consider the shift from art deco to rococo, from men’s club sheen to the indispensable turmoil a woman can so expertly invoke. True, the whole narrative bubbles; but there are some comparative rewards piling up near the end.
Jim, thanks. When I watched this in preparation for writing the post, I really noticed how much the decor added to the experience. Yes, this movie bubbles from beginning to end. A couple of years ago, I watched it on New Year’s Eve. It went down a treat with a bottle of bubbly!
R. D. –
I love your enthusiastic, well-researched post on the delightful “Top Hat.” It is my favorite Astaire Rogers (if just by nose over “Swing Time”), largely because of the way dance is used to capture the stop/start wooing and courting routine between Jerry and Dale that you so aptly describe in your post. “Cheek to Cheek,” is, of course, the best remembered dance number, but my favorite is “Isnt’ a Lovely Day to Get Caught in the Rain,” just for the way that the dance wears down Dale’s resistance to Jerry – they start kind of dancing against each other and wind up in happy accord. I’m embarassed to say I never realized Lucille Ball was in this film; I’ll have to take a closer look at that scene in florist shop next time.
Pat, thank you. A nice observation you made about the way dance is used to comment on the stages of the Jerry-Dale romance. I think one reason this works so well is the placement of the musical numbers in the film. Rather than being grouped together, they’re interspersed with the action to maintain a nice, even pace. They don’t seem to interrupt the plot but to flow with it. And I’m very fond of the “Isn’t It a Lovely Day?” number too. It’s not as showy a dance routine or song as “Cheek to Cheek,” but it has its subtle appeal. The two numbers make a nice contrast in that in the one Astaire and Rogers are dancing in parallel, and in the other their movements are completely interlocked. The melodies and lyrics of the songs underscore this too, the one reflecting the tentative, almost accidental nature of the early stages of romance, the other that surge of full-blown emotion as the romance approaches ripeness.
I’ve seen Top Hat, and I know the praise (hell, it even made number 11 in the countdown and on various top 10s and top 20s of the distinguished voters), but I must say that while I admire the dancing, the singing and the acting even, I find that this film is a bit hollow, and not completely entertaining (is highly entertaining in many parts, but also boring in a lot as well).
Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers are great in their roles, and the comedy of errors that goes on are the most entertaining parts of the film, but still, as fictional and not real the musical genre is, I can’t forgive that RIDICULOUS portrayal of Venice, is like if people have never been to it. I stay with Don’t Look Now.
**** for me.
Dee Dee mentioned in the sidebar that the previous film musical in the countdown, ‘The Umbrellas of Cherbourg’, had been adapted as a stage production in London recently.
I’ve just discovered that ‘Top Hat’ has also been adapted for the stage in the UK and is currently touring – it is actually in Norwich at the moment, which isn’t all that far from me, but sadly I don’t think I’ll be able to see it. Anyway I thought I’d post a link to a video of the trailer – it seems it includes some songs from other Astaire-Rogers movies.
Perceptive and evocative piece – I especially like how you summarize the personas and appeal of those memorable supports, as much a part of the decoration of an Astaire-Rogers film as those art deco sets.
A titanic piece of writing. I can’t say if I prefer this to Swing Time or not. But give me either one at anytime!
[…] at Wonders in the Dark: reviews of Astaire and Rogers’ top two, Swing Time (1936) and Top Hat (1935), and a review with video essay for 42nd Street (1933) This entry was posted in Helen Geib, In the […]