It's taken me maybe two years to see all of this film. Why does it take nearly half the film for them to get to the dinner? And the sound of the film is tinny and terrible to hear on TV or computer. Sue me, I'll try to finish it now, but so far it's HIGHLY dated.
shareWhy put so much effort into it? Some movies just aren't one's cup of tea. I loved it, so do many others; others don't. No one's really interested in how tough you find it to watch.
And yes, it's 77 years old; it's bound to be dated in some respects.
"My brain rebelled, and insisted on applying logic where it was not welcome."share
That's entirely fair, but I really wanted to like it! I never did finish it. I enjoy many of the romantic and screwball comedies from the 1930s and 1940s, though others I've found slow, implausible, overrated. I thought this would be sharper and more entertaining from the start. Oh, well, it has a strong reputation, but then it's not THAT popular, so I don't know why I'd thought it would stand the test of time. I'll still try to see it again at some point.
shareJust out of curiosity, how old are you?
No, I don't mean that as some wise crack about how the youth can't appreciate good stuff, or something; it's just that nowadays people are exposed to (or, more appropriately, aren't forced so much to rely upon) less older stuff, and therefore it often seems dated. (You say you like some old screwball comedies. Not only was "Bringing Up Baby" [astonishingly enough, though obviously I don't know if it's one of the ones you like] a complete flop when it came out, but now, once again, there are many people who don't like it, all over again...and to me, it seems a lot less dated than "Dinner at Eight!")
For the record, I'm 58, and when I was a kid there were only a handful of television channels, and one hell of a LOT of old movies playing to fill in the non-network time on most of them. The result was that, even though I certainly wasn't around during the Depression or when this film came out, nevertheless, just from happening across so many, I, and a lot of people from back then, got a feel for those times, and gained an appreciation for the films from back then simply through exposure through so many of them.
After all, films have never, and will never, accurately reflect their times. "Dinner at Eight" was no more realistic to the people in 1933 than to us now (though there were certainly topical references that hit home quite a bit more). Films are an affectation. The world they protray has obviously changed over the years, but it's never the real world, it just hits closer to home in different eras.
But watch hundreds of films from the 30's and eventually you get the feel for the times, and the films made back then, and you begin to recognize why some, like this one, are superior to a lot of others. (None of which is to say that there would ever be a time when this or any other film will particularly strike you, anyway. As the other poster said, everyone has his own tastes, and not everyone appreciates the same films--or anything else--no matter what.)
Of course, for all I know, you're 60 and this entire argument doesn't apply to you anyway! Though it certainly applies to a lot of people!
(And yes, I know only too well that there are a few cable channels still showing these films, but the point is that now there are endless alternatives, and if someone isn't interested in old films they'll just never bother watching any. Back in those days we had a lot fewer choices.)
I am in my 20s. I can only give my opinion as to romantic/screwball comedies from the '30s and '40s that I did enjoy: It Happened One Night (definitely grew on me after seeing it once when I was really young, but now one of my absolute favorite movies), Ball of Fire, The Awful Truth, Midnight, The Women, You Can't Take It with You, Stage Door, The Thin Man, Sullivan's Travels, The Philadelphia Story, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, Bringing Up Baby.
Ones I didn't enjoy as much: His Girl Friday (I just couldn't handle it), Woman of the Year & Adam's Rib (they're fine, but slow), The Palm Beach Story (definitely cute but ludicrous), The Major and the Minor (again, ludicrous to think that we'd buy Ginger Rogers as a kid), The Lady Eve (didn't think they had chemistry, and it was too SLOW), The More the Merrier (liked it, but wasn't very impressed), and what I've seen of Dinner at Eight.
For what it's worth, I've also started and stopped The Major and the Minor, Twentieth Century, and To Be or Not to Be (perhaps too early, but I waited long enough).
It's not so much the period I can't deal with as much as the dated or implausible feel of some of them. Also, admittedly, I think I'm biased against the dialogue-heavy, plot-thin films that are truly much ado about nothing. Maybe I need my older movies to be about something unless they're easily digestible mainstream entertainment. Maybe I just prefer the romantic comedies where I find the stars to have chemistry and be legitimately funny. But maybe, just maybe some movies stand the test of time better than others, or some were just always funnier.
Dinner at Eight is a dialouge heavy film that you must pay attention to.If you had,you'd realize that the "Dinner" is a whole week away from the start of the film.The director uses that week to develop the story of the films many characters.
I suggest you watch it again-without distraction.Jean Harlow and Marie Dressler have so many one liners that stand the test of time your sure to enjoy.
There are two bad assumptions you made about the movie (from this post and your other posts). The first is that it is about the dinner. While this is understandable, given the title, the movie is about the connections a group of people have amongst each other, whether clandestine or above board, and that they come to light as a function of them being invited to the same dinner party. The dinner is just a plot device to form the group.
The second bad assumption is that this is a screwball comedy. It's not. It Happened One Night sort of paved the way for that type of film, and Bringing Up Baby was the first one with all the elements. Dinner at Eight is a comedy/drama that came out before either of them. It's not a screwball comedy at all.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
Good point, Eponymous, and one which is often overlooked: a person goes into viewing a film with some kind of supposition as to what to expect from it, and if the film doesn't meet their expectations, then they may well be disappointed.
(Just imagine all the horror fans walking out of "Young Frankenstein" if they didn't know going in that it was a Mel Brooks film! And probably some did!)
On the other hand, don brings up a telling point regarding his own tastes, in that he says he's into plot and action as opposed to dialogue...and a lot of the best 30's pictures revolve heavily around the brilliance of the dialogue. In fact, he backs this up by (among others) singling out "His Girl Friday" as one of his least-admired films...which, after all, was just a minor updating of "The Front Page," from 1931. That picture (either version) just REEKS with great dialogue.
I agree-you must "listen"to these movies or you will miss everything.
Todays movie audience"Watch" the action and plot unfold-dialouge is sometimes lost today.
The movie is dated because the play is dated.
I like the movie - but I also agree with you to some degree. I think as a movie that presents a collage of people and relationships, the previous year's "all-star" movie "Grand Hotel" is much, much better, with the emphasis on drama rather than trying to combine it with comedy.
Clearly, MGM was trying to repeat the success of GH - albeit the source material for "Dinner" was a tried and true piece of theater.
I saw the 2003 Broadway revival and realized how dated the whole is. In particular, the business about the "aspic" - a gelatinous concoction that few people have ever heard of today.
There were also scenes cut out from the movie, in particular the scene were the aspic is destroyed. In the movie, the cook played by May Robson only describes what happened to the aspic: "I had to throw it on the floor" - and she then goes on to describe how she had to do it because the butler and the chauffeur got into a fight. In the play, we actually see the argument between the two men and then get to enjoy the SPLAT of the aspic as it goes down on the floor. It's a great moment: there is laughter at the SPLAT but also delight at the anticipation that Mrs. Jordan has yet to find about the ruined dish.
Then there's the conversation between the doctor and his wife, where she goes on at length about his personality and the types of women he likes, citing comparisons to various parts of New York City: 42nd Street, 10 Avenue, Murray Hill, etc. None of that really resonates with anyone today because so much has changed in NYC.
The most memorable part of the movie, however, which is perhaps the real reason for its designation as a "classic," is the scene between Jean Harlow and Marie Dressler.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
OP here: OK, I'm sure I've been wrong before. Makes you wonder how many supposedly overrated movies you just didn't give a proper chance. It goes to show how one's mind (or mindset) can change and affect one's opinion of a movie. I finally saw Dinner at Eight last night and thought it was really, really good. I rated it 8/10.
The poster above me was right that I did myself an injustice by assuming this was a screwball comedy about the actual dinner. And admittedly, had it been, I think I would have enjoyed it even more. I can't say I loved the actual film, but there were moments, lines, that I loved. It's very smart and manages to balance scenes of drama and comedy quite deftly.
I wouldn't say I found the blend of comedy and drama "jarring" as others have said on this board. I just would have enjoyed it more if the laughs were rolling in from the beginning.
I agree with the poster directly above me that Dinner at Eight brought to mind Grand Hotel, and that for whatever reason, Grand Hotel worked for me much more. Grand Hotel is one of my favorite movies of the '30s. It's emotionally resonant and juggles the terrific ensemble exquisitely. Perhaps by playing it as a straight (melo)drama, the tone is more consistent and the script can delve deeper into the subplots and better integrate the various characters. On the other hand, while Dinner at Eight is great at interjecting humorous interplay and hilarious one-liners after authentic, resonant moments of drama, for me, the first half is still too slow, talky, and stagy.
I enjoy it most when it's a comedy, and those moments are few and far between. I still think more time should have been given to the dinner, or at least the guests mingling at the party beforehand, which was only about 10-15 minutes. As it is, it takes a long time to get to that dinner, and whereas Grand Hotel was about a group of guests mingling at a hotel, Dinner at Eight is about a very disparate cast of characters connected only by their common invitation to a dinner party, and they only mingle with their own until that dinner. For example, while John Barrymore is excellent, and Beery and Harlow are electric together, the best scenes are with Marie Dressler, the Maggie Smith or Betty White of her day. Dressler's a pip whenever she's onscreen, partly because her character is a guest for the entire film, never in the presence of people around whom she might feel too comfortable and be herself (though you could argue she acts the same around everyone because she is old and above it all!). She and Harlow of course share the film's best exchange, and imagine an hour and a half of their sense of spontaneity.
Grand Hotel is not particularly comical, nor is it the most serious drama ever made, but what makes it gripping viewing for me from start to finish is the way in which each of the characters interacts with another. You never have the problem I had when watching the first half of Dinner at Eight, because in Grand Hotel, scenes aren't too talky, they don't go on for too long, and most importantly, everybody's a guest or stranger before everyone else. There are few preexisting relationships that get in the way of the unexpected delights that follow from new friendships being formed.
Still, I was very wrong about this film. It's a slow start but very watchable, resonant, and funny. It's an excellent ensemble, with Dressler, Harlow, John Barrymore, and Billie Burke all shining. On that note, how rare is it for so many to stand out among an ensemble?
I haven't seen the film yet - but surely if 'dinner is at eight', then I'd expect what happens at that dinner to be in the midsection, the main meat of the film... Give or take a few minutes, in the traditional three act structure, this seems about right, to me...
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
Sometimes when I consider the (unlikely) possibility of intelligent life forms visiting earth, I feel pretty sure it won't go well at all, especially from the human side.
We have a lot of trouble getting along with cultures that are unlike ours. Aliens would be the ultimate in "foreign" culture.
Especially since there are a lot of people like you around, don-lockwood. Here we have people in out own country, our own culture, and speaking English, our own language, but removed from us in time by 83 years and yet it's all lost on you and you are unable to appreciate the humor, the cleverness or the tragicomic aspects of what was a much acclaimed piece of art in our own country.