I saw Showboat for the first time, and I have to say, I am a little disappointed. I thought that Irene Dunne was fabulous, as she always is, of course. She sings impeccably and is quite beautiful!! But... I just did not like anything else. The other actors didn't help the movie, and it always seemed like they were purposely over acting. What did you think?
Getting involved is so... so... involving.
I thought it contained some of the best acting I've seen in a 1930's musical film. Compared to the 1951 Technicolor version, this one is an absolute masterpiece. The acting in the 1951 version, aside from Ava Gardner, is either really overdone or remarkably flat.
If you want to see an overacted musical, you should check out any of the Nelson Eddy-Jeanette MacDonald films, made around the same time as the 1936 "Show Boat".
[deleted]
As you pointed out, Dunne was brilliant, but you failed to mention Robeson and Hattie McDaniel. I always wished that Edna Mae Oliver had recreated her stage role as Parthie; That would've been something to see.
The story is a melodrama (sorta like 'Tempist and Sunshine'.)
"I love corn!"
I have now seen both this and the 50's version. I fist saw the 50s version and was unimpressed by it and couldn't get how good Show Boat was suppose to be. Now that I have seen this version i now see how good a musical it is. Plus a pleasant surprise was seeing Hattie Mcdaniels in it I didn't know she was in it.
Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw
What was considered good acting in 1936 was different than now. Film acting evolved from stage acting, where you have to project your voice and exaggerate expressions and actions so the audience can see and hear you. It took a while for the art of film acting to move away from stage acting, and even stage acting has evolved since the 1930s as technology has improved.
shareI think it is obvious to any one who has watched a movie pre-1950 that the acting is different than today. Most of the great film stars of that era were also great stage stars, or had a separate career on stage. Of course film evolved from the theater. It's just a play film by a camera! I have always taken the year of the production into account and given leeway on the "cardboard acting". Still, there was poor acting by the minor characters that flawed the film. I don't think it had anything to do with the lack of technology or the stagy 1930s feel. There were tons of early 30s films that are electric and fascinating, Dunne's own Back Street and Stanwyck's Baby Face, to name two. There is no doubt that Irene Dunne, Allan Jones, Helen Morgan, and Hattie McDaniel carry the film and are able to make it a worth-while picture, and it's the best "Show Boat" out there.
But the problem I still have with it, is that it is neither a film nor a musical. It keeps flipping back and forth. Some of the less polished minor characters could be forgivable if Show Boat could be classified as a musical. But the tremendous plot and theme of it do not allow it to be. The top acting is fantastic, but somewhat tainted by the supporters. Show Boat is very good, and could have been so GREAT if somehow the stragglers were boosted up. That is why I still am disappointed by it when I see it.
LEND AN EAR, I implore you, this comes from my heart: I'll always adore you, til death do us part.
"it is neither a film nor a musical. It keeps flipping back and forth."
???????????????
This is a really confusing position to me. Not a musical? SHOW BOAT just might have the best score of any American musical. And these performers deliver it well.
I don't honestly even understand what you mean by saying it is not a film.
*I thought one of the strong suits of this film was the acting in the smaller roles--J Farrell MacDonald, Charles Middleton, Donald Cook, Clarence Muse, Charles Wilson, that piano guy, the cleaning ladies who were listening to Helen Morgan sing "Bill".
As for the main actors, I thought they were okay in acting, but really top of the line on the whole as musical performers.
***I have noticed that if I watch the acting from the 1930's (or even silent movies) in more movies I begin to accept the style more. I remember Orson Welles responding to a criticism in an interview about theatricality by saying no theatre or film is real. If you want the reality of the girl or the boy next door, go next door.
Perhaps my wording was poor there. I meant in regards to the quality of acting. Frankly, I think it can be said that the quality of acting is more forgivable in musicals because the point of musicals is the music. But I do not think that the acting in Show Boat was strong enough to allow for the large amount of acting. I meant that it is difficult to classify Show Boat solely as a musical because the plot does not revolve around the musical numbers. They are more inserted to enhance. But there is so much music that it is not a "regular" film.
Of course no film is real. But that doesn't make up for crappy acting (unpopular opinion, I realize). I do not like the "real" acting, method acting, whatever you want to call it. But there can still be crappy method actors. My issue is still that the minor characters are not strong enough to carry Show Boat.
LEND AN EAR, I implore you, this comes from my heart: I'll always adore you, til death do us part.
I'm so sorry you were disappointed; it more than met my expectations. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.
shareRemember the time of the show is the late 1800s to the mid-1920s (give or take)... There are two events going on: the story line of "Show Boat" and the play that is being produced on Show Boat. And the acting styles of both the movie and the play within the movie would both be sylized. As others have pointed out, for a long time, Hollywood actors were people who honed their craft on live stage, which has a different set of production values, actors who have to play to the balcony. Later Hollywood actors came from the Hollywood stage. You can readily see this in "Sunset Boulevard" with Gloria Swanson and how different her acting style was compared to Holden. "The Jazz Singer" (1927)showed the production values of vaudeville theatre--"The Jazz Singer" is essentially about a vaudeville actor/singer...; it's not about a Hollywood actor. 1936 was light years distant from 1951 Hollywood production values of Louis Freed at MGM.
share