MovieChat Forums > For Me and My Gal (1943) Discussion > A different perspective (massive spoiler...

A different perspective (massive spoilers)


First of all I think this is a pretty good movie.

Considering the cast, director and title I had assumed this would be a good, but standard musical, and in a way it is. Boy meets girl, falls in love, almost loses girl, but gets her in the end. All this in a setting of great singing and dancing (Berkeley directing, what would one expect?).

And sure it starts of like that. But then, a couple of things seemed different. For me there's two stand out things that separate this movie from other musicals.

1. Boy gets girl.

Yes, he does, but is it the right boy that gets the girl? Kelly messes up big time with his attempt to dodge the draft, and subsequently reacting very insensitive to Garland losing her brother. His behaviour to redeem himself is admirable, but I kind of had the feeling 'too little, too late'. All this while the script goes out of its way to present an alternative to Garland in the character of Jimmy Metcalf (George Murphy). Even in the finale Murphy is there to console Garland in a way that I would perceive as 'being in love with her'. For me Kelly's character winning out did not feel right.

2. The war.

(Disclaimer: I always go into movie completely spoilerfree, so I had no idea that WWI would be the backdrop for this movie. I am not American, so I may approach this different than those who are. I do not wish to offend, and if I do please forgive me.)

It is clear to me that basically this movie also served propaganda purposes for a) America being a great country and b) supporting the U.S. war effort. The ending, marching soldiers, all main characters going for 'the cause', make this pretty obvious. And, considering the time frame and circumstances, that's fine.

On the other hand, a few details struck me as odd. The obvious one being the questionable behaviour of Kelly's character.
I know that after negative audience response after the first screenings, the ending of the movie was re-shot to put Kelly's character in a more positive light. But still, in my opinion Kelly's character does not fit the morally unquestionable character that one would expect in a movie like this.

And then there's the death of Garland's brother. I did not see that coming at all. First of all, because it stops the movie from having a completely happy ending. Secondly, and even more interesting, one could almost regard this as an anti-war statement. Consider the fact that early in the movie Garland makes a big fuss about her brother wanting to drop out of college, in which we learn that as a future doctor he will make a valuable contribution to the future society. This makes his tragic death feel even more senseless than it already does.
And again, Kelly's character's reaction to his death was completely off putting. Garland's subsequent furious response to this is great by cutting him out of her life. However, her - in my opinion - rather quick and effortlessly getting back together with Kelly in the end sort of contradicts her earlier behaviour.

I know all this depends on how one regards Kelly's character, but anyway... I did not expect to be talking about things like that from a 40's musical

edit: For those interested, a lively debate about this post can be found at the Classic Movies board: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/thread/145548495?d=145548495&p =1#145548495

voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013

reply

Good points, all...but FWIW:

-George Murphy often played the guy who didn't get the girl in these great musicals: lost Eleanor Powell twice (to Robert Taylor in 'Broadway Melody/1938,' and to Fred Astaire in 'Broadway Melody/1940.'). And there's a scene early on in FMAMG where we clearly learn that Murphy is in love with Garland as she laments being in love with Kelly (who's infatuated with Martha Eggerth- anywho, you see the pattern).

-Kelly was great at playing heels- he played them in one form or another in most of his films- but was always redeemed by the end of the picture. (His last job on Broadway which brought him to Hollywood was the womanizing "Pal Joey-" perhaps the greatest heel of them all.)


(SPOILER HERE, FWIW)
-I didn't think he was insensitive to the news about her brother. He was shown consoling her until she noticed his injured hand- then the entire topic changed over to his hand, and he made the mistake of blurting out how that won't stop them from playing the Palace Theatre- and from then on the denoument was in place. She sees his blind ambition for opportunity, and is immediately ashamed of him. (It takes the remainder of the film for him to 'become a hero' and get back into her good graces.)

-Part of me strongly agrees with you that it seemed Judy ended up with the wrong guy at the end. But that's Hollywood for you; they like for guys who are a tad bad to get the girl at the end. And the audiences don't seem to object.

reply

The reason that Jo Hayden doesn't end up with Jimmy Metcalf is because she's not in love with him. His love for her is strictly one-sided. That's made very clear in the scene where Jo asks Jimmy what you do when you're in love with someone and they don't know you're around. Jimmy's "I don't know" is delivered in such a way that it's very obvious that he's in love with Jo, and she doesn't know he's around. Jo's love for Harry is not one-sided. Once Harry realizes that he's in love with Jo, Eve Menard completely disappears from the picture (literally). After Jo dumps Harry when he mangles his hand to avoid the draft, everything Harry does after that point is done with the goal of winning back Jo's love and faith in him. So, the two people in love with each other end up together at the end of the film. Whether or not they live "happily ever after" is another matter entirely, but it's fairly certain that if Jo ended up with Jimmy, she would have spent the rest of her life pining for Harry, and been unhappy with Jimmy. Jimmy knew that, and that's why he stepped aside. At least with Harry, Jo has a chance that their love for each other will result in happiness.

reply

rick-220 says > It is clear to me that basically this movie also served propaganda purposes for a) America being a great country and b) supporting the U.S. war effort.
I think that's fair to say. Given the year in which this movie was made one would expect no less. Most movies made during that time addressed what was going on in real life. It was on everyone's mind and these movies also were shown to the military.

I know Harry's actions didn't go over so well in early screenings. He seemed to be behaving cowardly or selfishly so they had to re-shoot a few scenes and change the ending; giving him a chance to redeem himself. I actually think it was good to have a character in the movie trying to get out of going to war; even temporarily.

It's important to show that side of it because it's how a lot of the young guys felt who were drafted. They may not have been ready to drop everything to go off to unknown lands to fight. It doesn't necessarily mean they were against fighting for their country, Harry didn't feel that way. They were mostly reacting to the common fear of the unknown.

The suddenness of being drafted must have been hard too. Like Harry, some of the guys felt they were within striking distance of the goals they've had since childhood. They could taste it and wham, out of no where, it was all gone.

For Harry it was both appearing at the Palace and marrying Jo. Going to war, he knew there was no guarantee he'd return in one piece or at all.

The death of Jo's brother was also an important part of the movie. His story was the flip side to Harry's story. Bill, too, was working toward a long held goal. He was well on his way but he felt it his duty to fight for his country. He did not wait to be drafted; he enlisted and was eager to go. Probably within minutes of being sent to the 'front' he was killed. It seemed like such a waste. The news came suddenly, plainly, and coldly; just like Harry's draft notice. It was just the way things were. There was nothing anyone could do in either case.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

Frankly I don't really condemn anyone for dodging the draft. I do condemn Harry's erstwhile friends for turning on him.

reply