I couldnt believe how boring this film was. I'm not knocking the subject matter - It is definately important, however the film is one of the most overrated, tired dramas I think I've ever seen. Pity, this could have been an incredible film, instead it just turned into a soap episode on the big screen. 5/10
shareI just watched this in a film class in school and i agree with 100%. Important message but the movie was just so bad.
shareI am in many ways, despite it's faults, still a fan of the film.
However the director, Elia Kazan would agree with you to a point. He didn't like the script and felt that the romance was forced. He also felt that Gregory Peck did not do the job he could have on this film, despite his efforts to get something more out of Peck. Ironically, years later, Peck made a statement agreeing with Kazan, stating that as an older more mature actor that he realized he didn't give all he had. He realized after all these years what Kazan was looking for from him. This is quite a statement for a movie star to make and is not a dig at Peck's ability. Not every actor is ready either in ability and/or maturity to perform at their best for every role they take on.
For Kazan this job was among some contractual obligations he had to fill as with most other films he made at the time. In these instances Kazan was only able to direct the assignment given for the most part. He only had limited control. Due to these restrictions, Kazan spent the next few years directing on Broadway where he could exert nearly full control over the properties he worked on like "Death of a Salesman" and "Streetcar Named Desire". After these mega hits, Kazan was for a number of years able to make his own deals where he could have greater control, a big point, as he did on the prior plays mentioned, was being able to work with the playwright in shaping the play. If you look at the plays that Kazan did with Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller, they are most probably the greatest works those playwrights ever did; this is a testament to Kazan's ability to help the playwrights and screenwriters in fleshing out what was best in them in an effort to create a great series of collaborations.
My sense is that the film has many great moments, but that had Kazan had free reign he would have made it a better film. For me Anne Revere and John Garfield are the most interesting to watch. Garfield for me, give one of his greatest performances in his all too short career. You can see not only his personal understanding and investment in the role and film but how he was still growing and maturing as an actor. He's so much more natural and relaxed but with a burgeoning inner life. (not that he wasn't already a great actor, but here he's just moving to another level.) It's a great loss and tragedy on so many levels that Garfield died so young largely due to his persecution by HUAC.
As a personal aside, my acting teacher Sanford Meisner was very close with Garfield and on occasion spoke of him, what he suffered and what a loss it was. We all got to see his daughter, the talented Julie Garfield act in a play on Broadway many years ago. You could see the deep regard Meisner had for her, not only as one artist to another and teacher to pupil, but also the love of the woman he'd known since her youth, a daughter of a dear and long lost friend.
I thought I was only one who thought so. It was too tepid to really make any impact.
shareI understand your point completely.
however I think it made an impact in 1947.
films move fast now--it's so different.
i don't think an audience back then would have been bored by the pace or the story--just my opinion.
I thought it was oustanding and rated it a 10. Much anti-semitism is subtle, and can be just as devastating as if it is in your face.
I once wrote a fan letter to June Havoc, who played Peck's Jewish secretary in the film. She said it was "very daring of Mr. Zanuck" to produce the film.
I watched the film last night and I have to agree, I didn't like it that much. When you consider it won the oscar for best picture I wondered whether it won because the movie was a political statement.
shareThe sets were nice. I especially like the cottage Dorothy McGuire owned in Connecticut.
share[deleted]
In listening to the commentary, film critic Richard Schickel, more-or-less, put the blame on its pacing and character development on screenwriter Moss Hart, who wrote for the theatre, not motion pictures. And at times, yes, it does have a stagy feel to it. Incidentally, I found Schickel's commentary, rather boring itself! With the exception of some interesting tid-bits, he just came off very mundane. Rudy Belmer he definitely is not! I still give GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT my thumbs up, but will never again, listen to Schickel’s commentary, unless I am suffering from insomnia!
shareit was probably stagy because quite a few actors in the film had stage backgrounds, such as Celeste Holm and also Elia Kazan was a brilliant stage director as well as Film Director.
"One of the most boring, overrated films ever." translation; I have no sense of filmic history nor do I dare challenge myself.
Gentlemen's Agreement was historic, necessary, brilliant and important as its ever been. It predated the HUAC sessions, and probably spurred its inception due to its
uncompromising vision of anti-semitism.
I agree with you. I was BLOWN AWAY by this film and didn't find ANY of it boring AT ALL! I found it believable, emotional, moving, and very realistic for the time period. I think to appreciate it you would need to understand the time period and classic cinema. I am a HUGE classic movie fan and I think this movie was PHENOMENAL. AMAZING!
shareI couldnt believe how boring this film was. I'm not knocking the subject matter - It is definately important, however the film is one of the most overrated, tired dramas I think I've ever seen. Pity, this could have been an incredible film, instead it just turned into a soap episode on the big screen. 5/10
Kazan is one of my favorite directors, but this movie is a big dissapointment. It is a dull and very very overrated movie, the social statement was and is important and I dont deny that, however the film falls flat on it's contrived love story face. When you think about some of Kazan's other films, they are intense and intenesly entertaining movies, Baby Doll, On the Waterfront and Streetcar. I watched Boomerang the other night and it also lacked the intentsity I expect from a Kazan film (the casting was wonderful...but a little wasted)... so maybe he didn't really come into his own as a director until the 50s.
shareThe best scenes dealt directly with anti-Semitism (both overt and implied) but overall the film was too slow and soapy. Still, it did present an important message...
share"Contrived love story indeed"...I don't think anybody buys for a second, in spite of the final embrace, that the woman is going to change or that she and Green have resolved their differences. But I do think it's a dead on depiction of how prejudice works, the raised eyebrows and the jokes and the practices which are so understood they don't need to be explained. I found, say, "Crash," much more cartoonish and ridiculous -- who talks the way those characters do?
shareThis movie was not in the slightest bit boring. It made me think about the whole big deal of racism, and I came to the conclusion that there will always be somebody who will always hate somebody else, no matter for what reason.
"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston
Though it has its stagey and forced moments, I love this movie. I find most of it compelling, and I LOVE the performances by John Garfield, Celeste Holm, and June Havoc (which are never forced or stagey). In fact, for me the positives of GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT far outweigh the negatives.
What made me appreciate the movie even more was hearing the audio commentary on the DVD. This put the movie into historical perspective for me and also made me understand how it fit into Kazan's career.
Preachy films have to have at least something besides just preaching for it to not be boring. True, there's the romance angle, but the drama in the romance was her not following his cause completely. So with that shot, it was all just non stop "racism is bad" which had already been said a million times. Important message, especially for the era, but boring nonetheless.
shareI'm agree with the OP to some extent. The message of the movie sadly is still relevant but the movie as a MOVIE haven't aged well. It's simply too preachy and simplistic. Audience and critics at the time loved it, but the movie have failed to pass the test of time.
But not because its message is less valid nowadays, au contraire! Racism is pretty much alive and kicking.
Today perhaps jewish are not the most hated minority in USA, Black people, latinos and muslims (even asian perhaps) are way more hated than jewish, which doesn't mean that antisemtic people have disappeared, just that they have focused more on other minorities or that they have been outnumbered by other racist wackos whose main target aren't jews.
Besides in a world where have lived people like Ariel Sharon, where a wall is being built to divide palestine families, where the israelite army doesn't cease to bomb Gaza, not even on New Year's Day... In this world, the sympathy (small or big) for jews have started to dilute for they are repeating several of the same hate crimes they have suffered in the past.
Of course not all the jews are like that, just like not all the christians are antisemitc. A lot of humanist jews are against those criminal actions taken by Israel's government.
In a world where Bush and Osama bin laden co-exist. where hundreds of thousands of immigrants (escaping from war or hunger) are treated like $hit by the xenophobic and racist groups in rich countries. In this kind of world everything is possible.
So there you have people who feels ok with jewish but hates to the core Black people or latinos, or people who even likes jews but cannot tolerate another group of semitic people: arabs.
And Vice Versa, some religious zealots (Hello Mr. Gibson!) still think jews are the ones to blame for all the wars in this world!!!
Or what about the ethnic wars in the Balkans, Caucasus, Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, etc. The list is so large and terrible...
We haven't changed a bit. We haven't learnt.
But hey, there is hope. In a country where 20 years ago a Black Man or a Latino weren't allowed to put his feet on a Golf course, the #1 Golf players are precisely a Black Man (actually half asian, half black) and a mexican girl. I am talking, obviously, about Tiger Woods and Lorena Ochoa.
Plus for the 1st time a man whose ancestors where sent to USA in chains, is gonna rule that country.
I am not too optimistic about Obama presidency (Even if he is truly willing to undone what "other people" have screwed), some dudes --and their interests-- may not allow him to make truly important changes.
However I do have hope in the people who voted him despite being black and having a "muslim" name.