Am I the only one who thinks Fred Astaire's character doesn't deserve (or really love) Judy's character in this film?
He acts like an absolute beast toward her and is far too old to end up with such a beautiful young woman.
I always feel like something darker is going on beneath the surface of the film as the end song swells so cheerily. Very complex, I love it!
I thought Fred was more in love with Nadine. He looks a lot happier around her than he does Judy. Judy's character is believable in the way of loving Fred, but I don't think he's as believable.
That doesn't mean I don't love this movie though. It's great!
I thought Fred was more in love with Nadine. He looks a lot happier around her than he does Judy.
Ann Miller a consolation prize? She was gorgeous and I'm surprised didn't become a bigger star!
shareAnn Miller a consolation prize? She was gorgeous and I'm surprised didn't become a bigger star!
shareCould anyone explain the ending to me? Was it a policeman who made Don leave Hannah's door? Was it true about the auditioning and Don not being too bothered or was Peter Lawson's character just trying to get them back together?
Sorry to be dim, but this has troubled me for ages!!
I really thought that Judy should end up with Peter Lawford. She looked liked she liked him a little bit and he loved her a lot! I just don't understand why she went to Fred, the only thing he does to her is boss her around or be happy because tey got a job.....
shareThe cigar-smoking man who displays a badge under his coat lapel is a hotel detective. Every hotel used to employ them. Their job was to provide security to hotel guests and to keep an eye out for any questionable behavior or activity on the hotel premises.
shareIt was obvious from their first meeting in the film that Fred and Judy would end up together. Nadine (Ann Miller) was too much of a bitch for Don (Fred) and though Hannah (Judy) likes Jonathan (Peter Lawford), she is not in love wiht him. As far as darkness underneath the surface, we're talking about a 1948 MGM musical here...you're not going to find a lot of darkness, layers, or hidden agendas. Every MGM musical during the 40's and 50's was basically the same thing...Boy meets girl, Boy loses girl, girl gets distracted by show business or another guy, girl learns about love, and Boy gets girl back.
shareYou're right about most musicals of the day being straight-forward love stories, but I still think there's something sad about the end of this film. Whether it's implicit, explicit or not even meant to be there, I always feel very disheartened at the end of this film. This strange feeling makes me love it all the more. Just because I said that I thought there was darkness under the surface doesn't mean that it was put there by the writers. Everybody reads texts differently.
shareIt was obvious from their first meeting in the film that Fred and Judy would end up together. Nadine (Ann Miller) was too much of a bitch for Don (Fred) and though Hannah (Judy) likes Jonathan (Peter Lawford), she is not in love wiht him. As far as darkness underneath the surface, we're talking about a 1948 MGM musical here...you're not going to find a lot of darkness, layers, or hidden agendas. Every MGM musical during the 40's and 50's was basically the same thing...Boy meets girl, Boy loses girl, girl gets distracted by show business or another guy, girl learns about love, and Boy gets girl back.
share
well firstly Fred Astaire has always looked older than he was, im not sure why but he just has always looked old even in some of the younger movies i have seen him in.
and secondly i think they showed alot of judy garland's character falling in love with fred astaires' but was not they many scenes depicting Don falling in love with Hannah, its like he just rebounded. which is why people have now dont think he was that sincere in his affections towards Hannah.
The only Abnormality is the incapacity to love
i've always thought astaire looked at least 10 years younger than he actually was, then again because he was so much older than his costars (especially from judy onwards excepting barkleys) i guess it shows more, however i didnt notice the age gap so much with ann millers character and was rather suprised to find that she was born in 1923 making her younger than garland who was born in 1922
share
There are tons of that so - called decent films that I have found not to be decent at all because of their respective endings. Like someone should die, they made him live. Or someone else should end up with that guy but they didn't make it that way!
The irony is that I have no problem whatsoever with this film's ending. Pretty decent!
JeSkuNk
It mustn't be forgotten that Fred Astaire's part was originally meant for Gene Kelly, which would have made more sense. Astaire got the part following Kelly's accident, so I imagine the script and plot were already completed.
share