MovieChat Forums > Father of the Bride (1950) Discussion > Spencer Tracy in this

Spencer Tracy in this

posted 12 years ago by netshopper-2
10 replies | jump to latest

He was the stand out performer in this film,,,not Taylor. He was hilarious.

[–] yesbloom 8 years ago

This film is good, mainly because of the performance of Spencer Tracy. Undoubtedly, Spence was a great actor.

The film is entertaining. In some ways, it is a time capsule (i.e. it is of its time). So having a black maid, the father being the dominant person of the family, this may have been how it was in 1950.

Both Joan Bennett and Elizabeth Taylor were beautiful in this film. Also, they happen to perform well in their roles, especially Joan Bennett.

I cannot see another performer in the role of Stanley Banks. Spence was terrific.

I have not seen the 1991 remake, so cannot comment.

[–] k-gage 8 years ago

totally agree with everything, except i saw about 15 minutes of the remake and had to turn it off. if i hadn't seen the original first, don't think i would have liked it anyway. the original cast and script were great. it captured the times so well. so many great lines. the meeting with the dunstens was hilarious...and the engagement party afterwards. martinis :) and so many more

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 5 years ago

It's between this and Fury for my favourite Tracy performance... he is flat-out wonderful in this, so droll, deadpan, convincingly exasperated, curmudgeonly but ultimately loveable. A marvellous film, so re-watchable.

[–] [email protected] (5497) 5 years ago

Great performance by Spencer Tracy, as always. I read the book and the film is a totally faithful adaptation. I could never imagine anyone else in the role of Stanley Banks.

Some of the dialogue is kind of sad and bittersweet if you are familiar with Tracy's private problems.

When the Banks are going to visit the Dunstans, Stanley remarks that he hopes they'll offer them something to drink.

Ellie says something like, "Why do you need a drink? You're not an alcoholic are you?"

Sadly, Spencer Tracy was. It was amazing how he could perform so well despite his personal demons.

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 5 years ago

Yes, he was a great actor but struggled with alcoholism pretty much all his life. In fact I remember reading that alcoholism ran in his family, afflicting his father and other men in his family. It clearly took its toll - he always looked considerably older than his years. But what a talent.

I didn't know that Father of the Bride was based on a book - is it worth a read?

[–] [email protected] (5497) 5 years ago

Oh definitely yes!! I discovered the author, Edward Streeter many years ago. I was about twelve and I picked up one of his books at my grandmother's house. (I always had my nose in a book).

My grandmother told me to take the book with me. It was called "Mr. Hobbs Vacation". The main character, Roger Hobbs, is similar to Stanley Banks in that he is constantly befuddled by his loving family.
I lost my copy years ago, so I bought another on ebay. It is a charming book. I revisit it every once in a while.

I looked for other books by Edward Streeter and I found "Father of the Bride". It is also a delightful and charming book. I have a copy of it too.

He also wrote "Chairman of the Bored". No that wasn't a misspelling. It's a kind of play on words. A high powered businessman can't wait to reire to the country, then he is so bored!

I'd recommend all of these books if you like a fun, relaxing read with interesting characters (and no sex or profanity!)

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 5 years ago

Oh, I presume that other book was adapted as the James Stewart movie Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation? Another likeable film although not a classic like Father of the Bride.

Thank you! I'm always on the lookout for interesting books... they sound like fun reads, I shall check them out.

[–] [email protected] (5497) 5 years ago

I was going to mention the Mr. Hobbs movie, but I really disliked it! I suppose that it's a pleasant enough movie for Jimmy Stewart fans and those people who hadn't read the book.

The movie just loses all the charm of the book and it's strictly one of those "adapted from..." types of films.

As i wrote, I read the book many times as a child and I was excited to find out that it had been made into a movie years ago. It was on TV one afternoon. I could barely get through the first half of it.

In the book, Roger Hobbs is one of those hardworking "every man" types. His family takes a month long vacation every summer and his wife just looks forward to have her "growing brood", i.e., her grandchildren, all around her.

They rent a summer cottage, sight unseen, on a little island off the New England coast. When Roger Hobbs first sees it, it looks like a haunted house to him!

It's a story most people can relate to. He has big plans for the summer. He wants to get up early, walk on the beach and generally get back in shape. He wants to have fun with his grandchildren and really get to know his sons-in-law. None of his big summer plans pan out, but he enjoys his vacation anyway.

The movie just seemed to be a starring vehicle for the, at that time, heartthrob singer Fabian. There was no character remotely like him in the book.

Perhaps the way they book is written would make it too difficult to adapt for a movie. But I just didn't enjoy it.

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 5 years ago

Truth be told I remember very little about the film although I found it amusing enough on a 'sitcom with stars' level. Fabian was certainly an irritant but I enjoyed the birdwatching scene with Stewart and John McGiver and some of Stewart's rapport with the younger kids was quite funny. Nothing I'd recommend as a must-see for any but Stewart completists, but a passable Sunday afternoon-type movie. The book certainly sounds more memorable!

[–] [email protected] (5497) 5 years ago

I hesitate to say that it wasn't an enjoyable film. Lots of people really like it. It's just that for me, it didn't measure up to the book.

I've had that problem before when I've really loved a book and then been disappointed in the movie. But truthfully, a book just can't be filmed. It's a different medium, so it's my problem when the movie doesn't "measure up" to the book that I loved!

In the book, so much of what happens goes on in Roger Hobbs head. He spends a lot of time thinking about what he's experiencing and you can't film a character thinking. ha ha