MovieChat Forums > An Affair to Remember (1957) Discussion > Downhill after they get to NY

Downhill after they get to NY

posted 9 years ago by hobnob53
17 replies | jump to latest

Until their ship docks in New York, this is a good, if overly sentimental, movie, with great chemistry between the stars.

But from their arrival onwards, things go downhill -- and completely unnecessarily.

Mostly this is a matter of those interminable songs Leo McCarey dragged into the film. Bad enough are the two ballads sung by Deborah Kerr's voice-over, Marni Nixon. These are supposed to be night club-style songs? Not by a long shot. Besides which, they're bland, unimaginative and boring. And we have to be subjected to two. One was not enough.

But the vacuousness of these dull songs is positively welcome compared to that pair of dreadful, God-awful, loud, screeching, and absolutely interminable numbers "performed" by those off-key and obnoxious kids. Neither cute nor -- what is the word -- oh, yes -- good, the songs themselves are as annoying as they are ineptly written, stupid and -- worst of all -- endless. Nothing destroys the mood of this story than these wholly inappropriate and out-of-place examples of bad songwriting. Terrible music, and asinine lyrics, even for kids' songs.

Tack on McCarey's inevitable cuddly old priest, dragged in by the heels in this movie, and some dumb and leadenly unappealing characters strewn about the wreckage, and this film is undermined almost beyond being salvageable by McCarey's misplaced and badly executed ideas. It's true that in the original film, 1939's Love Affair, Terry McKay was a singer and later taught singing at a girl's school. There too this was a poor decision, but at least the music and songs were not bland serenades or jarring pieces of juvenile crap. The 1957 version comes close to being ruined by these unbearable interludes, and just barely manages to pull it back at the end.

A lot of people have fond memories of this picture, but in most cases I've found they've forgotten about these lousy musical intrusions and just how bad not only the songs but their performers are. When they see it again and have to squirm through these scenes over and over and over and over, they remember how awful they are and how much they undercut the film's tone. It disintegrates from light comedy mixed with romantic drama to in-you-face, elbows-out, heavy-handed "humor", clichéd characters and, of course, those wretched musical numbers. (Their awfulness made all the more notable by the presence of a good piece of music, the marvelous title song...though when Deborah/Marni sings it, it comes out as vapid as dishwater.)

The big question is how anybody, even in 1957, could have been so stupid to believe that all this garbage enhanced the movie. Even then it was too much for audiences, as most critical reviews of the film took pains -- and I do mean pains -- to note.

Ugh. If only someone had strangled that "tiny scout" at birth. I for one would have a clear conscience.

[–] mrwalrusq 9 years ago

I couldn't disagree more. The title song is beautiful and children are charming. I love it all.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

If you re-read what I wrote, I said the title song was "marvelous". I didn't much care for Kerr's night club rendition of it, but the song is good.

But you find those kids charming? I'm sorry, that comment is so dumbfounding it verges on the bizarre. They're loud, cloying and obnoxious, and their musical numbers are atrocious -- among the worst ever committed to film, and performed without a hint of talent. Not to mention they're completely and jarringly out of step with and disruptive of the tenor of the rest of the film, which is gentle, sentimental and sophisticated.

To say those children are charming is a slap in the face to all the genuinely talented child actors -- and song writers -- of Hollywood.

[–] mrwalrusq 9 years ago

To each his own.

[–] RIP_IMDb 9 years ago

To say those children are charming is a slap in the face to all the genuinely talented child actors -- and song writers -- of Hollywood.

Ginger = To say those children are charming is a slap in the face to all the genuinely talented child actors -- and songwriters -- of Hollywood.

However, LanguageToolFx = .

I don't know what's a sig. line? Can't think of one! Can you tell me what one is?

[–] Ghetto_Defendant 8 years ago

Dude, give the copy-editing a rest. This the second post I've seen with your "advice."

[–] grumpy_otter 9 years ago

I'm with you, OP! I love Grant and Kerr together, but it was almost like some inept screenwriter took over when the ship docked.

Before that it was funny, charming--a delight!

It needed a sharp editor after that!

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Hey, thank you, grumpy_otter! Glad you see the same thing. Your assessments about the film are spot on! 

[–] gureto_hon 9 years ago

I would say it went downhill after she had the accident and it seems like I am the only one to dislike the ending. The movie is still a classic and worth watching but I can't help but feeling it could have been so much better...

[–] mandycw 9 years ago

Yay for fast forward! I gave each song a try and then hit the button.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Glad you see my point!

Leo McCarey was a great director in the 30s and early 40s but really went off the rails after 1942 or so.

[–] romarub 8 years ago

I couldn't agree more. The several sequences with the kiddies singing were overly sweet and distracting. The title song, which is most beautiful, by the way, was also presented a few too many times in the film. This is the kind of song that one wants to look forward to and yearn to hear again. But being heard too often, detracts from its magic, somewhat. Absence does, indeed, make the heart grow fonder - and that goes for songs, too, no matter how beautiful they may be.

The second half of the film was decidedly inferior to the first half, with the musical "interludes" contributing to that. But Grant and Kerr were wonderful together, so, overall, the film is good.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Well put, but for me, unfortunately, this is one film that gets less enjoyable with each viewing. Grant and Kerr are marvelous together but the more you see the film's problems the less it seems they're able to salvage it. But their chemistry explains why most people remember only the scenes between them and tend to forget how haphazardly done the rest of the film is.

[–] jane_bront 8 years ago

I completely disagree with the OP and I'm glad I enjoy the whole thing.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Well, I doubt you completely disagree with the OP (me) since among other things I said that Grant and Kerr are marvelous, along with some other positive remarks. Presumably, since based on your in-depth commentary you obviously find no fault whatsoever with this movie, you would agree at least with that observation.

I must say your remark that

I'm glad I enjoy the whole thing

is kind of bizarre, as though you're congratulating yourself because you like the entire film. I've seen lots of people say they like, dislike or have mixed feelings about a movie, and all of that is fair comment, but I don't recall ever having heard anyone express such self-satisfaction about the mere fact of enjoying a movie.

[–] LarryBrownHouston 8 years ago

Those here that enjoy this movie but are annoyed by certain scenes should get out the laptop computer, rip the DVD, and cut out the annoying scenes. You can be the director! Cutting out a judicious 20 minutes could make a whole new movie!

Star Trek The Motion Picture is also one that, if 40 minutes were cut, would be a muuuuch better movie.

I also do this with music. Some songs feature an annoying 60 second outro just repeating the same thing over and over to pad out the run time for unknown legal, money making, or contract satisfying reasons. Just a little chop on the old "fade out" button and bingo, 4 minute annoying song becomes a 3 minute favorite tune. "Happy/Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof" is one such song that could sure use that treatment.

I get more ambitious. I love the Carpenters but hate the choir that they used in their later years, especially on the Christmas albums. So I just slice out the choral section interlude from the middle of the song and seamlessly rejoin in the last verse and bingo! Pure Carpenters bliss without any horrible muzak choir.

[–] eqxander 8 years ago

Agreed.

After they get to NY, the film takes a huge u-turn into maudlin territory, though maybe it is due to mid-50's moral sensibilities. I have never seen Cary Grant so ill-at-ease and uncomfortable in a movie, though the chemistry between him and Deborah Kerr shine -- up until the very end. And I can not for the life of me explain the motivation for him walking from the exit door into her bedroom (?) I can't imagine any man of the '50s of his portrayed type being so contemptuous of her privacy.

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

After they get to NY, the film takes a huge u-turn into maudlin territory ...

In agreement too. I loved the boat scenes and do think the climax is terrific with special kudos to Grant for his acting in those final scenes. But in - between ... OMG! It's like a different film.🐭