Review #1361: For Me and My Gal.
Cast:
Judy Garland (Jo Hayden), Gene Kelly (Harry Palmer), George Murphy (Jimmy K. Metcalf), Martha Eggerth (Eve Minard), Ben Blue (Sid Simms), Stephen McNally (Mr. Waring), Robert Homans (New York Palace Doorman), and Lucille Norman (Lily Duncan) Directed by Busby Berkeley.
Review:
"I don't believe in conformity to any school of dancing. I create what the drama and the music demand. While I am a hundred percent for ballet technique, I use only what I can adapt to my own use. I never let technique get in the way of mood or continuity."
A star can come from anywhere, from vaudeville, stage, or elsewhere. Gene Kelly had gone from a career ambition in teaching dance and full-time entertainer to choreographer and dancer in musical revues and Broadway in 1938, having been discovered by noted dancer and choreographer Robert Alton. By 1940, he had received his first breakthrough and lead role with stage work such as The Time of Your Life and Pal Joey. He was eventually signed by David O. Selznick for a chance to do film in Hollywood. It was the urging of numerous people, most notably Judy Garland, that led to Metro Goldwyn Mayer bringing Kelly in to star with Garland in this film, with this serving as her first adult role. The film was written by Richard Sherman, Fred F. Finklehoffe, and Sid Silvers with a story by Howard Emmett Rogers, which was inspired by the real life pursuits of Harry Palmer, a vaudeville actor of the 1910s, who indeed formed an act with Jo Hayden in 1916 and performed for a few years. The details of Palmer and his WWI service differ a bit from the film, where it was his friend who had been in medical school before serving and later dying in the War, not Hayden's brother, along with the fact that he had joined the Red Cross ambulance corps and not the YMCA. The ending to the film is different from actual events, but that was also a product of editing. The film was edited to play up sympathy for Kelly's character because test audiences had felt Murphy deserved to get the girl. As such, scenes were re-done to focus more on Kelly (including a rescue of an ambulance convoy). You may remember Berkeley from his choreography in 42nd Street (1933). He had co-directed (alongside George Amy) She Had to Say Yes that same year, with a gradual shift from choreography to directing occurring in the decade, and Gold Diggers of 1935 was his first solo directorial effort. He directed numerous films (with a few musical number sprinkled between it) until 1949 with Take Me Out to the Ball Game (after being fired from Annie Get Your Gun the following year), with the next eight films in the remaining 12 years of his career being spent in choreography.
With that in mind, one will be fairly interested in this ode to vaudeville alongside a drive to involvement in war that makes for a relatively decent 104 minute experience. Garland gets a chance to shine with songs and in charm, inspiring as ever for her prime. Kelly glides onto the screen with instant presence and no trouble at all, inspiring plenty of enthusiasm and curiosity whenever singing or doing some dancing along with having some chemistry with Garland that makes things zip through without too much tedium. Whether one knows about the cribbing of real-life events or not, the film certainly does seem a bit easy to figure for its eventual end-game, although I really do doubt that the film needed to be edited anyway because simply put, this is Gene Kelly we are talking about. I barely even remember Murphy to begin with, since he comes and goes by the time the film is halfway through. Maybe he had an earlier presence in the original, but here he just seems okay, where one might forget him in the shuffle. Eggerth (known more for her operetta work) does make a presence in her one number to shine, but she really is only there for the first half and that's it. The film is a decent one, with some of the conviction needed to make something that lasts. It has the musical and dance edge with two strong presences in Garland and Kelly to make things work out better than with lesser leads. It isn't really anything great of its era, but the fact that it was the first success for Kelly and also one for Garland makes it memorable enough to endure nonetheless.
One small update. If one is wondering about the effects of coronavirus among writing, I will state that there are only two ways I will stop posting: severe illness or death.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
