The Rise of the Talkies

I have spoken before how a specific kind of actor can make a movie. We talk in terms of how an actor can take on a role as a kind of living special effect, like how the hulking presence of Arnold Schwarzenegger could fill the screen and draw the eye in ways few other actors in the 1980s could. It’s hard to imagine any other actor properly playing a T-800 in the TerminatorIs it a series about a future nuclear war and the survivors of the aftermath? Is it a series of chase movies set in the present day? Is it a series about time travel? That fact is that the Terminator series is all of those concepts. The mash-up of genres and ideas shouldn't work, but the films have proven adept at mixing into a heady series unlike any other. franchise, and those that have taken on the role as terminators have performed the duty quite differently from Arnold. Arnold was a living special effect, a person that could fill a role like none other, and when he was “in it” the movies were better for it.

In a way, Gene Kelly had a similar role. He wasn’t a hulking presence, but then the films he was best known for, the Golden Age of musical comedies, needed a man that was light on his feet and who could dance on air. Kelly was that guy, one of the few actors who could sing and dance as well, and do it all in a way that felt effortless. There wasn’t anyone that could fill the screen in the 1950s and 1960s quite like Gene Kelly, and while musicals were the height of cinema, Gene Kelly was one of the grand royals of the form.

I am not one for musicals, generally speaking. I tend to find them as bloated pieces of entertainment, filled with a lot of wasted time on songs and dances when the plot is just waiting to get going. Most often musicals have about 30 minutes of storyline bloated to an hour-and-a-half of runtime by “needless” music that doesn’t add anything to the actual plot. Clearly, musicals go right over my head, by and large, because the whole point of musicals is the music (I’m a story guy and I want the story front and center). But even from my perspective it’s hard to deny that Gene Kelly could make just about any movie work. If you put him in, he would suck you in and make you want to keep watching. And there’s no better example of that, in my opinion, than Singin’ in the Rain.

Released in 1952, Singin’ in the Rain stars Kelly as Donald "Don" Lockwood, one half of the Hollywood silent film duo of Lockwood and Lamont. His co-star, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), is famed for her beauty but, unbeknownst by the public, she has a voice that is… rather less beautiful. This secret is held tightly by the studio, leaving Lockwood to do all the public speaking for the duo (much to Lina’s consternation). Unfortunately the year is 1927 and Hollywood is about to get shaken to its core by the release of a little film called The Jazz Singer, the first “talkie” picture.

In the wake of the sudden and meteoric success of The Jazz Singer, the studio Lockwood works for, Monumental Pictures , immediately takes their next picture, The Dueling Cavalier, and turns it into a talkie. The only real hurdle, though, is Lina. While the rest of the production can learn how to make talkies and adjust to the technology, there’s no getting around Lina’s voice and her utter inability to act. But as fate would have it there’s a solution: Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds), a singer with a golden voice who just might be able to provide Lina with the dulcet tones that could save The Dueling Cavalier, and Monumental as well. That is, if the move doesn’t ruin her career in the process.

Singin’ in the Rain can be viewed from two perspectives. On the one hand it’s a lighthearted comedy about the transition into the talkie era. Watching Kelly’s Lockwood and his friend Cosmo Brown, played by Donald O'Connor, navigate this transition period, is fun, as is seeing all the behind-the-scenes production work that was done to document this specific era of Hollywood. As we all surely know, Hollywood loves nothing more than seeing films about itself, and Singin’ in the Rain is a loving depiction of classic Hollywood for its own insiders to enjoy. It’s a fun movie from that perspective, to be sure.

But the actual plot of the film is really only about a third of the runtime. Much more time is spent on the musical numbers, the singing and dancing and vaudevillian delights. That is to be expected since this is, of course, a musical. We get a number of musical productions throughout the film, from the opening montage featuring “Fit as a Fiddle (And Ready for Love)”, to well known numbers like “Make ‘Em Laugh”, "Moses Supposes", and “Good Morning”, and, of course, the title track for the movie as well (with Kelly dancing and singing in, yes, the rain). Many of these are filler songs that add nothing to the story and yet the film would feel empty without them.

And make no mistake, just because these are songs aren’t essential to the story that doesn’t make them inessential for the audience. That’s because you have Gene Kelly front and center, working his magic through (almost) every routine. Kelly’s dancing here looks effortless, with him showing all the grace and skill he was known for. Even opposite other great performers, like O’Connor, there’s a quality to Kelly’s work that outshone them all. He drew in the eye and made you marvel at what he could do as he tapped and whirled and moved his way through every dance number he was given. It’s impressive.

Due to this, though, Singin’ in the Rain feels far more empty when Kelly isn’t around. There are a couple of musical numbers that don’t have Gene Kelly in them at all and they do feel weaker for it. “Make ‘Em Laugh” is a great showcase for O’Connor, and the performer really puts himself into every minute of it. But at the same time it feels like O’Connor had to put real effort into his performance (and he did spend a few days in the hospital afterwards recovering from filming the piece), and the sequence lacks the charm of Kelly’s work in the film. And then there’s the "Beautiful Girl Montage", an absolutely wretched sequence that grinds the film to a halt. This could have been cut in its entirety and the film wouldn’t have been any worse for it.

I also wonder just how well this film will play for modern audiences. I saw this film (on home video) when I was a kid as my family loves musicals and they watched it more than once. As someone that saw it before, and also as someone that loves cinema and its history, I have a certain appreciation for the movie. But for newer people coming in, those less familiar with Old Hollywood and the classic era of the talkies, this film might not have the same magic. The production values are great, the songs are solid, and the actors do all they can, making this a classic film to be sure (it is considered one of the greatest musicals of all time), but will that work for modern viewers who aren’t familiar with the last one hundred-plus years of cinema? I’m not so certain of that. This is a film of a specific time and place (and when you see a few background extras in brownface you’re reminded of that) and that era isn’t going to work so well for modern viewers anymore.

Singin’ in the Rain is great for what it is. It’s a classic, Golden Age of Musicals production that hit all its beats as well as it could. For the time it was a fair success, and appreciation for it has only grown over the years. When even someone like me that hates musicals can find good things to say about it, you know it’s a solid film. It’s a grand showcase for Gene Kelly, and it’s far more watchable than even some of his other classic films (his other big hit, An American in Paris, is a film I absolutely loathe). For anyone that can enjoy this type of work, I think there are few films better. You just have to accept the era it came from. If you can do that, you’ll certainly enjoy this movie, flaws and all.