Skip to main content

Don't Be Me: Vincente Minelli's Meet Me in St. Louis

 Judy Garland, Margaret O'Brien, Mary Astor, Tom Drake. Dir. Vincente Minelli, MGM, 1944


A couple of years ago I came upon a paperback anthology of stories written by William Saroyan for the New Yorker, a fictionalized series of adventures based on his own childhood in Central California. At first, I found the stories' sweet nature and fondness for childhood charming. By the end of the volume, however, I had grown bored. What I took for sweetness was nostalgic sentimentality, a heavy gloss slopped across each tale, preventing any independent movement by characters toward meaningful conflict or darkness of thought. No danger, no mystery, no ambiguity existed in any of Saroyan's stories, just an eternally gentile, bucolic charm - the literary equivalent of Randy Newman's faux-ragtime songs like "Dayton, Ohio 1903."

If Vincente Minelli's legendary 1944 musical, Meet Me in St. Louis, suffers from anything, it's the same surfeit of sentimentality. A gorgeous, unreservedly romantic evocation of turn-of-the-century Midwestern life, Meet Me in St. Louis offers everything BUT ambiguity, mystery, or even a whiff of something like conflict. Even when a character is injured, frightened, or heartbroken, we sense roses and parties lie in their future.

Even in 1944, this material was sachharine-sweet. Judy Garland, tired of playing dewy young girls, started into the picture with an ironic approach and director Minelli, her soon-to-be husband, stopped her and said the movie didn't work without a 100% investment in the character and the material. She did, he did, and the result is a movie dripping with honeyed innocence, a deliberate exercise in nostalgia offered up to an America on Hitler's doorstep, an America months away from detonating the first atomic bomb. 1944 wasn't the sunniest time in America, so Hollywood sold it escape in the form of Meet Me in St. Louis's unreconstructed sentimentality.

It's difficult to hate any musical which contributed so much to the Great American Songbook. It's hard to hate any film this unapologetic in its earnestness, or this lush in its production design and cinematic in its staging and choreography. As in so many cases, it's a legend for good reason. I've seen a lot of movies in my life and it's hard to think of another as achingly sincere as Meet Me in St. Louis. It's cheery even by the standard of the MGM musical.

There couldn't have been an unpleasant telegram? A neighborhood dog run down by the ice truck? Some kind of bummer? It would probably help a current audience to have some sort of antagonist, some kind of obstacle to overcome, though musical audiences are far more forgiving than I. Still, knowing there's nothing, at all, ever, to fear or fret robbed some of the film's charm in the second half. Wonderful staging of wonderful song about life's simple wonders followed by more, and more, of same weighed me down, like a little too much holiday fudge.

Like some confections, Meet Me in St. Louis tends to be sweeter, denser, more gooey than I ideally prefer. I am enough of a sugarholic, however, to know sometimes sweet is sweet and that's what matters. Meet Me in St. Louis delivers everything we want in a Technicolor MGM musical. Faulting it for its lack of darkness, while not inaccurate, feels at least a little irrelevant. As Minelli told Garland, you have to commit to this material 100%. If you do, it works. If not, you'll end up spitefully hoping Mary Astor falls and skins her knee, as I did.

Don't be me. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Friday Flop: Adrian Lyne's 9&1/2 WEEKS

 Kim Basinger, Mickey Rourke. Dir. Adrian Lyne, MGM, 1986 Style over sex, minus substance. That's a glib summation/dismissal of Adrian Lyne's 1986 blockbuster erotic drama, but it's not unfair or inaccurate. I took copious notes on this movie, most relating to some way Lyne and screenwriter Zalman King failed to make the film daring, dark, perverse, bold, or even a little erotic.  I noted, many times, that as an artifact of Hollywood's attempt to make sex-movies for an adult audience after home video made hardcore porn available to everyone, 9&1/2 WEEKS fascinates and depresses in equal measure. It's aesthetically fascinating, sociologically depressing. Lyne delivers a hyperstylized, superficial imagining of the US audience's "freaky" side and it's all pretty standard, you're-not-kinky-if-you-use-the-word-kinky kind of stuff.  Allegedly dom/sub-themed, both the film and the fantasies it trades in define predictable. A little gaslighting...

Grasshoppers & Nazis: Bob Fosse's Cabaret

 Liza Minelli, Michael York, Joel Grey, Fritz Weppert. Dir. Bob Fosse, Warner Bros., 1972 Once upon a time in the '80s, I wrote a paper for a college English class deconstructing the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, coming down on the side of the grasshopper with both feet. The grasshopper, I argued, is humankind's wanderlust, its irrepressible need to go new places and meet people and have adventures with them (or at least drinks), to be in and of moments, to laugh and feel good and not worry, and that, I argued, is the best of us. We need the grasshoppers to remind us life is beautiful when it is lived.  Back then, I hung around with grasshoppers, though I'm not sure I was one. The real grasshoppers I knew took to the air and seldom, if ever, returned. Their adventures took them everywhere but back to Short Vine Street, Cincinnati, anytime between 1987 & 1993. I loved to hear their wild tales when they did alight there again for a few days, but I had to make su...

No Return:Stanley Kramer's IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD

 IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD. Spencer Tracy, Ethel Merman, Milton Berle, Mickey Rooney, Sid Caesar. Dir. Stanley Kramer, MGM, 1963 I do not generally write about films I stop watching halfway. What's the point? I either have nothing positive to say about it or was in the wrong mood. In both cases I'm ignorant of its full length to perhaps do it justice. In the case of Stanley Kramer's 1963 comedy smash, however, I feel compelled to make an exception.  My problem with the movie is not my mood, nor disappointment because it's not the movie I once heard. In fact, my biggest problem is that I haven't heard it described in glowing terms, or any, since I was about 9. See, IAMMMMW used to air anually on one or another of the networks, often in December. My parents didn't care for it and never watched it, but my friends watched anytime it aired and talked about it in rapturous terms. Until about 9-10 years old, when it seemed to drop out of conversation, or conv...