Left Field Cinema

WARNING: Contains Spoilers

Ok, now I know what you might be thinking. “Singin’ in the Rain? You mean…the musical?!’ Yes, the musical. And to be honest I feel odd reviewing a musical myself, I honestly do not like them. Sure, they’re ok but they’re often just too much for me. The archetypal musical of people suddenly bursting into song and dance, numerous choreographed extras prancing around a stylised set doesn’t impress me, as I’m sure it doesn’t other people. But Singin’ in the Rain is the ultimate exception for me. It is the only musical I’ve listed on my favourite films and possibly will be the only one.

Why though? Sometimes I ask that question of myself, afterall why would someone who can’t stand musicals consider arguably the most famous one a favourite film? What makes this stand out, based on what I know, from other musicals is its restrained quality, its simplicity. Musicals are a genre that are not renowned for their photography or their acting, but for their entertainment value which I think separates them from most other film genres.

Singin’ in the Rain takes place in 1927, the birth of the sound era in Hollywood. When the general public realised for the first time that they wanted sound to accompany the black and white silent images running across their screens. This makes the film just as much a sort of documentation of that transition from silent to sound as it is a piece of entertainment. And this change is shown by focusing on Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly), a man who rose from doing low-brow vaudeville skits with his long-time friend Cosmo Brown [Donald O’Connor], to stunt man, and eventually a famous leading actor often paired with (and rumoured to be dating) Lina Lamont [Jean Hagen].

The silent screen shows Lamont and Lockwood as passionate lovers in historical melodramas. In reality they are anything but. As it turns out, Don can’t stand Lina and she is ‘graced’ with an unshakable New York accent. One night after the screening of their latest film, Cosmo, Don, and Lina attend a party held by their boss where he demonstrates a ‘talking picture’ that will supposedly never catch on. It is also at this party where Don runs into a girl hired to perform with a troupe, that he had sneered at earlier, Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds). Kathy runs off and ends up fired after hitting Lina with a pie, the studio converts to sound, and the trouble really begins. Naturally Kathy and Don reconcile and begin a romance and despite having finished their first sound picture, audiences react horribly to Don’s hammy performance of, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you,’ Lina’s shrilly voice, and various other ‘technical’ problems. However, between Cosmo, Don, and Kathy they come up with the idea of making a musical where she will dub Lina’s voice.

That isn’t the end of the story, but I will leave it there. The story may sound simple and very likely wouldn’t work for most other genres, it’s perfect for a musical. Afterall, what did Hollywood almost immediately start filming once sound became the new craze? Musicals. Though most of the songs are not original, that this is not based on a stage musical like many of the ‘great’ ones, I think in part that is what makes this so great. Is that it is original and does not have to live up to any standards set by a Broadway performance. In fact you can see that lack of influence in almost every second of the film.

I love the fact that it’s so toned down, that it lacks the showiness of most musicals. The performances of the musical numbers are entertainingly simple, involving at most usually one or two people. The songs are performed on ordinary sets like you’d see in any other film, no palatial sized rooms with shiny black tile floors. One takes place on an empty soundstage and utilises the equipment such as lights, mist makers, and a fan. The famous ‘Make ‘em Laugh’ routine is done on a busy soundstage and yet all the members of the crew don’t seem to even notice O’Connor performing his slapstick inspired routine. And though two performances are reminiscent of ‘traditional’ musicals, one is actually being performed for a film and the other takes place in Lockwood’s imagination.

There is actually an emphasis on plot in this film, one that speaks for itself and is not there just so we can hear musical number after musical number. Not that this is a character study, but we do get an idea of character and get to know them. When I look back on the film, I don’t think just of the songs, but also the story. It is one of the few films I have a specific memory of. I first watched it in elementary school for Music class. Everyone seemed to like it, as did I though I probably forgot the title soon after finishing it. But ever since then I don’t think I ever forgot it. It’s just one of those films that stick with you.

Though it’s obviously fiction, you really get a sense of what it was like ’way back when’, when Hollywood had just gone through one era of pioneering in filmmaking and went into another.

Josh Siler