For Me and My Gal

Gene Kelly makes his film debut opposite Judy Garland in this film about vaudeville acts trying to make it big and falling in love too. They start off as partners in a vaudeville act but of course, they fall in love. The story takes place on the verge of American involvement in World War I. Judy's Jo Hayden is an aspiring singer who helps her kid brother study at medical school. When the war breaks out in Europe, he enlists. Just as things were getting good with a marriage and performing at the infamous Palace Theatre in New York City, bad news occurs which separates these two star-crossed lovers. World War I becomes a top priority as does cheering the spirits of the men who go off to battle. The songs and dance numbers are what makes the film. The story is weak but Garland and Kelly's acting talents bring it alive to the audience. The dance and singing sequences are worth watching for any Judy Garland fan. Supporting cast is first rate.

Gene Kelly makes his smashing screen debut in For me and my gal. That alone should make it a must see. This movie was a delight for numerous reasons. First, I like the fact that this movie was a musical/drama. So, we were able to get a full dose of the manifold talents of Gene Kelly and Judy Garland. Second, the chemistry that Judy and Gene had in this movie was exceptional. The scene in which they are singing the title song is riveting. George Murphy was solid in his role as the amiable friend and colleague, who was a good example of selflessness.

This movie is not as renowned as other Garland classics such as the wizard of Oz and Meet me in St. Louis. However, I think this was her most endearing role. She was beautiful, sweet and vivacious in this movie. I can watch this movie repeatedly, and so should everyone else.

If this movie was simply Gene Kelly and Judy Garland exchanging quips (the "Hello Springtime!" bit is especially good) and singing and dancing in a coffee shop, then it would still be entertaining. But that's really not all it is. This movie is more like a drama/romance than a musical, in the way that there are some songs, very good ones, but there is more story than numbers. Yes, the idea is an old one, but there are a few twists that distinguish it from any other wartime romance. (Don't go expecting The Maltese Falcon though.) The little plot weaknesses are forgotten as the actors (particularly Garland) hold it all together. I cried twice, and I almost never cry at movies. I fully recommend For Me and My Gal, unless you're dead-set on a tear-free day.

I thought Judy Garland gave an Oscar worthy performance in this movie. As for Gene Kelly, it was hard to believe that this was his movie debut, his acting made it seem as if he'd been around Hollywood for years. And oh, that musical score, remeniscent of some film scores by Irving Berlin. Not just your ordinary musical, this one has a fine story that fits in with the time of World War One. The title song as done by Garland & Kelly is a classical show-stopper. For sentimentalists, like my wife and I, there are a few scenes that tug at the heart strings, and provide for some misty eyes.

This was Gene Kelly's first foray into film, thanks to Judy Garland. Judy herself is only three years beyond "The Wizard of Oz" and at the top of her talents. Their pairing alone makes this a film worth seeing. Now, when we hear their voices harmonizing---especially in the title song---it feels iconic.

This is really two films joined together. The first part is the story of vaudeville, and an opening dedication page says that. As their characters, Jo and Harry, meet, team up and struggle to make the big time, the viewer is regaled by song and dance, specialty acts and vaudevillian humor. George Murphy plays the part of Jimmy Metcalf, who winds in and out of their lives.

The action takes place in 1916, just before the U. S. enters WWI. When the RMS Lusitania is sunk, the tenor and style of the film changes. Audiences in 1942 could identify with the patriotic fervor depicted, and it stimulated their nationalistic impulses to buy war bonds, participate in various drives, and forgo many luxuries. The second section of the film, much of which is a montage, is designed to stir up a unified American response to the Axis powers. So, there is no discussion of isolationism or Washington's warnings against foreign entanglements, though they might have been authentic.

In that second section, Jo and Harry's story is secondary to the bigger national story, but it is still there. Unfortunately, the dramatic transition between the two parts is thematically disruptive. It's a criticism that filmgoers of the forties would not have lodged. The review by the New York Times, in its roundabout way, does find fault with the script and its tale of two stories.

Martha Eggerth, the soaring soprano, plays a small role that is notable because she seldom appeared in films west of the Atlantic.

This is a film worth seeing, especially as an example of wartime cinema.