For Me and My Gal

In 1943 Gene Kelly made "For Me And My Gal". It was a film starring that rising star of MGM Judy Garland, set in the years from 1915 - 1919. Garland wanted Kelly to appear in this film as her lover, Harry Palmer. It was an unusual film debut for Kelly, now recalled for his masterful dancing in musicals like "Singing In The Rain" and "An American In Paris". Instead, although it was a musical (using many tunes of the Tin Pan Alley period, it really was a character study. It looked at Kelly's opportunistic anti-hero, who does love Garland, but who is career centered to the point that he injures himself (he thinks it will be a slight injury) to avoid the draft.

It is a passably good film, due to the chemistry of the leads and such supporting film actors as Keenan Wynn (as Kelly's long suffering agent, who gets to tell him off), and George Murphy (as the would-be lover of Garland, who can't get her attention away from the unworthy Kelly).

The interest I have in the film is why Garland chose Kelly for this part. She apparently insisted that he be used for this film. The reason is that his biggest Broadway success was the 1941 show "Pal Joey", where he played the first anti-hero in Broadway history. Joey is a user of women, who wants to own a fancy nightclub in Chicago. He never rises above the sleazy dive he acts as M.C. at. He could be Harry Palmer's distant, slightly cousin. Garland would have seen Kelly play a role of a heel where he sang a golden flow of Rogers and Hart melodies, and do some good hoofing as well. It was the perfect "screen test" for Kelly to use to prove his ability to play Palmer. So he got his first role, and then went on to the major achievements of his career.

'For Me and My Gal' had so much going for it on paper, with the involvement of immensely talented people like Judy Garland, Gene Kelly and Busby Berkeley. It has its flaws, but when it's good it's fabulous and showcases the two stars brilliantly.

The story and script are admittedly slight and heavy in the clichés, complete with an ending that feels tacked on (and apparently it was, hardly surprising). The supporting cast's performances also don't compare to those of Kelly and Garland. Well George Murphy is good, he is very likable and charming, the problem is that he is underused and deserved more considering his talent. Ben Blue is unfunny and annoying however, and Marta Eggerth seemed out of place, am a fan of the operatic style of singing but there are far more beautiful voices than Eggerth's rather shrill and metallic sound and the singing doesn't really fit the style of the songs.

However, it is very difficult to be too hard on 'For Me and My Gal' because it fills me with so much joy and really does tug at the heart. The best thing about the film is Garland, who is absolutely sensational, with remarkably graceful dancing and as ever her voice is one you can listen to for hours and not get enough of. Her role here is also one of her most relatable and radiantly likable ones. Kelly may have had more endearing roles in his career, but he really shines in charm and technical skill in his debut where his material plays marvellously to his strengths. The two of them are simply magical together, and one is entranced every time they're on screen together or individually.

It is also a visually beautiful film. Technicolor it ain't, but it is not a film that cries out for it. The lavishness and elegant sumptuousness is still there and it is beautifully filmed. The songs are truly lovely, with the title song and "When You Wore a Tulip" standing out, and advantaged even further by top-notch direction and choreography by Berkeley (throughout, but especially in those two numbers), it may lack the kaleidoscopic style of his earlier films but never looks overblown or static, basically what cinema is all about.

While flawed, the story is still very charming, is lots of fun and there are also some genuinely touching parts that tug at the heart-strings. The pacing never feels dull, even with the slightness, which faces the danger of over-stretching and padding, and over-familiarity.

All in all, not a favourite but for fans of Kelly, Berkeley and especially Garland it is a must regardless of its issues. 8/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.

The classic plot of girl refuses guy only to fall in love with him later is at work again. When the girl happens to be Judy Garland, one of the top box office draws and the MGM triple threat of extraordinarily talented singer, actress and dancer, it kind of changes the whole perspective. In the MGM heavens there are no leading men who can match her on screen stature.

To solve that problem, she gets two leading men. Before World War 1, the vaudeville girl has to choose between two partners. George Murphy and Gene Kelly. Fresh from Broadway success with "Pal Joey", Mr Kelly makes his movie debut in "For Me and My Gal" and it is nothing short of memorable. It was time the world saw that Hollywood dancers wore something other than white tails and top hat, like Mr Astaire.

The screenplay is slight. It hardly matters, because World War 1 is enough of a threat to forward the story anyway. All elements of drama and tear jerking romance are there. For a routine musical at MGM, we expect our happy 40s story, all complete with happy ending, plus the usual congenial mix of complications along the way. And with direction from Busby Berkley, great 1915s songs and two of the greatest musical stars in the mix, we certainly get our happy ending.

Today it stands out because of its musical quality and excellent conception of production. They certainly don't make 'em like this anymore.

Rating: 8/10