Faithful in My Fashion

Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS T.V. (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.

Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.

If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.

Did this movie ever appeal to anyone under 65? Just asking.

Jeff (Tom Drake) has been away at war for years and has just returned home. The first place he goes is not home but to see his fiancee, Jean (Donna Reed), at her job at the department store. However, she's now engaged to another man...but doesn't tell him and her co-workers go along with this. So through most of the movie, she lies to him as they plan the wedding!

"Faithful in My Fashion" has a LOT running against it. After all, WWII had just ended and the notion of a guy coming back from the war to find his fiancee engaged to another is a tough sell...particularly when it's supposed to be a romantic comedy. I bet a lot of theater goers (particularly those who'd been in the war) were ticked to see such a film. Additionally, IF she ends up marrying the nice soldier by the end, you'd wonder WHY he would take her back! And, most importantly, how could you string all this along for 81 minutes?! After all, he returns, you tell him, he goes on with his life....5-10 minutes tops! To make it worse they cast Tom Drake--the perfect 'nice guy' actor for such a role and the notion of a woman lying to him or cheating on him seems particularly evil!! Yet somehow someone at MGM thought this would make a great film...and parts of it are (ALL the portions with Harry Davenport are like gold)...but overall it's a dud....an ill-conceived one at that. Slickly made...but horrible.

I loved this movie!!! The characters were people that you could feel for. The young man back from the service still in love with the girl he left behind. Tom Drake is always perfect in the romantic lead as well as Donna Reed as the love of his life. The looks he gives her as if he has been starved for the sight of her as well as her hesitation and confusion as too her feelings for him were played very well. The rest of the quirky characters at the store were perfect as they tried to bring them together. The most touching scene however, was the young couple at his great grandfather's house. I laughed in parts, cried in some and thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie. In fact I've re-watched it about 5 times. A definite must see for total romantics.

On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.