mysticfall

There's something in this movie which make it stand apart from other MGM musicals of that period, and I believe it was precisely this reason the movie ended up as a marketing flop.

First of all, the whole movie has very exaggerated and stylized tone, which combined with the vivid cinematography of Vincente Minnelli, creates rather fantastical, storybook-like (remember the movie actually starts with turning of storybook pages) mood, which might feel too alien to the audiences who expected to see another typical MGM musical like For Me and My Gal.

Of course, other period musicals like Meet Me in St.Louis or The Harvey Girls are far from realistic also. But while we can say that Esther's family or the Harvey House in those are rather idealized or exaggerated, they are by no means fantastic or surrealistic like such an imaginary Caribbean island where things like a pirate in his hot pants cutting ears off a bunny hat look like 'normal'.

If such an intention can be misinterpreted even by a modern reviewer to make him to criticize the movie, based on ethnic demography of a typical Caribbean island, then it's hardly surprising to see why some audiences from the 40s found it to be 'over dramatic' or 'over the top', for example.

As to the movie itself, I think I should give more credit to Gene Kelly than to Judy Garland even though I'm a big fan of the latter, and actually it was because of her that I first decided to watch this movie.

Aside from the "Mack the Black" or "Be a Clown" numbers, which are nice but can't be said to be top notch, music scores of the movie aren't very impressive, so regretfully we don't have much occasion to appreciate Judy Garland's legendary talent.

But as to Gene Kelly, the movie serves as a great showcase to prove that he's much more than a mere good looking actor with some tap dancing skills. By adapting elements of ballet or even pole dancing, he tries to innovate the musical dancing to a whole new level, and sequences like "Nina" or the "Pirate Ballet" feels like a precursor to his later efforts which successfully enlarged and redefined the field.

All in all, it's one of those movies which can be termed as a 'successful failure', which was successful in making a lasting impression with many bold and innovative attempts, and be a marketing flop for the very same reason.

If there were a bit more memorable music numbers, which would give Judy Garland more chance to shine, it might have been remembered as one of a cult classic of MGM musicals.

I won't go into plot details, as it's been done by so many other reviewers before me. Instead, I'll just share my observations as a fan of classic musicals, and specifically of Judy Garland.

Personally, I think it was during 43-46 period when Judy looked and sounded the best. And incidentally, it was also the period when the classic MGM studio system was at the apex of its efficiency in churning out one great musical after another before its demise later in that decade.

In Good Old Summertime, one can't help but realize, with much regret, that the greatest period of the good old musical films and of Judy Garland was beginning to wane. And it is noticeable from quality of music scores and from changes in her appearance also.

Of course, it's still a very enjoyable movie, especially if you watched one of the other movies based on the same story. And Judy still looks amiable and sounds great even when she had to sing in such self-deprecating manner as in 'I Don't Care', which feels very different from other instances of similar comic approach of her previous films like 'When I Look at You' in Presenting Lily Mars, or 'Couple of Swells' from Easter Parade, for example.

Even though the movie is categorized as a musical, it's certainly not Harvey Girls where you can enjoy such trademark MGM scenes, like that big, complex sequence as 'Atchison Topika and the Santa Fe'.

Back then, the Freed Unit with so many talented actors and actresses were so efficient that they didn't need too many camera cuts or even extensive rehearsals to create a such captivating 20 min long sequence.

In Good Old Summertime, Judy Garland is almost the only person who sings, and there is no 'sequence' to talk of, as most of the numbers are done by her singing solo, except for the Barbershop Quartet and 'I Don't Care' numbers.

In general, songs are less memorable than those from her other movies. There's a Christmas song which Judy sings beautifully as usual, though it just isn't on par with 'Have Yourself a Merry Christmas' from Meet Me in St. Louis.

Judy still looks attractive, but not more so than in her earlier movies. Her personal troubles in real life begin to take their toll on her appearances by the time she appeared in this movie. Van Johnson is amiable, but he's certainly not her ideal partner in a musical film, as he can't really sing or dance like Mickey Rooney or Gene Kelly.

All in all, it's a still very enjoyable movie, but if you are a Judy Garland fan like me, you might want to try her other films first, preferably one from the 43-46 period, if you haven't seen them all already.

And when you have already seen most of them, and when you are sure to understand why people keep praising Judy Garland and her movies from her better days even today, then with a preparation of your mind for experiencing some regrets and pangs which might result from seeing her lesser self in a lesser kind of a musical, you are ready to enjoy this movie as a devote Judy Garland's fan.

It's something similar to what it requires to enjoy her late year recordings like the famous Carnegie Hall album. It pains to notice how she lost her range and her once impeccable vibrato became one that sounds artificial and forced.

But at least, it's Judy Garland and I believe that would suffice to enjoy it for most her ardent fans. As to what seems deficient, they can supplement it by their memories of what she has been in her prime time.