This film is illustrative of MGM's postwar creative slump. There were some good movies - The Yearling, for example - and the musicals were always worthwhile - but what was this? Who was it made for? Who could have thought a movie such as this would be taken seriously? It was made around the same time as The Best Years Of Our Lives! Then again, it's not just that it's old-fashioned, but that it resembles no one's real life, ever.
I have the impression the studio was running like a well-oiled machine, churning out pictures its costume, makeup, hairdressing, special effects, and art departments could be proud of. But what happened to believability? Realistic storytelling? Something people could relate to?
At the time, Greer Garson was a top box office star, and Clark Gable, the studio's former top box office star, was returning from war service. So, it was reasoned, why not put them in a picture together? The trouble might be that there was too much focus on trying to create a "vehicle" for the two heavyweights. The deceptively ladylike Garson is cast as a beautiful librarian, while Gable plays a handsome, two-fisted seaman. There's some comedy, some drama, some mysticism - but it all seems awfully contrived. Then there's the ages of the stars - which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't go about acting like adolescents: Gable was 44, Garson was 41. In support, Joan Blondell was 39, and Thomas Mitchell was 53. They all seem like they're old enough to know better. Some of the shenanigans the screenplay puts them through and asks us to care about are not to be believed.
MGM knew how to make a film high in gloss and production values, and the studio had the greatest stars, and some of the greatest directors. If you enjoy their product (and I usually do) you could do worse than Adventure. But the studio just could not go on indefinitely making films like this. Smaller studios were beating them to the punch by having their ear to the ground about what audiences wanted, and what they were tired of.
It could be that MGM never really recovered from the death of production head Irving Thalberg back in the 1930s. His death left a gaping hole that seemed to be filled, as time wore on, with heavy sentimentality and confused messages that didn't happen under his watch. The studio had no head of production at this time, and was set up as a series of production units overseen by studio chief Louis B. Mayer. And Mayer had a taste for the heavy-handed and the sentimental.
Gable and Garson could have been good together. Probably in a comedy, where their styles might have worked together better, similar to Tracy and Hepburn. Victor Fleming was a good director, but he was no longer doing the first-rate work he had done a decade earlier. Making Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz in the same year may have worn him out.
I haven't summarized the film because other people have already done it better than I ever could. Take a look. My guess is you might enjoy it once, but not put it on your "must see again soon" list.
I have the impression the studio was running like a well-oiled machine, churning out pictures its costume, makeup, hairdressing, special effects, and art departments could be proud of. But what happened to believability? Realistic storytelling? Something people could relate to?
At the time, Greer Garson was a top box office star, and Clark Gable, the studio's former top box office star, was returning from war service. So, it was reasoned, why not put them in a picture together? The trouble might be that there was too much focus on trying to create a "vehicle" for the two heavyweights. The deceptively ladylike Garson is cast as a beautiful librarian, while Gable plays a handsome, two-fisted seaman. There's some comedy, some drama, some mysticism - but it all seems awfully contrived. Then there's the ages of the stars - which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't go about acting like adolescents: Gable was 44, Garson was 41. In support, Joan Blondell was 39, and Thomas Mitchell was 53. They all seem like they're old enough to know better. Some of the shenanigans the screenplay puts them through and asks us to care about are not to be believed.
MGM knew how to make a film high in gloss and production values, and the studio had the greatest stars, and some of the greatest directors. If you enjoy their product (and I usually do) you could do worse than Adventure. But the studio just could not go on indefinitely making films like this. Smaller studios were beating them to the punch by having their ear to the ground about what audiences wanted, and what they were tired of.
It could be that MGM never really recovered from the death of production head Irving Thalberg back in the 1930s. His death left a gaping hole that seemed to be filled, as time wore on, with heavy sentimentality and confused messages that didn't happen under his watch. The studio had no head of production at this time, and was set up as a series of production units overseen by studio chief Louis B. Mayer. And Mayer had a taste for the heavy-handed and the sentimental.
Gable and Garson could have been good together. Probably in a comedy, where their styles might have worked together better, similar to Tracy and Hepburn. Victor Fleming was a good director, but he was no longer doing the first-rate work he had done a decade earlier. Making Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz in the same year may have worn him out.
I haven't summarized the film because other people have already done it better than I ever could. Take a look. My guess is you might enjoy it once, but not put it on your "must see again soon" list.