Expectations were quite high for watching 'Gentleman's Agreement'. Despite seeing a lot of mixed reviews over time and that it has often been considered one of the weakest Best Picture winners, the subject was very hard-hitting, close to home and relevant back then. Elia Kazan was a fine director, especially in his direction of actors, and he showed in most of his films how he was able to tackle difficult subjects and explore them in an uncompromising way. A lot of great talent here.
'Gentleman's Agreement' disappointed me on the whole and generally to me it's lesser Kazan. Not his worst, that's 'The Arrangment' but of his 40s films it is second weakest (weakest being 'The Sea of Grass'). Its good intentions were laudable and much appreciated, those good intentions are obvious throughout. Its execution of the subject matter though is problematic, and it is really not one of Kazan's better handlings of difficult subjects. 'Pinky' also dealt with discrimination but as well as the subject being more relevant today it handled it much more tactfully and with much more nuance and complexity.
There are great things here, despite having said all of that 'Gentleman's Agreement' is not a terrible film. It looks great, especially the photography which is typically moody and stylish. The music is used scantly but is quite haunting and not too melodramatic when it is used. There are intelligently written moments and there are moving ones too.
Most successful is the cast and one can see here why Kazan's direction of actors was and still is acclaimed. Gregory Peck gives one of his best performances, his best up to this point of his career, and it is a role that really suits him. He was one of the best when it came to sincere and earnest roles, a prime example being in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', and his performance is full of sincerity that never feels forced. The other cast standout is a sparkling Celeste Holm, one can't help be endeared to her. June Havoc is a joy in her role and Anne Revere gives a lot of meaning to her role despite her dialogue being preachy. John Garfield gives raw intensity without over-playing.
Did not know what to make of Dorothy McGuire. She really does give everything she's got in a tricky role, but the performance could have done with more nuance and subtlety. Count me in as someone that really struggled with the character of Kathy, an irritating one and one that was pretty sketchy. She has very little chemistry with Peck, meant to be romantic but they actually looked rather awkward together and cold towards each other so rooting for the relationship was impossible. Especially when one also has to suffer through the dialogue they have together. Kazan was brilliant in his direction of actors, but he wasn't always successful and the rapport between Peck and McGuire is one of the failures.
While appreciating what 'Gentleman's Agreement' was trying to say and do, it could have done so in a much better way. The script has moments, but is mostly too talky and exposition-heavy. The scenes between Peck and McGuire are awkward and Revere's dialogue in the latter stages is like being sermonised to. The story also has moments, but could have gone into a lot more depth and been a lot less careful trying not to offend, it can be dull and the big decision at the end makes no sense at all. The message is a powerful one and hardly irrelevant today (the opposite), but the preachy and too simple way it's executed here holds it back.
So all in all, not a bad film but for me it was disappointing. 5/10
'Gentleman's Agreement' disappointed me on the whole and generally to me it's lesser Kazan. Not his worst, that's 'The Arrangment' but of his 40s films it is second weakest (weakest being 'The Sea of Grass'). Its good intentions were laudable and much appreciated, those good intentions are obvious throughout. Its execution of the subject matter though is problematic, and it is really not one of Kazan's better handlings of difficult subjects. 'Pinky' also dealt with discrimination but as well as the subject being more relevant today it handled it much more tactfully and with much more nuance and complexity.
There are great things here, despite having said all of that 'Gentleman's Agreement' is not a terrible film. It looks great, especially the photography which is typically moody and stylish. The music is used scantly but is quite haunting and not too melodramatic when it is used. There are intelligently written moments and there are moving ones too.
Most successful is the cast and one can see here why Kazan's direction of actors was and still is acclaimed. Gregory Peck gives one of his best performances, his best up to this point of his career, and it is a role that really suits him. He was one of the best when it came to sincere and earnest roles, a prime example being in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', and his performance is full of sincerity that never feels forced. The other cast standout is a sparkling Celeste Holm, one can't help be endeared to her. June Havoc is a joy in her role and Anne Revere gives a lot of meaning to her role despite her dialogue being preachy. John Garfield gives raw intensity without over-playing.
Did not know what to make of Dorothy McGuire. She really does give everything she's got in a tricky role, but the performance could have done with more nuance and subtlety. Count me in as someone that really struggled with the character of Kathy, an irritating one and one that was pretty sketchy. She has very little chemistry with Peck, meant to be romantic but they actually looked rather awkward together and cold towards each other so rooting for the relationship was impossible. Especially when one also has to suffer through the dialogue they have together. Kazan was brilliant in his direction of actors, but he wasn't always successful and the rapport between Peck and McGuire is one of the failures.
While appreciating what 'Gentleman's Agreement' was trying to say and do, it could have done so in a much better way. The script has moments, but is mostly too talky and exposition-heavy. The scenes between Peck and McGuire are awkward and Revere's dialogue in the latter stages is like being sermonised to. The story also has moments, but could have gone into a lot more depth and been a lot less careful trying not to offend, it can be dull and the big decision at the end makes no sense at all. The message is a powerful one and hardly irrelevant today (the opposite), but the preachy and too simple way it's executed here holds it back.
So all in all, not a bad film but for me it was disappointing. 5/10