Comments

The Great Ziegfeld (1936) — 6 Comments

  1. I wondered why Billie Burke did not play herself since Fanny Brice was herself. It made sense when I realized she was his wife. That would have been difficult, for sure.

    Of course the costumes and show numbers are outstanding. Their choice of material helps illustrate how much our culture has changed. Quite interesting.

    • I’m sure there were a number of reasons why Billie Burke either didn’t want to play herself or wasn’t asked (or perhaps both). She was already 51 years old at the time (54 when she played Glinda in “The Wizard of Oz” a few years later), so she may have felt she was too old. Burke was a character actress at MGM, having already appeared in “Dinner at Eight” when she first got there and other major films of the early ’30s. And Myrna Loy was one of the top female stars in Hollywood back then, so I’m sure she was flattered to have Loy play her.

  2. An excellent production. Again, MGM has put forth a great deal of money and created an amazing amount of ‘value’ up there on the screen. And quite a gamble for them to leave it as long as they did. This clearly cut a number of showings out of every day.

    Flo is definitely portrayed as quite the ‘angel’ in this picture. Even his clear extramarital affairs are underplayed. Quite a bit of spit and polish on his moral character. You can clearly see Ms. Burke’s hand at work.

    Some excellent performances all around. William Powell is his usual charming self. I love Frank Morgan, especially when he chooses not to rely on his ‘bluster’ routine. He’s quite endearing.
    Ray Bolger does remarkable work in his solo dance number. I was surprised this never made it into a “That’s Entertainment” film. Great comic flexibility.

    About halfway in I found myself wishing the film had be shot in Technicolor. It cries out for it. I also found myself speculating how much, if any, of the actual material or staging from an actual Follies was used or if everything was original. I know some of the songs were.

    It also made me long to have witnessed some of these productions first hand. When I think of the remarkable theatres these shows took place in… well, I sat and tried to imagine what it must have been like to be sitting in the house at the Lyric or New Amsterdam or Ziegfeld or The Globe. Or even the roof top at the …Amsterdam. It must have been stunning.

    I also thought about what it must have been like to be sitting in the orchestra at The Astor theatre watching this film first run. Back when movies, especially road show films, like this, were an event. Watching some of this on the big screen at The Astor must have been like seeing a production of the Follies themselves.

    The film, even on DVD, looks pretty good. Some damage here and there. Hopefully Warners will fix this.

    • Thanks for weighing in, Michael, and I agree with all of your thoughts. Since the first Technicolor feature film (“Becky Sharp”) had only been released one year earlier, and considering how long “The Great Ziegfeld” took to plan and design, I don’t think Technicolor was considered. These sets are mostly white (like the big Fred & Ginger sets), and costumes in the musical numbers (by Adrian) seem to be either black or white. Switching to color wouldn’t have made much impact without rethinking the art direction and gowns, which very likely wasn’t possible, let alone practical. Speaking of design, this movie has MGM stamped all over it. I doubt any of the numbers reflected the reality of what was done on a Broadway stage, not to mention their sheer size wouldn’t have fit in any New York theatre. They might have taken some inspiration, however. Ray Bolger wasn’t really an MGM star (at least not under long-term contract). He made only a handful of pictures from the mid-1930s through the late 1940s. He was a busy Broadway star and only signed on for one or two-picture deals back then. But I agree, it would have been nice to see him more in the first “That’s Entertainment.” They did include his excised Scarecrow’s dance in Part III.

  3. Soy un fanático de la comedia musical norteameicana y no me canso de ver esta película. Es realmente un espectáculo, máxime teniendo en cuenta que se filmó en 1935/36. Acertado su comentario en cuanto al argumento y los actores. Un saludo desde Mendoza, Argentina.

    • Wow, hello Ricardo from Mendoza, Argentina! It’s a pleasure to hear from you, and I’m glad you like this movie and my comments about it. I hope the translation into Spanish isn’t too bad. I’m using Google Translate myself to read your post. I look forward to other comments you may have about these Oscar-winning films. We’re lucky to be able to see them today and appreciate what they did so many years ago. Take care, and thank you for posting!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>