Nothing much ever happens at Grovers Corners, as the Fred Allen-ish Stage Manager played by Frank Craven seems to assure us at the outset. He's right, too, and it's a pity, because this film production of the classic play is in desperate need of some action.
As a play and on the page, "Our Town" is a challenging mixture of existential angst and cracker-barrel whimsy, taking the age-old question of what it all means and transplanting it to a Norman Rockwell setting. It's hard not to be moved by Thornton Wilder's story; even a high-school production can't help but feel somehow tragic and poignant with teenagers dressing up as old men and women. You can hear those voices from the graveyard: Soon enough now...
But on screen, the film feels hollow and constricted, very quaint and boring as it zeroes in on the routine goings-on of a rural New Hampshire hamlet as if it were some Homeric epic by way of Frank Capra. I'm sorry, but the romance of George Gibbs and Emily Webb is not exactly exciting stuff. He loves her, she loves him, and they get married. Big deal.
The film does some interesting things, narrative tricks taken from the stage. Craven's Stage Manager walks in and out of the scene, narrating the story and telling characters to start talking and be quiet. At one point, he solicits questions from the audience. This all comes off very well on stage, where the physical reality of the performance is not in question. On film, though, it seems an intrusion.
The performances are all good, with one glaring exception. Interestingly, the one exception is from the biggest name in the cast, William Holden, who plays George. Ugh! Even in 1940, he looked way too old to play a teenager, and simpers through his big scene in the pharmacy with Emily. His quivering characterization is a distraction throughout the movie, nowhere more unpleasantly then in an early scene when his father upbraids him about not helping Ma chop wood. The way Holden as George breaks down, you'd think Daddy found a crateful of smack under his bed. Holden is so good in other roles; it's a shock how bad he is here: Innocence did not become him.
Martha Scott does much better as Emily. She's quite beautiful, and plays her more complicated role with a great deal of charm and conviction. The Academy made the right choice nominating her for an Oscar. Yes, she's melodramatic, but that's what the script calls for.
There are good scenes and moments throughout the film. One conversation between George and his soon-to-be father-in-law about taking the upper hand in a matrimonial relationship is pretty funny, and there are other moments that qualify as "nice." I like one scene between Emily and her mother, right after Emily and George have had one of their halting conversations. The mother, played by Beulah Bondi, is watching them through a window and there's a tiny moment where we can see on her face that she clearly approves of the match, but when Emily comes in with questions about whether she's beautiful, her mother gets quickly flustered and throws up her hands. "You're pretty enough for all normal purposes," the lady huffs, and that's that.
Great Aaron Copland score, and I don't really mind the change to the ending so much. Wilder himself said that film, being a different medium than the stage, required different handling, and I think he got the central message across just as well. Plus he gave those folks at "Dallas" an idea about how they could resurrect Bobby Ewing.
But "Our Town" doesn't work for me as a film. Thornton Wilder provided us in the 1940s with a wonderful cinematic examination of small-town life; but that was his collaboration with Alfred Hitchcock, the great "Shadow Of A Doubt." This doesn't stand the test of time nearly as well. Watch it if you must for Martha Scott, but you're better off seeing it at your local high school.
As a play and on the page, "Our Town" is a challenging mixture of existential angst and cracker-barrel whimsy, taking the age-old question of what it all means and transplanting it to a Norman Rockwell setting. It's hard not to be moved by Thornton Wilder's story; even a high-school production can't help but feel somehow tragic and poignant with teenagers dressing up as old men and women. You can hear those voices from the graveyard: Soon enough now...
But on screen, the film feels hollow and constricted, very quaint and boring as it zeroes in on the routine goings-on of a rural New Hampshire hamlet as if it were some Homeric epic by way of Frank Capra. I'm sorry, but the romance of George Gibbs and Emily Webb is not exactly exciting stuff. He loves her, she loves him, and they get married. Big deal.
The film does some interesting things, narrative tricks taken from the stage. Craven's Stage Manager walks in and out of the scene, narrating the story and telling characters to start talking and be quiet. At one point, he solicits questions from the audience. This all comes off very well on stage, where the physical reality of the performance is not in question. On film, though, it seems an intrusion.
The performances are all good, with one glaring exception. Interestingly, the one exception is from the biggest name in the cast, William Holden, who plays George. Ugh! Even in 1940, he looked way too old to play a teenager, and simpers through his big scene in the pharmacy with Emily. His quivering characterization is a distraction throughout the movie, nowhere more unpleasantly then in an early scene when his father upbraids him about not helping Ma chop wood. The way Holden as George breaks down, you'd think Daddy found a crateful of smack under his bed. Holden is so good in other roles; it's a shock how bad he is here: Innocence did not become him.
Martha Scott does much better as Emily. She's quite beautiful, and plays her more complicated role with a great deal of charm and conviction. The Academy made the right choice nominating her for an Oscar. Yes, she's melodramatic, but that's what the script calls for.
There are good scenes and moments throughout the film. One conversation between George and his soon-to-be father-in-law about taking the upper hand in a matrimonial relationship is pretty funny, and there are other moments that qualify as "nice." I like one scene between Emily and her mother, right after Emily and George have had one of their halting conversations. The mother, played by Beulah Bondi, is watching them through a window and there's a tiny moment where we can see on her face that she clearly approves of the match, but when Emily comes in with questions about whether she's beautiful, her mother gets quickly flustered and throws up her hands. "You're pretty enough for all normal purposes," the lady huffs, and that's that.
Great Aaron Copland score, and I don't really mind the change to the ending so much. Wilder himself said that film, being a different medium than the stage, required different handling, and I think he got the central message across just as well. Plus he gave those folks at "Dallas" an idea about how they could resurrect Bobby Ewing.
But "Our Town" doesn't work for me as a film. Thornton Wilder provided us in the 1940s with a wonderful cinematic examination of small-town life; but that was his collaboration with Alfred Hitchcock, the great "Shadow Of A Doubt." This doesn't stand the test of time nearly as well. Watch it if you must for Martha Scott, but you're better off seeing it at your local high school.