Our Town (1940) Poster

(1940)

User Reviews

Review this title
69 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Broadway vs. Hollywood
klg196 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There have been a lot of irate comments posted here about the change in the ending of the play: a character who died on Broadway is almost magically resurrected in the film, and her conversations with the dead are revealed to be a dream.

I, too, was in this play in high school--gosh, wasn't everybody?--and I loved the spareness and the emotion of the original. Mostly, I loved the evocation of early-20th century small town life...a life gone by now, and remembered by fewer and fewer people. The original play--and the countless high school or community theatre revivals--took place on a spare stage, but that was perhaps a little too adventurous for Hollywood in 1940. Instead, the brilliant production designer William Cameron Menzies went to work to evoke the actual details of that small town life, and to my mind he succeeded brilliantly. I remember being stopped in my tracks by the tool the milkman uses to apportion out the milk (cream?) to his customers: a kind of tubular shovel that allowed him to fill up their own containers and still give an equal amount to all. How on earth did Menzies know about such things? Was it his own memories he drew upon?

Some have said that Thornton Wilder might have been horrified by the changes that were wrought in his work. It would be instructive for those people to consult the American Film Institute Catalog for this film. In the notes, the editors remark that no changes were made without Wilder's permission. Further, regarding the fate of Emily, AFI quotes this letter from Wilder to Sam Lesser, the producer, "Emily should live....In a movie you see the people so close 'to' that a different relation is established. In the theatre, they are halfway abstraction in an allegory, in the movie they are very concrete. So, insofar as the play is a generalized allegory, she dies-we die-they die; insofar as it's a concrete happening it's not important that she die; it is disproportionately cruel that she die. Let her live--the idea will have been imparted anyway." I hope that will silence the outrage on Wilder's behalf; he seemed pretty happy with it.

And I was as well. The important thing to me was the mood that was evoked. I, too, thought that some scenes went on too long--the cemetery segment did seem to drag a bit. But the overall effect is so lovely, so moving.

One other thing--for those who feel that both Holden and Scott looked too old for their roles: have you ever looked at a high school yearbook from the 1930s or 1940s? I used to look at my parents' yearbooks all the time. Those teenagers looked ancient. There was no culture of youth, no worship of childishness then the way there is today. Their goal was to grow up as soon as possible, and they worked hard all through their adolescence and teenage years. For me, seeing the baby-face of William Holden, looking almost unrecognizably young, the last thing I thought of was whether he looked too *old* for his part! So, regardless of whether you know the stage play or not, you should check out this film. Especially if you love Americana, such as "Our Vines Have Tender Grapes" or the first "State Fair" (also with Frank Craven!) or "Meet Me in St Louis." "Our Town" will not disappoint.
68 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I liked it
preppy-323 February 2004
I've never read the play or seen it performed. All I knew is that it won a Pulitzer Prize and was constantly being done by community theatres. Also there are at least FOUR made for TV versions (this is the only theatrical one). I figured it was time I finally saw it.

From what I can gather, this is a heavily edited version (the TV versions run from 2 to 3 hours) and I KNOW the ending was changed (because of the Production Code). Still I liked it for what it was. Also I saw a recently restored version so it looks pretty good (considering it's over 60 years old).

It's just about life in a small New Hampshire town from 1901 to 1940. It concerns various characters but mostly centers on Emily Webb (Martha Scott) falling in love with George Gibbs (William Holden). It also flawlessly recreates a small town in the early 20th century. Everybody knows everybody else, they all live comfortably with each other, nobody locks their doors at night...combine that with some breath taking production design by William Cameron Menzies and it creates a very comfortable, idyllic feeling. Also some of the shots of the town at night were just beautiful.

A lot of people complain about the total lack of chemistry between Scott and Holden. They're not wrong but this was Scott's first film and Holden's third (I believe)...they were still young and learning. As it is, it's incredible to see Holden so young, handsome and full of life. Scott is very good also and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress for this. They're backed up by a great cast of character actors from he 1930s--basically, nobody is bad. This didn't move me to tears like others said it did, but it WAS very moving. I'd like to see the other versions.

So, a pretty good view of small town life in the early 20th century.
44 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Thornton Wilder's Mood-Rich Stage Piece Becomes an Equally-Memorable Film
silverscreen88828 February 2007
Like "Harvey", "The Second Woman" and "Good Morning, Miss Dove", "Our Town" is set in an underpopulated United States town. Its 1901 look shares features with theirs, as do some of its story elements. Everyone knows practically everyone else; and the very fact that such towns are not the sort of place where important thing happens renders what does happen peculiarly intense, as if it had been placed under a magnifying lens in a powerful light. Author Thornton Wilder and his co-writers here adapt what was a most successful and atmospheric play into a deliberately-paced by I suggest an absorbing screenplay. It has the build perhaps of "Picnic" with the underlying calm of a good early western; only the setting here is Grover Corners, New Hampshire, a decidedly northeastern setting.. Sam Wood directed the film with his usual understated skill; and the writers I believe have retained the best of Mr. Wilder's crisp and often memorable dialogue. The film really divides into three parts--which I would nominate as Introduction, George and Emily and Two Futures(?). George Gibbs and Emily Webb in this film become two of the best remembered characters in U.S. fiction. Sol Lesser produced, with music by Aaron Copland, whose repressed melodies seem to me perfectly to serve this understated masterwork of dramatic construction. Production designer William Cameron Menzies and cinematographer Bert Glennon here tried for an uncompromising atmosphere rather than quaint or merely attractive compositions. Julia Heron did the remarkable interiors, with simple but effective wardrobe by Edward P. Lambert. Among the cast, Martha Scott is wonderfully young and unspoiled, and as Dr. Gibbs, Thomas Mitchell plays with Fay Bainter as his wife more-than-expertly. As their neighbors Editor Webb and his wife, Guy Kibbee is unusually restrained and Beulah Bondi as usual solidly dependable or better in every scene she is given. Stuart Erwin ad Frank Craven (as the stage manager) are quite good, and young William Holden shows to much better advantage than he did in several other films of the period. The supporting cast is not given a great deal to do but they do it very seamlessly, in my opinion. But what one remembers of "Our Town" I assert is its haunting, almost poetic quality. The production's pace is leisurely without being slow, electrically tense without being excited and focused without becoming too sad. The story here is about life, death, youth, love, honesty and fear--and the narrative evokes these emotions in the viewer honestly I claim because it is never pretentious and never striving for the effect that it admirably earns. It is I argue a touching black-and-white classic; and it is quite well acted also throughout.

_____________________________________
23 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mind of God
drednm26 July 2010
OUR TOWN is a timeless classic, and this 1940 film version captures the major themes from Thornton Wilder's great play.

At once simple and profound, unsentimental and heart-breaking, the story of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, and its citizens is a time capsule of early 20th Century America. Two neighboring families are examined in their everyday lives, and we especially follow George Gibbs (William Holden) and Emily Webb (Martha Scott) as they grow up and marry.

A stage convention, the Stage Manager (Frank Craven), acts here as a tour guide and talks directly to the audience and tells them the history of the town and stories about the characters. Independent of time, the Stage Manager can also see into the future and matter-of-factly see the various deaths of several characters as well as their pasts.

The scene from the cemetery is chilling yet is quite wondrous as the characters there ponder the timelessness of the universe. Also great is Emily's visit back to her family on her birthday, where she finally understand that life is made up or so many small and insignificant details that we hardly notice as times flies by.

The film boasts a terrific cast with Fay Bainter and Beulah Bondi outstanding as the mothers , Thomas Mitchell and Guy Kibbee solid as the fathers. Also notable are Doro Merande as Mrs. Soames, Arthur Allen as the professor, Philip Wood as the organist, Spencer Charters as the constable, Stu Erwin as the milkman, and Ruth Tobey as Rebecca, who gets to tell the "mind of god" anecdote.

The ending is different from the play's but works well in this version.

This is a film that badly needs restoration
64 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
You have to have life to love life.
michaelRokeefe18 May 2002
Thornton Wilder's play put to the screen, well almost. A laid back look at the lives, trials and tribulations of the citizens of a small New England town. Of course, the point is that each life tells a story. The acting seems a little wooden and most of the dialogue monotone. Still yet this is an oldie that will pull at your heart strings. You also examine how important it is to live your life everyday.

The cast includes William Holden, Martha Scott, Thomas Mitchell, Beulah Bondi and narrated by Frank Craven. Grab a cup of coffee and prop your feet up...and enjoy a classic.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Slow but meaningful, with a good payoff
gbill-7487728 March 2020
This might be the slowest of all slow-burners, so if you're going to watch it, brace yourself and be very, very patient. The first hour in this small turn of the century town is for the most part quaint and frankly pretty boring, as we are introduced to various characters and follow them in their everyday lives. There are flashes of a larger meaning in an omniscient narrator, who points out when some of them are going to die, but mostly we seem to be watching simple, mundane events, and a romance completely devoid of spark or chemistry. The production quality is not very high either; even if one takes into account the desire to keep some semblance of Thornton Wilder's lean aesthetic from the stage, there is not enough life in these characters (at least to my modern eyes), the quality of the film stock seems to have deteriorated, and William Holden is both poorly cast and quite wooden.

However, it's all a buildup to that last half hour, and this is where the film really shines, starting with going into the thoughts of the characters at the wedding, and continuing on when the narrator strolls through the cemetery. Wilder's play was both existential and deeply humanistic, and its power comes forth, even with the alteration to the ending, something I'd normally hate. It puts our humble lives into a skeletal framework, and then with its cosmic perspective, forces us to see how brief they are, and how we should treasure every moment, even the simple ones.

Playwright and professor Donald Margulies said that Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life' owes a great deal to 'Our Town', and while he didn't expand on that too much, it's a great point. They ask some of the same questions, such as what's the meaning of this life and do we make a difference being here, but while Capra's answers are positive and joyful and sentimental, Wilder is a little more on the fence, or at least, he lets us interpret (and perhaps this is where the changes in the film were a mistake). In both works the point is made that we need to open our eyes to appreciate what we have and the people around us, but Wilder shows us that our lives are going to be all-too-brief and all-too-small in the grand scheme of things regardless. And yet, he says, "There's something way down deep that's eternal about every human being." We are both meaningful and meaningless at the same time. This is not 'Our Town', it's 'Our Lives', or 'Our Humanity'.

The film's incredibly reserved, staid approach is something that doesn't necessarily work 80 years later, in a world that's much faster paced. As a result, it may be hard to appreciate just how groundbreaking and touching it was at the time. In many cases, audience members at the play responded by openly weeping at the end, and as early critic Brooks Atkinson of the New York Times put it, the play "transmuted the simple events of human life into universal reverie" which contained nothing less than "a fragment of the immortal truth." It's pretty hard to translate such a quiet, introspective play to film or to the present world, and as with Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot', it may evoke the reaction that "not enough happens," but I think there's actually quite a bit here, if you wait for it.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A film I dont want to watch..but I cant stop watching...
olddiscs11 September 2003
Why is this a film I dont wanna watch...because it moves me to uncontrollable tears everytime...It hits home...Thornton Wilder must have known my family ,understood my psyche..It hits home... Americana at the turn of the century.. my parents born... not in samll town america but Mid size city... still the thought the virtues the principals, the ideals were the same the happiness of a a home in America.. Mom & Dad providing a home, warm morning breakfasts on a cold winter day.. family members irrelevant yet unforgettable... the birthdays the graduations & the weddings the changes & the phases of life... and death are simply adequately & beautifully presented by Thornton Wilder & his play & screen play.. Emily portrayed by Marhta Scott is superb... if this doesnt bring a tear to your eye, you are not human... & George played by William Holden perfectly & the best supporting cast ever assembled.. Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Thomas Mitchel, Guy Kibee,Dora Merande etc etc...non stop emotions.. non stop truth.. and the score ,all so memorable... i shouldnt watch this film..becsause its non stop tears everytime... but to me its an American Classic,,, maybe underrated...watch it absorb every line & cry your eyes out..
38 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
His Town, Her Town, Your Town and Ours
strong-122-47888515 September 2013
With the wistfulness of its sentimentality revved right up to "full-throttle", Our Town (from 1940) was a very starry-eyed and nostalgic look at the everyday comings and goings of the good citizens living in a quaint, little, New Hampshire town, set in the year 1910.

This was an idealistic, "Norman Rockwell" type of setting where nobody felt the need to lock their doors and everybody knew everyone else's business.

And even though, on the immediate surface, things appeared to be squeaky-clean and picture-postcard perfect, around every street corner there existed the underlying drama of family conflicts that inevitably came to light.

Far from being what I would consider to be great entertainment, Our Town (now 70+ years old) has definitely lost a lot of its initial charm and sentimental-edge due to these fast-paced days of jaded attitudes which we now live in - But, all the same, this film was a sensitive and fairly intriguing look at an "innocent" era in time that has long ago faded away, never to return.

Filmed in b&w (with a running time of 90 minutes), this fond reminiscence of yesteryear was based on Thorton Wilder's Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Sentimentality made lovely and even haunting...
mrdaytonoh17 November 2000
This film, a Thornton Wilder play, is about how many of the unnoticed details of day-to-day life are sweet and, in fact, ARE life. The Aaron Copeland music sprinkled through the film is lovely and fits the mood perfectly. The contrived ending (not part of the stage play) does not help the film, but by no means does it ruin it, either.
32 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth a look
WILLOWSYKES7 July 2005
Quirky. Saw this on a cheap "three old films for £3.99 DVD" and wasn't expecting that much. However, I was pleasantly surprised, quite adventurous for 1940 I thought and what a sad end. I enjoyed the way we moved into 20th century, the subtle changes and quite hoped that the story would have continued up to 1940.

Faults. Spent ages building up the characters and then seemed to run out of time and rushed the end. The final scene in the grave yard was over stretched as well.

Good. William Holden, probably the first early film I have seen of him and can see why he was so popular with the ladies, and the story was just so different (original?). For the price of a coffee you can't go wrong.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Those Little Town Blues...
slokes16 April 2005
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.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Classic Americana
rollo_tomaso29 May 2001
Beautiful and poetic movie blends great score, direction and acting into a symphonic ode to small-town life in turn-of-the-century America. This movie is purely about the poetry behind human trials and tribulations. It is also a marvelous time capsule that should be shown to any literature class transmitting perfectly the soul of pre-war America. I recommend it as a family movie to all.

The rest of this review deals with the other reviewers since it has been made clear by what I have read that the IMDB "no spoilers" rule strangely does not apply to Our Town. True, the movie was no more Thornton Wilder's play than Yentl was Isaac Bashevis Singer's short story or Educating Rita was Willy Russell's play or Christine was Steven King's book to name just three which were radically changed to accommodate the director's vision of what a movie based on these materials should say to the moviegoing audience. King has said words to the effect that, "(paraphrasing...) My book is my book. When I sell my rights to the movie-makers to use my book as a platform for a film, it is precisely that which I do. The movie is not my book any more than How The West Was Won is history. It is merely the participating artists' vision of the source material." The late James Michener has voiced similar opinions.

Admittedly, others like Gore Vidal have felt damaged when three lines were omitted. They view their text as sacrosanct. My suggestion to them is to emulate J. D. Salinger. If you don't want your work changed, do not sell the rights; a movie is not a book or a play; it is a movie.

For what it is worth, I had read the play first, was depressed by it, and was personally surprised, delighted, and enraptured by the lyrical ending which, to me, remained more true to the entire spirit of the movie (a la Sam Wood's Goodbye Mr. Chips -- still one of my all-time favorites, also not 100% true to James Hilton's book)than the original bummer ending would have, since the tone had been lightened and lyricized throughout. But, this is what artistic expression and interpretation is all about. Different eyes, minds, and hearts see and interpret the same things differently. Sam Wood, like Thornton Wilder, was an artist, not a mechanic, as were the other artists involved in the movie. What lives is their interpretation of the source material to make a movie that is an ode to small-town American life rather than Wilder's essay on the unbearable lightness of being, as it were.
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't like the ending
SnoopyStyle31 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Grovers Corners, New Hampshire is a small town. The stage manager describes the town and the story of the everyday people. There's a stage manager because this is from the Thornton Wilder play. It maintains its playlike narrative. It starts in 1901 and it's a bucolic scene. It's very much a Norman Rockwell existence. George and Emily are neighbors who finds each other endearing. Then she gets married, has kids, lives and dies.

The movie delivers life that is very ordinary and very idealized. That's kind of the point. The point is to see a simple life although it does get very slow at times. The big thing is the third act. In the play, she dies and the audience learns to live everyday to the fullest. It's poignancy is somewhat lost by the fact that Emily has to come back to life in the movie. I've never found "It's all a dream" ever a good idea in a story. This one really strips some of the power from the ending. I wonder if she truly lives everyday to the fullest after the dream. It would be better if the movie tries to center on that point rather than forcing a happy ending.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fairly Mundane
jem13229 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I wasn't impressed with this film. In fact, I really didn't like it. I found 'Our Town' to be mundane and disappointing. Given that Thornton Wilder's famous play was a Pulitzer Prize winner, this was surprising.

I give the play about a seven on a one-to-ten scale. I've only read it, never seen it performed (it's rarely performed in Australia!), but I've read better. However, I give the film five as it makes even the better parts of the play uninteresting.

I simply could not connect with the actors playing the parts. Martha Scott was very dull in her role and didn't do much with her character, Emily. How her performance warranted an Oscar nomination is beyond me, considering great performances such as Vivien Leigh in Waterloo Bridge and Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday were overlooked for Scott. Bill Holden, very young here, is almost unrecognizable in his role and looks tentative and nervous. Thomas Mitchell and Beulah Bondi, seasoned supporting performers, probably fare the best.

The themes of the play are only mildly interesting in this screen adaptation. Don't get me wrong, I like a nice dose of Americana on film, yet this film does nothing for me. It is lacking in emotion and a genuine small-town feel. The opening narration works well, yet the film goes downhill from there.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Good Old Days
dougdoepke6 June 2016
I haven't read or seen the play, so I'll leave that topic to a late night discussion group. Thanks to great production design (Menzies), cinematography (Glennon), and art direction (Rachmil), the movie raises small town conformity to near poetic level. Those majestic skyscapes hovering over the elegiac last third lift the narrative to a rare ethereal plateau. Such b&w effects are simply beyond the reach of modern coloration, and couch the film in an appropriate dream-like space.

Sure, nothing much happens in the story. But that's the point. It's the cycle of birth, love, work, death in an idealized small town that's celebrated. The wives agreeably clean and mother, the husbands agreeably earn and father, while the kids look forward to filling their slots. Do they lack imagination? Perhaps, but the overriding message is small town contentment. Happily, the results avoid the saccharine, largely because narrator Craven contrasts with what might become sticky. Thus we can concentrate on the banal events that make up a settled life, and maybe get a new appreciation of them. I can dig that even though I know early 19th century life in a factory or mining town would not yield the same harmonious results. Yes indeed, the rural Grovers Corner is an America that only exists in dreams of time past, and for folks who yearn for the "good ol' days". But the movie itself is none the worse for any of that.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The passage of time in the life of a small town
kevvportela20 May 2021
A drama that involves the passage of time in small towns, directed by Sam Wood, starring a young Martha Scott and William Holden supported by Fay Bainter and Thomas Mitchell.

It made me entertaining, capable is not so dynamic but it is concise and you can easily understand the whole development. I assume that this film version was thought from projecting emotion and for the time I think it achieves it. Simple resources like the narrator makes it a neat tape. There are rare scenes like the ghost talk capable not very well carried out technically but the intention is noticeable.

Martha Scott is doing great, brings freshness and the strongest drama. Oscar winners Fay Bainter and Thomas Mitchell supported very well.

Film nominated for 6 Oscars, including: 'Best Picture' and 'Best Actress' for Scott.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Calvin Coolidge New England
bkoganbing8 June 2007
Perhaps the movie going public wasn't ready for Our Town as its author Thornton Wilder envisioned it. If so, another screen version was just the ticket with Paul Newman now presenting in the role of Stage Manager that Frank Craven created.

Frank Craven, Martha Scott, and Doro Merande recreated their stage roles when independent producer Sol Lesser bought the rights to Our Town and filmed it independently for United Artists. The play takes one back to the turn of the last century to Calvin Coolidge rural New England as seen through the eyes of the town druggist who doubles as Stage manager.

As he so eloquently puts it nothing much changes in this town, the new immigrants who work in the mill are pretty separate from the Yankee pioneer stock who we look at. Going through the graveyard you see the tombstone names are the same from generation to generation.

We're primarily concerned with the Gibbs and Webb families and the budding romance between George Gibbs and Emily Webb. Martha who made her Broadway debut as Emily makes her screen debut also. The fast rising William Holden plays the nice kid George Gibbs and was good in it. So good in fact that he fought that kind of type casting for years until Sunset Boulevard.

Unfortunately in this version the ending was radically changed and really did cheapen the production. Thornton Wilder's message about the quiet moments of life holding the most dear memories does not quite come across.

One thing that wasn't in Our Town as Wilder wrote it was the explicit gayness of the choirmaster Stinson as played by Philip Wood. It's almost axiomatic that the music in just about any church, organist or choirmaster is usually a gay man. Stinson is gay, no question about it and as the stage manager says, some are not cut out for small town life. It's why he drinks and why he hangs himself, there aren't any kindred spirits for him in tiny Grover's Corners, New Hampshire. Stinson would have appreciated Tobias Wolff's This Boy's Life, he would have known exactly what Jonah Blechman was going through there.

If Wilder were writing it post Stonewall, Our Town would have been more explicit on that point. And maybe it will be in future interpretations.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Would that....
mayo233815 June 2003
Would that , however briefly, fleetingly, and insufficiently, the past was available . Available to undo, redress, and remorsefully retrieve the myriad cruelties and omisssions so excruciatingly beyond our access. The love unexpressed or not fully set forth. The priceless charm of those moments, personnae, and occasions that are fiendishly now irretrieveable and not wholly recalled. Thorton Wilder laid a right-uppercut properly, brutally and unforgivably upon us in OUR TOWN.
34 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Our Town just doesn't work well as a movie.
ironhorse_iv9 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I was deeply disappointed by this film directed by Sam Woods. I do love the sets, and the scope of showing the town, but the best thing about the original three-act play is that the play is performed without a set and the actors mime their actions without the use of props. Author, Thornton Wilder once said: "Our claim, our hope, our despair are in the mind – not in things, not in 'scenery.' Throughout the play, Wilder uses meta-theatrical devices, such as narration by a stage manager who tells them what they are seeing. Still, it's for the audience to use their imagination vision to put it in motion. In this movie, it's more set in stone, what the producers want us to see. Set in the fictional American small town of Grover's Corners, it tells the story of an average town's citizens in the early twentieth century as depicted through their everyday lives. Scenes from the town's history between the years of 1901 and 1913 are performed. The film mostly focus this same three act format. Act I: Daily Life introduces the audience to the people living in Grover's Corners in 1901. There is a lot of filler scenes about minor characters that play no big part in the main plot. Honestly who cares about the newspaper boy and milk man? The only characters, the film should focus on, is the Webb and Gibbs households. William Holden and Martha Scott are pretty typecast as George Gibbs and Martha Scott. They are too old to play teenagers, and the dialogue between them is wooden and dull. The movie is a bit boring, watching somebody mundane life that you're asking yourself. What is the point of this? I shouldn't be watching this? I'm wasting life, here! I think the only thing that was interesting and tense, was portraying young people prepare to wed. The second act is badly written in both the play, and the film. I don't care that Our Town won Pulitzer Prize; the flashbacks written sucks. It really hurt the already slow pacing being out of order. Once again, you're asking yourself, why am I watching this? Another thing, the movie does is talk about eternity in a lengthy monologue. I like it, but I was hoping a 'show, don't tell'. This movie and play is so tell to the point, it makes us look like clueless idiots. It's really dark story, but it does have a good message in the end. The ending to the film is way different than that of the play. There have been a lot of irate critics about the change in the ending. This part of the film, I think its works. The play has such a cynical ending. In 1946, the Soviet Union prevented a production of Our Town in the Russian sector of occupied Berlin, on the grounds that the drama is too depressing and could inspire a German suicide wave. I think the movie did better to show the message of living each day the fullest message than the play. I have to say the Stage Manager (Frank Craven) was pretty good in this movie, but I have to say, the 2003's remake with Paul Newman is the one worth watching. Even the 1977's version with Hal Halbrooks works a lot better than this. The Stage Manager plays as a God-like symbol. Although Our Town avoids discussion of religion, Wilder hints that a spiritual entity manages human life in much the same way that the Stage Manager dictates the flow of this play. I do like the freedom of breaking the fourth wall with him walking in and out of scenes, asking questions to the audience, and telling characters to shut up. It's rare to see this in 1940's movies and even rare to see it, today films. The movie hasn't aged well. The film is litter with scratches and marks. Even with playing it in my DVD player, I felt like any minute, the film was going to rip apart. One thing that I love about the film is the soundtrack. It's such a beautiful tune that I think the song will outlive the play in future time. In my opinion, Our Town could had been better written, even for the times, its set. Our Town would had shown life between and after the Industry Revolution Turn of the Century, a lot better with putting more immigrations, showing more technology etc. etc. Instead, the town is nearly the same from 1901 to 1913. The film lacks any social community. Despite the townspeople's well-meaning nature, they have only a limited ability or willingness to act or confront societal problems. It really limited the film. It's such a nostalgic archetype that reminds me of any town in America at the time to the point, it doesn't stand out. A mythical place where people are born, grow up, work, fall in love, get married, and die. Characters are archetypes, almost stereotypes, representing time-honored small town American ideals. It was somewhat mirror to a point, that Walt Disney model the design for Main Street USA in Disneyland. Perhaps a political message in itself, Our Town privileges the study of human life and its complexities over blatantly political works that point fingers, stereotype others, and otherwise divide people from one another. If only it focus less on main characters, and more on 'the town', it might had work. This movie should be the case study of society behind human trials and tribulations. Still, it lacks the very thing that makes a community study. Sorry, but our town is not my town.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A bit depressing but an interesting piece of Americana
planktonrules29 September 2011
Thornton Wilder's "Our Town" is considered an American classic and it's a play that is often discussed in schools here in the States. Because of this, I was somewhat familiar with the story and remember disliking it. However, it seems that this was because instead of watching the play being performed or watching this movie (that was adapted by Wilder for the screen), my class in middle school read the play--the worst possible way to understand and appreciate it. Now, 35 years later, I finally got around to seeing it like it should be seen--and I am glad I did.

This is an interesting play because of its cast. In addition to a lot of familiar supporting actors such as Guy Kibbee, Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Thomas Mitchell and Frank Craven (who assisted Wilder with the screenplay), the film marks the debut of Martha Scott and William Holden. I really appreciate how many of the actors are the same folks who starred in the Broadway play and how the studio let Wilder keep control of his script--this, unfortunately, is pretty rare. Too often, a studio buys a play and then completely changes it--showing utter contempt for the actors and playwright.

As far as the story goes, it's quite peculiar in style. The closest film I can think of like this is the film version of Eugene O'Neill's "Strange Interlude"--but the O'Neill play didn't really work well on screen. Both featured characters speaking their thoughts out loud to the audience--an unusual innovation to say the least. Another innovation in "Our Town" is having the character of the Mr. Morgan (Craven) also acting as the narrator. Because of this unusual style and the leisurely pace of the film, it's one that might lose viewers who don't have the patience to stick with this one. Don't give up--especially when the film gets depressing--it's a delight and the payoff is definitely worth the long wait.

Impressively written, full of wonderful performances and expertly directed, this one is well worth seeing. And, fortunately, since it's in the public domain, it's downloadable from the link on IMDb. Give it a chance--it's a delightful piece of Americana.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The real thing..
joeygirl-323 October 2005
i was disappointed with this version of this great American masterpiece as the ending frayed too far from the original script, leaving me feeling somewhat annoyed and unmoved by the whole experience. A great performance for its time none the less, but if you have managed to track down a copy of this 1940's version i strongly suggest another endeavor, in reading the original script as it should be or seeing a staged performance. I understand that for audiences of the time the original ending seemed somewhat depressing but in changing it for this film, in my opinion, so much of the meaning is lost.

Seven stars for the movie, ten for the original.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Classic Meddling
Hitchcoc18 December 2016
It's one thing to take a book, which is always considerably longer and rife with characters, and do some cutting and re-tooling. It is quite another to take a scripted play, one that has survived the test of time, and abuse the author's intent. This is like taking "A Glass Menagerie" and having Laura Wingfield regain the proper use of her legs. What a joke that would be. This is every bit as startling. It uses the cheapest Hollywood, 1940's encroachment on artistic rights to tell its own story. Without the sadness of death this is a different story. Maybe if they changed the name of the movie to "Your Town," we wouldn't have any expectation of truth. Apparently, Thornton Wilder had his own wishes imposed upon. I'm glad there are three other versions of this, so we can see it done properly.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Beautiful & terribly sad
joclmct20 April 2021
This is a beautiful movie filled w/ great performances. The ending is changed which kept me from giving it 10 stars but I also know Thornton Wilder approved the change. He said because it's a film, the characters are too close to the audience & the original ending would be unbearably sad. I don't understand or agree with that decision because the ending is the heart of the play's lesson. We don't know how precious every moment is in life until we've lost it. I can,however, ignore the changes while remembering how the original play ends, apply it and love everything that comes before it. There are some on here who have called it slow & even boring. Lol. It demonstrates how shallow people can be. How removed from empathy are they? Are they too self involved & incapable of experiencing the depth of the story it tells? I'm afraid, yes. Our Town is not boring. It moves at an appropriate pace. I even wish it had lingered longer in some scenes. Those raised on a constant barrage of comic book heroes & fantasy junk probably won't care about these characters & the heartfelt representation of family, love, tragedy & acceptance of what is. If you want to watch what is one of our finest plays, well adapted to film, seek it out and let it unfold. If you have the ability to empathize with others & let their story be reflected in your own life, you too will love this movie. It is a masterpiece but make sure you have a handkerchief or a box of tissue close by.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
a highly mixed bag in a no-win situation."spoilers".
standardmetal30 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I saw only the last scene on Classic Arts Showcase last night but

had seen the complete movie some time ago. I'd also seen a few

versions of the play and I think Hollywood, with its emphasis on

realism in a non-realistic stage play may have had no choice in

what they came up with. Otherwise, it would look like a filmed

stage play which was not something done much at the time, if at

all.

But, in so doing, the results are more corny, more folksy-cutesy

than Wilder envisioned. But I also wonder whether a "cemetery"

ending could have been convincing even if they were willing. I think

it would work better on stage.

In the excerpt, I thought the awakening trivialized what came before

which was quite powerful. But I thought as well that it was nice to

hear the Copland music in context and to see Frank Craven in his

original part of the Stage Manager. In short, a highly mixed bag in a

no-win situation.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not in my back yard
Lejink3 July 2013
This Hollywood feature should have been right down my street, being from the Golden Age, being based on a Thornton Wilder play and starring a very young William Holden, but it just failed to gather me into its town limits, being really just too saccharine to be true. I liked some of the devices used, even as I expect they owe their origins to the original theatrical production, like the use of the narrator, especially his first appearance when he almost casually foretells the deaths of characters we've barely even met and of course Martha Scott's Emily character's near-death experience which sees her communicate with the town's recently departed as she fights for her life. I understand the film's avowed celebration of small-town values and community, but really the film has no tension points at all to get worked up about. William Holden's dutiful teenage son takes an eternity to talk his girlfriend into accepting a proposal of marriage and Scott's later return from the dead is filled with so much golly-gosh incredulity and winsomeness that you almost couldn't care whether she makes it or not. The acting is all very dutiful and rounded with no-one standing out exceptionally, even Holden, almost unrecognisable as the safe and secure boy next door. I didn't get any sense at all that this was a representation of real-life with almost every character being cardboard-thin and their lives being painfully dull and boring. Our town, you wouldn't want to visit there, never mind live there.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed