Reviews

As a music presenter and a Latin-music radio host of 20 years, I was compelled to correct a couple of misstatements in previous postings about the musical artists featured in this film. While "Pan-Americana" is not exactly "An American in Paris" (...or even Manhattan), viewers should be more cognizant of what they're actually seeing and hearing.

In the post titled "Just Doesn't Cut It", the writer commented: "The contrived plot is a boy-meets-girl story, interrupted by musical performances of Latin American artists, some of which were Carmen Miranda wannabees, and none of which were memorable or even particularly good." Um... amazingly inaccurate! If only for his presence alone, Miguelito Valdes is one of the LEGENDARY vocalists and band leaders of the Latin-American popular/tropical music genre. You could think of him as a combination of two notable U.S. artists: r&b legend Jackie Wilson (from a stylistic standpoint), and crooner Tony Bennett (as far as his 'stature' within the Latin pop music genre). So... to It was actually Mr. Valdes who popularized the song "Babalu" throughout Latin-America and the U.S. in the late 1930's. Likely because of Mr. Valdes obvious African blood, he was denied the opportunity to perform it in the Broadway show "Too Many Girls." The role ultimately was given to white-Cuban actor Desi Arnaz, a more 'traditionally handsome' man (to 1940's North American eyes) who parlayed the Broadway success into an MGM contract. While Desi Arnaz was himself a charismatic performer (a decent actor and visionary television producer), he had nowhere near the vocal presence of Miguelito Valdes (Arnaz himself would have laughed at the mere notion of a comparison...).

Sprinkled throughout the film are also rare appearances by folks like the legendary Brazilian composer and band leader Nestor Amaral - the musician who accompanied Carmen Miranda to the U.S. in 1940(!). Antonio and Rosario performed to great acclaim internationally, and performed in a number of Hollywood musicals. After their breakup, their careers continued with success. Antonio would eventually become the Director of the Nacional Ballet de Espana! Chuy Reyes, who led the 'house' Latin band at Hollywood's glamorous Mocambo for years.

The point is, while they may not be major "cross-over" names like Xavier Cugat, this film is an important document of some very influential Hispanic performers. To 'dismiss' them as cut-rate is simply wrong.

Okay, first let me come clean with my biases: I'm a Jane Russell fan. Even recognizing how amazing Marilyn Monroe was, etc, etc... Even in 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes', I've personally always preferred Jane Russell's 'wise-cracking dame' screen persona to Marilyn's blowsy bubble-head. But that said...

While I agree that "Gentlemen Marry Brunettes" is by no means a great film, even if one lowers the bar to generic 50's musical standards. Still, I do think its greatest sin is in not being "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". It wouldn't seem half so bad if it didn't instantly invite comparison to a classic 'relative' ("Gentlemen Prefer Blondes").

Yet and still the production values are generally very high. Costumes by Travilla, additional fashions by Dior, and the period location filming in Paris and Monte Carlo alone really is (almost) worth sitting through the movie for.

As an earlier commentator pointed out, I do think it was a mistake to make Jane play an 'air-head'. One of her strenghts as a performer/film personality is that her basic integrity usually shone through on screen. It's a shame to hide that.

The biggest mistakes (in my opinion) are that neither Jane, nor Jeanne Crain were given a 'solo-number'. It may seem a small thing, but if one reflects on the shining moments of "Blondes", one's mind immediately goes to Marilyn's "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" and Jane pushing the muscle men around in "Ain't There Anyone Here For Love?". It's in these two scenes where both performer's personalities (Marilyn, the 'sizzling' blonde bombshell; and Jane, the raven-haired, self-effacing flirt) really shine. No such scenes exist in "Brunettes" for either character.

Further, while I like Jeanne Crain as a performer, I can't help feeling that the story needed another kind of 'contrast' to replace that dynamism between blonde Marilyn and brunette Jane in "Blondes". Playing the 'what if' game for a moment: imagine (with a slight plot shift)a young RITA MORENO as Jane Russell's Cuban 'half-sister' or 'cousin'? Just a little 'twist' like that would have added an element of thematic and visual tension that is missing in "Brunettes". OR... since the film was set in Europe, how about Gina Lolobrigida as Jane's Italian cousin, giving the movie added continental flair? Still... I say take "Brunettes" for what it is: a handsomely-mounted relic of Hollywood's last fling with pure, unadulterated fluff musicals! Put cotton in your ears and soak in the costumes and location shooting!

Woke up in the early-AM with the opening credits to this film just rolling on the screen. Tired as I still was, I couldn't take my eyes off of it and watched the whole thing. Beautifully-shot. Script sensitively handles both Van Johnson's character's alcoholism and the familial-strife at its roots - very adept for it's day. Capably acted by all.

And I agree with previous comments: Ruth Roman is someone whose career is deserving of a serious re-visiting. She rarely seemed to get choice parts, but always managed to impress. Indeed, some of the films she was in may have been bad but from what I've seen, SHE was never the reason.

Here is yet another example of a good, solid 1950's film that is wrongfully ignored/neglected for the simple reason that it doesn't star "Marilyn," "Marlon," or "Audrey".

Unlike most of today's audiences, I'm not 'alergic' to an old-fashioned Hollywood musical. Just last week, I saw "The Best Things In Life Are Free" for the first time in 15 years. It is disappointing - but not so much for what it is, but rather what it could have been: a classic. And considering the talent involved on-screen, I'd lay most of the blame at the feet of the director and the 'bean-counters'.

Fluidity and pacing are critical in a musical, and I think the direction and staging is a big issue in "The Best Things...". For example, with the exception of the 'Birth of the Blues' number, the camera feels almost nailed to the floor. By comparison, despite the raucous, finger snapping music and Sheree North's vivacious hoofing, the other big production number 'Black Bottom' feels oddly 'constrained' and 'flat' (almost one-dimensional). The musical numbers scroll by as if on a player-piano roll, with little cinematic depth or texture - despite lively action performed by talented people.

In my humble opinion, "Best Things..." has all the ingredients to make a great musical, but they somehow 'taste' like the 'generic-brand' as opposed to Grade-A fancy. This is even more strange upon looking at the 'brand names' utilized: the Set Decorations were by the same team as created the sumptuous "Daddy Long Legs" and "The King and I"(!). Costume Direction was by Charles LeMaire(!). The musical numbers were directed by John de Cuir ("No Business Like Show Business" and "Call Me Madame"). And lest we forget, director Michael Curtiz is the man who gave us "Casablanca," "Yankee Doodle Dandy," "Mildred Pierce," and just two years before, "White Christmas." While decidedly nearing the end of his career, Curtiz still had Elvis' "King Creole" and a few other decent films ahead of him.

So..., the ingredients of an "A-list" picture were decidedly in evidence. I lay the blame at the feet of penny-pinching executives. Having lavished so much money on sets,costumes and Cinemascope, "Best Things..." registers as if executives decided in mid-production to cut back on what was originally intended to be an 'A-picture'. But as opposed to a vehicle with truly great music or Broadway pedigree, the 'substance' IS the 'spectacle' in a movie like "Best Things...", and somebody cut WAY back on the 'spectacle'.

Perfect Example: MGM's "Meet Me in Las Vegas" was released this same year (and ALSO starring Dan Dailey). But "Meet Me..." had the glamorous cameo's (Sinatra, Debbie Reynolds, Vic Damone...) and 'guest artists' (Lena Horne, Frankie Laine, Sammy Davis, Jr) that one expects of a musical of this kind.

In "Best Things...," this kind of 'sparkle' is curiously absent. Instead, the best thing "The Best Thing..." trots out is a bit-player in black-face(!) impersonating Al Jolson(!) Huh...? In 1956, Fox had contracts and/or 'relationships' with a number of great performers who, with just a bit of thought, could have been brought in to do some interesting '20's themed cameos: imagine JOHNNIE RAY as an 'updated' "Jolson;" DOROTHY DANDRIDGE as (the early-career, sexy) "Ethel Waters" or "Florence Mills;" or how about JANE RUSSELL as "Helen Morgan" or "Ruth Etting" (a role she regretted turning down a year earlier in MGM's "Love Me or Leave Me")? What fun that would've been...!?

While DeSylva, Brown & Henderson's work may not be of the caliber of Porter, Gershwin, Ellington and Coward (properly pronounced 'C-AAhhwd' - lol), the boisterous score is certainly evocative of the roaring '20's. Charles LaMare's costumes are dazzling and fun. Appearing in his last film (before choosing to retire to concentrate on supper clubs and a lucrative career as a popular TV host), one remembers what a great voice Gordon McRae had. And its fun to see somebody BESIDES 'Marilyn,' or 'Jayne' in the female lead of a splashy fifties musical, Sheree North being quite an accomplished Broadway dancer, as evidenced by her top-notch performance with Balanchine ballet dancer Jacques D'ambroise in this film's 'Birth of the Blues' number (this scorching-hot fifties movie-musical number is, sadly, largely forgotten as it is buried within this film...).

A classic? Heck no. Still, I think "Best Things..." has 'good bones', and isn't the worst way one could while away a rainy afternoon getting lost in some old fashioned celluloid tinsel.