Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

To honor the passing of the great songwriter Hugh Martin Friday at 96 years of age, a repost of a review of one of my 100 favorite movies, a member of my personal canon. (If you joined us after 2008 you can pretend it's a new essay!) Imagine giving the world such perfectly crafted enduring gifts as "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" and "The Trolley Song". R.I.P. Mr. Martin.

Meet Me in St. Louis "The Blossoming of Judy Garland"

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)
Directed by Vincente Minnelli; Written by Irving Brecher and Fred F Finklehoffe from the novel "5135 Kensington" by Sally Benson; Starring Judy Garland, Mary Astor, Leon Ames, Margaret O'Brien, Lucille Bremer, Harry Davenport, June Lockhart, Tom Drake and Marjorie Main; Production & Distributor Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM); Released 11/28/1944

It's Summer 1903 in Missouri and the Smith family are buzzing about the World's Fair coming to their town the following spring. Teenage daughters Rose (Lucille Bremer) and Esther (Judy Garland) are dreaming about proposals from handsome men, the eldest son Lonnie (Henry H Daniels Jr) is off to college and the father Lon (Leon Ames), a junior partner at a law firm, is about to tell the family that they're all relocating to New York Ci -- oh, but let's stop there. For any plot summary of Meet Me in St. Louis does the movie a great disservice. This classic musical isn't plot driven at all so much as a series of three seasonal vignettes of family life: Summer, Autumn and Winter with the following Spring in 1904 serving as a coda. Almost all of what might be called "plot" in Meet Me In St. Louis is imagined. That is to say, that the story drivers are all in the future. One day the family will move to New York. One day Rose, Lonnie, and Esther will be married. One day St. Louis will catch the attention of the nation. In essence the movie is a lovingly rendered still life of a family (and town) on the brink of great changes rather than an animated portrait of the changes themselves.

St. Louis begins smartly in the kitchen, the heart of any home. Mrs. Anna Smith (Mary Astor) and her maid and cook Katie (Marjorie Main) are preparing ketchup. Katie thinks it's too sweet, Anna thinks her husband will like it that way. Various members of the cast scoot through the kitchen sharing their opinions, too. They can't seem to agree on the flavor: too sweet? too sour? too spicy? too watery? Vincente Minnelli the real gourmet cook in the director's chair doesn't have the same problem. He gets everything right.

If the director was nervous about handling his first big budget color feature with a bonafide superstar in the lead role, you'd never know it from the results. Minnelli had only directed two black and white pictures (Cabin in the Sky, see previous article, and I Dood It both in 1943) prior to this big break but Meet Me In St Louis moves with such easy confidence, gently in and out of song and book scenes, you'd think he had nothing at all to prove.

Take the terrific economy and pacing --the movie is at once both leisurely and jam packed with comic, musical and dramatic beats -- of the final two scenes that conclude the first and longest act in the movie (Summer 1903). First there's a lengthy party sequence at the Smith home wherein Esther comically tries to seduce "The Boy Next Door" John Pruett (Tom Drake). She's endearingly amateur at seduction though Judy Garland is of course anything but amateurish when it comes to ingratiating herself to the viewer. John accompanies her through her house as she turns off the lights. It's ostensibly her duty but she's makes a huge drawn out production of it -- she's only doing it to set the mood for their first kiss. The amusement of the scene is that Esther doesn't realize she's succeeding and misreads John's nerves and equally adolescent flirting. When he finally hightails it out of her house without the kiss she's been longing for she flips the lights back on, at once. It's a great deflating punchline. The follow up scene, the classic Trolley sequence, repeats the punchline.

Buzz, buzz, buzz went the buzzer
Plop, plop, plop went the wheels
Stop, stop, stop went my heartstrings

As he started to leave, I took hold of his sleeve with my hand
And as if it were planned... he stayed on with me
And it was grand just to stand with his hand holding mine
To the end of the line.

Esther is obviously singing/dreaming about John but hasn't noticed his arrival beside her for the last chorus. On her last joyous note she turns to finds the object of her affections staring her in the face. It totally throws her. Oops! Once again she's more comfortable in the dream than in the reality. It's the perfect performance note to hit for this girl who is not quite yet a woman.

Speaking of which...

Judy Garland was 22 years old when St. Louis hit theaters. She was already a screen sensation with multiple Mickey Rooney hits and The Wizard of Oz behind her. According to reports she was hesitant to take this role, another teenage character, since she had wanted to move into more grown up roles. Esther Smith turned out to be just what she was after all along. The answer was right in front of her. (There's no place like home and all that).

Esther Smith proved the perfect bridge role for one of the greatest stars of all time, taking Garland from teenager to woman both onscreen and off. By the third act (Winter 1903) Esther and John are in the thrall of requited love and faced with rather adult choices about their futures. By the time Esther is singing "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" to her young sister Tootie (Margaret O'Brien), Judy Garland is a grown woman in full bloom and the camera treats her accordingly. By the time the film was released, Garland and Minnelli were in love and living together. It all came together gloriously. Arguably Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) is the emblematic peak of Garland's film career between her 'star is born' role in The Wizard of Oz (1939) to, well, A Star is Born (1954) itself.

But all this talk of Judy's blossoming (she was never lovelier onscreen), changing seasons, loving families and screen romances also does a disservice to the spicy flavors within this musical. While it is a sweet nostalgic slice of Americana, it never descends into mere treacly pablum. The Fall 1903 segment adds enough sour to the soup, focusing on the sometimes gruesome antics and morbid imaginations of Esther's young sisters Agnes (Joan Carroll) and particularly Tootie played by child star Margaret O'Brien who received a juvenile Academy Award for her performance --just like her co-star had in The Wizard of Oz. And the delicate balance of flavors continues all through The Winter 1903 segment when Rose and Esther behave badly at a local dance. One particular bit has Esther putting on her first corset. Rather than play up the beauty of her figure, Minnelli and Garland opt to spike the scene with laughs and physical comedy.

I feel elegant but I can't breathe.

Furthermore, the sweetness of Esther and John's romance is tempered with their very un movie-like (if barely acknowledged) realization that they're moving too quickly. The movie never settles for just one flavor. In short, it's delicious. Or, to quote Esther herself, "heavenly... simply heavenly".

For all of the undoubtedly careful mix of moods and delicate character arcs that Minnelli stirs into his career-making hit, the most impressive thing might well be how effortless his achievement plays. With the semi resurgence of the film musical in the Aughts, much has been written about modern audiences hesistation to suspend their disbelief when characters burst into song. Modern musicals still feel a bit tentative, like they're scared to do at all what musicals are best at doing. Today's filmmakers would do well to study Meet Me In St. Louis which fills its central family's life with music: they hum, they sing phrases of songs even when no production number is on the way, they play piano; Music feels as natural here as it's ever felt in a movie. The space between musical performance and acting of the non-singing variety is blissfully blurred. In the Trolley Song sequence already discussed Judy spends the first verse of the song fretting. She's not singing at all, letting the crowd handle the number as she makes her way through the crowded car. By the time she's spotted her would be man running toward the car (He hadn't forgotten her invitation after all!) the sudden lift in her spirits is expressed quite naturally by her joining in... Everyone else is singing, why shouldn't she? There's another wonderful moment late in the film which I think best expresses Minnelli's graceful direction through performance, plot and song. Mr and Mrs Smith have had a row over the family's impending move to New York and their children have already exited the scene in anger. The mother and father begin to make peace at the piano. And as the father's voice lifts, the sisters are all gently coaxed back into frame, with unspoken forgiveness on their minds. It's a beautiful grace note in an altogether heavenly movie. A

Genie Awards: It's "Incendies" and the Red Carpet

Canada's Genie Awards were held this week and Incendies, which you'll remember was up for the Foreign Film Oscar, was the big winner. The "runner up" as it were, the movie that did very well for itself that didn't win the big one, was Barney's Version which was just Rosamund Pike short of sweeping all the acting trophies. Curiously, if you trust photos from the big event the Barney's Version team was curiously absent. That's so uncool when you win that many awards!

Melissa Etheridge performed (anyone know what song?) and here's a photo of presenters Mia Kirshner (more on her in a bit) and Rossif Sutherland. Yes, he's another spawn of Donald Sutherland -- I didn't know there was a post Kiefer! -- he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for a film called High Life. Perhaps he can co-star with Armie Hammer at some point since he appears to be the only other 6'5" actor in their age bracket.

Xavier Dolan's Heartbeats went home empty-handed but at least it won nominations for Pic/Director, Cinematography and Supporting Actress.

Best Picture INCENDIES
Best Director Denis Villeneuve for INCENDIES
Best Actor Paul Giamatti in BARNEY'S VERSION
Best Actress Lubna Azabal for INCENDIES
Best Supporting Actor Dustin Hoffman in BARNEY'S VERSION
Best Supporting Actress Minnie Driver in BARNEY'S VERSION
Original Screenplay Jacob Tierney for THE TROTSKY
Adapated Screenplay Denis Villeneuve for INCENDIES
Editing INCENDIES
Cinematography INCENDIES
Art Direction: BARNEY'S VERSION
Costume Design: BARNEY'S VERSION
Make Up: BARNEY'S VERSION
Original Score: BARNEY'S VERSION
Original Song: "Already Gone" from THE TROTSKY (below. I liked this movie. Did any of you see it?)

Sound: INCENDIES
Sound Editing: INCENDIES
Documentary: LAST TRAIN HOME
Live Action Short: SAVAGE
Animated Short: LIPSETT DIARIES

Special Prizes
The Claude Jutra (this is a debut film prize) Jephte Bastien for SORTIE 67
(Honorable Mention: Peter Stebbings for DEFENDOR)
Golden Reel: (this is a prize for the highest grossing Canadian film) RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE

RED CARPET LINEUP

Mia Kirschner is a dark beauty but I can never ever decide what I think of her acting. I loved the Atom Egoyan film Exotica (the first thing I saw of hers) but I didn't feel fannish until I caught her as a dominatrix in Love and Human Remains. So I thought I was "yes!" on Mia until The "L" Word (hated her on that) so I was blown away by her inchoate despair and haunting of The Black Dahlia (film bitch supporting actress nomination). It seems that my reaction to her is completely dependent on the role/movie which is not something that usually affects me to that degree... i.e. I usually know whether or not I like an actor's work independent of which projects house them. Anyone have any strong feelings one way or the other on Mia?

I can't be the only one who gets freaked out when creepy child stars grew up. Look at Cameron Bright (Birth), now 18, and Jodelle Ferland (Tideland), 16. Yikers. (No, they're not together. I just enjoy my photoshop.) Yes, I know Cameron Bright is in the Twilight movies but I haven't seen them since the first one bored me to tears so to me he's still that creepy boy who tried to seduce Nicole Kidman.

"You're a little liar aren't you?"

I would die to see Sassy Gay Friend take on Birth (2004) but it's too obscure to get that treatment.

Finally there's Best Actress winner Lubna Azabal (who I keep hearing great things about but who is evaded my eyeballs up till now) from Incendies wielding her Genie. The Genie looks like the most dangerous prize this side of Emmy's 'careful or you'll lose an eye' winged she-demon. Oh and Rachel LeFevre she of the booted from Twilight fame.

That's it. Bye!

Pssst. INCENDIES opens in the U.S. on April 22nd.

Take Three: Anthony Mackie

Craig here with Take Three, a weekly look at a character/supporting actor's career through three movies. Today: Anthony Mackie. Mackie’s had a sprinkling of leads so far (Spike Lee’s controversial She Hate Me, the period drama Night Catches Us, and the upcoming biopic Bolden!), and he’ll undoubtedly get a star-making role of his own someday soon. But in the meantime he’s working hard to create a still very-much-on-the-rise profile as an exemplary supporting player in a variety of fine films.

Take One: Half Nelson (2006)
Mackie puts in a vital sincere performance in 2006 indie drama Half Nelson. He’s Frank, a former friend of Drey’s (Shareeka Epps) jailed brother and a Brooklyn drug dealer, who is intent on dragging Drey into his orbit as a local drug mule. That's an idea that her teacher Dan (Ryan Gosling) takes umbrage with, especially in one riveting scene where Dan confronts Frank on the street, warning him to leave her alone. Mackie avoids the overplayed clichés in portraying drug dealers on screen. He’s calm, charming and actually feels he’s helping by keeping Drey near. He wins Dan around, in a way, too. He’s just someone making his way, just like everyone else in Ryan Fleck’s sombre, thoughtful film.

It’s Gosling’s film, obviously, and he’s great in it. But Mackie adds the kind of concrete support that's essential to the emotionally intricate structured character dramas. Frank is as key to Drey’s understanding and growth as Dan is, just in a different, more dubious way. The regard evident in Frank’s demeanour throughout suggests a tricky back-story to their friendship. It’s an essential detail for our understanding of the story, too. 

Take Two: The Hurt Locker (2009)
There’s a trio of solid actors dominating Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar-winner The Hurt Locker. Leading from the front is lead Jeremy Renner as reckless firebrand Sergeant William James. Backing up his ostensible one-man deactivation outfit two up-and-coming actors, Bryan Geraghty as Specialist Owen Eldridge and Mackie as Sergeant J. T. Sanborn. All three are making waves in the film world (twice Oscar-nominated Renner is the best known); their respective roles added exposure and gravitas to their résumés. Mackie was subtly commanding in the film as the operation leader, trying desperately to keep everthing running smooth and fine-tuned whilst maintaining a clear head.

Though it initially seemed that he'd be merely an antagonistic presence for Renner’s vented spleen, Mackie is so persuasive that he is never merely a guide and an obvious audience identification figure. He makes Sanborn the guy we trust to interpret for us the searing heat, hurt and hellishness of modern-day warfare. He transferred to the audience a measured perspective on it all; not the kinetic, compulsive thrill – is that the right word? – of it all (Renner owned that), but the responsibility, the discursive aspect and the drudgery, the stifled panic – the things that aren’t always first on the list of desired attributes for a sergeant in a war film. Mackie was, in a small way, quite revelatory. His presence cemented the film for me as much more firmly thought-provoking for a long period after I saw it.

Take Three: The Adjustment Bureau (2010)
In The Adjustment Bureau (now playing) Mackie looks just fine in a snazzy hat and trench coat combo – dashing through illogically mind-bending doorways across a rain-drenched New York. I’ll hold off on suggesting he’s Matt Damon and Emily Blunt’s personal guardian angel, as some reviews have offered up, as this seems to stretch the point a bit. But who this mysterious bureau “employee” Harry Mitchell is is left teasingly open. But he’s more a bespoke Deep Throat, an anonymous Mr. X silently assisting our political-wannabe hero in his time-loop of need. Harry can do crazy-mad magic sci-fi stuff like, er, tip coffee on people on buses and, um, creep up on you during wet weather. Ok, so he may be the least dynamic otherworldly entity currently on our screens -- a low-fi sci-fi shy guy --  and he may inexplicably fall asleep on park benches (thus, rather oddly, setting in motion the entire film’s plot), but Mackie more than makes up for it for the duration of Bureau’s running time. And I do mean its running time.

It’s a shame that Mackie is temporarily replaced halfway through by Terence Stamp as the dominating shadowy figure intent on giving Damon a run for his money. (Mackie is the best casting in the film and it rankles when he’s sidelined.) He disappears for a large chunk of the action, but there’s a game amiability to his performance. As an actor he pays keen attention to what makes such workaday genre hybrids as this tick. He plays his part amid the inscrutable daftness finely.

His appearance also makes you wonder: what if he had been cast as the hero? Isn’t it about time Mackie was upgraded to leading man? Move over Matt, Mackie’s next in line for star status.

Three more key films for the taking: She Hate Me (2004), Freedomland (2006), Night Catches Us (2010)

you will have a thousand affairs...

i doubt i doubt
that you will find as pure a love as the one you have in me.
you will have a thousand affairs
without love.
but at the end of it all
there's only pain

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Super 8"

We already did this once during the Superbowl but here's the full trailer to J.J. Abrams Super 8, a clear attempt to recapture 80s Spielbergania. Disturbingly hypey things are flying cross the internet like 'a Best Picture nomination is all sewn up!' uh... from 2 minutes of footage? It's not like its a Holocaust drama or a biopic and looks particularly fetching. History is littered with trailers that looked awesome, the movies proving less so. We shall see. The other disturbing thing I read was that the internet had 'a collective boner'. Call me old fashioned but the only way I'd ever be interested in a collective boner was if I could handpick the orgy members. Ewww. But those caveats aside the trailer IS good. I'm a "yes." But let's play our game anyway.

Yes It certainly looks intriguing... and all the things that worked in the 30 second version (the mystery, the borrowed music, the "gee whiz it's 80s scifi!" feel) are expanded and gain in oomph at 2 minutes. Surely a good sign for the next (two hour) expansion, right?

No Sometimes when people (J.J. Abrams) try to be someone else (Steven Spielberg) they feel like jpgs that have been saved at lower resolutions. Or they miss the mark and end up like some weird amalgam (Spielberg + Shyamalan ÷ Abrams = ?) The proof, one way or the other, will be in the full 2 hours.

Maybe So I know that this is about the kids but wouldn't it be appropriately wondrous if Coach Taylor knocked a plum supporting role out of the park and had a big screen career and/or an awesome TV offer to follow his Friday Night Lights perfection since that stellar show has filmed its last scenes.

Here's the new trailer

Yes No or Maybe So people?
Okay okay, I'll bite on the overhype. Let's discuss Oscar prospects, too. A few techs or much more?