| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
B+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
A |
|
|
| Direction: |
A |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A |
|
|
What a Delight!
by Rob L (movies profile)
Aug 3, 2004
A chance walk-by in the video store turned into a wonderful movie-watching experience for me. "Meet Me in St. Louis" is a terrific flick, a delight for both the eyes and ears--especially if you like musicals.
The movie was released 60 years ago (1944) and takes place a century ago (1903-04); nostalgia is a major part of its appeal. Many of the scenes look like Currier & Ives paintings--the horse-drawn carriages, women with their parasols, dances where people actually dressed up.
There are only 4 songs composed originally for the picture, but they're all gems, and 2--"The Trolley Song" and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas"--are absolute classics. There are also several songs from the turn-of-the-century era, such as "The Bamboo Tree" and the title song, that have been reworked.
It's a bright, upbeat family musical, and it centers on teenager Esther Smith (Judy Garland) and her upper-middle-class St. Louis family. There's not a whole lot of plot, especially at the beginning. The main conflict involves Papa's plan to move the family to New York--even before the much-anticipated 1904 World's Fair comes to St. Louis. Otherwise, much of the story involves Esther and her older sister's misadventures with their beaus. But then, as with many musicals, the plot serves mainly as an excuse for the songs and the fun.
Many of the laughs come from Margaret O'Brien (making her movie debut, I believe, at age 7, playing a 5-year-old) as youngest sister Tootie. Tootie is an imp with a strange interest in the macabre--not all that uncommon among children that age. In an early scene, she confides that one of her dolls "has 4 fatal diseases."
Tootie's dark side almost goes too far for this overall bright, happy musical a couple of times--such as when she decapitates her snow people on Christmas Eve. But otherwise, it gives the film a comical edge.
If you can watch "Meet Me in St. Louis" without feeling good, you're either too dadgum cynical or you need to check for a pulse. And that's one of the best things you can say about a movie: it makes you feel good while watching it, and even for a while thereafter.
That having been said, let's deal with a couple of issues this movie raises to me:
--Seeing this movie probably changed the way I think of Judy Garland and her work. I was like most people these days, who, hearing the name Judy Garland, think primarily of only 1 movie (I don't really even have to say it, do I?): "The Wizard of Oz".
Perhaps that's a testament to how outstanding a movie "Wizard" is. But Garland was no one-dimensional, one-hit wonder, as "Meet Me" demonstrates. In fact, when I think about it, "Meet Me" is more HER movie, a better signature movie for Garland than "Wizard". She has much more of a chance to shine without being eclipsed by munchkins, witches and special effects.
In "Wizard", she had only one song that was really hers. In "Meet Me", she sings lead (sometimes sharing lead) on every song but one.
Garland reportedly didn't want to do "Meet Me" initially. She'd already made the transition to adult roles and thought it a step backward to be playing a teenager again. But she comes across more as a young adult, with a full range of emotions, than a child. There's romance, which "Wizard" didn't have.
Her charming performance may have been helped by the fact that she found romance on the set--with director Vincente Minnelli, whom she afterward married. (He was Liza's father.)
--If you want to disprove the whole notion of progress, consider that Hollywood doesn't seem to be able to make movie musicals like this anymore--why not? Keep in mind, "Meet Me" was done at the height of U.S. involvement in World War II.
Some speculated that "Chicago"--the first musical to win the Best Picture Oscar in 34 years--might signal a comeback for musicals. It hasn't seemed to happen yet. And it's a shame that the only way Hollywood will make a big, dazzling musical is if it's one about murder, prison, corruption and adultery.
As far as I know, the last big, splashy, happy, feel-good, live-action musical was "Annie" in 1982. Some made a big deal about its cost--about $25 million--but it still made a profit, I believe.
These days, Hollywood manages to spend into the hundreds of millions on action, adventure, character-generated special effects. Meanwhile, Disney makes tons of money on animated musicals like "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", "Lion King", etc. I don't see any reason why the studios couldn't do a bright, cheerful, live-action musical along the lines of "Meet Me in St. Louis". |
My Public Profile 
