For Me and My Gal (1942)

Director:

Busby Berkeley

Writers:

Howard Emmett Rogers (story)
Richard Sherman (screenplay) ...

Release Date:

19 August 1943 (Australia)

Genre:

Musical | Romance

Tagline:

The Greatest Romantic Musical . . . Ever !

Plot:

Set during WW I, Palmer and Hayden team up as vaudeville artists. Harry Palmer deliberately injures his hand to avoid being drafted to the army...

Plot Keywords:

Vaudeville | Song | Hand | Title Based On Song | Military

Awards:

Nominated for Oscar.

Cast

Judy Garland	...	Jo Hayden
George Murphy	...	Jimmy K. Metcalf
Gene Kelly	...	Harry Palmer
Mártha Eggerth	...	Eve Minard (as Marta Eggerth)
Ben Blue	...	Sid Simms
Stephen McNally	...	Mr. Waring (New York Palace manager) (as Horace McNally)

Also Known As:

For Me and My Girl (UK)
The Big Time (USA) (working title)

Runtime:

104 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English | French

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (Western Electric Sound System)

Certification:

UK:U | Finland:S | Sweden:15 | USA:Approved (PCA #8464) | USA:Passed (National Board of Review)

Filming Locations:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios - 10202 W. Washington Blvd., Culver City, California, USA

Company:

Loew's

Trivia:

This was the first film in which Judy Garland had her name billed before the title, which showed her growing importance and stature at MGM.

Goofs:

Anachronisms: This movie begins in 1916 with no flashbacks. Yet at one point there is a newspaper headline about the sinking of the Lusitania which occurred in 1915.

Quotes:

Harry Palmer: Why didn't you tell me I was in love with you?

Movie Connections:

Featured in The American Film Institute Salute to Gene Kelly (1985) (TV)

Soundtrack:

Chicago (That Toddlin' Town)

Genuine Stars in Uniform

Despite their huge reputations and talent, Gene Kelly and Judy Garland have never been my favorites. For dancing and singing I would prefer Fred Astaire, who did both with consummate flair.On second thought, however, there really was noone like Judy Garland, for either dancing or singing. Her singing talent, god-given, nurtured and ultimately exploited, overshadowed her dancing talent. But in this movie, she does both equally well. Later Kelly would build his fame on his dancing, but here, when the two are dancing and singing together, Garland's star quality outshines Kelly's by megawatts. While they are dancing, Garland catches our attention, not Kelly, a sure sign of her superior talent.

This movie surprised me. I couldn't stop watching it, and not because the plot was so exciting. When this happens, I credit the director as much as the actors. Previous reviewers seemed to like "For me and my gal" for different reasons -- I definitely think that the movie owes its success to Busby Berkeley. He was a seasoned director, best known for his complex kaleidescopic dance routines, shot from above. There are no such shots here. Instead, we see Berkeley marshalling the troops on their way to the front, and on their return. We also see an "art imitates life" type of plot that very much could echo both Garland's and Kelly's career. Berkeley is able to elicit very fine performances from everyone, including the supporting roles. They are not yet caricatures, which would eventually happen in some of the later Hollywood musicals. George Murphy does a nice job as a loyal friend (he's not summarily dismissed in this secondary role), and Martha Eggerth, who I'd not heard of before, sings and plays a genuine diva. Her style and artful singing lift the movie to another level, adding a fine European touch -- almost in reach of Lubitsch -- as well as being a catalyst to bring out one more aspect of Kelly's opportunism.

Garland was almost in mid-career here, and she still looks very youthful. But this was Kelly's first film, and I would have expected him to have a more boyish quality about him. His determination to become a STAR shows through the character he portrays. For a first effort, Kelly discharges himself admirably, but the character is almost a premonition of the type that he would play for the rest of his career: the talented but over-eager male chauvinist who gets by on plenty of charm and chutzpah (see especially his "Les Girls" and even his plum "American in Paris," probably his finest role.) There are no soft edges in Gene Kelly. As for Garland, she was by now a veteran actress, and it shows in the subtlety and vulnerability of her performance. The marvel is how her gorgeously rich voice is spun so nicely into her role; the voice has no hard edges -- yet. We will begin to hear a bit of forcing toward the end of her career. Garland's talent was like a meteor-- shooting across the sky and lighting up others'. She could leave the viewer breathless because she put so much of herself in a role. This is certainly one of Garland's finer performances (a match for her later "A Star is Born," where her natural beauty if marred by too much makeup). There are no lavish sets or costumes or even dance scenes, just the backup men in uniform. But because of the vaudeville routines that are part of the plot line, she and Kelly deliver some of the greatest songs and dances. There's not even technicolor to distract the viewer.

Reviewers ought to remember that this movie was made in 1942. We had just entered the war (Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941) and feelings for the troops were high. One has even to wonder where Berkeley found all of the men to put into the movie -- weren't they supposed to have been drafted? Just think about the masterful "Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" shot by the great Powell and Pressburger team in 1943. Michael Powell commented that he had trouble finding enough men to fill his scenes: in one large group shot, he had to use dummies in uniform. (We in the US obviously had more civilians in 1942, but I wonder about that...) The fact that Garland loses her brother, and that Kelly tries to dodge the draft to further his/their career are two unpleasant aspects of wartime that we do not like to think about, but are very real and not glossed over here.

This film ought to be better appreciated. Of four stars ****, I would give it a maximum rating ****, because it delivers more than it promises. Viewers who expected more from it are missing its more subtle dimensions.