Certainly not. It not only didn't deserve the oscars it got, apart from cinematography, it was lucky to get the nominations it got. Ultra-mild, pseud-realistic tearjerker, incorporating all the cliches [that were already cliches at the time].
I just don't get how people can get so involved in it. As character study its stilted - none of the characters go through any actual character development, and most of them are archetypes at best, stereotypes at worst. I find it hard to think of a single compelling, multidimensional character in the entire film. If, on the other hand, we're to treat the village/valley as the character, and the movie as a character study of this, then the development is so slight, obvious and trite that it is simply an amazing show of chutzpah on Ford's behalf to attempt it. I mean, once we hear the opening statement and see the opening shot, we know that it'll be a fall from an imagined idyllic grace into some more realistic and 'stained' present, and that this will come about because of some sin of the town as a whole. As a mining town, and a rural town, it will obviously be class conflict and prejudice.
However, within these rather restrictive confines, it ~is~ the best movie it can be, and the nuts-and-bolts directing by Ford is probably amongst his best [although I don't think that says all that much - many, many of his films are overrated], and the cinematography was definately the second-best of 1941, and probably amongst the top 5 of the 40s. The acting was no great shakes, but with the characters they were given, its not that surprising. Not that the characters precluded a great performance, of course, and there's little doubt that if there was a legitimate great performance or two it might've dragged this film out of the Now, Voyager and Gunga Din category of 'it could've, almost' into the category of truly good films. To be fair on Phillip Dunne, he might have expected sufficiently nuanced and controlled performances to provide character development, and held back on that on purpose. That is, of course, only speculation.
Of course, the movie ~is~ a must-see, but only so that gripes about the robbing of Citizen Kane are well-informed, rather than based speculation or hearsay.
reply
share
donmage
19 years ago
I really like this movie and really really dislike Citizen Kane; in fact, I have no idea why CK is hailed as a great movie, because I certainly don't see it as even very good. I am glad whomever decides who gets the "Oscar" saw fit that HGWMV was more deserving than that convoluted, basically boring self-indulgent CK.
I do not, however, consider HGWMV to be a great movie either. It is VERY GOOD, but, as you point out wonderfully, too cliche-leaden to be a GREAT movie, like GWTW.
reply
share
Death_to_Pan_and_Scan
17 years ago
This is far from even the greatest film made in 1941. The anti-Citizen Kane whiners just astound me. CK is a great film and I'm going to have to agree with lgron000 on HGWMV. To me this was really pretty bland with 15 minutes or so of good melodrama tacked onto the end to try to make people remember it as a greater film than it is. Sure, it touches on a social issue (regarding wages and cheap bosses), but many better films have tackled social issues.
John Ford made lots of better movies than this and, aside from its cinematography, I'd rank it rather low - along with Drums Along the Mohawk. I'd take a Now, Voyager or Gone with the Wind over this any day. I actually cared about the characters in those movies more than this uninteresting family. While I'd put Maltese Falcon much higher than HGWMV, I also don't consider it Best Picture material - Maltese Falcon is just a really good genre picture (though still much better than the overrated Oscar winner The Departed).
HGWMV 6/10
----------
If you're watching 'Fullscreen' DVDs, you aren't getting the whole picture.
reply
share