Better Than Singin' In The Rain
Am I the only one who likes this better than Gene Kelly's 1952 film which is much more acclaimed? It is often called the greatest movie musical of all time. But I still like An American In Paris better.
shareYes, you are alone :D
share[deleted]
No, you're not, lol. I did a thread like this a couple years ago and got eviscerated for it, but I think the argument has more merit than people think. Don't get me wrong - Singin' in the Rain is great. As a kid I easily preferred it to American in Paris, and I think that's the reason its popularity is more enduring today. Its more straightforward, easier to follow; it moves faster and the characters are more simplistic and less complex.
What's interesting is that fifty years ago if I told a film critic that American in Paris would be the underdog in this equation they would have probably laughed in my face. American was the top-grossing Best Picture Oscar winner with the prestigious Gershwin classic tunes, not Singin in the Rain. Now, come 1998, Singin in the Rain would outrank American by about fifty spots on AFI's Greatest Movies list, and then come 2008, American wouldn't even make the list. Gene Kelly, himself, has gone on record saying that he prefers Singin in the Rain to An American in Paris.
But, as much as I love Singin, I do admit that as I've gotten a little older I've come to realize that it does have its flaws, while I've grown to have a greater appreciation for American. Because, first of all, you just can't beat Gershwin, lol. But there are other reasons I've come to this conclusion, too.
The writing in Singin in the Rain, for example, which gets a lot of praise, just doesn't do it for me. Awkward lines like "Call me a Cab! Okay, you're a Cab" and "I make more money than Calvin Coolidge, put together," which everyone seems to find so funny, just come off as a product of lazy writing to me. By contrast, American has some pretty thought provoking material, like Jerry's line about how being a painter is different from other artists because musicians can always buy copies of their work, while for painters, "its the original that counts."
The dancing quality is about even, "Singin' in the Rain" and "I Got Rhythm" are both iconic dance numbers and the "Good Morning" and "S'Wonderful" numbers are nothing short of joyrides. But what tips the scale in American's favor, for me, is that the "Gotta Dance" number has less relevance to the film's story itself, whereas Jerry's Dream Sequence is the premier showcase of the film. Sure, you have the little jab at Arthur Freed with RF Simpson's "I can't quite visualize it" line, which only hardcore filmgoers would get, but otherwise the entire sequence could have gone unseen and it would have had no bearing on the picture, whereas Jerry's dream sequence is pivotal to the plot, almost the moment the whole film has been leading up to.
In terms of characters, I realize that people generally think of Jerry Mulligan as a dick, and with good reason, but I don't find Don Lockwood to be all that much more likeable. The difference, of course, is that I get the impression that Jerry, a cynical ex-GI with no luck as a painter, is sort of "supposed" to be a dick, whereas Don Lockwood is supposed to be this immensely likable, good-hearted guy, but he generally comes off as a self-interested jerk who just has these random saccharine, love-sick moments.
I also understand people's criticism of Leslie Caron as being "in over her head," but in this case, that type of wide eyed innocence and lack of experience plays to the character's personality, perfectly. Debbie Reynolds just plays the conventional "musical love interest" with no real development or change; Kathy Selden is a static character, whereas Lise is a genuinely conflicted character who is forced to make some very difficult choices over the course of the film.
In terms of "sidekicks," Donald O'Connor's dancing is fantastic, and I know that he's supposed to be energetic and upbeat, but the character of Cosmo Brown comes off as almost TOO saccharine, happy-go-lucky, and energetic to the point of being unrealistic, especially when compared with Oscar Levant's character, whose crass no-nonsense demeanor just comes off as more relatable. Although I do understand why Kelly and Donen thought of Levant as entirely unsuitable for the part of Cosmo Brown.
In terms of the "other love interests," between Lena Lamont and Milo/Henri, Lena comes off as the more wildly outrageous and memorable character than Milo or Henri, but it really depends on what the viewer wants in an "other love interest." Lamont has almost no redeeming qualities whereas both Henri and Milo come off as pretty sympathetic and, in Henri's case, even likeable. So, if its about which character is more memorable, then Lena takes it. But if its about which character is more developed, then I'd go with American in Paris.
So, yeah, I'd conclude that An American in Paris and [i]Singin in the Rain are about even.
^agree with most of this. The big dance sequences really do separate the two films. The one in Singin' in the Rain is impressive, but it drags the film down and it is really just indulgent and an excuse for Gene Kelly to show off. They are probably my two favorite musicals, but I slightly prefer American in Paris.
share