pyrocitor
"I'M not racist, but…"Do your eyes roll and fists clench in frustration before the sentence has finished? Fear not - Gentleman's Agreement is on your side. You'd expect a 'Social Problems Picture' dating from the better part of a century ago to play as cornball, and adorably (or troublesomely) antiquated. Instead, it's sobering how, in a contemporary context, Elia Kazan's scrappy interrogation of the deeply harmful societal prejudices imbedded in seemingly innocuous or inconsequential gestures and comments plays as just as poignantly timely as ever. Seventy years on, Gentleman's Agreement has lost none of its robust, fierce urgency, remaining one of the most intelligent conversations on privilege, and how distressing societal imbalances can be carved by those unable to acknowledge it. Many Hollywood films profiling racism dive straight into tackling overt, violent hate crimes. Here, screenwriter Moss Hart, adapting Laura Z Hobson's groundbreaking expose of societal antisemitism, is bold enough to dig one step deeper, into the more subtle, pervasive forms of racial and religious discrimination proliferating in so- called 'polite society' - job hunting, risqué jokes, schoolyard bullying, and general passive- aggressively rude treatment. It's solemn stuff, but Hart's eloquent screenplay, while occasionally toeing the line of excessive 'staginess,' nimbly gets the point across without devolving outright into pedantic preaching. Kazan's direction is just as provocative, framing his film with plentiful New York establishing shots to firmly ground the problem with pervasive antisemitism as a here and now problem, not a distant epidemic easy to wave away. The hook entails Peck's brooding journalist spreading rumours of a falsified Jewish identity in order to 'method write,' believing himself to be better equipped to write about antisemitism when he himself has been subjected to its ugly underbelly. For many, the premise will sound warning bells of a reappropriative, saccharine saviour of the Jewish community, who dabbles in empathy only to shrug off its hardships and cloak himself with his privilege anew upon the closing credits. It's a fair concern, and one, thankfully, that Kazan and Hart anticipate and circumvent, with peppery reminders throughout branding antisemitism, and any other such religious and cultural discrimination, to be everyone's problem, and that those who allow it to subtly fester by allowing dubious comments or actions to pass unchallenged, as just as culpable. In one sardonic instance, a real-life conversation between Jewish industry executives urging the filmmakers to quash the film for fear of 'rocking the boat' makes its way into the script itself, lending it even more power and wry credibility. Occasionally, the film stumbles somewhat over its own noble intentions. To make its point, Peck's compacted experience is a touch clumsily over-exaggerated (though it's a sad realization that this heavy-handedness is ultimately necessary for the message to properly land, whether in 1947 or current day), and there's no denying that a contemporary viewing necessitates suspension of disbelief regarding the more exposition-heavy tropes of the time. Nonetheless, some of Peck's grim, sanctimonious lectures still verge on tiresome 'Mansplaining,' even for the 1940s. Even more curiously but poignantly, Kazan and Hall's reticence in grounding the film in its contemporary cultural context (the script does take pot shots at some of the more outspokenly antisemitic government officials of the time, but abstains from any mention of the Holocaust, or World War II at all, outside of John Garfield's chipper GI) shows how touch-and-go evasion of Hayes Code censorship was. Regardless, Kazan keeps the pace brisk, entwining Peck's experiences of discrimination around a burgeoning romance that, irksomely, might not be as safe from outside microaggressions as he'd hope. Though both he and Kazan have retroactively disparaged his work here as too hesitant, Peck proves an excellent fulcrum for the film's message to roll off. Curbing his legendary dignity and calm with a bristling righteous indignation, Peck's grimness suggests he rankles at the oppression - both that he and his family personally experience, but also in a macro sense - with every fibre of his being. His refusal to let in dregs of his legendary warmth do leave his performance as somewhat wanting in levity, but he's seething and charismatic enough to effortlessly win attention regardless. Similarly, Dorothy McGuire is superb as his impassioned fiancée, and McGuire is wise and skilled enough to remain fundamentally enigmatic, commanding audience sympathy while simultaneously keeping them at arm's length with just enough eyebrow-raising comments to continually postpone a consensus on her character's affability. Finally, John Garfield provides the welcome reprieve of boisterous charisma the film sorely needs, though many of its more unexpected, quietly resonant moments are grounded in watching his face imperceptibly shift to weary resignation coming to terms with the subtle and overt hardships he, as a Jewish citizen is invariably subjected to, war hero status and all. Many will criticize Gentleman's Agreement as being overstated, earnest, or corny in a contemporary environment. Sadly, its message remains as urgently topical as ever in a global climate rife with socio- political intolerance and hatred - both overt, and as knowingly nigh-imperceptible as the film's title. And if a Gregory Peck civil rights double-bill (this and To Kill A Mockingbird, of course) could serve as the cultural balm the world needs, or causes a single viewer to pause and reflect before uttering a politically dubious generalization over dinner, then Gentleman's Agreement is beyond intelligent, eloquent, and piercing: it's borderline essential. -9/10
grantss
Phil Green is a highly-regarded investigative journalist. He moves to New York after accepting a contract to write an in-depth article for a magazine. The article is on anti-Semitism and is very topical, as at the time there is quite a large amount of prejudice against Jews in the US. However, it is not a new topic and Phil's editor wants him to cover the issue in an original way. After much brainstorming, Phil decides to pose as Jewish, in order to experience the prejudice first hand. He is not prepared for what he finds.A great examination of bigotry and prejudice. The topic feels clumsy, initially, as it seems less relevant now and it is hard to believe that anti-Semitism was ever an issue to the extent portrayed in the movie. However, unfortunately, the background is quite accurate in displaying attitudes and issues in the US in the late- 1940s, so the movie was very relevant at the time. Moreover, while the exact issue is not overly relevant today, it can be used as a metaphor for any prejudice or bigotry.With the initial feeling of clumsiness gone, the movie takes on a whole new life and profundity and degree of engagement. Director Elia Kazan weaves the examples of prejudice into the plot quite seamlessly, without making you feel like he is overdoing it or you are being preached to. Excellent work by Gregory Peck in the lead role. This feeling is helped if you've already seen him in To Kill A Mockingbird, another movie of his that deals with bigotry and prejudice. Peck got a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his efforts.Good work too from Dorothy McGuire (as Kathy Lacy), Celeste Holm (as Anne Dettrey) and Anne Revere as Mrs. Green. Holm won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination while McGuire got a Best Actress nomination and Revere a Best Supporting Actress nomination.The film itself won the 1948 Best Picture Oscar. Elia Kazan won his first Oscar (was also his first nomination). In the next 16 years he would garner one more win (for On The Waterfront) and five other nominations.
Roedy Green
Part of this movie is watching Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire and Celeste Holm lounging about in rococo luxury looking fabulously glamorous. Over and over Peck and McGuire insult each other, apologise overly profusely and kiss with the passion of Siamese fighting fish.The rest of it is a bit like a George Bernard Shaw play, where the actors have a philosophical discussions about anti-Semitism exchanging long speeches. It is contains quite deep discussions of various types of prejudice. It gets a bit preachy at times. At times it backs speeches with music reminiscent of Battle Hymn of the Republic -- way over the top.Dean Stockwell plays the son Tommy. He is an angelic, hyperactive child who provides the only welcome action in the rather static film.The basic plot is Peck pretends to be Jewish in order to write a magazine story about the prejudice he experiences. The prejudice is relatively subtle. I could hardly see it being sensational enough for a series in a magazine. I suppose the writer did not want the audience to discount that such prejudice happens, rather to say, "That is pretty bad, but what really happens is much worse."There is no scene when Peck gives the bad guys a swift kick in the pants. The fight has just started and it is up to you in the audience to do battle.
