Gentleman's Agreement, the 1947 movie starring Gregory Peck, suffers from one major problem: It was only powerful for the first twenty years of its existence.
In 2001, the age of tolerance reigns and anti-Semitism is one of the least-worried about descriminatory attitudes. Not only that, but movies that make social commentary generally do it in the forms of analogies, metaphors or satire nowadays. They don't take the final half hour to repeatedly make short sermonettes blatantly expressing the point of the movie.
That said, Gentleman's Agreement must be put in context. In 1945, the world reeled in horror as Hitler's concentration camps were opened and thousands of emaciated, burned, tortured and agonized corpses showed forth the excesses of Hitler's anti-Semitism. But two years later, when the novel and then the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" were made, anti-Semitism was very much alive and well. Both the novel and movie were controversial both for their subject matter and their respective treatments of it. In that context, Gentleman's Agreement is still a powerful movie, an illumination of the underbelly of one of the most glamorized periods of American history.
Gregory Peck plays a magazine writer who is assigned a series on discrimination against Jews. In order to get the proper feel for the story, Peck - who has recently moved across the country and has no connections in New York - "becomes" a Jew and faces the insults, cold shoulders and harrassment that real Jews received every day. The process changes him - and his family and his outlook on life - forever.
The good parts of this movie are plentiful. Peck, although never a great actor (there were many actors who would have been much better here), does provide a good amount of sincerity and earnestness required for the role. (Unfortunately Peck was somewhat of an underactor, although this could make up for Celeste Holmes' shameless overracting in her final monologue.) The movie does an excellent job developing his romance with Dorothy McGuire's character, especially in light of the end. In general, Gentleman's Agreement did an excellent job in shining a light on the comfortable upper-middle class white suburbia and its quiet, subversive racism. No doubt in 1947, Gentleman's Agreement made quite a few "gentlemen" severely uncomfortable.
But the movie was made in 1947 about a subject that was unique to that time period and immediately following. To watch it after nearly 60 years have passed is to watch a movie that beats you over the head with sermonette after speech after discussion after message about how bad anti-Semitism is. Especially towards the end, where the characters all take turns delivering their own views on precisely what anti-Semitism is and what should be done about it many times over. Gentleman's Agreement just doesn't age well at all, especially in light of Holmes and McGuire's acting performances, which were notably overdone and close to distracting at times.
Overall, this movie is worth seeing. And yes, it did deserve the 1947 Oscar for Best Picture, thanks to its subject matter and potent delivery (even if it does not seem so potent today). This was a groundbreaking and controversial movie, and it highlights the productive effect Hollywood can have on society, even 54 years later.
7/10
In 2001, the age of tolerance reigns and anti-Semitism is one of the least-worried about descriminatory attitudes. Not only that, but movies that make social commentary generally do it in the forms of analogies, metaphors or satire nowadays. They don't take the final half hour to repeatedly make short sermonettes blatantly expressing the point of the movie.
That said, Gentleman's Agreement must be put in context. In 1945, the world reeled in horror as Hitler's concentration camps were opened and thousands of emaciated, burned, tortured and agonized corpses showed forth the excesses of Hitler's anti-Semitism. But two years later, when the novel and then the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" were made, anti-Semitism was very much alive and well. Both the novel and movie were controversial both for their subject matter and their respective treatments of it. In that context, Gentleman's Agreement is still a powerful movie, an illumination of the underbelly of one of the most glamorized periods of American history.
Gregory Peck plays a magazine writer who is assigned a series on discrimination against Jews. In order to get the proper feel for the story, Peck - who has recently moved across the country and has no connections in New York - "becomes" a Jew and faces the insults, cold shoulders and harrassment that real Jews received every day. The process changes him - and his family and his outlook on life - forever.
The good parts of this movie are plentiful. Peck, although never a great actor (there were many actors who would have been much better here), does provide a good amount of sincerity and earnestness required for the role. (Unfortunately Peck was somewhat of an underactor, although this could make up for Celeste Holmes' shameless overracting in her final monologue.) The movie does an excellent job developing his romance with Dorothy McGuire's character, especially in light of the end. In general, Gentleman's Agreement did an excellent job in shining a light on the comfortable upper-middle class white suburbia and its quiet, subversive racism. No doubt in 1947, Gentleman's Agreement made quite a few "gentlemen" severely uncomfortable.
But the movie was made in 1947 about a subject that was unique to that time period and immediately following. To watch it after nearly 60 years have passed is to watch a movie that beats you over the head with sermonette after speech after discussion after message about how bad anti-Semitism is. Especially towards the end, where the characters all take turns delivering their own views on precisely what anti-Semitism is and what should be done about it many times over. Gentleman's Agreement just doesn't age well at all, especially in light of Holmes and McGuire's acting performances, which were notably overdone and close to distracting at times.
Overall, this movie is worth seeing. And yes, it did deserve the 1947 Oscar for Best Picture, thanks to its subject matter and potent delivery (even if it does not seem so potent today). This was a groundbreaking and controversial movie, and it highlights the productive effect Hollywood can have on society, even 54 years later.
7/10