As everyone agrees, WEEKEND AT THE WALDORF follows the outline of GRAND HOTEL while radically lightening its tone. It's structured by three parallel and occasionally intertwining stories connected mostly by its setting, the famous Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. The fraudulent schemes of Edward Arnold are so woefully underwritten that they hardly count. The heart of the movie lies in the other two plot-lines, a romantic comedy verging on screwball between lonely, overworked actress Ginger Rogers and burned-out war correspondent Walter Pidgeon, and a sentimental romance between wounded war veteran Van Johnson and gold- digging stenographer Lana Turner. The former is pretty funny and the latter rather touching, but the inter-cutting between them does neither any favors. They might have done better as separate, and considerably shorter, movies in their own right. As it stands, the film is way too long. Heck, around the two hour mark we stop everything cold for a couple of mediocre musical numbers!
Which is not to say that there are not considerable virtues in WALDORF. The interior sets are amazing, you would think that you really were at the hotel, and we are given a good idea of the immense effort that goes into running such a magnificent establishment. It's the Waldorf itself that is (quite intentionally) the movie's true main character. And the human performances ain't bad, either. Walter Pidgeon, normally rather stodgy to my eyes, is charming and clever and witty to a degree that I've never seen from him elsewhere. He shows surprising chemistry with Ginger Rogers, who gives a cool and amusing performance as the kind of character she would often portray (I'm tempted to say, would be saddled with) for much of her later career, a successful yet unhappy actress. Lana Turner is okay in a role that could have used considerable expansion. Van Johnson's performance seems problematic to me. In and of himself he presents us with an immensely likable character who is a pleasure to watch, but what sense does this make of the character? He appears remarkably healthy for someone who has only a 50/50 chance of making it till next Wednesday. And why would his soldier have no friends? We see a guy who's handsome, charming, articulate, friendly, respectful, and while rather subdued does not come across as intensely shy. Actually, he comes across as pretty much perfect. It makes his story pleasant but shallow. One might say the same for the entire film.
Which is not to say that there are not considerable virtues in WALDORF. The interior sets are amazing, you would think that you really were at the hotel, and we are given a good idea of the immense effort that goes into running such a magnificent establishment. It's the Waldorf itself that is (quite intentionally) the movie's true main character. And the human performances ain't bad, either. Walter Pidgeon, normally rather stodgy to my eyes, is charming and clever and witty to a degree that I've never seen from him elsewhere. He shows surprising chemistry with Ginger Rogers, who gives a cool and amusing performance as the kind of character she would often portray (I'm tempted to say, would be saddled with) for much of her later career, a successful yet unhappy actress. Lana Turner is okay in a role that could have used considerable expansion. Van Johnson's performance seems problematic to me. In and of himself he presents us with an immensely likable character who is a pleasure to watch, but what sense does this make of the character? He appears remarkably healthy for someone who has only a 50/50 chance of making it till next Wednesday. And why would his soldier have no friends? We see a guy who's handsome, charming, articulate, friendly, respectful, and while rather subdued does not come across as intensely shy. Actually, he comes across as pretty much perfect. It makes his story pleasant but shallow. One might say the same for the entire film.