ricardojorgeramalho

Monty Woolley was a charismatic actor who, while never beeing a true star (particularly because he appeared in "only" 30 films throughout his career, often as a supporting actor, which suggests he was more dedicated to theater than film, and also appeared in three television series toward the end of his career), nevertheless had a significant presence in comedy in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.

His most memorable role will always be that of Sheridan Whiteside in 1941's "The Man Who Came to Dinner," where he played an unwanted and arrogant guest who turned a family's life upside down, only to later turn it around with his wisdom and intelligence. Perhaps influenced by the film's success, Monty Woolley became almost always associated with roles of a formal, loquacious gentleman, often acidic in his interactions with other characters, thus earning him a status as a comical curmudgeon, but with the appearance and poise of a British lord, albeit with much more wit and intelligence.

This comedy thrives solely on this vaguely amusing character, who here appears much more patriotic and moralistic than comedic.

It's still an interesting work, particularly for the role of John R. Hodges, the 65-year-old workers' rights advocate played by Woolley.

A comedy that aims to be a screwball but ends up being moralistic.

While not a complete disaster, this is a film that falls short of the expectations and possibilities opened up by the plot and cast. The casting starts off strangely, because while Roland Young and Billie Burke are an unavoidable duo in burlesque comedy, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. Was an actor more suited to romantic comedy roles, and above all, Janet Gaynor was a perfect ingenue. So we have a frankly heterogeneous group, joined by veteran Minnie Dupree in a dramatic role.

Therefore, the film oscillates between burlesque comedy, romantic comedy, and drama, becoming an interesting patchwork, but never fully and truly working.

It's curious, to say the least, that two MGM films, produced in the same year and with essentially the same audience appeal, are both talkies and musicals, and both feature color scenes (in the case of Broadway Melody, only one), yield such different results.

Both are transitional films, adapting to new technologies, sound, and, more precariously, color, but they exhibit different approaches to this adaptation.

If Hollywood Revue lacks rhythm, lacks script, and there are clear limitations in editing and sound design, Broadway Melody seems a few years ahead, displaying a much faster pace, a script (albeit a simple and melodramatic one), and a much greater ability to integrate a narrative into a musical film. There are also obvious advances in sound design and even exterior scenes (actually just some aerial shots of New York at the beginning and a fixed shot of what appears to be Times Square at the end). Interestingly, it retained the written separators, with descriptions of each scene, in the old silent film style.

In short, it seems clear that the adaptation to sound was not linear and, even within the same studio, varied greatly from film to film, depending on the technical team in charge. This even occurred in works shot simultaneously.

The work on this Broadway Melody won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1930, which seems to be a recognition of the significant advances in adapting to new technologies demonstrated by the technical team.

Special mention goes to the duo Bessie Love and Anita Page, who lead the cast, supported by Charlie King, Jed Prouty, and Kenneth Thomson, in a lower position. It's a shame that the script followed the melodrama approach, rather than the romantic comedy, which would quickly become the norm for musicals in the following years.

The musical numbers themselves also lack ambition. A few years later, Busby Berkeley would revolutionize the genre with his grandiose choreographies, filmed with boldness and precision. Here we are still at the level of revue theater, in this regard. As I mentioned earlier, it was a gradual but surprisingly quick journey, in retrospect. Three or four years were enough to elevate the filmed musical revue to a grand Hollywood musical.

Let's face it, it was a remarkable feat.