Nice Girl?

What is not to like about 'Nice Girl?'? It needs hardly be among the very best of Deanna Durbin's films to still warrant at least a viewing. And it certainly does.

Robert Benchley is wonderful as the father raising three daughters with the help of his housekeeper in a small American town. Durbin plays the middle daughter, Dana, and she has her sights set on sophistication, however improbable that prospect seems. Her boyfriend, hunky, blond Robert Stack, is often filmed, bless him, in a skimpy shoulder-less undershirt whilst busying himself under the hood of the beloved car that he seems to value more than Durbin herself. When a mature man of the world, the charming Franchot Tone, shows up to do business with Dad Benchley, all three sisters fall in love with him, and Durbin decides that now is the time to take that final step towards adulthood, with ALL that it entails! "Who wants to be just useful and contented? After all, I am not a cow", Deanna Durbin complains, as she is about to flirt with disaster, preparing to be ravished by Tone in his boudoir of exotic trophies. Durbin hardly looks the Jezebel she makes a stab at, but she does look like a million bucks in her borrowed turban and black evening dress.

The dialog is snappy, often surprisingly racy for its time, the songs are classics ('The Old Folks at Home', 'Beneath the Lights of Home' etc.) and felt as well as beautifully sung by Durbin. It may not have quite the giddy strength of other Durbin movies such as 'First Love', but it is still a delightful experience.

If this film tries to cast Durban against type it singularly fails. She couldn't be anything else but nice and catch the boys, what with her looks and her voice. Still her father has enough to do with three good looking girls to keep in-line with home spun wisdom and a firm hand. Typical Durban. Enough said.

The first part centering around family life in the Dana family is utterly charming. The three spirited sisters are feeling the pangs of youth and the opposite sex. That scene where a romantically inclined Jane (Durbin) goes riding with her car crazy boyfriend (Stack), only to have him more interested in putting a potato in his exhaust pipe than being with her is a hoot. Poor Jane. Then there's the budding Nancy (Gillis) and older sister Sylvia (Gwynne), both with their share of guy problems. Good thing dad's (Benchley) on hand to dispense fatherly wisdom. Note too how the family shares meals and talks together around a family table with no TV or cell phone in sight. In similar fashion, this first part is both amusing and insightful into norms of the day.

But once the attractively sophisticated Calvert (Tone) arrives, the focus shifts to preserving Durbin's iconic virginity. In short, her virtue wobbles while in the overnight company of bachelor Calvert. And though there are still amusing moments, much of the earlier charm diminishes. Nonetheless, Durbin shines, especially in close-ups, while getting to show off her highly musical voice. The song selection, however, is undistinguished, except for Old Folks At Home. At the same time, the approaching big war is sensed in the two patriotic compositions coming at the end.

Too bad that Durbin is largely forgotten today. But then social norms reflected in her career have changed drastically. Nonetheless, she was a highly talented performer whose close-ups continue to project a timeless magic.

This is basically two movies that have nothing to do with each other.

On the one hand, there are the musical numbers, mostly solos for Durbin. They are often very beautifully and movingly performed. Simple, but deeply felt. Some of Durbin's best singing.

And then there is the rest of the movie, the plot. It is paper thin, not developed, not interesting, not worth watching.

Which left me wondering: why didn't Universal put at least a little effort into creating a decent script to showcase Durbin's beautiful, moving performances? The cast is fine. All of the leads had given great performances in great movies. They could have handled much better material easily.

Why didn't Universal bother to come up with something for them? Why did they leave Durbin stranded with nothing to work with? A mystery.

In 1941, Deanna Durbin was the biggest star at Universal and helped to save the sagging studio. However, this film represents a big of an awkward period. Up until this period, Deanna played young and virginal characters but by 1941, she was entering her 20s and having her play such roles was problematic to say the least! So, instead of a small change, the studio decided to try to titillate and named her next film "Nice Girl?" and they publicized that this sweet young lady would get her first screen kiss. Unfortunately, the film also is rather dull and when seen today it's not exactly a crowd pleaser.

The dull and slow-moving plot finds Mr. Oliver Dana (Robert Benchley) trying to raise his three daughters with the help of his housekeeper (Helen Broderick). The main focus is on Jane (Durbin) and whether or not she'll get the slow-witted Don (Robert Stack) or Richard Calvert (Franchot Tone). As for Don, he's much more interested in cars than sex and Richard is downright old compared to Deanna (he's 16 years her senior). It's all punctuated with Durban singing and ends with her singing a rousing patriotic tune--which varied depending on if you lived in the US or UK!

As I said...slow and dull. Not a bad film but one that never help my interest and was far from one of Durbin's best.