George Cukor

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: George Cukor

#26 Post by knives » Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:48 am

Heller in Pink Tights is another one I feel loses his MGM stiffness.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: George Cukor

#27 Post by Drucker » Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:59 am

Matt wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:03 am
Watching Sylvia Scarlett on TCM and looking over Cukor’s filmography, I realized there is not a single film of his that I can say I unreservedly love. Even the best among them (The Philadelphia Story, A Star Is Born, Gaslight, A Woman’s Face) have (as mentioned by others above) a stiffness and proscenium arch formality that feels off-putting. He could never cut loose like Howard Hawks, layer a sly undertext beneath a genteel surface like Ernst Lubitsch, or really just give himself over to his material like Vincente Minnelli.

He seems never to have shaken off his theatre background, but of course he offered exactly the kind of sheen of prestige and legitimacy that Hollywood was looking for in the early sound era. At its worst (sorry Sylvia Scarlett fans) it could be suffocating and could work against even otherwise light-footed entertainment (Les Girls, My Fair Lady).

I don’t care to psychoanalyze, but I do get an impression of the alienated gay son of Hungarian-Jewish immigrants always striving to transcend his humble Lower East Side origins by becoming an aristocratic theatre queen and the Grande Dame of Hollywood.

It is a remarkable and respectable body of work which does feel like the cohesive and distinctly recognizable oeuvre of a genuine auteur. I just don’t think I enjoy it very much.
Agreed. I was really disappointed with Philadelphia Story and found it a slog. I also found Born Yesterday to be insufferable, especially Judy Holliday's performance which gets old really fast. I caught Sylvia Scarlett in theaters a few years ago and liked it, but I'm not itching to check out a lot of his other work at this time, though I'm curious if Holiday could win me over.

User avatar
Roscoe
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: George Cukor

#28 Post by Roscoe » Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:53 am

I'll stick out my neck for DINNER AT EIGHT, but it's a bit stuffy in its proscenium-ness, but I find I don't care when I'm watching John Barrymore and Marie Dressler and Jean Harlow. GASLIGHT, too, which I think bypasses the stuffy filmed-stage-play vibe more successfully than PHILADELPHIA STORY and HOLIDAY. THE WOMEN has some fine moments, too, but I just can't stand Rosalind Russell's shrill unfunny over-playing. But there's no forgiving his undertaker job on MY FAIR LADY, which isn't so much brought alive onscreen as embalmed.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

George Cukor

#29 Post by Matt » Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:33 pm

I’ve given Holiday several opportunities over the years to charm me and it still hasn’t yet. I don’t dislike it, it just feels a little twee, these hothouse flower grown-ups stifling under the overweening care of their parents/elders/peers. I think I prefer grown-ups acting like little children in the style of Bringing Up Baby and not grown-ups acting like sulky teens who’ve been grounded in the style of Holiday. I know I’m being ungenerous and snotty about it, so maybe the film just hits too close to home for me!

I do think Cukor is able to relax a little with The Women, but yes, Roz is a bit much here (and I normally like her in just about everything else), Shearer is dullsville as she so often could be, and no one else really registers except Crawford who gets off one or two good lines. The color fashion show is always a pleasant and never-long-enough diversion, but then the ranch section seems to just go on and on. It’s sacrilegious to say, but I actually prefer the 1956 musical remake The Opposite Sex. And then there are no other versions of this film, no other remakes at all, no one would even consider such a thing.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: George Cukor

#30 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 pm

It took me many viewings to see what all the fuss was about. Speaking just for myself, I was going in trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, assuming I'd see something more "screwball-y" this time, but once I started paying attention closer to what the film 'was', I appreciated it more. There are little deadpan throwaway moments that are not pronounced at all but are so clever and funny and sweet, and I didn't notice any of them until probably my fourth watch, because I was looking for something louder and more genre-concrete. I respect that not many people have the time or will to repeatedly revisit films that are board-favorites 'til they click, but I'm certainly glad I did on this one

User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: George Cukor

#31 Post by dekadetia » Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:06 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 pm
It took me many viewings to see what all the fuss was about. Speaking just for myself, I was going in trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, assuming I'd see something more "screwball-y" this time, but once I started paying attention closer to what the film 'was', I appreciated it more. There are little deadpan throwaway moments that are not pronounced at all but are so clever and funny and sweet, and I didn't notice any of them until probably my fourth watch, because I was looking for something louder and more genre-concrete. I respect that not many people have the time or will to repeatedly revisit films that are board-favorites 'til they click, but I'm certainly glad I did on this one
Holiday might be my favorite Cukor, certainly in the top 2-3, and your assessment here goes some way toward teasing out why. There's an unexpected subtlety to the humor that's different from a lot of the work in this period and a gentle melancholy that infuses the material that make it special to me -- and yes, as you say, a sweetness.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: George Cukor

#32 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:54 pm

dekadetia wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:06 pm
There's an unexpected subtlety to the humor that's different from a lot of the work in this period
I mentioned my favorite moment in the spoilerbox of this post, which is so subtle you won't realize how funny it is unless you squint your ears. The type of humor feels closest to (heavily predating) the Gen X surreal comedy on MTV, Fox etc..

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: George Cukor

#33 Post by Rayon Vert » Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:32 pm

Nice thoughts on Holiday (although I'm also a fan of The Philadelphia Story despite its proscenium-archness, which in a sense fits perfectly with the theme of the statue/goddess stiffness of Kate's character!).

What about Camille and Romeo and Juliet? For all their flaws, I like those (quite a bit more than The Women in fact, which also bores me).

I sympathize with Matt's thoughts though in general. The same charges I would lay against Adam's Ribb, The Marrying Kind, It Should Happen to You, Pat and Mike (and Born Yesterday to some extent also). I can see why some argue about the merit of those films, but something falls flat for me in all of them. Lots of B minuses and C pluses in that filmography.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: George Cukor

#34 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:53 pm

I don't like any Hepburn/Tracy collab, so I don't usually attribute Cukor as the reason for that, but they all feel stiff to me. It's interesting that this was all sparked from a viewing of Sylvia Scarlett, which is such a mess of a movie (but one I liked! Please also see the link in my post to Cold Bishop's excellent defense) in part because it fluctuates with an internal logic of both fluidity and sharpness like the unbound gender blending therein, and is the opposite of "stiff" in many respects. I can understand a reading of stiffness in how Cukor never embraces the material closely to live in its world, though I don't really think he has any more of an idea for what to do with the grey space of gender and sexuality than the characters do! Conversely, Holiday feels very defined and homogenous in its DNA, almost to a fault - where I could see one getting bored if watching more passively, interpreting blandness and feeling a 'lacking'. But I think that film has a greater understanding of its material -specifically the elided emotions within the dynamics- and Cukor has the confidence to be more implicit about the chemistry. One could argue that he's trusting his audience a lot in both cases, but I'm not convinced the former is much more than him shrugging and passing a strange product along, whereas the latter feels more self-assured and comfortable

User avatar
tolbs1010
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:01 pm

Re: George Cukor

#35 Post by tolbs1010 » Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:56 pm

The Philadelphia Story belongs in the worst Best Picture winner bag, and it was also a very questionable Best Actor award for Stewart. Grant gives the best performance in that film and even he looks somewhat embarrassed by the silly, subpar material. The poor pacing and stodgy compositions fall on Cukor.

Gaslight is chef's kiss great in every aspect. Easily my favorite of his films.

Though they have seemingly declined in popularity/respectability over the years, I still enjoy Adam's Rib and Pat And Mike. The latter, in particular, has an anything goes looseness in the staging and performances that shows Cukor embracing the broad comedy in the material. And maybe I just enjoy seeing how well Hepburn could hit a golf ball with those tiny antiquated golf clubs. Her tennis form looks a bit less legit but still respectable. Seeing her physical skills makes up for the weak, un-Hepburn-like nature of her character.

Will have to give Holiday another look based on the comments here.

User avatar
Fred Holywell
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:45 pm

Re: George Cukor

#36 Post by Fred Holywell » Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:13 pm

Matt wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:33 pm
And then there are no other versions of this film, no other remakes at all, no one would even consider such a thing.

Let's not forget Shelley's version! She's no Crawford, but she tried.

Image

ntnon
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:04 am

Re: George Cukor

#37 Post by ntnon » Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:31 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:54 pm
dekadetia wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:06 pm
There's an unexpected subtlety to the humor that's different from a lot of the work in this period
I mentioned my favorite moment in the spoilerbox of this post, which is so subtle you won't realize how funny it is unless you squint your ears. The type of humor feels closest to (heavily predating) the Gen X surreal comedy on MTV, Fox etc..
Cary Grant has a lot of those little non sequiturs and asides in many of his films. That one in particular, especially as you describe it, reminds me of Python. Specifically, The Death of Mary Queen of Scotts, and even more specifically "Burma!"

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: George Cukor

#38 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:35 pm

ntnon wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:31 pm
therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:54 pm
dekadetia wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:06 pm
There's an unexpected subtlety to the humor that's different from a lot of the work in this period
I mentioned my favorite moment in the spoilerbox of this post, which is so subtle you won't realize how funny it is unless you squint your ears. The type of humor feels closest to (heavily predating) the Gen X surreal comedy on MTV, Fox etc..
Cary Grant has a lot of those little non sequiturs and asides in many of his films. That one in particular, especially as you describe it, reminds me of Python. Specifically, The Death of Mary Queen of Scotts, and even more specifically "Burma!"
Yeah, I haven't seen Monty Python's Flying Circus since I was very, very young, so I didn't feel like I could reference it, but as soon as I made the more recent connection I immediately thought of them as an in-between precursor

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: George Cukor

#39 Post by Matt » Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:20 pm

Fred Holywell wrote:
Matt wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:33 pm
And then there are no other versions of this film, no other remakes at all, no one would even consider such a thing.

Let's not forget Shelley's version! She's no Crawford, but she tried.

Image
Wow! I didn’t even know that existed, but it does sound great. This cast: Ruth Hussey, Shelley Winters, Paulette Goddard, Mary Boland, Mary Astor (!), Pat Carroll, Brett Somers (!!)

User avatar
bottlesofsmoke
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:26 pm

Re: George Cukor

#40 Post by bottlesofsmoke » Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:05 pm

I like a lot of Cukor’s movies, though I’d agree they aren’t the most dynamic and many are in the C+, B- range at best and there are plenty of stinkers. I think part of the problem with Cukor is that he was, by his own admissions, not a writer at all - unlike Hawks, who was used as comparison earlier in the thread, who wasn’t credited but worked closely with his writers and improvised lines in the set - so that he mostly just filmed the screenplay as given. Nor was he, until the 1950s and starting with A Star is Born, much interested in the visual aspect of directing, unlike Minnelli who obsessed over this, Cukor pretty much left that up to the cinematographer and other technical people to set up shots and design the film for a good portion of his career. The issue is that MGM had a strong house style and many powerful producers and personalities like Cedric Gibbons that controlled the way the films should look, and for many people (myself included) the results are not great. The MGM style of slower paced, more austere films without much dynamism doesn’t help either. Minnelli, because his background was primarily the visual, was able to exert more control so it was less of an issue, plus the MGM brain trust was significantly weaker during much of Minnelli’s career. I’m reading James Curtis’ bio of William Cameron Menzies and he talks about how Sam Wood knew nothing about the visual part of filmmaking, so he paired perfectly with Menzies, who would design the film visually from start to finish while Wood would work the actors and interpret the story.

Those are the things, working with actors and interpreting the story, that Cukor was good at, he just didn’t have a Menzies to work for the first few decades of his career, until he teamed up with George Hoyningen-Huene, who became his Menzies in a lot of ways, after that his films got more interesting to look at, at least. Which is why, unless you are particularly interested in those things, his films can feel creaky. So Cukor’s best and most well regarded movies are those made at MGM where he had strong source material to draw the story out of and a great cast to work with, like Dinner at Eight, David Copperfield, Camille, The Women, Gaslight, Adam’s Rib, and Pat and Mike. Or, those films that were made either before moving to MGM or on loan out, where those working on the technical side of filmmaking were more adventurous: What Price Hollywood?, Little Women, Sylvia Scarlett, Holiday, A Double Life, Born Yeaterday, A Star is Born, Heller in Pink Tights. If given a mediocre screenplay and no one work with visually, he was sunk and produced a lot of stinkers because he didn’t have the ability, like Hawks or Minnelli, to elevate material as they do, in their own particular ways.

Those who have never seen it should seek outThe Keeper of the Flame, which appears to be MGM’s answer to Citizen Kane, with a multitude of similarities in story, design, music, cinematography. It’s one of the few times that Cukor and MGM really cut lose artistically and the results are fascinating, if not necessarily always great. though interestingly it’s one of Cukor’s movies that feels most modern in terms of theme.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: George Cukor

#41 Post by Rayon Vert » Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:33 pm

Good post. Just watching the opening MGM credit sequences (30s, early 40s) usually has something very monotonously grey and creaky about them.

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: George Cukor

#42 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:45 pm

It’s worth mentioning that Cukor does begin to be formally engaged consistently much before A Star Is Born, just not in a pictorial sense. But beginning in the mid-40s and continuing especially up to his Judy Holiday pictures, he starts to explore very pointedly long takes, natural lighting, and even more complex staging than his admittedly theatrically staged earlier films.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: George Cukor

#43 Post by Matt » Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:52 pm

Thanks, bottleofsmoke. That’s an illuminating perspective on Cukor (and the other filmmakers) that I hadn’t really considered. I’m always trying, for some unknown reason, to identify what director might the the most exemplary of classical Hollywood filmmaking—of the compartmentalization of duties, of the invisibility or absence of an identifiable directorial style—and Cukor might be a qualified representative for MGM. He definitely has a signature, but it seems to be more in orchestrating performances than in visual flair, shaping scripts, or shooting with an eye toward snappy editing. Curtiz is a good rep for Warner Bros. and was able to credibly direct any kind of material put in front of him, but I’d be similarly hard pressed to identify much of a visual or verbal through-line in his films.

I actually love the MGM house art direction style (for period pics mainly) even when it works against the actual film. All those deep, overstuffed frames full of upholstery and lamps and knick-knacks and drapes and woodwork. It could totally overwhelm a picture with visual clutter or provide a magnificent environment and coherent space for actors to move around in, it just depended on whether a director could capably integrate it. Cukor generally did quite well with this, though Cecil Beaton definitely clobbered him with My Fair Lady (which is perhaps best appreciated for Beaton’s sets and costumes).

Post Reply