Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

pyrocitor "I'M not racist, but…"Do your eyes roll and fists clench in frustration before the sentence has finished? Fear not - Gentleman's Agreement is on your side. You'd expect a 'Social Problems Picture' dating from the better part of a century ago to play as cornball, and adorably (or troublesomely) antiquated. Instead, it's sobering how, in a contemporary context, Elia Kazan's scrappy interrogation of the deeply harmful societal prejudices imbedded in seemingly innocuous or inconsequential gestures and comments plays as just as poignantly timely as ever. Seventy years on, Gentleman's Agreement has lost none of its robust, fierce urgency, remaining one of the most intelligent conversations on privilege, and how distressing societal imbalances can be carved by those unable to acknowledge it. Many Hollywood films profiling racism dive straight into tackling overt, violent hate crimes. Here, screenwriter Moss Hart, adapting Laura Z Hobson's groundbreaking expose of societal antisemitism, is bold enough to dig one step deeper, into the more subtle, pervasive forms of racial and religious discrimination proliferating in so- called 'polite society' - job hunting, risqué jokes, schoolyard bullying, and general passive- aggressively rude treatment. It's solemn stuff, but Hart's eloquent screenplay, while occasionally toeing the line of excessive 'staginess,' nimbly gets the point across without devolving outright into pedantic preaching. Kazan's direction is just as provocative, framing his film with plentiful New York establishing shots to firmly ground the problem with pervasive antisemitism as a here and now problem, not a distant epidemic easy to wave away. The hook entails Peck's brooding journalist spreading rumours of a falsified Jewish identity in order to 'method write,' believing himself to be better equipped to write about antisemitism when he himself has been subjected to its ugly underbelly. For many, the premise will sound warning bells of a reappropriative, saccharine saviour of the Jewish community, who dabbles in empathy only to shrug off its hardships and cloak himself with his privilege anew upon the closing credits. It's a fair concern, and one, thankfully, that Kazan and Hart anticipate and circumvent, with peppery reminders throughout branding antisemitism, and any other such religious and cultural discrimination, to be everyone's problem, and that those who allow it to subtly fester by allowing dubious comments or actions to pass unchallenged, as just as culpable. In one sardonic instance, a real-life conversation between Jewish industry executives urging the filmmakers to quash the film for fear of 'rocking the boat' makes its way into the script itself, lending it even more power and wry credibility. Occasionally, the film stumbles somewhat over its own noble intentions. To make its point, Peck's compacted experience is a touch clumsily over-exaggerated (though it's a sad realization that this heavy-handedness is ultimately necessary for the message to properly land, whether in 1947 or current day), and there's no denying that a contemporary viewing necessitates suspension of disbelief regarding the more exposition-heavy tropes of the time. Nonetheless, some of Peck's grim, sanctimonious lectures still verge on tiresome 'Mansplaining,' even for the 1940s. Even more curiously but poignantly, Kazan and Hall's reticence in grounding the film in its contemporary cultural context (the script does take pot shots at some of the more outspokenly antisemitic government officials of the time, but abstains from any mention of the Holocaust, or World War II at all, outside of John Garfield's chipper GI) shows how touch-and-go evasion of Hayes Code censorship was. Regardless, Kazan keeps the pace brisk, entwining Peck's experiences of discrimination around a burgeoning romance that, irksomely, might not be as safe from outside microaggressions as he'd hope. Though both he and Kazan have retroactively disparaged his work here as too hesitant, Peck proves an excellent fulcrum for the film's message to roll off. Curbing his legendary dignity and calm with a bristling righteous indignation, Peck's grimness suggests he rankles at the oppression - both that he and his family personally experience, but also in a macro sense - with every fibre of his being. His refusal to let in dregs of his legendary warmth do leave his performance as somewhat wanting in levity, but he's seething and charismatic enough to effortlessly win attention regardless. Similarly, Dorothy McGuire is superb as his impassioned fiancée, and McGuire is wise and skilled enough to remain fundamentally enigmatic, commanding audience sympathy while simultaneously keeping them at arm's length with just enough eyebrow-raising comments to continually postpone a consensus on her character's affability. Finally, John Garfield provides the welcome reprieve of boisterous charisma the film sorely needs, though many of its more unexpected, quietly resonant moments are grounded in watching his face imperceptibly shift to weary resignation coming to terms with the subtle and overt hardships he, as a Jewish citizen is invariably subjected to, war hero status and all. Many will criticize Gentleman's Agreement as being overstated, earnest, or corny in a contemporary environment. Sadly, its message remains as urgently topical as ever in a global climate rife with socio- political intolerance and hatred - both overt, and as knowingly nigh-imperceptible as the film's title. And if a Gregory Peck civil rights double-bill (this and To Kill A Mockingbird, of course) could serve as the cultural balm the world needs, or causes a single viewer to pause and reflect before uttering a politically dubious generalization over dinner, then Gentleman's Agreement is beyond intelligent, eloquent, and piercing: it's borderline essential. -9/10

talisencrw Just two years after Kazan's feature-film debut (and the end of WWII) came this firecracker which became up to that point his most successful film (although A Tree Grows In Brooklyn and Boomerang would also garner Oscar nominations), and it's ironic that so shortly after a great war was won, mainly against racism and the killing of Jews overseas, Gregory Peck's Schuyler Green, in undercover work for an expose to satiate his new, New York City boss, discovers rampant anti-Semitism uncomfortably much closer to home. I love John Garfield's work, rather late in his short career, in the supporting role of Dave Goldman (he should have received an Oscar nomination as well). The film was very successful, taking in three trophies for eight tries altogether (for Best Director, Picture and Supporting Actress--Celeste Holm), and its ending--stressing that forgiveness and tolerance are possible (when Green returns home and forgives his wife)--is very important, though he chose the wrong woman...

daviddaphneredding In this outstanding production from 20th Century Fox, prejudice is blatantly exposed, and the matter of apathy toward it is clearly shown as well-i.e., hardly anyone takes a strong stand. Gregory Peck is quite a fine actor is this piece as a widowed reporter who pretends to be a Jew to learn empirically the anti-Semitism attitudes which prevail in New York. (The setting is a moot point, since this attitude has world-wide application.) In the story the reporter becomes very passionate about the attitude of bigotry, so much so that he even becomes bitter toward the lady with whom he falls in love. Dorothy McGuire is such a sweet lady in this dramatic production that you would be unable to see how the reporter could be so terribly hostile toward her. John Garfield,(who himself plays the role of a Jew in this movie) Jane Wyatt, and Celeste Holm lend great support. Anne Revere adopts well the role of Peck's sympathetic and supportive mother. Dean Stockwell, here is his pre-teen years, plays well the role of Peck's son. Again, the matter of prejudice is blatantly exposed in this film, and because of the story and the professional acting, it is no wonder that this movie won the Best Picture Award for 1947.

ElMaruecan82 I've often wondered –maybe naively- why is it that anti-Semitism is always "associated with" but "never included" within racism. In these times of extreme communitarian sensitivity, I'm fully aware that these questions can hide an unconscious form of anti-Semitism but I know my conscience is crystal clear on that level.Let's first put facts into their historical context, anti-Semitism is undoubtedly connected with an indelible stain on Humanity's soul called the Holocaust, six millions of Jews died of something that started with an individual belief, a devastating number in a dramatically short time span. The historical trauma made obvious the distinction between anti-Semitism and racism. Now it angers communities who protest against the supremacy given to the Jew suffering, above others from the past and the present, but as a retort, these protestations are liable to get the 'anti-Semite' stamp, making the snake biting his own tail.Now it's impossible to see where and where is not anti-Semitism, the only certitude being that its injurious effect acts on a reputation like a torpedo on a U-boat. But back then in 1947, things were a bit different. Directed by Elia Kazan, and written by Moss Hart, "Gentleman's Agreement" explores anti-Semitism in post-war America. Gregory Peck is Phil Green, a noble-hearted journalist assigned to write a series about anti-Semitism to see which aspects of his life he took for granted would be affected if he passed as a Jew. And boy, no matter how confident, charismatic, and well-spoken he is, the mere mention of his ethnicity carves a sign of undesirability on his front.And the time the film was made is crucial: 1947. Two years after GI's discovered the extents of Nazi barbarity in Death camps and one year before the creation of the state of Israel, not without American help. What Kazan's film offers is an interesting view on America's mindset toward Jewish people: bigotry, misunderstanding and defiance, remarkably contrasting with the US Foreign Policy. Basically, it's not the film that is dated, but minds. The anti-Semitism discovered by Phil is one that hasn't been confronted to its devastating effects. After all, what Nazis did, started with the way Americans thought, shocking but true.And "that" anti-Semitism didn't wait the Holocaust; its roots are Biblical before being cultural: defiance toward people without a land, but with influence, a mix of envy and hate, an ugly feeling indeed, fueled by the certitude to belong to the right side. This is Green's subtlest discovery, there are anti-Semites and there are people guilty of silence, feeling on the safe side from the anti-Semitism they observe. To give you an example, there were three kinds of kids in the schoolyard: bullies, victims and cowards who either supported the bullies or didn't help the victims, to avoid the hits. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.And speaking of good persons doing nothing, Green finds one and falls in love with her. Dorothy McGuire is Kathy, his boss' niece, a divorced woman who actually suggested the theme of the series. Yet, despite her well-meaning intentions, as the romance grew, she betrayed in many occasions her unconscious bigotry. It started with her confused concern whether Green's Jewish or not (ruining a promising dinner) and culminated after Phil's son (played by a young Dean Stockwell) complained about kids attacking him because he said he was a Jew. She doesn't comfort him by saying that they were bad, but by him not being a Jew causing a justifiable anger from Phil.She finally closes the door after a remarkable speech that says a lot about her conception of "being a Jew", it's obviously a social handicap according to her, and although she has nothing against Jews, she feels exactly like someone who's handsome, young or rich instead of ugly, old or poor. In other words, it's nothing to feel ashamed of. Phil's journey reveals the ugliest side of American narrow-mindedness, even to the point, ironic but insightful, that his Jewish secretary is part of the same conspiracy, speaking herself about 'right' and 'wrong' Jews and it's a Gentile teaching her a lesson. This is for subtleties like this that the film overcomes its self-righteous impeccability.One can also regret that the survey didn't exceed the limits of the upper-class but maybe anti-Semitism is an educated disease, which makes it much more detestable. Could there be an uglier euphemism than "Gentleman's Agreement"? Thankfully, Green finds some strong support from Anne, a free-spirited woman played by the Oscar-winning Celeste Holm, he finds it in Dave, John Garfield as his Jewish friend who knows too well what Phil is going through, and there is Anne Revere as his loving and caring mother. It seems that despite this great casting, Kazan and Holm didn't get along with Peck, I can see why if Peck really immersed himself into his character.And despite winning the Best Director Oscar and the film winning Best Picture, Kazan felt that the film lacked passion (indeed, Stockwell's cries said more than any Peck's speech), and that the romance was forced. Well, I think it would have damaged the film if it distracted it from its political agenda. But Green goes back to Kathy after her redemptive act showing that times have changed for the best, and making Anne Revere wishing she could live up to see how this century will evolve. But, I don't think times have changed much. Sure, anti-Semitism isn't as deep and extreme in America, but go ask the average or upper-class Americans what they think about Muslims.Sure they'll talk about terrorism and September 11th, but remember, there's no racism that doesn't start with a belief and there's no belief that doesn't start with misinterpreted facts. Finally, I stand corrected, there's nothing in "Gentleman's Agreement" that has lost its relevance, which is good news for the film, but sad for humanity.