bailodhia
This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!
David (Handlinghandel)
When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.
cinefan-7
Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.
zetes
Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.
