dbmixon

This battle of the sexes reminds me of "anything you can do, I can do better." I feel like Rogers doesn't dance the choreography like Astaire, she adds her own flair to it, which is a departure from the typical dance number. It definitely establishes both characters on equal footing, in equal costumes. The interesting thing is that at the end of the dance number, he reaches for her hand and she gives it. After all that equality, the behavior goes right back to traditional roles and actions. God forgive me for quoting a Paula Abdul song, but "two steps forward...two steps back."

I guess it depends on my mood as to whether I see the director's decisions (in this case, the close ups on the garter, gun, drawer) as style or manipulation. Of course, information must be communicated, and style is about the method of communication. But sometimes I feel that I am being told what to notice in a very inflexible way, as though I am not allowed to interpret information in a different way from how the director meant it. What keeps people talking is the opportunity to see things from multiple viewpoints, so the heavy-handed style can be frustrating and confining. On a more positive note, I really appreciated the idea that the husband was so out of touch he didn't even know how to zip up his wife's dress, and so she went to the man who was giving her attention to get assistance. That is a big idea from a small piece of business.

Wow! I just can't unsee that pelvic thrust Gray gives as she sells the song. Jeannette McDonald wouldn't be caught dead acting like that. She's way too classy, from her clothes to the style of her voice and musical genre. Eddy and McDonald are the types that the Dead End Kids would beat up in an alley. But the purpose of the code was to reinforce proper, moral behavior and make it look desirable, and who better than Eddy and McDonald? Even their chemistry is whitewashed to mildness, not the burning passionate can't-keep-my-hands-off-you stuff we see in some 30's films. Hollywood wanted us to grow up to be them: good, decent, empathetic, reliable, and hard-working "salt of the earth" types. Thank goodness for their senses of humor, which made them human. Otherwise McDonald would be too unapproachable and people would hate her, and Eddy would be too much a goody-goody, and women would pass him by for a bad boy.

While I do agree that the perspective is lighthearted, flippant really given what was happening in the country, there is still an undercurrent that alludes to improper themes that would not pass code. Yes, this woman is a stage actress (pretty much an inaccessible career for 98% of the population) and she is dressed from head to toe, she even hints at how bold it is to send flowers to her to persuade her to meet with the sender. But actresses were not upright moral people in the public eye, and her clothing is skin-tight so how concealing is it? She should not be finding fault with the sender of the flowers when she just finished a song with lyrics like "come play with me." I see this as escapism both from the Depression-era standpoint, as well as the filmmaker escaping some of the confining points of the code.