Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Saaay. . . .there's something familiar about Here Comes the Groom. . . .


slaytonf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Don't know what it is.  Can't put my finger on it.  Let's see. . . .Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, estranged man and woman, she to marry a rich bloke, he horning in and causing disruptions. . . .Mmm, it's on the tip of my tongue.  Dang.

 

Jane Wyman's wonderful in it.  But it's something annoying to watch.  And for a musical, there are too few songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, all taking place on the grounds of this extravagant mansion where Crosby is certainly an odd participant in the proceedings, given his previous relationship with the bride. I noticed the similarities as well. Of course, Crosby didn't do his version of the you-know-where story until five years after this movie. But even minus him and Satchmo, the story still bears a resemblance to the Grant-Hepburn-Stewart movie.

 

What really made me sit up in my seat was the portrayal of the wedding planner. I thought those flamboyantly gay stereotypes had been declared verboten way back in 1934, not because Hollywood was interested in preserving human dignity of homosexuals, but because they didn't want any film to acknowledge even covertly that gay people existed. Ever. But here was a guy in 1951 every bit as flamboyant as the tailor who told Cagney where he needed more room in The Public Enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, all taking place on the grounds of this extravagant mansion where Crosby is certainly an odd participant in the proceedings, given his previous relationship with the bride. I noticed the similarities as well. Of course, Crosby didn't do his version of the you-know-where story until five years after this movie. But even minus him and Satchmo, the story still bears a resemblance to the Grant-Hepburn-Stewart movie.

 

What really made me sit up in my seat was the portrayal of the wedding planner. I thought those flamboyantly gay stereotypes had been declared verboten way back in 1934, not because Hollywood was interested in preserving human dignity of homosexuals, but because they didn't want any film to acknowledge even covertly that gay people existed. Ever. But here was a guy in 1951 every bit as flamboyant as the tailor who told Cagney where he needed more room in The Public Enemy.

I'm sure there were other post-1940 movies with stereotypical flamboyant gay characters. Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, all taking place on the grounds of this extravagant mansion where Crosby is certainly an odd participant in the proceedings, given his previous relationship with the bride. I noticed the similarities as well. Of course, Crosby didn't do his version of the you-know-where story until five years after this movie. But even minus him and Satchmo, the story still bears a resemblance to the Grant-Hepburn-Stewart movie.

 

What really made me sit up in my seat was the portrayal of the wedding planner. I thought those flamboyantly gay stereotypes had been declared verboten way back in 1934, not because Hollywood was interested in preserving human dignity of homosexuals, but because they didn't want any film to acknowledge even covertly that gay people existed. Ever. But here was a guy in 1951 every bit as flamboyant as the tailor who told Cagney where he needed more room in The Public Enemy.

 

Yes,  clearly enforcement of the Production Code was the reason flamboyantly gay stereotypes declined after 1934.   As for 'they didn't want any film to acknowledge even covertly that gay people existed;   One should be clear that 'they' were the folks that enforced the code and not,  per se,  Hollywood producers and directors.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...