“Singin’ in the Rain” was a very ‘fun’ film that was very amusing to watch, while showing off talent. Overall the film resembled a live performance, due to the camera work. Because of continuous long shots, a performers’ performance was able to be shown uninterrupted. This shows the actor’s raw talent; no editing to fix any of their mistakes. The sound effects added to the humor of this film. There were many sound effects that exaggerated an action, and came across similar to a cartoon (for example, similar to “Duck Amuck”). Though this film was not continuously a “slapstick” comedy, there were many scenes that would be considered “slapstick” comedy. One performance in particular that would be considered “slapstick” comedy, would be during “Make em Laugh.” This performance was full of humorous violent actions, such as Donald O’Connor running into a brick wall, or hitting his head against a wooden plank. The sound effects during this performance also contributed to the humor of it; they were exaggerated, created a “Mickey Mouse” effect. The costumes were also very extravagant in this film. Because of the humor, the amusing ensembles, the sound effects, and the exaggerated costumes, this film was a very fun film to watch. The audience has fun watching the performances, just as the cast seemed to have fun performing.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Jina Park
Number of questions: 13
Percent correct: 100%
The film, Singin’ in the Rain, has the brilliant development of the plot and fancy shots. First, this movie reflects the transition from the silent film period to the talking picture one. The creative ideas are produced through trial and error during this transition. Also, this process is depicted comically. Next, the scenes, which the main actor and main actress fall in love in the prop room and which the main actor suggests his idea about movie, are dreamlike and colors are used in an effective way with actors’ dancing. Especially, the montage shots are well-matched with fancy colors, making the film more dynamic. Personally, the montage scene might be somewhat long and a bit boring. Finally, this film has various brilliant factors, such as slapstick comedy (for example, funny face expression, dancing, and breaking the fake wall), tap dance, and ballet. The most excellent thing is that every these brilliant factors in the film are going together throughout the whole running time of the film, interconnecting each other. In sum up, it is not enough to talk about this film in a short paragraph, because it has a lot of good things. The mise-en-scene, music, plot, even acting of all characters and other things are great.
“Singin’ in the Rain” echoes from a time when actors had talent, or at least when Hollywood trusted their actors to be talented. The musical numbers feature long takes to show that the same person is performing the dance, and long shots are utilized to maximum effect to showoff the talent of the dancer. You can tell they weren’t swapping anyone out for any substitutes during the routines. The actors were the talent rather than the editors. They were actually good at what they were cast to do. Granted it helps that Gene Kelly co-directed the film, and what a surprise, has the longest dance number to himself (nearly twenty minutes). Actually that part of the movie took me out of the film, but not in a good way. After the actual ‘singing in the rain’ sequence, the scene bleeds into 15+minutes of Gene Kelly dancing through extravagant style settings which look a bit cheap since they’re supposed to be in a movie studio. Unlike the other musical numbers which help tell the story, that one was purely self indulgent, and broke the rhythm that’d already been established with the previous musical numbers. But overall, it was a well written film with a good story, a talented cast, and brilliant choreography, especially for Donald O’Connor’s musical numbers which I found more entertaining that Gene Kelly’s, sorry.
It was fun to see the Looney Toons animation before the movie, just like it would have been played in theaters when it was originally released. Both the cartoon and ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ were entertaining, if not a bit outdated in some of its humor and sensibilities. I think the “Make ‘Em Laugh” number falls a bit flat, or at least it didn’t get very many laughs from class until the end when the piano player surprised us by jumping through the wall. Slapstick humor on its own, with pratfalls, would be hard pressed to make modern adults laugh without more advanced situational wit or a sudden unexpected twist. The film reminds me overall of the pattern of heavy action movies; by focusing on spectacle entertainment, there isn’t a lot of room for complex plot or character development. All of the characters are relatively “flat”, as opposed to “round”, with predictable attitudes and little personal change. I would like to say that I appreciated how the movie did not drag out the final conflict to an excruciating length, which I feel like some modern comedies do in their third act in a last attempt to be taken seriously as more than just a comedy. The ending of this movie was quick and clean, and didn’t attempt to make it more than was it is. The representation of the transition into the sound-era was also entertaining, and helps explain some of the history of actors who couldn’t make the leap in real life, like Douglas Fairbanks.
This is my second time watching Singin’ in the Rain, and I enjoyed it just as much as I did the first time.
I really enjoyed the way it was written; it showed a behind the scenes look of how the silent movie era transitioned into the ‘talkie’ movie era. One scene I particularly enjoyed was when they demonstrated how directional the microphones were in the beginning. When the audience could hear the sound cutting out as the actors swiveled their heads added a lot of humor to the scene.
This movie took advantage of editing, or more specifically, the lack of editing. Most notable during the musical scenes, there is not a lot of cutting. For example, in the iconic ‘singin’ in the rain’ scene, there are only seven cuts in a four minute time frame. Not only did this make the sequence look more natural, but I think it was done on purpose to make the sequence look more like it would if you saw it live on stage in a theatre.
Being a musical, the music is an extremely important aspect to Singin’ in the Rain. I think the balance between normal dialogue and musical dialogue was perfect. Sometimes when I watch musicals, it seems like 90% of the movie is done in song, and it gets old really fast. When I watched Les Mis (2012), i felt this way, but when I watch Singin’ in the Rain, I never get annoyed with the amount of music it has, plus it helps that all of the songs are great!
“Singin’ in the rain” was an okay film. I did like the slapstick humor, yet I do not think that it really stood out. The humor was not very surprising, but it is just different because this is an older film. I personally like older slapstick humor, but this movie was not extremely memorable. I liked the scene where the actress kept on missing the mic, but it seemed like the humor like this went on for longer than I would expect. I think I lost interest in this film do to it being too straightforward and predictable. The plot was very simple and too easy to follow, therefore I did not think too much or wonder much about this film. The dance number was interesting, but I did know want to keep watching it and I started to lose interest. I am not particularly fond of musicals and this one did not change my mind. I did, however, really like the settings that the movie had. Since they were watching a musical, most scenes took place onlooking people on stage and I though this was pleasant to look at.
“Singin’ in the Rain” was great movie that definitely had a classic feel to it, a very timeless picture. All the humor was different than in modern films, I enjoyed it and found it to be comical. Not only that but I feel the director really utilized the aspects of mise-en-scene to successfully tell the story of the film. I found it very interesting to see the the differences of how women were treated during this time. All though there is not anything extremely absurdly obvious of a women being mistreated, there are still many cases and noticeable parts of women not being looked at as equal in this film. This is also noticeable in other films from this time period. The dances were also very well choreographed and were well executed as to add a musical aspect to this film. I have not watched too many musical performances but I am a fan of the this director combined film and musicals. This film also highlights the talent of the actors and how well they executed their character roles. Not only did they have to act but they also had to perform other tasks that they would have to do in a live theater performance. The cinematography was also on point because it effectively caught the right angles and perspectives to keep the movie going smoothly. Sound also played a huge role in “Singin in the Rain” because the sound effects were timed perfectly and were not over done to the point of becoming annoying. Overall this was a great movie that I enjoyed analyzing.
Singin’ in the Rain was an interesting film. I thought it was funny how the actors looked down on other types of actors – theater vs. silent film vs. “talkies”. It was interesting to see the character Kathy Selden defend the theater because it was more “realistic;” the audience could see and hear the actors. There is more of a connection. You lose that connection with silent films because you can’t hear the actors. But each group has to act in a different way to send the message they want to send. I liked how all three were represented in this movie in some way. This is also connected to the set of the movie; most scenes had a ‘stage’ feeling. The camera frequently (but not always) looked at the set from one side of the room, so it seemed like we could be watching this as a theater production. This includes scenes that were supposed to be in a home or office, and not actually on a stage.
I liked the costumes as well. I noticed in the “Good Morning” scene Don, Cosmo, & Kathy were all wearing blues and grays. The costumes went with the rain idea, but they were singing an upbeat, happy song. Similar to what the song “Singin’ in the Rain” does – it’s raining, but it’s upbeat.
The production on Singin’ in the Rain was very impressive and constantly had some form of entertainment on the screen. The camera moves fluidly like the dancers, and the timing of the subjects within the framing shows how many times they rehearsed each shot. The film also has a few meta moments like when Don Lockwood shows Kathy Selden the movie set with the same type of fans that they probably used for the Dali-esque scene. There is also the movie within the movie where Don is describing his idea, and after the long sequence the producer buttons it with, “I can’t picture it, I’ll have to see it.” The comedy was great, but whenever the film gets mentioned it seems to get over shadowed by the phenomenal dance routines. The film turned out to be much different than my expectations of it. I always thought that the song “Good Morning” was annoyingly happy, but in the context of the film it’s more ironic since it’s around 2 a.m. and they have a idea to fix their problems.
Duck Amuck was directed by Chuck Jones, who drew most of the key frames in his films. Even back then it was not common for someone to be that talented as an animator. One of my favorite things about Chuck Jones is that even after winning awards for films like Duck Amuck and The Dot and the Line, he would still take art classes to learn more. Eventually Hokusai’s wave inspired how he drew Wile E. Coyote’s tail. The golden age of animation ended mostly because the productions were not willing to invest in the long term work and were unable to train young animators to be as good as artists were in the 1940s.
“SIngin’ in the Rain” was a great film. It’s not a film you see a lot today, while we have musicals occasionally , we don’t have films that are driven by the actors’ singing and dancing talent with a random song and dance number here and there. It was nice to be taken back to a time where this kind if movie was common and well received because those aren’t the kind of movies that are coming out today. The slapstick humor it had which originated around the time the movie came out is also something that is not seen in most movies today. It is enjoyable to watch in older movies but I know if a movie today came out with a similar kind of slapstick humor it would seem a little childish and cartoonish. While I can enjoy movies from both today and from the same time as “SIngin’ in the Rain” I know times have changed and it’s not always fair to compare those movies.
It was also amusing to see a movie about the film industry and have many meta moments about how fake movies and movies stars really are. Meta was a theme for that class because it was also referenced in the Looney Toons cartoon we watched. It’s special when something that came out 60 years ago can still be as funny today as it was then. It helps that Looney Toons have become so ingrained in our culture that everyone knows who Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck is at an early age. But the cartoon played with the idea of also working on a movie/TV set and having to entertain the audience. Instead of like other cartoon shorts before where we follow a story in progress, this one was self aware that it had to make a cartoon for entertainment much like in “Singin’ in the Rain”. It goes to show that audiences always like movies or shows about making movies.
Singing in the rain was very entertaining. I didnt think it was a great movie but the choreography and the overall attitude of the movie was very contagious. Tap dancing is always impressive and the sound of tap always makes me laugh. The loony toons short was awesome. The hand drawn animation holds up really well. Any single cell could and should be framed and treated like high class art. I was really surprised by the meta angle that the story took.
I really enjoyed singing in the rain. The tap dancing was great and a joy to watch. Now to the critiqueing part of it I think that the editing was done well. Considering the long shot of the two best friends dancing was thought out well because it really caught thier talent. I don’t think it was necessary to involve a close up of a man in the chair because that wasn’t the point of the scene. If close ups were involved in the scene then it would have given the audience a different feel to the movie. The flashback to the main characters life as how it started out was great as well because considering invisible editing this movie did a great job at making the audience forget that it was a flashback. It moves the audience into another story and still catches thier attention.
On the other hand Apocalypse now was a semi boring movie to watch just because many things combined don’t work well with the plot. Such as the voice over because I still feel as if I’m in the present time and the movie doesn’t do a well job at bringing me back to the past. Another thing about the movie is when the airplanes are in the air and the dramatic music starts to play on the soundtrack. It was overly dramatic and I feel as if the music could have been better and more thought out. I wouldn’t really call it mickey mouse music but it was very close to it. Leaving on a good note the superimpositions were very interesting and kept my attention. I think this helped with the illusion of him being scared from his past and having to remember details from it.
Singing in rain is not a movie I would watch for personal entertainment but you must admire the work that went into this movie. e extremely long takes really showed off the actors ability to memorize the choreography. I not surprised that singing in the rain is named one of the best musicals of all time. I’ve always believed that movies about hollywood get a little more respect from the critics. This movie by the way is actually an autobiography about the hollywood era when film moved to talkies. The montage was very impressive especially for its time. I do not watch musicals but the way this film starts out with humorful flashbacks really pull you into liking the characters. Got to love humor everybody does. Very impressive performances too.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Jess Gemignani-Olmo
Student’s email: jlgolmo@gmail.com
Number of questions: 13
Percent correct: 100%
I personally really enjoy Singin’ in the Rain, possibly just for the sake of nostalgia due to having watched it growing up. I liked that we were shown “Duck Amuck” before watching Singin’ in the Rain specifically because of the scene where Don is professing to Kathy and he remarks about how he can’t tell her how he feels without the proper setting, which ends up being a sappy background of pastels and manufactured wind blowing through her hair. Other than just reinforcing the importance of set in directing a scene or overall mood, I thought “Duck Amuck” was great to showcase before Singin’ in the Rain because of all the set changes throughout the movie, especially the later numbers. For instance, the ‘Gotta Dance’ number is set in an underground club of sorts and has a jazzier feel to it to reflect the dance Cyd Charisse and Gene Kelly perform. Later, during the Salvador Dali-esque scene, the setting is soft and vast and reflects the tranquility that ballet is generally associated with. I appreciated this part of the movie mainly for its constantly changing mis-en-scene, if anything else.
While I agree the “Broadway Melody” and “Beautiful Girl” numbers seemed out of place or even over-indulgent, they worked because of the era the movie is trying to represent (albeit mockingly). Singin’ in the Rain is an overall parody of Hollywood in the 20s, namely the transition from silent films to “talkies”. The “Beautiful Girl” number is ridiculous and is very clearly poking fun at how Hollywood transitioned to talkies in the late 20s as well as questionable fashion choices during that time. Additionally, the beginning of the “Broadway Melody” number is a direct homage to MGM’s very first musical of the same name that was made “at the dawn of the talkies”. The comparisons between the sets and the costumes are undeniably alike. However, I do think the “Broadway Melody” sequence, though nicely done, is nothing more than just a love letter Kelly wrote to himself and was not at all necessary. To me it seemed as though Kelly had found an excuse to throw it in and decided only a 15 minute dance sequence would satisfy him.
Singin’ in the Rain is a great movie even for people who don’t particularly enjoy musicals. I especially enjoyed the humor. It did anything but take itself too seriously as a musical like musicals tend to do. The continuous shot dance numbers were not something I was used to but something I really appreciated. I feel that shots like that force the performer to allow their talent to speak for them. No camera or Hollywood trickery here. Being set in and around a Hollywood studio added a lot to the film. It allowed Don and Lina to be in situations that otherwise would not be fitting to the film. It was also great to see the nod towards the emergence of talkies and the incorporation into the story of Singin’ in the Rain. The musical sequences fit really well into the chronology of the film. The “Broadway Melody” and the Dali inspired number seemed to disrupt this, but I am glad they were kept in. Right about that point in the film the focus seemed to be more on the story, after all, it is a musical. The addition of these scenes kept the film grounded as a musical.
This was my first time seeing Singing In The Rain but I loved it! The performances were amazing and highly enjoyable and I typically dont like musicals. The longer takes for the dancing/singing scenes sometimes were a little bit too long and felt like they dragged a bit. The one scene that I didnt like was the broadway dream sequence. It was too out of place and way too long and it really bored me. Everything else was great though. You just dont see raw talent like that as much anymore and it was a nice change of pace from today’s movies. Although, this movie seems to be more of “look what we can do” entertainment rather than a hefty narrative. But this is just how movies were typically made in its time. Nowadays movies focus more on character development instead of spectacles. I loved this movie but I’m sure that I would have loved it even more if I had lived back when it first came out.
I have never seen this movie before and after seeing this movie for the first time I don’t understand why I haven’t seen it yet. Musicals were a big thing during this period and I can see why this is a classic because the songs are very catchy and and very rhythmic. What I like is when numbers in the musical come on there is a nice editing style and special camera moves following the actors and singers. Another thing I liked were the different personalities of the characters. Each character had a special trait whether it was their voice or being hyper. This movie is also a great example of when movies transitioned into sound in the 30’s. This movie represents how sound in movies were terrible and skeptical at first, but eventually took everyone by storm after the issues were fixed like synchronization between the picture and the actors lips to make it look real with clean audio. I thought it was very interesting when the number “singing in the rain” happened was when it was raining and the singer was smiling and being happy even though the story line hit a bump in the road. The movie was very good and I enjoyed it along with the random montages in the middle.
‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is a movie that deserves to be called a “Hollywood classic.” The story is made in the classic Hollywood style with the typical boy-gets-the-girl storyline and a happy ending. The musical numbers include popular American songs and tap dancing – a popular American dance. The editing includes long takes of the dance numbers in which today’s movies is rare. Today in editing dance numbers we split things up to accommodate short attention spans. Actors back in the 1950’s were expected to be very talented. They had to repeatedly practice to dance through those long takes meaning sore muscles and a whole lot of film. Not only did the actors show their talent, but also the screen writers, Adolph Green and Betty Comden. This was 1952 and the script called for everyone to go back in time to 1927 when sound in the movies first began. The film does a great job of showing the awkward transition to sound for some production companies. It showed how some actors were in trouble when it came to sound pictures because of their bad sounding voices. It also showed the trouble with hidden microphones and sound synchronization. ‘The Dueling Cavalier’ was saved by Cosmo’s suggestion of dubbing Kathy’s voice with Lina’s in the movie thus demonstrating a solution to the sound problem. All these points make ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ a classic and a good film, but there are some scenes I think the editors could have taken out to improve it. They should have taken out the scene with Gene Kelly singing and dancing the ‘Broadway Melody’ number. It is too random and the story can exist without it. I often fast forward through that part. Also the movie didn’t need that long montage of random dancing and singing people before the “Beautiful Girls” number with Debbie Reynolds. It is interesting how in the last of that number the camera is doing a high angle dolly shot and yet when the number is over we see the old fashioned camera that was supposed to be capturing the number, still and at ground level. Besides those little things in the film that could have been taken out, ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ will always be a Hollywood classic to me.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Chad Heredia
Number of questions: 13
Percent correct: 69%
Late post. I was not excited prior to watching Singing in the rain because i really don’t like musicals. Even movies i grew up with like Grease were not my favorite. Someone in the class made the case that there was almost too much performance, i disagree with that. The performance made it great it was so well executed and those moves would have taken so much practice. Also another reason i don’t agree with that statement is because there is a lot of singing and dancing but there is still a lot of character development and story progression. Throughout the movie one can know how the plot is progressing and getting a feel for each characters personality. so with my argument im saying there is balance with showmanship and story line.
Singing in the Rain was a wondeful feel good film. Its a timeless classic that can still be enjoyed to this day. The choreography was amazing the songs were original and delightful. Its very much like a play because of the lack of editing. Normally a lack of close ups gives less characterization to well the characters. The audiences feels less connected to the characters in the film. But Singing In the Rain pull this off because the long shots allows us to see the nimbleness of the dancers. The songs are also used as a way for the characters to express emotion, it adds characterization that most film lack. It not only entertains the audience through its dance and music, it also does it through comedy and romance. The witty comedy in that film still holds up to this day. Its not a very deep meaningful movie with symbolism, and thats okay. People go to movies for escape from daily life and Singing in the Rain provided the perfect escape that will make you feel good after watching. It a movie that just wants to be enjoyable.
This was my first time watching Singin’ in the Rain, and I kind of enjoyed it. What I enjoyed most was that this movie was based on the time when sound was introduced to studios. This film showed how studios incorporated sound by using props to hide microphones in comical ways. I felt that this musical was to show the beauty and introduction to sound while singing, dancing, and acting. I did not enjoy that some scenes had too much dancing. At first it was okay to watch the actors perform but after a while of them dancing and singing, I felt bored. Although the music, acting, and dancing were amazing, it was a little too much for me. The music was my favorite part of the movie. The songs made me feel happy that I even wanted to sing along. Overall this film was great except for the exaggerated scenes.
I’m not a big fan of the musicals of the era, simply because my suspension of disbelief doesn’t suspend quite far enough to believe that people can just burst into song and dance. This film makes it work better than most, though. And I’ve always loved the writing in this one — it brings in a little bit of film history and the fascinating stories we’ve all heard about silent film stars who lost their careers when sound became the new norm and the way the story is told is just fun and silly, yet I still care about the characters and what happens to them and don’t seem to mind when they just break into song and dance like it’s no big thing. It manages to pull off a lot and the writing is a big part of that. Of course, the performances can’t be overlooked, either. The dance scenes are phenomenal, even if they do look more like a stage play than a movie. In most films, that would be a major drawback, but in this one, it really shows off the talent of the dancers and enhances the story and the world of the film. Even the intentionally bad acting and singing is done so perfectly that it really makes the movie great and memorable. One thing I really appreciate, too, is the sound effects. Things like the pearls in the microphone and how Lina’s voice fades in and out and she turns her head — these things really show the troubles of filmmaking even today, but especially when sound was a new animal. It’s just fun and interesting to see how they go about dealing with these issues, and how Lina just makes it far more difficult than it should be, and while a lot of that goes back to the writing and the performances, the sound design is the real kicker that gets this across.
I hate musicals, mainly because the actors break into song and dance during normal dialog in a movie. I understand why the theaters have big production musicals, but I don’t like them in film. that being said, this musical works really well on the big screen. The editing techniques, timing and the camera work made this an enjoyable movie to watch. The dance numbers have a lot of skill involved and the lack of editing, showcased the dancing perfectly. By doing this they allowed the audience to see real performers dance and sing, just like musical theater productions. The timing of the performance also had to be perfect or else they would have to film it again, from the top of the scene.The mickey mousing with the footsteps and music beats, were a little too much for me and came across as childish. The wardrobe was really extravagant and it brings the mis-en-scene together to make the audience believe it is early 1930’s. I really liked how the film presented the issues of recording sound, and how they resolved it. While I still do not like musical theater. This film did a great job bringing comedy, theater and love story together.
I have seen “Singin’ In the Rain” many times, I’m actually sick of it I’ve seen it so many times. It is one of my favorite musicals, and most of it is pretty enjoyable. There are a couple of musical numbers that just seem kind of random and misplaced, like the “Beautiful Girl” montage that turns into kind of a commercial, and the lengthy “Broadway Melody” sequence at the end. Now I understand their purpose though, because it is a jukebox musical, where songs are inserted because they share a composer and is not always successful. But I really enjoyed the way the musical numbers were done. They are so well danced, Gene Kelly is amazing although extraordinarily arrogant that detracts from your enjoyment of his dancing. And the way the dancing was filmed, continuously and from a distance, no closeups, so you can see the full dance. Overall, “Singin’ In the Rain” is a wonderful musical and definitely a classic.
So this was my first time watching Singing In The Rain all the way through and I’m not a fan of the movie musical because it does not really have a good balance between the theatrical and the cinematic. I hate the fact that Gene Kelly wasn’t a fan of the cut because most of the dance sequences seem to drag on and on and on to the point where I trully was like, “I get it, you’re a wonderful dancer.” The performances were really good acting wise. I’ll not deny the fact that the acting in the film was really good. Donald O’Connor was really amazing playing second to Gene Kelly. Debbie Reynolds was also pretty good as well and the fact that Jean Hagan has a normal voice is something I did not believe until I was watching “The Shaggy Dog” a few nights ago. But the musical nature, the one way shooting, and the lack of the cut did not make me enjoy “Singing In The Rain” as much as others in the class.
Also, during the Lockwood “Stuntman” montage, was a jump cut used when Lockwood went to the shack before it exploded? I’d talk to others in the class and they said that it was one shot but i know it was two separate shots…
Growing up I watched “Singing in the Rain” many times. Every time I watch it puts me in a good mood, and I think it does that with many people because it is one of the “Feel Good” classic movies. I enjoyed how it was shot without many reaction shots during the musical scenes. I feel that because they filmed/edited it this way they were able to show case the true talent of the actors and dancers involved. another reason why it could be considered a “feel good” movie is because of the slapstick comedy and bantering between characters. When an audience feels a strong emotion such as happiness and the audience is laughing a lot, they will enjoy the movie a lot more rather than feeling no emotion.
I love how Singin’ in the Rain overall portrayed the struggle Hollywood went through trying to transition from silent films to “talkies.” The movie did a good job at engaging the audience in a feel good sort of way by showcasing the talents of the actors with song and dance. The dance numbers were more enjoyable to watch because the majority of those shots were longer, therefore giving us more action in one continuous shot instead of multiple shots. MgM was the high-class production company that was perfect for this film by providing extravagant sets and colorful wardrobes that are still a joy to watch today. I feel like the over-the-top singing/dance numbers evened out with the funny one-liners and the narration of the film as a whole.
There were stark differences between Singing in the Rain and Om Shanti Om, mainly being the amount of editing. In Singing in the Rain, many of the dance and song sequences consisted of long takes focused on the choreographed dances. Whereas, in Om Shanti Om there was an excessive amount of “MTV style” editing; in which the camera would cut with the music on different parts of the scene. The camera even went as far as to dolly in and out rapidly and twist with the intensity of the music building. The focus in Singing in the Rain appeared to be the talent of the synchronized dance. However, the focus in Om Shanti Om was the emotion evoked in both the lyrics and composure of the music.
Singing in the Rain raised the very interesting question of realism in film. Many people are know to object to musicals based on their inability to suspend disbelief. They can’t “buy in” to the idea of someone breaking out in a choreographed song and dance. I think this speaks to who a viewer is at a basic level. I don’t think most people’s objection to musicals comes from a lack of realism but from the traditional musical format of not trying to hide or explain its source. These objections come from people who can just as easily enjoy a Christopher Nolan or David Fincher film. Both directors are know for fantastical storytelling and unrealistic situations. The biggest difference is the presentation. Nolan and Fincher try to hide impossible situations in plausibility whereas musicals don’t. Superhero franchises spend whole movies trying to convince you of their authenticity by creating complex backstories to fictional universes. There is nothing wrong with this approach and can beget fun, engaging films. I just think it points to some people’s deeper want to believe. The idea of escapism becomes literal in the need to have an origin. Even with the understanding that films aren’t reality they want to be able to believe they are. In a way people who strive for realism are the least attached to it.
In class one of the points brought up revolved around the idea of musicals and their place in the cinematic world. Personally, I enjoyed the mixed aspects of cinema and theatre and think that the two can be combined with spectactular and unique effect. For instance, the scene where Don describes what the scene will look like and the movie transitions to an arguably avant garde cinematic style is a unique piece of cinema- even if I did not fully understand it. On the other hand, the more theatrical scenes such as when Don and Cosmo dance in their language lessons was hardly anything cinematic. Regardless of that fact, the scene was enjoyable and the extended takes allowed the audience to drink in the performing skills of the duo. Rather than sticking to one style, Gene Kelly mixed it up to create a varied and interesting movie.
I missed the class session that showed Singing In the Rain. I watched it over the weekend. Before I watched it I read a bit about Gene Kelly and the making of the film. The trivia behind the film added or colored my viewing of the film. According to IMBD, the actor, Donald O’Connor who played Cosmo Brown, was a heavy smoker and ended up doing the physically demanding choreography for the film on two separate occasions. After doing them he was in bed for days. Debbie Reynolds, who played the main female love interest, Kathy Selden, was the 19 at the time of filming, and wasn’t as good of a dancer as the others. She worked hard but Gene Kelly was a demanding director. The days of production were so long and physically exhausting hat sometimes she slept at the studio to save time from having to wake up at 4am to take the bus to the studio.
I was dreading watching the film because I thought it would be boring. I found myself laughing out loud at several points. I found the story interesting. Film actors making movies at the time where studios were making the transition from silent films to talking films. It was an inside look at the movie industry.
The voice of the female superstar, Lina Lamont, played by Jean Hagen, was jarring and amusing. Her voice would never go over with audiences. Her voice was high and her way of talking was unsophisticated and was at odds with her persona.
The way the dancing numbers were photographed were in wide long shots so the audience could see all of what was being done by the dancers. That the dancing was really being done by the actors. This is important because the talent on display can be be better appreciated knowing that there are no tricks by the movie makers to substitute other dancers for the dancing done by the actors/character’s they play. This is in direct juxtaposed by showing the studio production of the movie within the movie using Kathy’s speaking and singing voice to replace Lina’s voice in order to fool the audience watching Lina’s movies that her voice was as beautiful as she was. (Note: Slightly contradicting what I just wrote, in the trivia for Singing in the Rain, it was said that in one of the sequences Gene Kelly wasn’t happy with Debbie Reynold’s tap dancing so in post production recorded himself tapping and using that recording to replace her tap dancing.) Movie Magic!
Overall, I liked the movie. Especially the funny, charming, way Donald O’Connor played Cosmo Brown. Cosmo had a lot of the best lines, showing that he as a character was bright, clever, always thinking on his feet! (sort of pun? intended)
I didn’t get to watch the clip from Om Shanti Om because I missed class due to illness.
This was the first time I watched Singin’ In the Rain, even though other classes have referenced the film. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole film and its plot line. I really enjoyed them going through the end of the silent film era to the introduction of sound to films. Even though I have never watched Om Shanti Om, the premise sounds really interesting. The differences between both films, really made Singin’ In the Rain seem more subdued in its tone. Of course there is the difference in time periods for both of the films and since Om Shanti Om is a more recent film, the colors are bound to be more vivid and bright. However, Om Shanti Om seemed to have a little too much going on in the scene that we watched. There were bright colors everywhere, loud music, dancing, wind machine, and the characters were acting out scenes while dancing. Singin’ In the Rain also had a moment in the film that was really fantastical, and that scene almost lost me in terms of storyline because it went on for so long and nothing really connected to each other. Overall, I really enjoyed the choreographed numbers in Singin’ In the Rain because they just seemed to flow naturally with the storyline.
Learn more about Film History watching Singin’ in The Rain was an amazing experience. Trough the evolution of its narrative, the director demonstrate the evolution of the cinema passing from the phase where there’s no sound till the sound era. The voice of the character Lina, a key component of the narrative, takes a time to be presented in the movie, as the cinema had take a time till have sound. It was interesting watch the cinema talking about itself, in the montage this became more clear when we see like a review about what the cinema industry had achieved and done.
One of my all time favorite movies. I realized as we stated watching this in class that I rarely see the beginning of this movie as I mostly watched it when I find it playing on TV. I also realized that I have only loved it on a surface level I have never look to understand its background or its making. Finding out that Debbie Reynolds was not Gene Kelly’s pick for Kathy Selden and that they used Jean Hagen’s voice for most of her vocals was mind-blowing. “Moses Supposes” is actually is one of the most recurring songs on my mental soundtrack. This movie is timeless as the 50s look at the 20s movie making and the 20s interpretation of 1700s through cinema.
I am usually not a fan of musicals. I think the sporadic and abrupt dance numbers in the middle of dialogue are a bit odd for my cinematic taste. However, Singin in the Rain has always been a film that I could watch over and over. I remember in your editing class you made us count the number of cuts a dancing scene from this movie had in comparison to Chicago. It really highlights how talented Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor were to perform their dance number in just a handful of straight takes. In addition to the amazing choreography of this film, I love the scene where Jean Hagen’s character, Lina Lamont is trying to adapt to talking pictures. As a film production major I can attest to how frustrating capturing sound can be. Perhaps that’s why I want to go into cinematography.
introductiontocinema 
“Singin’ in the Rain” was a very ‘fun’ film that was very amusing to watch, while showing off talent. Overall the film resembled a live performance, due to the camera work. Because of continuous long shots, a performers’ performance was able to be shown uninterrupted. This shows the actor’s raw talent; no editing to fix any of their mistakes. The sound effects added to the humor of this film. There were many sound effects that exaggerated an action, and came across similar to a cartoon (for example, similar to “Duck Amuck”). Though this film was not continuously a “slapstick” comedy, there were many scenes that would be considered “slapstick” comedy. One performance in particular that would be considered “slapstick” comedy, would be during “Make em Laugh.” This performance was full of humorous violent actions, such as Donald O’Connor running into a brick wall, or hitting his head against a wooden plank. The sound effects during this performance also contributed to the humor of it; they were exaggerated, created a “Mickey Mouse” effect. The costumes were also very extravagant in this film. Because of the humor, the amusing ensembles, the sound effects, and the exaggerated costumes, this film was a very fun film to watch. The audience has fun watching the performances, just as the cast seemed to have fun performing.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Jina Park
Number of questions: 13
Percent correct: 100%
The film, Singin’ in the Rain, has the brilliant development of the plot and fancy shots. First, this movie reflects the transition from the silent film period to the talking picture one. The creative ideas are produced through trial and error during this transition. Also, this process is depicted comically. Next, the scenes, which the main actor and main actress fall in love in the prop room and which the main actor suggests his idea about movie, are dreamlike and colors are used in an effective way with actors’ dancing. Especially, the montage shots are well-matched with fancy colors, making the film more dynamic. Personally, the montage scene might be somewhat long and a bit boring. Finally, this film has various brilliant factors, such as slapstick comedy (for example, funny face expression, dancing, and breaking the fake wall), tap dance, and ballet. The most excellent thing is that every these brilliant factors in the film are going together throughout the whole running time of the film, interconnecting each other. In sum up, it is not enough to talk about this film in a short paragraph, because it has a lot of good things. The mise-en-scene, music, plot, even acting of all characters and other things are great.
LikeLike
“Singin’ in the Rain” echoes from a time when actors had talent, or at least when Hollywood trusted their actors to be talented. The musical numbers feature long takes to show that the same person is performing the dance, and long shots are utilized to maximum effect to showoff the talent of the dancer. You can tell they weren’t swapping anyone out for any substitutes during the routines. The actors were the talent rather than the editors. They were actually good at what they were cast to do. Granted it helps that Gene Kelly co-directed the film, and what a surprise, has the longest dance number to himself (nearly twenty minutes). Actually that part of the movie took me out of the film, but not in a good way. After the actual ‘singing in the rain’ sequence, the scene bleeds into 15+minutes of Gene Kelly dancing through extravagant style settings which look a bit cheap since they’re supposed to be in a movie studio. Unlike the other musical numbers which help tell the story, that one was purely self indulgent, and broke the rhythm that’d already been established with the previous musical numbers. But overall, it was a well written film with a good story, a talented cast, and brilliant choreography, especially for Donald O’Connor’s musical numbers which I found more entertaining that Gene Kelly’s, sorry.
LikeLike
It was fun to see the Looney Toons animation before the movie, just like it would have been played in theaters when it was originally released. Both the cartoon and ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ were entertaining, if not a bit outdated in some of its humor and sensibilities. I think the “Make ‘Em Laugh” number falls a bit flat, or at least it didn’t get very many laughs from class until the end when the piano player surprised us by jumping through the wall. Slapstick humor on its own, with pratfalls, would be hard pressed to make modern adults laugh without more advanced situational wit or a sudden unexpected twist. The film reminds me overall of the pattern of heavy action movies; by focusing on spectacle entertainment, there isn’t a lot of room for complex plot or character development. All of the characters are relatively “flat”, as opposed to “round”, with predictable attitudes and little personal change. I would like to say that I appreciated how the movie did not drag out the final conflict to an excruciating length, which I feel like some modern comedies do in their third act in a last attempt to be taken seriously as more than just a comedy. The ending of this movie was quick and clean, and didn’t attempt to make it more than was it is. The representation of the transition into the sound-era was also entertaining, and helps explain some of the history of actors who couldn’t make the leap in real life, like Douglas Fairbanks.
LikeLike
This is my second time watching Singin’ in the Rain, and I enjoyed it just as much as I did the first time.
I really enjoyed the way it was written; it showed a behind the scenes look of how the silent movie era transitioned into the ‘talkie’ movie era. One scene I particularly enjoyed was when they demonstrated how directional the microphones were in the beginning. When the audience could hear the sound cutting out as the actors swiveled their heads added a lot of humor to the scene.
This movie took advantage of editing, or more specifically, the lack of editing. Most notable during the musical scenes, there is not a lot of cutting. For example, in the iconic ‘singin’ in the rain’ scene, there are only seven cuts in a four minute time frame. Not only did this make the sequence look more natural, but I think it was done on purpose to make the sequence look more like it would if you saw it live on stage in a theatre.
Being a musical, the music is an extremely important aspect to Singin’ in the Rain. I think the balance between normal dialogue and musical dialogue was perfect. Sometimes when I watch musicals, it seems like 90% of the movie is done in song, and it gets old really fast. When I watched Les Mis (2012), i felt this way, but when I watch Singin’ in the Rain, I never get annoyed with the amount of music it has, plus it helps that all of the songs are great!
LikeLike
“Singin’ in the rain” was an okay film. I did like the slapstick humor, yet I do not think that it really stood out. The humor was not very surprising, but it is just different because this is an older film. I personally like older slapstick humor, but this movie was not extremely memorable. I liked the scene where the actress kept on missing the mic, but it seemed like the humor like this went on for longer than I would expect. I think I lost interest in this film do to it being too straightforward and predictable. The plot was very simple and too easy to follow, therefore I did not think too much or wonder much about this film. The dance number was interesting, but I did know want to keep watching it and I started to lose interest. I am not particularly fond of musicals and this one did not change my mind. I did, however, really like the settings that the movie had. Since they were watching a musical, most scenes took place onlooking people on stage and I though this was pleasant to look at.
LikeLike
“Singin’ in the Rain” was great movie that definitely had a classic feel to it, a very timeless picture. All the humor was different than in modern films, I enjoyed it and found it to be comical. Not only that but I feel the director really utilized the aspects of mise-en-scene to successfully tell the story of the film. I found it very interesting to see the the differences of how women were treated during this time. All though there is not anything extremely absurdly obvious of a women being mistreated, there are still many cases and noticeable parts of women not being looked at as equal in this film. This is also noticeable in other films from this time period. The dances were also very well choreographed and were well executed as to add a musical aspect to this film. I have not watched too many musical performances but I am a fan of the this director combined film and musicals. This film also highlights the talent of the actors and how well they executed their character roles. Not only did they have to act but they also had to perform other tasks that they would have to do in a live theater performance. The cinematography was also on point because it effectively caught the right angles and perspectives to keep the movie going smoothly. Sound also played a huge role in “Singin in the Rain” because the sound effects were timed perfectly and were not over done to the point of becoming annoying. Overall this was a great movie that I enjoyed analyzing.
LikeLike
Singin’ in the Rain was an interesting film. I thought it was funny how the actors looked down on other types of actors – theater vs. silent film vs. “talkies”. It was interesting to see the character Kathy Selden defend the theater because it was more “realistic;” the audience could see and hear the actors. There is more of a connection. You lose that connection with silent films because you can’t hear the actors. But each group has to act in a different way to send the message they want to send. I liked how all three were represented in this movie in some way. This is also connected to the set of the movie; most scenes had a ‘stage’ feeling. The camera frequently (but not always) looked at the set from one side of the room, so it seemed like we could be watching this as a theater production. This includes scenes that were supposed to be in a home or office, and not actually on a stage.
I liked the costumes as well. I noticed in the “Good Morning” scene Don, Cosmo, & Kathy were all wearing blues and grays. The costumes went with the rain idea, but they were singing an upbeat, happy song. Similar to what the song “Singin’ in the Rain” does – it’s raining, but it’s upbeat.
LikeLike
The production on Singin’ in the Rain was very impressive and constantly had some form of entertainment on the screen. The camera moves fluidly like the dancers, and the timing of the subjects within the framing shows how many times they rehearsed each shot. The film also has a few meta moments like when Don Lockwood shows Kathy Selden the movie set with the same type of fans that they probably used for the Dali-esque scene. There is also the movie within the movie where Don is describing his idea, and after the long sequence the producer buttons it with, “I can’t picture it, I’ll have to see it.” The comedy was great, but whenever the film gets mentioned it seems to get over shadowed by the phenomenal dance routines. The film turned out to be much different than my expectations of it. I always thought that the song “Good Morning” was annoyingly happy, but in the context of the film it’s more ironic since it’s around 2 a.m. and they have a idea to fix their problems.
Duck Amuck was directed by Chuck Jones, who drew most of the key frames in his films. Even back then it was not common for someone to be that talented as an animator. One of my favorite things about Chuck Jones is that even after winning awards for films like Duck Amuck and The Dot and the Line, he would still take art classes to learn more. Eventually Hokusai’s wave inspired how he drew Wile E. Coyote’s tail. The golden age of animation ended mostly because the productions were not willing to invest in the long term work and were unable to train young animators to be as good as artists were in the 1940s.
LikeLike
“SIngin’ in the Rain” was a great film. It’s not a film you see a lot today, while we have musicals occasionally , we don’t have films that are driven by the actors’ singing and dancing talent with a random song and dance number here and there. It was nice to be taken back to a time where this kind if movie was common and well received because those aren’t the kind of movies that are coming out today. The slapstick humor it had which originated around the time the movie came out is also something that is not seen in most movies today. It is enjoyable to watch in older movies but I know if a movie today came out with a similar kind of slapstick humor it would seem a little childish and cartoonish. While I can enjoy movies from both today and from the same time as “SIngin’ in the Rain” I know times have changed and it’s not always fair to compare those movies.
It was also amusing to see a movie about the film industry and have many meta moments about how fake movies and movies stars really are. Meta was a theme for that class because it was also referenced in the Looney Toons cartoon we watched. It’s special when something that came out 60 years ago can still be as funny today as it was then. It helps that Looney Toons have become so ingrained in our culture that everyone knows who Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck is at an early age. But the cartoon played with the idea of also working on a movie/TV set and having to entertain the audience. Instead of like other cartoon shorts before where we follow a story in progress, this one was self aware that it had to make a cartoon for entertainment much like in “Singin’ in the Rain”. It goes to show that audiences always like movies or shows about making movies.
LikeLike
Singing in the rain was very entertaining. I didnt think it was a great movie but the choreography and the overall attitude of the movie was very contagious. Tap dancing is always impressive and the sound of tap always makes me laugh. The loony toons short was awesome. The hand drawn animation holds up really well. Any single cell could and should be framed and treated like high class art. I was really surprised by the meta angle that the story took.
LikeLike
I really enjoyed singing in the rain. The tap dancing was great and a joy to watch. Now to the critiqueing part of it I think that the editing was done well. Considering the long shot of the two best friends dancing was thought out well because it really caught thier talent. I don’t think it was necessary to involve a close up of a man in the chair because that wasn’t the point of the scene. If close ups were involved in the scene then it would have given the audience a different feel to the movie. The flashback to the main characters life as how it started out was great as well because considering invisible editing this movie did a great job at making the audience forget that it was a flashback. It moves the audience into another story and still catches thier attention.
On the other hand Apocalypse now was a semi boring movie to watch just because many things combined don’t work well with the plot. Such as the voice over because I still feel as if I’m in the present time and the movie doesn’t do a well job at bringing me back to the past. Another thing about the movie is when the airplanes are in the air and the dramatic music starts to play on the soundtrack. It was overly dramatic and I feel as if the music could have been better and more thought out. I wouldn’t really call it mickey mouse music but it was very close to it. Leaving on a good note the superimpositions were very interesting and kept my attention. I think this helped with the illusion of him being scared from his past and having to remember details from it.
LikeLike
Singing in rain is not a movie I would watch for personal entertainment but you must admire the work that went into this movie. e extremely long takes really showed off the actors ability to memorize the choreography. I not surprised that singing in the rain is named one of the best musicals of all time. I’ve always believed that movies about hollywood get a little more respect from the critics. This movie by the way is actually an autobiography about the hollywood era when film moved to talkies. The montage was very impressive especially for its time. I do not watch musicals but the way this film starts out with humorful flashbacks really pull you into liking the characters. Got to love humor everybody does. Very impressive performances too.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Jess Gemignani-Olmo
Student’s email: jlgolmo@gmail.com
Number of questions: 13
Percent correct: 100%
I personally really enjoy Singin’ in the Rain, possibly just for the sake of nostalgia due to having watched it growing up. I liked that we were shown “Duck Amuck” before watching Singin’ in the Rain specifically because of the scene where Don is professing to Kathy and he remarks about how he can’t tell her how he feels without the proper setting, which ends up being a sappy background of pastels and manufactured wind blowing through her hair. Other than just reinforcing the importance of set in directing a scene or overall mood, I thought “Duck Amuck” was great to showcase before Singin’ in the Rain because of all the set changes throughout the movie, especially the later numbers. For instance, the ‘Gotta Dance’ number is set in an underground club of sorts and has a jazzier feel to it to reflect the dance Cyd Charisse and Gene Kelly perform. Later, during the Salvador Dali-esque scene, the setting is soft and vast and reflects the tranquility that ballet is generally associated with. I appreciated this part of the movie mainly for its constantly changing mis-en-scene, if anything else.
While I agree the “Broadway Melody” and “Beautiful Girl” numbers seemed out of place or even over-indulgent, they worked because of the era the movie is trying to represent (albeit mockingly). Singin’ in the Rain is an overall parody of Hollywood in the 20s, namely the transition from silent films to “talkies”. The “Beautiful Girl” number is ridiculous and is very clearly poking fun at how Hollywood transitioned to talkies in the late 20s as well as questionable fashion choices during that time. Additionally, the beginning of the “Broadway Melody” number is a direct homage to MGM’s very first musical of the same name that was made “at the dawn of the talkies”. The comparisons between the sets and the costumes are undeniably alike. However, I do think the “Broadway Melody” sequence, though nicely done, is nothing more than just a love letter Kelly wrote to himself and was not at all necessary. To me it seemed as though Kelly had found an excuse to throw it in and decided only a 15 minute dance sequence would satisfy him.
LikeLike
Singin’ in the Rain is a great movie even for people who don’t particularly enjoy musicals. I especially enjoyed the humor. It did anything but take itself too seriously as a musical like musicals tend to do. The continuous shot dance numbers were not something I was used to but something I really appreciated. I feel that shots like that force the performer to allow their talent to speak for them. No camera or Hollywood trickery here. Being set in and around a Hollywood studio added a lot to the film. It allowed Don and Lina to be in situations that otherwise would not be fitting to the film. It was also great to see the nod towards the emergence of talkies and the incorporation into the story of Singin’ in the Rain. The musical sequences fit really well into the chronology of the film. The “Broadway Melody” and the Dali inspired number seemed to disrupt this, but I am glad they were kept in. Right about that point in the film the focus seemed to be more on the story, after all, it is a musical. The addition of these scenes kept the film grounded as a musical.
LikeLike
This was my first time seeing Singing In The Rain but I loved it! The performances were amazing and highly enjoyable and I typically dont like musicals. The longer takes for the dancing/singing scenes sometimes were a little bit too long and felt like they dragged a bit. The one scene that I didnt like was the broadway dream sequence. It was too out of place and way too long and it really bored me. Everything else was great though. You just dont see raw talent like that as much anymore and it was a nice change of pace from today’s movies. Although, this movie seems to be more of “look what we can do” entertainment rather than a hefty narrative. But this is just how movies were typically made in its time. Nowadays movies focus more on character development instead of spectacles. I loved this movie but I’m sure that I would have loved it even more if I had lived back when it first came out.
LikeLike
I have never seen this movie before and after seeing this movie for the first time I don’t understand why I haven’t seen it yet. Musicals were a big thing during this period and I can see why this is a classic because the songs are very catchy and and very rhythmic. What I like is when numbers in the musical come on there is a nice editing style and special camera moves following the actors and singers. Another thing I liked were the different personalities of the characters. Each character had a special trait whether it was their voice or being hyper. This movie is also a great example of when movies transitioned into sound in the 30’s. This movie represents how sound in movies were terrible and skeptical at first, but eventually took everyone by storm after the issues were fixed like synchronization between the picture and the actors lips to make it look real with clean audio. I thought it was very interesting when the number “singing in the rain” happened was when it was raining and the singer was smiling and being happy even though the story line hit a bump in the road. The movie was very good and I enjoyed it along with the random montages in the middle.
LikeLike
‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is a movie that deserves to be called a “Hollywood classic.” The story is made in the classic Hollywood style with the typical boy-gets-the-girl storyline and a happy ending. The musical numbers include popular American songs and tap dancing – a popular American dance. The editing includes long takes of the dance numbers in which today’s movies is rare. Today in editing dance numbers we split things up to accommodate short attention spans. Actors back in the 1950’s were expected to be very talented. They had to repeatedly practice to dance through those long takes meaning sore muscles and a whole lot of film. Not only did the actors show their talent, but also the screen writers, Adolph Green and Betty Comden. This was 1952 and the script called for everyone to go back in time to 1927 when sound in the movies first began. The film does a great job of showing the awkward transition to sound for some production companies. It showed how some actors were in trouble when it came to sound pictures because of their bad sounding voices. It also showed the trouble with hidden microphones and sound synchronization. ‘The Dueling Cavalier’ was saved by Cosmo’s suggestion of dubbing Kathy’s voice with Lina’s in the movie thus demonstrating a solution to the sound problem. All these points make ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ a classic and a good film, but there are some scenes I think the editors could have taken out to improve it. They should have taken out the scene with Gene Kelly singing and dancing the ‘Broadway Melody’ number. It is too random and the story can exist without it. I often fast forward through that part. Also the movie didn’t need that long montage of random dancing and singing people before the “Beautiful Girls” number with Debbie Reynolds. It is interesting how in the last of that number the camera is doing a high angle dolly shot and yet when the number is over we see the old fashioned camera that was supposed to be capturing the number, still and at ground level. Besides those little things in the film that could have been taken out, ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ will always be a Hollywood classic to me.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Chad Heredia
Number of questions: 13
Percent correct: 69%
Late post. I was not excited prior to watching Singing in the rain because i really don’t like musicals. Even movies i grew up with like Grease were not my favorite. Someone in the class made the case that there was almost too much performance, i disagree with that. The performance made it great it was so well executed and those moves would have taken so much practice. Also another reason i don’t agree with that statement is because there is a lot of singing and dancing but there is still a lot of character development and story progression. Throughout the movie one can know how the plot is progressing and getting a feel for each characters personality. so with my argument im saying there is balance with showmanship and story line.
LikeLike
Singing in the Rain was a wondeful feel good film. Its a timeless classic that can still be enjoyed to this day. The choreography was amazing the songs were original and delightful. Its very much like a play because of the lack of editing. Normally a lack of close ups gives less characterization to well the characters. The audiences feels less connected to the characters in the film. But Singing In the Rain pull this off because the long shots allows us to see the nimbleness of the dancers. The songs are also used as a way for the characters to express emotion, it adds characterization that most film lack. It not only entertains the audience through its dance and music, it also does it through comedy and romance. The witty comedy in that film still holds up to this day. Its not a very deep meaningful movie with symbolism, and thats okay. People go to movies for escape from daily life and Singing in the Rain provided the perfect escape that will make you feel good after watching. It a movie that just wants to be enjoyable.
LikeLike
This was my first time watching Singin’ in the Rain, and I kind of enjoyed it. What I enjoyed most was that this movie was based on the time when sound was introduced to studios. This film showed how studios incorporated sound by using props to hide microphones in comical ways. I felt that this musical was to show the beauty and introduction to sound while singing, dancing, and acting. I did not enjoy that some scenes had too much dancing. At first it was okay to watch the actors perform but after a while of them dancing and singing, I felt bored. Although the music, acting, and dancing were amazing, it was a little too much for me. The music was my favorite part of the movie. The songs made me feel happy that I even wanted to sing along. Overall this film was great except for the exaggerated scenes.
LikeLike
I’m not a big fan of the musicals of the era, simply because my suspension of disbelief doesn’t suspend quite far enough to believe that people can just burst into song and dance. This film makes it work better than most, though. And I’ve always loved the writing in this one — it brings in a little bit of film history and the fascinating stories we’ve all heard about silent film stars who lost their careers when sound became the new norm and the way the story is told is just fun and silly, yet I still care about the characters and what happens to them and don’t seem to mind when they just break into song and dance like it’s no big thing. It manages to pull off a lot and the writing is a big part of that. Of course, the performances can’t be overlooked, either. The dance scenes are phenomenal, even if they do look more like a stage play than a movie. In most films, that would be a major drawback, but in this one, it really shows off the talent of the dancers and enhances the story and the world of the film. Even the intentionally bad acting and singing is done so perfectly that it really makes the movie great and memorable. One thing I really appreciate, too, is the sound effects. Things like the pearls in the microphone and how Lina’s voice fades in and out and she turns her head — these things really show the troubles of filmmaking even today, but especially when sound was a new animal. It’s just fun and interesting to see how they go about dealing with these issues, and how Lina just makes it far more difficult than it should be, and while a lot of that goes back to the writing and the performances, the sound design is the real kicker that gets this across.
LikeLike
I hate musicals, mainly because the actors break into song and dance during normal dialog in a movie. I understand why the theaters have big production musicals, but I don’t like them in film. that being said, this musical works really well on the big screen. The editing techniques, timing and the camera work made this an enjoyable movie to watch. The dance numbers have a lot of skill involved and the lack of editing, showcased the dancing perfectly. By doing this they allowed the audience to see real performers dance and sing, just like musical theater productions. The timing of the performance also had to be perfect or else they would have to film it again, from the top of the scene.The mickey mousing with the footsteps and music beats, were a little too much for me and came across as childish. The wardrobe was really extravagant and it brings the mis-en-scene together to make the audience believe it is early 1930’s. I really liked how the film presented the issues of recording sound, and how they resolved it. While I still do not like musical theater. This film did a great job bringing comedy, theater and love story together.
LikeLike
I have seen “Singin’ In the Rain” many times, I’m actually sick of it I’ve seen it so many times. It is one of my favorite musicals, and most of it is pretty enjoyable. There are a couple of musical numbers that just seem kind of random and misplaced, like the “Beautiful Girl” montage that turns into kind of a commercial, and the lengthy “Broadway Melody” sequence at the end. Now I understand their purpose though, because it is a jukebox musical, where songs are inserted because they share a composer and is not always successful. But I really enjoyed the way the musical numbers were done. They are so well danced, Gene Kelly is amazing although extraordinarily arrogant that detracts from your enjoyment of his dancing. And the way the dancing was filmed, continuously and from a distance, no closeups, so you can see the full dance. Overall, “Singin’ In the Rain” is a wonderful musical and definitely a classic.
LikeLike
So this was my first time watching Singing In The Rain all the way through and I’m not a fan of the movie musical because it does not really have a good balance between the theatrical and the cinematic. I hate the fact that Gene Kelly wasn’t a fan of the cut because most of the dance sequences seem to drag on and on and on to the point where I trully was like, “I get it, you’re a wonderful dancer.” The performances were really good acting wise. I’ll not deny the fact that the acting in the film was really good. Donald O’Connor was really amazing playing second to Gene Kelly. Debbie Reynolds was also pretty good as well and the fact that Jean Hagan has a normal voice is something I did not believe until I was watching “The Shaggy Dog” a few nights ago. But the musical nature, the one way shooting, and the lack of the cut did not make me enjoy “Singing In The Rain” as much as others in the class.
Also, during the Lockwood “Stuntman” montage, was a jump cut used when Lockwood went to the shack before it exploded? I’d talk to others in the class and they said that it was one shot but i know it was two separate shots…
LikeLike
Growing up I watched “Singing in the Rain” many times. Every time I watch it puts me in a good mood, and I think it does that with many people because it is one of the “Feel Good” classic movies. I enjoyed how it was shot without many reaction shots during the musical scenes. I feel that because they filmed/edited it this way they were able to show case the true talent of the actors and dancers involved. another reason why it could be considered a “feel good” movie is because of the slapstick comedy and bantering between characters. When an audience feels a strong emotion such as happiness and the audience is laughing a lot, they will enjoy the movie a lot more rather than feeling no emotion.
LikeLike
I love how Singin’ in the Rain overall portrayed the struggle Hollywood went through trying to transition from silent films to “talkies.” The movie did a good job at engaging the audience in a feel good sort of way by showcasing the talents of the actors with song and dance. The dance numbers were more enjoyable to watch because the majority of those shots were longer, therefore giving us more action in one continuous shot instead of multiple shots. MgM was the high-class production company that was perfect for this film by providing extravagant sets and colorful wardrobes that are still a joy to watch today. I feel like the over-the-top singing/dance numbers evened out with the funny one-liners and the narration of the film as a whole.
LikeLike
There were stark differences between Singing in the Rain and Om Shanti Om, mainly being the amount of editing. In Singing in the Rain, many of the dance and song sequences consisted of long takes focused on the choreographed dances. Whereas, in Om Shanti Om there was an excessive amount of “MTV style” editing; in which the camera would cut with the music on different parts of the scene. The camera even went as far as to dolly in and out rapidly and twist with the intensity of the music building. The focus in Singing in the Rain appeared to be the talent of the synchronized dance. However, the focus in Om Shanti Om was the emotion evoked in both the lyrics and composure of the music.
LikeLike
Singing in the Rain raised the very interesting question of realism in film. Many people are know to object to musicals based on their inability to suspend disbelief. They can’t “buy in” to the idea of someone breaking out in a choreographed song and dance. I think this speaks to who a viewer is at a basic level. I don’t think most people’s objection to musicals comes from a lack of realism but from the traditional musical format of not trying to hide or explain its source. These objections come from people who can just as easily enjoy a Christopher Nolan or David Fincher film. Both directors are know for fantastical storytelling and unrealistic situations. The biggest difference is the presentation. Nolan and Fincher try to hide impossible situations in plausibility whereas musicals don’t. Superhero franchises spend whole movies trying to convince you of their authenticity by creating complex backstories to fictional universes. There is nothing wrong with this approach and can beget fun, engaging films. I just think it points to some people’s deeper want to believe. The idea of escapism becomes literal in the need to have an origin. Even with the understanding that films aren’t reality they want to be able to believe they are. In a way people who strive for realism are the least attached to it.
LikeLike
In class one of the points brought up revolved around the idea of musicals and their place in the cinematic world. Personally, I enjoyed the mixed aspects of cinema and theatre and think that the two can be combined with spectactular and unique effect. For instance, the scene where Don describes what the scene will look like and the movie transitions to an arguably avant garde cinematic style is a unique piece of cinema- even if I did not fully understand it. On the other hand, the more theatrical scenes such as when Don and Cosmo dance in their language lessons was hardly anything cinematic. Regardless of that fact, the scene was enjoyable and the extended takes allowed the audience to drink in the performing skills of the duo. Rather than sticking to one style, Gene Kelly mixed it up to create a varied and interesting movie.
LikeLike
I missed the class session that showed Singing In the Rain. I watched it over the weekend. Before I watched it I read a bit about Gene Kelly and the making of the film. The trivia behind the film added or colored my viewing of the film. According to IMBD, the actor, Donald O’Connor who played Cosmo Brown, was a heavy smoker and ended up doing the physically demanding choreography for the film on two separate occasions. After doing them he was in bed for days. Debbie Reynolds, who played the main female love interest, Kathy Selden, was the 19 at the time of filming, and wasn’t as good of a dancer as the others. She worked hard but Gene Kelly was a demanding director. The days of production were so long and physically exhausting hat sometimes she slept at the studio to save time from having to wake up at 4am to take the bus to the studio.
I was dreading watching the film because I thought it would be boring. I found myself laughing out loud at several points. I found the story interesting. Film actors making movies at the time where studios were making the transition from silent films to talking films. It was an inside look at the movie industry.
The voice of the female superstar, Lina Lamont, played by Jean Hagen, was jarring and amusing. Her voice would never go over with audiences. Her voice was high and her way of talking was unsophisticated and was at odds with her persona.
The way the dancing numbers were photographed were in wide long shots so the audience could see all of what was being done by the dancers. That the dancing was really being done by the actors. This is important because the talent on display can be be better appreciated knowing that there are no tricks by the movie makers to substitute other dancers for the dancing done by the actors/character’s they play. This is in direct juxtaposed by showing the studio production of the movie within the movie using Kathy’s speaking and singing voice to replace Lina’s voice in order to fool the audience watching Lina’s movies that her voice was as beautiful as she was. (Note: Slightly contradicting what I just wrote, in the trivia for Singing in the Rain, it was said that in one of the sequences Gene Kelly wasn’t happy with Debbie Reynold’s tap dancing so in post production recorded himself tapping and using that recording to replace her tap dancing.) Movie Magic!
Overall, I liked the movie. Especially the funny, charming, way Donald O’Connor played Cosmo Brown. Cosmo had a lot of the best lines, showing that he as a character was bright, clever, always thinking on his feet! (sort of pun? intended)
I didn’t get to watch the clip from Om Shanti Om because I missed class due to illness.
LikeLike
This was the first time I watched Singin’ In the Rain, even though other classes have referenced the film. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole film and its plot line. I really enjoyed them going through the end of the silent film era to the introduction of sound to films. Even though I have never watched Om Shanti Om, the premise sounds really interesting. The differences between both films, really made Singin’ In the Rain seem more subdued in its tone. Of course there is the difference in time periods for both of the films and since Om Shanti Om is a more recent film, the colors are bound to be more vivid and bright. However, Om Shanti Om seemed to have a little too much going on in the scene that we watched. There were bright colors everywhere, loud music, dancing, wind machine, and the characters were acting out scenes while dancing. Singin’ In the Rain also had a moment in the film that was really fantastical, and that scene almost lost me in terms of storyline because it went on for so long and nothing really connected to each other. Overall, I really enjoyed the choreographed numbers in Singin’ In the Rain because they just seemed to flow naturally with the storyline.
LikeLike
Learn more about Film History watching Singin’ in The Rain was an amazing experience. Trough the evolution of its narrative, the director demonstrate the evolution of the cinema passing from the phase where there’s no sound till the sound era. The voice of the character Lina, a key component of the narrative, takes a time to be presented in the movie, as the cinema had take a time till have sound. It was interesting watch the cinema talking about itself, in the montage this became more clear when we see like a review about what the cinema industry had achieved and done.
LikeLike
One of my all time favorite movies. I realized as we stated watching this in class that I rarely see the beginning of this movie as I mostly watched it when I find it playing on TV. I also realized that I have only loved it on a surface level I have never look to understand its background or its making. Finding out that Debbie Reynolds was not Gene Kelly’s pick for Kathy Selden and that they used Jean Hagen’s voice for most of her vocals was mind-blowing. “Moses Supposes” is actually is one of the most recurring songs on my mental soundtrack. This movie is timeless as the 50s look at the 20s movie making and the 20s interpretation of 1700s through cinema.
LikeLike
I am usually not a fan of musicals. I think the sporadic and abrupt dance numbers in the middle of dialogue are a bit odd for my cinematic taste. However, Singin in the Rain has always been a film that I could watch over and over. I remember in your editing class you made us count the number of cuts a dancing scene from this movie had in comparison to Chicago. It really highlights how talented Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor were to perform their dance number in just a handful of straight takes. In addition to the amazing choreography of this film, I love the scene where Jean Hagen’s character, Lina Lamont is trying to adapt to talking pictures. As a film production major I can attest to how frustrating capturing sound can be. Perhaps that’s why I want to go into cinematography.
LikeLike