FTV 111 Film Journal

Singin' in the Rain

Country: USA
Year: 1952
Director: Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly
Length: 103 min
Language: English













Awards: Best Motion Picture Actor - Musical/Comedy (Golden Globe Award), Best Written American Musical (WGA Award)

Synopsis: Don Lockwood finds love and conflict during the beginning of the sound era in Hollywood.

Critical Comments:
Singin' in the Rain has quite an interesting identity as a film. It is a classical musical Hollywood narrative film about the coming of sound and the classical musical Hollywood narrative. Due to its narrative structure, I am inclined to read Singin' in the Rain from its narrative structure because it would only be fair to examine the meanings from its narrative and sequence.

One of the things that Singin' in the Rain addresses about Hollywood as a film industry is the star system. In the time setting of Singin' in the Rain, the star system excites the film industry. There is an elevated status that a person can achieve in the Hollywood industry which comes with fame, glory and even power (like how Lina Lamont threatens 'RF' of Monumental Picutres). Everything that comes with the star system has created an illusion of glamour and success that most do not recognise is a result of hard work as a celebrity (when Don Lockwood tells his story about his career). However, that celebrity status of an actor is the very core question fir Singin' in the Rain. As I have discussed in my entry for Salaam Cinema. Who is the actor or what makes an actor ? What is an actor in film ?

Just as how Kathy Selden was criticial about Don Lockwood as a well-known celebrity for his status but not an actor, that I find these questions very significant. As actors and their performance are part of the element of film (in most cases), so it should be crucial to understand the very people or person that we see 'represented' on film. It is question of whether our admiration and envy for them is a sign of respect for their acting skills (and their contribution to film as film) or only because they bring out our fanaticism for someone famous. Are actors famous for the right reasons in film? In Singin' in the Rain, Kathy does not seem to think highly of actors (of that era), they are just like 'shadows' on the screen.

Has the star system dilluded everyone in Hollywood during the 1920-30s. Stars are nothing but people who looked good on screen or have appeared in many movies. They bring nothing to the film in terms of aesthetic performance that can give its own meaning as an element of film. If the stars can't really act, then they are just like puppets.

The severity of this question is exclaimated by Lina Lamont. Her credibility as an actress (because of her voice) is in contradiction to her celebrity status. Her company (to the dismay of Don Lockwood) tries very hard to cover up that fact that she can't act but the people love her (until the end of the movie). She was just a face, another face that makes the industry go round but it is because of this position, she could wield substancial power on the industry. If power is placed on those that are not really a contribution to film that is built up by its elements, then what is left for film? Film would become a stage where big stars battle each other in a game of fame (and shame). There can be no appreciation for film, 'you see them once and you've seen them all'.

However, it does not mean that Singin' in the Rain does not have any other readings that can be derived from it.

It also tries to represent the introduction of sound into cinema. This is an interesting reflection of film history. When sound was first introduced, there were many who believed that it would revolutionaize the industry as many as the sceptics that believed it was just a trend. Singin' in the Rain is like a documentary (it even used real names, like the first talkie film, The Jazz Singer, produced by Warner Bros.) in its examination of the inception of the sound era and the slow death of silent cinema. The narrative of Singin' in the Rain which is centered on the 'stars' of a (albeit fictional but cunningly pun-ed) studio company showed how film companies had to adapt itself to the technology of sound during that era.

As film history was written (although not exclusively and comprehensively), the introduction of sound was set to change the way of film and the Hollywood industry from that point on in the 1920s (which Singin' in the Rain was set in). Those that failed to fit in that change would face the consequences and for Don Lockwood and Lina Lamont, it could the end of their careers.

But from the narrative of Singin' in the Rain, with sound it was an opportunity for filmmakers rather than a curse of technology.

It was with sound that the classical Hollywood narrative could evolve in creating a new genre. It opened up the sensation of sound and allowed a new feast for the spectators which could have only been possible (and creatively logical) with the combination of audio and visual. The classical Hollywood narrative would become well-known as the musical with its grand and glamourous spectacle and the celebrated combination of song and dance on film for the first time.

What I cannot seem to read or try to understand is the entire sequence of the 'Broadway Melody' especially the relation between 'supposedly' Don Lockwood and the alluring lady in the casino, the black and white dance and the party. Such scenes I feel would not fit itself very well in terms of narrative for Singin' in the Rain but other meanings from the perspective of idealogy and sexuality would be more likely and relevant.

Readings:

1. Gomery, Douglas (1998) 'Hollywood as Industry', Hill and Church Gibson, eds, The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, 245-254. The reading tells us that although film is a text by itself and should be read as such, the importance of the context is still significant enough to affect the reading of a film. It continues to explore the historical periods of Hollywood as an industry and how it remains to be the most popular film industry in the world. I find Singin' in the Rain reflects very much on the studio system era. As the narrative in the film also revolves around the coming of sound which was a technological revolution in film history. So not only can a film be read by itself, the surrounding circumstances to the film (the industry and its structure) but also its relation to history or film history. This contrasts but compliments with the readings on film language that we should also look at film from the outside, in a wider context rather than concentrating solely on the language itself. Like Singin' in The Rain, it gives a meaning of how filmmakers adapt to new technology, overcome the difficulties by these technologies and then creatively use that technology as an additional tool to express art.
   
2. Cohen, Steven (2000) 'Case Study: Interpreting Singin' in the Rain', Gledhill and Williams, eds, Reinventing Film Studies, London: Arnold, 53-75. Cohen has taken a wide approach in studying Singin' in the Rain from a myraid of angels ranging from the narrative, the cultural and industrial context to its symbolism of the dance sequences, characters and even placement of events or 'plot'. Although Cohen admits that it is not meant to be a comprehensive case study of Singin' in the Rain, it rings enough truth as an evidence to what was discussed by Gomrey (who was in fact referecned in this reading). This shows that a film can be read from so many angels that it almost becomes a matter of preference as a critic to find their own reading and meaning. I find this a model study of film and would like to apply them in future film screenings but the content of such readings for each film in this unit alone would be able to fill a book and the process could be never ending. This is perhaps how films like Singin' in the Rain can remain so timeless, its meaning can change according to the time it is read even though it is not the intended meaning of the director or auteur. This coincides with genres that also changes over time with new innovations between genres as well as through self-development. The most interesting thing I find in this reading is that it touches on my question of actors as stars in my critical comment earlier. However, it takes the perspective of cultural studies to explore the star and stardom. Nevertheless, such studies could guide my future interpretation of stars culturally but also in industries.