On Cukor

[srowley75]

Has anyone else seen this American Masters episode (if "episode" is the correct term)? Very, very informative, intereresting piece on George Cukor and his career. Cukor was a director that I liked very much when I was first introduced to classics as a teenager, but as time wore on and I saw many of his films a second time, I tended to zone in on the flaws and my opinion of his work lessened. I think now I'm starting to develop an appreciation for him again.

The documentary emphasizes, among other things, Cukor's wonderful romantic films that were quite ahead of their time in their treatment of men and women as equals yet complementary to one another - e.g., Pat and Mike, Adam's Rib, The Model and the Marriage Broker, The Marrying Kind, A Star is Born '54. I think you can also make the case for The Philadelphia Story and The Women. Outside of David Lean, I can't name another director whose romantic films I find to be so interesting and, often, moving. In any event, the documentary made me want to revisit a number of his movies that I haven't seen in some time.

[MichiganJ]

A lot of my favorite movies were directed by Cukor, but I never think of them as Cukor movies. He's like Clarence Brown, who made a number of great movies in different genres, but unless you see his credit, you would not be able to tell he directed the film. That's not a bad thing, of course, but I often try to see the relationship between one film and another and with Cukor (and Brown), I can't. Although, to be fair, I never went through their filmographies in sequence, like I usually try and do with directors. You've already pointed out a theme--the equality of the sexes--that I actually ascribed more to Tracy and Hepburn and not, for some reason, to Cukor himself. I need to check out the documentary.

[charliechaplinfan]

I haven't seen the documentary but have recently read a book by Gavin Lambert called On Cukor. I agree, he's made such a wide range of movies, most very good. Gaslight, It Could Happen to You and Camille are my favorites, reading the book I realised I have so many of his films still to watch.

[JackFavell]

It's easy to dismiss Cukor because of the romances and the gloss of his movies, but I find I go back to him again and again. I have a deep love of many of his films. In fact, I can think of almost no other director who hits on my list of favorites so many times.

I am a big fan of :

What Price Hollywood
Our Betters
Little Women - I was stunned some years ago on a first visit to Louisa May Alcott's home, to find that it was EXACTLY like walking into the movie set, including the curtains (Roderigo! Roderigo!)
David Copperfield
Camille
Holiday
The Philadelphia Story
A Woman's Face
Gaslight
A Double Life
Adam's Rib
Born Yesterday
Pat and Mike - the scene with Katharine Hepburn playing golf is masterful all on it's own - I never fail to marvel at her golfing skill.
The Actress
Heller in Pink Tights

I'll admit I can't stand:

My Fair Lady
Lust for Life (on which he was a co-director, uncredited)

I like your idea of Cukor's theme being equality of the sexes... probably the reason I go back to so many of his films as favorites is that his women are very modern, I can identify with them; and I find the relationships to be very adult. There is no excuse-making in my mind when I watch ("it's a thirties film, so I have to take the female role with a grain of salt). I can simply watch and enjoy the interplay of intelligent characters.

[Gary J.]

Cukor is a bit of an enigma for being a top director. Since he came from the stage I don't feel he ever really developed a true cinematic touch, like a Wyler. Cukor's forte was in the performance. He was very good at achieving that. I never liked the tag 'women's director' that was given him. He could work with any actors, and with any genre as long as the script was taut. He depended on a well-written script. I've never read about his ability to completely re-work a scene when on the set - like a Ford or McCarey or a Capra. Because of this his best films tend to be with the same writers he most frequently collaborated with (Donald Ogden Stewart, Phillip Barry, Zoe Akins, Gordon & Kanin).

I find his work from the thirties to be his best. He came out of the shoot with such fare as ROYAL FAMILY OF BROADWAY (30), WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD (32), DINNER FOR EIGHT (33) and LITTLE WOMEN (33). Like Minnelli he relished the comfort of working within the studio system (although, like Hawks, he has quite a list of aborted projects that he was removed from) and he made a wide range of movies in that decade. DAVID COPPERFIELD (35), SYLVIA SCARLETT (35), CAMILLE (36) and HOLIDAY (38) are all favorites that I can re-visit at the drop of a hat. THE WOMEN (39) seemed to type him for some time as a top female star director (SUSAN AND GOD (40), PHILADELPHIA STORY (40), TWO-FACED WOMAN (41)) while after the war his films leaned towards the overly melodramatic (A DOUBLE LIFE (47), EDWARD, MY SON (49)). He returned to comedy in the early 50's (ADAM'S RIB (49), BORN YESTERDAY (50), IT SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU (54)) but after A STAR IS BORN (54) I find his work more erratic. For some reason he turned towards musicals just as that genre was dying out - and they all tend to play rather bloated (LES GIRLS (57), LET'S MAKE LOVE (60), MY FAIR LADY (64)). Like most veteran directors the sixties are a lost decade as he attempts to find relevance in a changing industry but I seem to recall he rebounded quite nicely with TRAVELS WITH MY AUNT (72), even though I have not re-visited this film since I was a teen.

[srowley75]

I think the '54 version of A Star is Born would be my choice for most romantic film ever made. I feel as though the characters are more fully developed in the longer version (though I admit I haven't seen the '37 version in some time), and the casting of Mason and especially Garland only enhances the effect (she surely felt a deep connection with both Esther/Vicki and Norman). I always think of Gaynor as sort of a fresh-faced, sweet type; with Garland playing the role, it's as though the character is mature, yet perhaps inexperienced and somewhat alone in the world. She's a bit more of a grown up, in other words. And how refreshing to see a film in which you actually get to see the romantic pair falling in love - it isn't like they met one night and boom, they're a couple. Romances where the attraction seems to take a believable time to build - whether we're talking classic or contemporary films - seem very rare, in my opinion.

As weird as it may sound, I also admit being choked up at portions of many of the other romantic comedies or comedy-dramas that he directed - of course, The Marrying Kind is heartbreaking, but The Model and the Marriage Broker and Pat and Mike are both real heart-tuggers as well, if you know where to look. Another aspect I happened to notice is how often Cukor's romantic movies emphasized the whole idea of mutual support (both partners for each other) as the basis for a loving relationship. You feel that in Holiday, Born Yesterday, Pat and Mike, The Marrying Kind, A Star is Born. The romantic pairs in his films say wonderful, deeply moving things about one another.

One thing that does surprise me is that he worked with Aldo Ray not once, but twice. I have to wonder if that was by choice. From what I've heard of Ray, I can't imagine Cukor being able to tolerate him.

[JackFavell]

Is it because he was from the stage that he didn't have a signature style? Many directors from the stage still had a flair or way of telling who they were... Busby Berkeley, Reuben Mamoulian, Welles and Kazan all came from the stage, and still had recognizable styles.

And I am not so sure that he doesn't have a style of his own...I can't exactly define it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. He's very smooth, has a very steady rhythmic way of putting a picture together that doesn't miss the mark often.

[MichiganJ]

It's surprising, in a way, that the French auteurists championed Cukor, since more of us would share MichiganJ's sentiments.

Even the New Wave didn't exactly agree on everything (!), even the definition of auteur. Truffaut said an auteur is someone whose films all tell the same story, while Rohmer said an auteur is someone who has a constant component running through their body of work. (Both actually pretty impossible measures, if they actually held to their definitions.)

In a collection of early Truffaut criticisms, Truffaut does indeed champion Cukor, although I have yet to find where he states what that same story is that Cukor is always telling. I wish I had more writings by Rohmer, so don't know what he thought of Cukor or if he even agreed with Truffaut. (He does love Hitchcock, though, so they agree on him.)

While I very much believe in the auteurist theory (i.e. that a film has one point of view, usually, but not always the director's), I've just never approached Cukor films as Cukor films. Since he's worked with many of my favorite actors and actresses, it's through them that I came to the films. Monroe's Let's Make Love (underrated, in my opinion), the Garbo's (including Two Faced Woman, which is also underrated imo), Kelly in Les Girls, the Tracy & Hepburn's, Hepburn and Grant's, etc. There may be a discernible Cukorian© point of view, I just never looked for it.

Whether he's an auteur or not, Cukor made a lot of great films with many of Hollywood's greatest stars. Not too shabby.

[RedRiver]

I don't have much to add to the admirable insight preceeding. (Is anybody buying this?) I will say there are quite a few Cukor films I like. A lot. Several are direct adaptations of plays. Others have a theatrical quality, relying heavily on dialogue.

The terrific Phillip Barry comedies, HOLIDAY and PHILADELPHIA STORY. The near flawless LITTLE WOMEN, so well staged even the silly scenes are charming. THE WOMEN. The best of the Tracy/Hepburn pairings. And that DINNER AT EIGHT. Holy cow! Credit must be shared with the precise structuring of playwrights George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber. But this intelligent, clever, sad little story is one of the great film comedies, and it's Cukor's coaching that brings it together.

[srowley75]

Whatever the state of his personal life, I seem to recall someone in the documentary (I want to say it was Mia Farrow, his goddaughter) mentioning that for all the romance that pervaded his films, Cukor himself really didn't find anyone that could've been considered his soulmate (these weren't the exact words, but I'm paraphrasing). Instead, he seemed to surround himself with groups of people, throw parties, etc. Anyway, it just struck me as somewhat interesting that for all the rich and intelligent films he made about human romantic relationships, he evidently didn't have that kind of an intimate connection with anyone. It also made me think of the Ritter character in Model and the Marriage Broker, a film that wasn't even mentioned in the documentary (and as it's a minor Cukor in the minds of most, that didn't surprise me).