I'm Dancin' and Singin' In The Rain: Analysis of a Scene

When I was little my parents showed me the infamous scene in Singin’ In The Rain where Gene Kelly, in a moment of genuine happiness, dances and sings on the side of a street in the pouring rain. Although I can’t remember what age I was when I first witnessed this classic moment in cinema, I do know that I was young enough to not understand what exactly was happening in the movie, who the person was on screen, or the impact the film would eventually have on me. However, I was aware of one thing and perhaps the thing that matters the most. I was able to recognize that for whatever reason, this moment did not only show the simple joys of life but also was extremely important to the subject that I would later have passion for and devote my studies to.
After watching this film in high school and then again in this class, I’ve decided to analyze this particular scene for no other reason than that I love it so much. I know it’s the cliché scene to love and is the most recognizable and famous scene in the film but I think that this is the case for a reason. After studying what goes into making a film, I really want to figure out what exactly it was that the filmmakers were trying to do with this scene. While analyzing these technical aspects I hope to discover what it is that makes the scene so memorable and inspirational for so many people including myself.
The camera work in the scene is both simplistic and formulaic. Because there is such a close tie between camera speed, movement, and angle and the music, the scene flows fluidly and flawlessly. The shots that the filmmakers used are relatively simple yet carefully chosen and composed. The scene follows a relatively easy-to-follow formula. Throughout the entire scene, the camera remains fluid, never stationary, as it continues to follow the action. We begin with wide shots (often long and medium) that track the subject. These shots later dolly in and form close-ups. Once the close-up is established, the camera waits roughly one measure of the song and then cuts back out to another wide shot from a different angle. This camera motion is repeated throughout the scene, and never fully breaks away from the pattern. The simplicity of the shots (wide shot, dolly in to close-up, and then cut back to wide) perfectly reflects the simple joy of Don Lockwood’s experience. There is no complex, deeper meaning behind his actions. The perfect moment in Don’s life is also mirrored by the flawlessness of the editing and the camera movement.
The scene is roughly five minutes long and in that time nine cuts are made. Not only does this say a lot about the importance of Gene Kelly’s performance but it also says a lot about the filmmaker’s technique and priorities. Once again, the cutting of the camera from one shot to the next follows a pattern that perfectly corresponds with the music being played. The cuts are made whenever the song switches measures. This hides the edit, making the scene appear to run constant and flawless.
Aside from the camera work and the editing, a lot was put into this scene in order to create this flawless and memorable moment. The blocking of not only Kelly but also other actors that temporarily run in and out of the frame is extremely important to both the visual composition and the flow of the scene. Although we are meant to believe that this is a “spur of the moment” action, everything in the scene (including what was mentioned above) was carefully planned. Not only are Gene Kelly’s movements and footsteps perfectly synchronized with the beat of the song, but so is everyone else’s. A man quickly passes by, refusing to acknowledge Don. A couple holds a newspaper over their heads as they elegantly turn, wondering why Don is so happy in the middle of a storm. A police officer stops him. A man without an umbrella receives one from Don at the end of the scene. All of these people’s movements perfectly flow to the beat of the song much like the movements of the main character. Although the actions appear rehearsed, they are overlooked by the audience because everything, for whatever reason, seems to fit just right.

Of course, these technical elements would most likely not be recognized by normal film viewers let alone young kids (like me when I first experienced this scene). Although all of these techniques that the filmmakers used subconsciously lead audiences to feel the beauty and poignancy of the moment, there is something else that people recognize. This “something else” is much more on the surface and is the main reason why I was able to connect to it at such a young age. This, I believe is in the iconic and everlasting performance of Gene Kelly. In order to make this scene successful and force audiences to feel half of what the character is feeling, the performance had to be both believable and genuine. And although after all this analysis I see what it is the filmmakers were trying to do, I recognize that the camera, by itself, was not able to show the happiness and beauty that was so perfectly expressed in Gene Kelly’s performance.

"A Shimmering, Glowing Star in the Cinema Firmament."

On the surface, Singin’ In The Rain may seem like it could be incredibly cheesy. The fact that it’s a 1950’s musical alone could put some people off immediately. But this film is without a doubt a classic. There is something to be said about a film that is still so hilarious and relevant even after half a century. The film’s hilarious satire is only matched by its entertaining story and impressive performances.
I’ve seen this film three or four times now and it keeps getting better each time I watch it. I really feel like Singin’ In The Rain is one of those movies that grows on you even though it is so wonderful the first time you experience it. The first thing that struck me while watching this film again was the amazing performances. Yes, this is probably the thing people notice the first time watching, but I still couldn’t believe how amazing the actors and actresses were. Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor were so impressive. I can’t imagine people moving like that in contemporary films (this is probably the reason why so few films like this are made nowadays). But even more than that, I thought that their acting was superb. One person that I felt did an amazing job, and who many people cited as being their least favorite, was Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont. I would assume that she was putting on that voice which in itself is impressive. But not only that, Hagen made the character’s stupidity believable, putting aside her ego for the sake of the film. I thought she was strangely lovable. Her naïve attitude and her skewed sense of reality, made her seem innocent even though she was portrayed as the villain.

I will always maintain that the scene in which Gene Kelly sings in the rain is my favorite scene of the film. There’s something so lovable and deeply personal (at least for me) about this moment. I don’t know. I guess it just makes me happy. I’m all for movies not being corny and I often enjoy seeing films that portray the more “realistic” and often pessimistic aspects of life. But sometimes I just want a film that I can fall in love with because it makes me happy to be alive. And that, for me, is what that moment is all about.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film, and what creates a deeper meaning to the story, is the satirical undertones. The film frequently makes fun of the films of the 1920’s and 30’s and often points out the ridiculousness of the star system. I loved the fact that the film poked fun at Hollywood and the way we worship celebrities. The star system is never more clearly satirized then in the beginning of the film when Lina and Don address the fans outside the theatre. The obsessed crowd’s actions are completely ridiculous. One woman even faints after Don blows her a kiss. Don and Lina really echoed modern day star couples and reminded me so much of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
But this idea that Singin’ In The Rain addresses the reality and the artificialness of films is what really intrigues me. When we talked in class about the film “never breaking the fourth wall” by revealing a crew filming the movie itself, I couldn’t help but wonder why. And the reason I’ve come up with is that no matter what Singin’ In The Rain is still a movie and although it satirizes the film industry and the way movies are produced it will always remain a product of that system. I couldn’t help but think that no matter how close the film gets to addressing the artificialness of filmmaking and in some ways becoming more “real” than other pictures, it will always be an artificial piece that could never be fully realized by the audience. No film (not even documentaries) can break that wall because audiences can never fully realize what goes into making a movie. By simply watching the film we would never know that there was milk put into the rain. We would never know that Gene Kelly was sick during his performance. And we would never know that Jean Hagen actually had quite a good voice and sometimes even dubbed over Debbie Reynolds singing.


It’s quite easy to see why Singin’ In the Rain has come to be known as a classic. Great acting, interesting story, impressive dancing and singing, and spot on cinematography are some of the many reasons why I have grown to love this film. It will always be one of my favorites and I’m sure the more I watch it, the more I will grow to love both the story and the unforgettable performances.

The Perfection of Double Indemnity

I heard something today that really opened my eyes and made me wonder about film appreciation and film criticism. In my Film And Special Effects course, professor Ferraro stated that when he taught a film history class, all of the students would repeatedly ask in droning voices, "Is this gonna be in black and white again?" This issue has puzzled me for quite some time. What is it about many contemporary audiences that makes them believe that just because a film is in black and white, or just because a film was made in the earlier days of cinema that that ultimately means that the film represents everything that is old, slow-paced, dry, corny, and unentertaining? Professor Ferraro's disgust and response to this behavior was what really made me want to get past my fears (yes, I too realize that I can have these beliefs from time to time) and watch any film for what it is actually worth. Ferraro said that when he watches a film, he tries to not only engage himself and be entertained by the story line, but he also tries to learn something. Every film, no matter when it was made, reflects the cultural aspects of a particular time and place. Ferraro stated, "I like to see why a film was set up a particular way, what particular styles, designs, and objects were common at those times, and overall, I wonder why this information was chosen by the filmmakers to be portrayed in the form of motion pictures." Ferraro went on to state in regards to the acting of older films, "Those actors aren't acting for you! They're acting for their own time. And anyone that cannot attempt to see a film for it's worth in regards to the time period it was produced, then they just don't get it." Ferraro's statement made me immediately think of Double Indemnity, a gem of not only early American cinema but also of films as a whole.

I really enjoyed Double Indemnity. Like I was taken aback by how good the movie actually was. Here was a film that was made in the early 1940's, black and white, relatively slower-paced, and yet it intrigues and engages contemporary audiences, making them feel as though they aren't watching a film that is over 60 years old. The movie to me just seemed perfect. I'm not one to not seek out the flaws of a particular picture, and I honestly couldn't find anything wrong with Double Indemnity. Everything from the engaging story line, to the entertaining and memorable performances, to the interesting techniques that the filmmakers used to give it that classic film noir look, made Double Indemnity a treat to experience. It is so infrequent that an older film comes along and makes me think to myself, "Wow. If this movie came out today, it would be just as entertaining, engaging, and well made as any of the best films of the year." Very few movies, in my opinion break away and refuse to be restricted by their times and become motion picture classics, but Double Indemnity is without a doubt one of these cases.

The film's story line is what really intrigued me. Right from the start, when Walter Neff is first shown driving hysterically down the street and then shown getting out, revealing that he is injured, I felt like I was seeing something groundbreaking for its time. The way that the film immediately plunges us into the story and forces us to know bits of information before the real story begins was very successful. I couldn't help but think that many of the non-linear story lines of contemporary cinema had to have been influenced by movies such as this. Although I stated above that the film was relatively slower-paced in terms of external action, I really don't think there was a dull moment of the movie. This was to me a perfect example of a movie without any "fat" on it. Every scene and every line of dialogue contributed to and built up the film's suspense. After watching the film I couldn't help but think that the story was simply a great idea. Walter Neff (whom I now consider to be one of the most interesting heroes I've ever seen in a movie) drove the internal and external action of the plot. The actor's voice, which reminded me so much of the Humphrey Bogart-like characters of these types of films, was, for lack of a better word, perfect. His dark and gritty, yet suave and clever tone made me honestly want that man's voice. I'm sorry but I couldn't get the way he continued to say "baby" out of my head. It was both hilarious and interesting at the same time. I've never heard of Fred MacMurray before watching this and it really made me want to see more films of his. It's things like that that really make me realize how much I truly loved Double Indemnity. I never watch older films and am like, "Man I really want to see what else that actor has done."

In regards to the look of the film, the word "perfect" keeps coming to mind. Double Indemnity was so good that the black and white film seemed like it was strictly a stylistic choice rather than a necessity. The lighting of the film was worth noting as well. Talk about strong parallels to German Expressionist films such as Caligari and Nosferatu. The areas of light and shadow seemed to not only make individual frames interesting but also created an overall mood of the film, something that seemed to fit just right. Nearly every scene contained the shadows of blinds, as they projected thick black lines across the bodies of the characters. This, as stated in the reading, perfectly symbolized the ultimate fate of the main protagonist. A group of scenes that stand out to me are the scenes in the grocery store. I loved the repeated use of the same location. To me, it not only made the audience connect to the environment and realize what the nature of the particular scene was before it played out, but it also contributed to the very surreal world that the filmmakers created. There was something weird going on with the universal-ness of the store and yet the strangeness of both the mise en scene and the composition of the camera angles.

I watched a behind the scenes feature of Christopher Nolan's film Memento where the director made a point of addressing Double Indemnity. After seeing Double Indemnity I couldn't help but see the connections between the films in both style and content. Both films had similarly flawed protagonists and were relatively the same in their stories and outcomes. Nolan stated that he went for a similar look for his film as that of Double Indemnity. Nolan particularly addressed the fact that Double Indemnity focused on and built up that look of an everyday setting. There was nothing about it that made it seem restricted to a particular time or place. While watching the movie, you feel as though this could happen anywhere and at any time.

To me, Double Indemnity was a treat to watch. It wasn't just something that I was greatly entertained by. I also greatly appreciated the picture. In many ways it impacted and inspired me, teaching me how truly "perfect" a film can be in both style and story line. I can honestly say the Double Indemnity is one of my favorite films that I've watched since coming to school. I am genuinely thankful for being given the opportunity to see this classic.

White Zombie is Surprisingly Entertaining

First off I just want to say that I really enjoyed this film. I just finished watching it for the second time and I think what intrigues me most about the movie is its story. Yeah it’s a little corny. But interesting and entertaining nonetheless. While watching it I really felt like I was watching a piece of film history that many people have never experienced. It really reminded me of when I saw Todd Browning’s Freaks for the first time last semester. Anyway, there are two things that stuck out to me most the first time I watched the film so I decided to focus on them while watching it the second time around. I found myself being intrigued by the shots and techniques that the filmmakers used (specifically the use of eyes), but I also found myself being interested in the apparent historical undertones that are never fully addressed on the surface.
Like I said, the first thing that struck me about the film and really made me like it was the story. To me, the concept is clever. A man falls in love with a woman and is willing to turn her into a zombie in order to have her all for himself. The idea seems original, especially since there are so many horror films that follow the same cookie cutter patterns. In terms of filmmaking, to me, White Zombie is unique and developed in its style. The film is relatively well shot, with interesting compositions and framings that make particular images stand out (the cross framing around Lugosi as he walks down the stairs which is later repeated when Madeline walks). Also, the eyes that are frequently superimposed on the screen, although somewhat corny, provide not only foreshadowing but also symbolism for what is both on and beneath the surface. Despite these positive examples of the film’s style and production, there are so many moments that are characteristic of amateur filmmaking. Even though the film was made on a low budget, I really don’t feel like that should be an excuse for the frequent jump cuts, continuity errors, and at some points, downright silliness. Why the hell was the sound effect for the vulture clearly a person screaming in pain? Although I said that I liked the film, I’m actually a bit torn. I just don’t understand why it couldn’t have been made a little bit more professionally.
As far as looking at this film in terms of political and historical undertones, there are so many things to consider. While watching White Zombie the first time I felt like it was clear that Bela Lugosi’s character symbolized U.S. involvement and control over Haiti in the early 1900’s. Legendre’s power and control over the “zombies”, who are obviously representative of slaves being forced to do labor, is shown as being unethical and ultimately evil. The filmmakers repeatedly use a superimposed shot of Legendre’s eyes. At first glance, this technique may seem a little bit jokey but it is cleverly used to show Legendre’s physical and psychological control over the other characters. If we are looking at this from a historical perspective, this particular image could very well symbolize America’s watchful eye and control over various parts of the world. Another interesting thing about White Zombie, if we are looking at it in this particular way, is that there is really no character that is “good” in the film. Every character is white, upper class, and either American or European. In a way, if the filmmakers did have these historical undertones in mind, I find their motives to be questionable.
Overall, whether we look at White Zombie for its technical aspects or we wonder whether there is a connection or possible critique of American and European colonialism, it is without a doubt a unique film. I personally enjoyed it very much and am not completely sure of all the reasons why. But to me, setting aside the film’s silliness and at some times very amateur production, I feel like White Zombie should be viewed not only for its significance in film history but also because it is surprisingly entertaining.

My Man Godfrey is both lovable and pointless

My Man Godfrey was an incredibly stupid movie. I'm still not sure if I like it or not. I don't think I do. Now I have to say that the only other "screwball" comedy I've seen is Bringing Up Baby, which I didn't like at all. I am such a huge fan of comedies. And I love dialog. But there's something about this style that bothers me. I think what I don't like about them is the ridiculous portrayals of the wealthy and the incredibly dumb things that happen. I would much rather prefer that the film made some sense.

One thing that I really liked about the film (and the filmmaker's made it incredibly hard not to like) was Godfrey. Now I know there has been a lot of talk about how he doesn't seem to go through a lot of change throughout the film and that he appears flawless and for some reason that makes the movie not as good. But I disagree. I don't understand why a film can't have a character that is relatively set in his ways. Now I would agree to some extent that this makes the movie rather unbelievable and makes the character somewhat one dimensional but from what I've seen of Screwball comedies, it really doesn't seem like any rules have to be followed. With that being said, I would argue that Godfrey does go through some amount of change by the end of the film. Although he doesn't outwardly express it, except one moment when he calls the group of wealthy people a bunch of "empty headed nit wits", he clearly doesn't think much of the family. Although he's polite, he realizes that the daughters are incredibly spoiled and that every member of the family is completely immature and irresponsible. But by the end of the film, Godfrey sees that even though the family has flaws, he has benefitted and changed because of them. Godfrey states, "I learned patience from Mr. Bullock. I found Mrs. Bullock at all times, shall we say, amusing." He also tells Cornelia, "You taught me the fallacy of false pride. You taught me humility."

I didn't really like Irene's character because as much as I felt like there could be a character in a film that doesn't necessarily have to change, I felt like Irene should have. At the end of the film, Irene is still the same psychotic, immature, naive, and stupid girl that she was at the beginning of the film. I think that the movie would've been much more successful or at least have made the audience more emotionally connected if Irene's character "matured" in some ways.

One of the most interesting points that was brought up in the Screwball Capitalism article was when Gallagher mentioned Godfrey's class journey. I thought it was spot on when Gallagher pointed out that Godfrey went from upper to lower to middle class, covering all of the bases. This once again makes his character so appealing to everyone in the film as well as those watching the film. In a way, as Gallagher also writes, this makes the story seem like a fairy tale and Godfrey is the prince in disguise.

I noticed that My Man Godfrey was nominated for 6 academy awards in 1936 and among those that were nominated was lead actor William Powell. I find it interesting that these people were nominated for their performances because I don't think they would be recognized that much today. Especially with Powell's portrayal of Godfrey, I believe that the academy requires much more of a dramatic depth of character than what was delivered.

Although I love Godfrey's character and believe that he is very memorable, I feel like watching My Man Godfrey is kind of a waste of time. I know that when it came out it was supposed to suspend people from their harsh realities. But watching it now, it seems more like we're suspending ourselves from reality and experiencing something that is much more annoying and rather pointless.