Ziegfeld Girl (1941)

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Even though I am not a fan of this turkey, I decided to watch it again the other evening to see if it had improved.I remember so well, how disappointed and short-changed I had felt when I first saw this, about 50 years ago. Having seen and enjoyed THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, I was looking forward to seeing MGM provide some even more spectacular musical numbers for this supposed sequel.How wrong I was! I have never been impressed by the YOU STEPPED OUT OF A DREAM number, though I love Tony Martin's rendition of the song. He is referred to as a tenor by several people in this film, but he was actually a high baritone with a fabulous voice and was one of the great song stylists of the era.But Berkeley's staging of this number is so uninventive and the final, long-awaited pull-back, reveals one of the dullest sets ever built ( oh, that ugly staircase - come on MGM, surely you can do better than that?) it is a total let-down.On the plus side, Judy is bright and bursting with talent, Hedy looks her most divine and the supporting cast is full of old favourites (Eve Arden, Edward Everett Horton, Charles Winninger, Rose Hobart and a young but surprisingly good, Dan Dailey) with only the 20 year old Lana Turner totally out of her depth with the demanding role of a chorus girl sliding into alcoholism, prostitution and ruin.However, what really made me feel cheated 50 years ago - and still does today - was the cheapskate, cost-cutting rehash of the best musical numbers from the earlier THE GREAT ZIEGFELD (1936) standing in as the cut-price grand finale.When I first saw the film, I kept with it for over two hours because I felt sure MGM was surely saving the best until last, for an eye popping finale. I was not amused to then spot all the clips rehashed from the earlier film, to say nothing of the lame mix of new footage with Judy Garland dressed and bewigged to resemble Virginia Bruce, before dissolving to the original footage of the MELODY number, but with a new soundtrack using YOU STEPPED OUT OF A DREAM. Surely nobody was fooled back in 1941? As others have commented, maybe the money ran out or L B Mayer said that enough had been spent so corners must be cut. The other more likely explanation is that none of the production team - or Mr Berkeley - could come up with anything that could top the sheer amazing lavishness of the earlier "Pretty Girl is Like a Melody" number, so they resorted to this re-edited reprise instead.In fact, when one thinks about it, nobody else has ever come up with anything to top that incredible number, in the 80 years since it was filmed (at the then staggering cost of %250,000 - almost $5 million in today's money, for a number lasting just 15 minutes) So, what we get here are 132 minutes of soapy melodrama, a few good musical moments (mostly Judy's) and some over the top costumes. And by the way, I do not agree with other reviewers here that filming this in Technicolor would have improved matters.I doubt I shall ever sit through it all again.

Having previously watched this film in the early part of this century, I have to admit right away that when I just saw this again right now that I forgot much of what happened in it other than Judy Garland's numbers and her story as well as Lana Turner's. Both of them give fine performances about rising to fame in the Ziegfeld Follies while Hedy Lamarr was okay with what she did here though her story isn't given as much attention which was just as well. Top-billed Jimmy Stewart was also good as Ms. Turner's on-and-off boyfriend who ends up doing something illegal in order to be in the same social strata as her. Oh, and I loved that number Charles Winninger and Al Shean did near the end in which they did a song complete with funny jokes. Mr. Shean, by the way, was a relative of the Marx Brothers. So on that note, I highly recommend Ziegfeld Girl. P.S. The reason I reviewed this just now was because since I've been commenting on the Our Gang series-and individual films outside of that featuring at least one player from there-in chronological order, this was next on the list as Jackie Cooper here played Ms. Turner's brother and Judy's boyfriend. He did okay with what he had here. Oh, and Stewart joined the military after completing this. When he returned to Hollywood five years later, his next film would be my all-time favorite, It's a Wonderful Life...

I am a sucker for those all-star movies of classic Hollywood. Where the whole studio would appear in a single movie. A lot of times the talent is merely used to make a cameo appearance in the movie. I enjoy those appearances as well, but a movie that uses the talent effectively in great roles is really a gem of celluloid. One such movie that uses all of the stars in great roles is Ziegfeld Girl (1941).Set in the 1920s, the film tells the parallel stories of three women who become performers in the renowned Broadway show the Ziegfeld Follies. It was intended to be a 1938 sequel to the 1936 hit The Great Ziegfeld, and even recycled some footage from the earlier film - however the movie underwent many changes in its plot before it was released.The story here follows three young women who get into the Ziegfeld chorus line.Lana Turner is an elevator operator in a department store who is seen by the showman and hired by his right hand man (Edward Everett Horton). She is seeing a truck driver (Jimmy Stewart). Turner likes the more lucrative and glamorous lifestyle she is entering (especialy the relationship she picks up with wealthy Ian Hunter). Stewart gradually gets disgusted by the change in her, and turns to "easy, big money" of his own - working as a driver and lieutenant of a bootlegger.The second follows Hedy Lamarr, the wife of violinist Philip Dorn. Dorn has been struggling (with the help of friend Felix Bressart) to get into public notice as a great classical violinist. While accompanying him to an audition for a violinist at the New Amsterdam Theater, Lamarr is hired for the chorus. Dorn does not want his wife to be a possible sex object for lascivious males. When Hedy refuses to give up a good job, Dorn walks out on her (although he keeps an eye on her career and relationships, especially with the male singer star of the show Tony Martin).Finally we see Judy acting with her father Charles Winninger at a vaudeville theater in Harlem (this is about 1920 or so). He is "Pop" Gallagher, a tried-and-true old vaudeville comedian and song and dance man. Judy is hired also for the chorus (the one failure of the plot: Judy is still an adorable young woman like "Dorothy" in the Wizard Of Oz, but is outclassed by Turner and Lamarr or even fellow chorus girl Eve Arden as a statuesque looker), but we see her pushed onto Horton and show director Paul Kelly as a singer by Turner and Lamarr. But her singing is not how Winninger trained her, and he feels he has to let her go off on her own. Instead he meets an old friend, Al Shean (here playing himself), and they go off into the vaudeville hinterlands to perfect an act together.Judy Garland had the best numbers with the sentimental "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows" and the bouncy "Minnie From Trinidad", but Tony Martin nearly stole the show with his signature number "You Stepped Out Of A Dream". The story of the three Ziegfeld hopefuls was interesting and compelling. One of the girls gained fame being a Ziegfeld girl, one Ziegfeld girl decided that family was her best bet, and one Ziegfeld girl went down the wrong path to self-destruction. Everything about this movie I enjoyed, and it a shame that this film is not remembered more. Florence Ziegfeld sure could put on a show, and even a movie about him was no different...

There is little that I could add to most of these reviews in terms of judging the quality of the movie.However, a couple of minor points have been missed.For one thing, one reviewer, who compared Tony Martin unfavorably to Frank S. and Dick Haymes, is comparing apples to oranges. Tony Martin was a relic of the 1930s in his classical singing style; it was already becoming obsolete by the time this movie was completed. By contrast, Frank and Dick Haymes were crooners—a very different kind of singing.Several reviewers have expressed a desire to see this movie in color, because of the dazzling costumes. The thing to remember is that we're seeing the film today on very different film than what it was originally printed on. Nitrate stock—the film that was used in 1941— showed blacks that were really black, and whites that were bright white, not shades of gray. This would have produced a very different visual experience for the audiences of 1941. For those viewers, the costumes, rather than merely appearing beautiful, would have been blindingly spectacular.It is unfortunate that the original nitrate prints have almost certainly disappeared forever.