"High Society" is a pretty enjoyable movie even though I don't think it really pulls off everything it tries to accomplish. If you told me there's a movie that has the same basic characters and situations from the hilarious "Philadelphia Story" set to music by the incomparable Cole Porter and featuring the talents of people like Frank Sinatra, Celeste Holm and Louis Armstrong, I would expect a more memorable film than this one. Now, that's not to say that I was constantly comparing the film to the original because that would be unfair, and frankly I've only seen it once quite a few years ago. I feel that even taken on its own terms though the film is disappointing, though not really horrible. The only really exceptional part of the film is anything with music, particularly the too-brief scenes with Louis Armstrong (who plays himself; the film seems to be designed to associate itself with the hip Newport Jazz Festival).
So, IMHO Porter's music is the star of the show, especially the classic patter-style duet between Bing Crosby and Sinatra. I was surprised upon seeing the documentary on the DVD that "True Love" was the big hit of the show because for me it was the low point musically. But then you never can account for popular tastes. Anyway I found the chemistry between Crosby and Grace Kelly unconvincing. Crosby is supposed to seem laconic and relaxed but he just looks tired to me, as if he's not really putting in any effort. Sinatra on the other hand was a bit more fun and more believable in his role, and I greatly enjoyed seeing Celeste Holm in a tailor-made part for the great lady of Broadway. Unfortunately I detected no more traces of chemistry between Holm and Sinatra than the other pair. I guess I thought Holm would end up with Louis Calhern's amusing character.
Probably the film's greatest weakness is Grace Kelly's flat performance. I've never liked her in any film except the few she did with Hitchcock. Watch her in "The Swan" for example if you want to see exactly the same annoying performance that she gave in this film. And yes, I'm aware that the character is supposed to be annoying, but she should be endearingly annoying. She managed to accomplish that in "To Catch a Thief", so I believe much of the blame for her performance lies with Charles Walters, who probably needed to make her feel less comfortable around the set. You can also see it in Crosby's weak performance they both look more like they are on vacation than at work. I think in the absence of strong direction these actors reverted to their usual devices. In Kelly's case that's a very limited collection of facial expressions and so forth that quickly grow tiresome. It's the one area of the film I can't help but compare with the original because Hepburn was so much More exciting and unpredictable on screen and that was basically what made this arrogant character bearable. Kelly is perfectly believable as a high society brat; it's not a case of poor casting but rather failure to tap into the humanity and charm of the character.
This unhinges the entire film IMHO because I just can't see why Crosby and Sinatra's characters find her so appealing. When the music stops, the film loses its luster. A big deal is made of creating situational comedy when Kelly claims Calhern is her father but then it's simply dismissed in the "bachelor party" scene without mining the situation fully for laughs. Her fiancé is made out to be a total jerk but we never get to see anyone get even with him, there's no payoff. A lot of things just feel obligatory and the entire story feels disjointed.
It's possible I suppose to make a superior musical film within the framework of a poorly-handled story, for example "Hit the Deck." But despite Porter's great tunes and the presence of many musical stars, this one never took flight for me because we're stuck with a leading man who can't dance and a leading lady who can't sing OR dance. Consequently there are too many ballads and not enough hot tunes to balance it out no matter how hard the mighty Satchmo tries. If this film had featured better leads than Crosby and Kelly and better direction it could have been incredible instead of merely pleasant.
So, IMHO Porter's music is the star of the show, especially the classic patter-style duet between Bing Crosby and Sinatra. I was surprised upon seeing the documentary on the DVD that "True Love" was the big hit of the show because for me it was the low point musically. But then you never can account for popular tastes. Anyway I found the chemistry between Crosby and Grace Kelly unconvincing. Crosby is supposed to seem laconic and relaxed but he just looks tired to me, as if he's not really putting in any effort. Sinatra on the other hand was a bit more fun and more believable in his role, and I greatly enjoyed seeing Celeste Holm in a tailor-made part for the great lady of Broadway. Unfortunately I detected no more traces of chemistry between Holm and Sinatra than the other pair. I guess I thought Holm would end up with Louis Calhern's amusing character.
Probably the film's greatest weakness is Grace Kelly's flat performance. I've never liked her in any film except the few she did with Hitchcock. Watch her in "The Swan" for example if you want to see exactly the same annoying performance that she gave in this film. And yes, I'm aware that the character is supposed to be annoying, but she should be endearingly annoying. She managed to accomplish that in "To Catch a Thief", so I believe much of the blame for her performance lies with Charles Walters, who probably needed to make her feel less comfortable around the set. You can also see it in Crosby's weak performance they both look more like they are on vacation than at work. I think in the absence of strong direction these actors reverted to their usual devices. In Kelly's case that's a very limited collection of facial expressions and so forth that quickly grow tiresome. It's the one area of the film I can't help but compare with the original because Hepburn was so much More exciting and unpredictable on screen and that was basically what made this arrogant character bearable. Kelly is perfectly believable as a high society brat; it's not a case of poor casting but rather failure to tap into the humanity and charm of the character.
This unhinges the entire film IMHO because I just can't see why Crosby and Sinatra's characters find her so appealing. When the music stops, the film loses its luster. A big deal is made of creating situational comedy when Kelly claims Calhern is her father but then it's simply dismissed in the "bachelor party" scene without mining the situation fully for laughs. Her fiancé is made out to be a total jerk but we never get to see anyone get even with him, there's no payoff. A lot of things just feel obligatory and the entire story feels disjointed.
It's possible I suppose to make a superior musical film within the framework of a poorly-handled story, for example "Hit the Deck." But despite Porter's great tunes and the presence of many musical stars, this one never took flight for me because we're stuck with a leading man who can't dance and a leading lady who can't sing OR dance. Consequently there are too many ballads and not enough hot tunes to balance it out no matter how hard the mighty Satchmo tries. If this film had featured better leads than Crosby and Kelly and better direction it could have been incredible instead of merely pleasant.