"Lady in the Dark" is a curiosity. The circus sequence with "The Saga of Jenny" gives a taste of what the movie version of the Broadway show might have been like (as other commentators have noted, the song is the sole survivor of the Broadway score by Weill and Gershwin, aside from snatches of "My Ship" and "Suddenly it's Spring", and a verse from "Once Life to Life" which Ginger Rogers recites). Ginger is a knockout, even in her "plain" business suits. The visual design is so rich you could swim in it- it was lovely to see the 40s magazine design as well as the sets. And the costumes! The sequin lined mink skirt is stunning, and so is the gown in the wedding sequence. The psychoanalysis storyline is well handled for a movie made in this period when analysis was strange and frightening to the audience. However, what could have been an exquisite soufflé is let down by the bizarre decision to cut all but one of the numbers and the development of the plot. It suggests that women are miserable in business suits and are far happier wearing frou frou gowns and being "dominated" by men (its terminology, not mine). I will say in the plot's defense (if I may take Ray Milland's part in the circus sequence for a moment) that it doesn't have Ginger pairing off with irresistible but insecure movie star Randy Curtis. When she announced that she was going to marry him and give up her job I yelled out, "You'll be sorry!" The writers recognize that Randy and staying home to be a housewife (even a Hollywood one) would bore Ginger's character out of her tree. Her sparring colleague is a far better choice, and there's a hint in the final that perhaps neither Ray or Ginger will dominate the other, but be partners in running the magazine (they're both overwhelmed with enthusiasm for it). But this hint of equality isn't enough to redeem Ray's earlier nastiness to Ginger, or the tone of misogyny. The movie still comes down with a thud, like Ginger at the end when Ray takes her chair.
25 Reviews
But the pearls and such, they don't mean much...
laddie511 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Onstage, "Lady in the Dark" was the most groundbreaking musical of the 1940s. It was structured as a straight play about Liza Elliot, a serious, austere fashion editor who begins cracking up on the job. In sessions with her psychoanalyst, she recalls three dreams -- in which the serious drama bursts into lavish complex musical numbers featuring Liza as a singer/dancer who is the epitome of musical comedy glamour (so much so that Vincente Minnelli and Judy Garland named their daughter after this part).
On Broadway, Gertrude Lawrence used her crisp English accent and homely appearance to sketch out the editor, and her personal magnetism and wobbly soprano to put over the dreamer. This role should have been a snap for Ginger Rogers, who had not only proved herself the most talented woman performer in musicals of the 30's (including another psychoanalytical musical, "Carefree"), but also won an Oscar as a straight dramatic actress. And so she snapped it up, putting a clause in her contract with Paramount that the musical be bought for her. A much warmer, more attractive performer than Gertrude Lawrence, she could and should have had a triumph in this part.
As the saying goes: sadly, no.
First Rogers fell afoul of Paramount studio chief Buddy deSylva, a minor songwriter and crude vulgarian, who felt "forced" to produce the movie. DeSylva also hated the show's composer Kurt Weill and, perhaps in retaliation toward both Rogers and Weill, gutted virtually the entire score and thus the heart of the show. Director Mitchell Leisen, a rather nasty and self-loathing character, got off on the wrong foot with Rogers even before shooting. Leisen, who Billy Wilder called "a window dresser," looked down his nose at Rogers, pumped up the script's hatred of women, and put his energy into mink, sequins, gaudy hats, dry ice, and lots and lots of boys in tights.
And so one of Broadway's finest musicals became a gaudy Technicolor fashion parade interspersed with scenes of unbelievably unpleasant misogyny. With virtually no musical numbers to perform (including "My Ship," the song which holds the key to Liza's subconscious), and with a director who disrespected and humiliated her on the set, Rogers didn't stand a chance. Despite her skill and effectiveness in some moments, she comes off as cold and hard in the dramatic scenes and garishly overemphatic in the dreams. Meanwhile, her character endures two hours worth of condescension and hostility. On first viewing it's hard to even look at her fierce and unhappy performance, though if you can stand to watch the movie a few times, her work actually begins to look like a triumph against the odds.
As Martin Scorcese (a fan of this film) points out, the climax comes in the one musical number to survive intact from Broadway. The band strikes up "The Saga of Jenny," and Rogers opens up her skirt to reveal the most gorgeous pair of legs in movie history. As she shimmies her hips a couple of times, we get a taste of the audacity and exhilaration this show should be about. However, the famous jewel-encrusted mink skirt (designed by Leisen, of course) weighed 35 pounds and Rogers had to hold it up through the entire number; meanwhile, her high heels kept getting stuck in the hemp rug he laid down. She still manages to pull it off, but just barely. In a Lux Radio broadcast of "Lady" a year later, she also performed a sweet and delicate reprise of "My Ship." Her original, performed a capella in counterpoint to "Ain't She Sweet," and then hacked out of the movie by deSylva, is presumably decomposing in a Paramount vault somewhere in Hollywood. Ginger Rogers' career lasted another 40 years or so, but if you love her like I do, you have to deeply regret this movie -- the greatest and most unhappily lost opportunity of her career.
On Broadway, Gertrude Lawrence used her crisp English accent and homely appearance to sketch out the editor, and her personal magnetism and wobbly soprano to put over the dreamer. This role should have been a snap for Ginger Rogers, who had not only proved herself the most talented woman performer in musicals of the 30's (including another psychoanalytical musical, "Carefree"), but also won an Oscar as a straight dramatic actress. And so she snapped it up, putting a clause in her contract with Paramount that the musical be bought for her. A much warmer, more attractive performer than Gertrude Lawrence, she could and should have had a triumph in this part.
As the saying goes: sadly, no.
First Rogers fell afoul of Paramount studio chief Buddy deSylva, a minor songwriter and crude vulgarian, who felt "forced" to produce the movie. DeSylva also hated the show's composer Kurt Weill and, perhaps in retaliation toward both Rogers and Weill, gutted virtually the entire score and thus the heart of the show. Director Mitchell Leisen, a rather nasty and self-loathing character, got off on the wrong foot with Rogers even before shooting. Leisen, who Billy Wilder called "a window dresser," looked down his nose at Rogers, pumped up the script's hatred of women, and put his energy into mink, sequins, gaudy hats, dry ice, and lots and lots of boys in tights.
And so one of Broadway's finest musicals became a gaudy Technicolor fashion parade interspersed with scenes of unbelievably unpleasant misogyny. With virtually no musical numbers to perform (including "My Ship," the song which holds the key to Liza's subconscious), and with a director who disrespected and humiliated her on the set, Rogers didn't stand a chance. Despite her skill and effectiveness in some moments, she comes off as cold and hard in the dramatic scenes and garishly overemphatic in the dreams. Meanwhile, her character endures two hours worth of condescension and hostility. On first viewing it's hard to even look at her fierce and unhappy performance, though if you can stand to watch the movie a few times, her work actually begins to look like a triumph against the odds.
As Martin Scorcese (a fan of this film) points out, the climax comes in the one musical number to survive intact from Broadway. The band strikes up "The Saga of Jenny," and Rogers opens up her skirt to reveal the most gorgeous pair of legs in movie history. As she shimmies her hips a couple of times, we get a taste of the audacity and exhilaration this show should be about. However, the famous jewel-encrusted mink skirt (designed by Leisen, of course) weighed 35 pounds and Rogers had to hold it up through the entire number; meanwhile, her high heels kept getting stuck in the hemp rug he laid down. She still manages to pull it off, but just barely. In a Lux Radio broadcast of "Lady" a year later, she also performed a sweet and delicate reprise of "My Ship." Her original, performed a capella in counterpoint to "Ain't She Sweet," and then hacked out of the movie by deSylva, is presumably decomposing in a Paramount vault somewhere in Hollywood. Ginger Rogers' career lasted another 40 years or so, but if you love her like I do, you have to deeply regret this movie -- the greatest and most unhappily lost opportunity of her career.
Lavish and worth watching...but sadly dated....
radodge30 September 2005
I like this movie. It is confusing and difficult, but you can't help but like it. Ginger Rogers plays a fashion magazine editor...and she finds herself having headaches and feeling dissatisfied. This makes no sense, as she has an exceptional job (especially for 1940) three suitors, and conscious and unconscious lives that are fabulously costumed. She goes to her doctor who recommends a psychiatrist...a drastic move for the time...which she promptly declines...but then does finally go to. Ginger undergoes a great deal of stress in this film,and keeping a bottle of aspirin at hand might be wise. As she makes progress with her shrink...her dream sequences become more and more lavish. The film is beautifully costumed...even clothes left lying on a chair...are fabulous. And there are HATS. HATS. Hats... mousey through military...lots of hats...and FURS...Ginger has one dress with a floor length mink skirt...lined with gold and scarlet sequins, two or three fur coats, a muff, and several other dresses trimmed with fur. Pull the shades and make certain that no one from PETA is around when you run this film. The dream sequences are the real meat of this...they are very beautiful and very surreal. In the end, of course, Ginger selects one of the men (no, not the married one) and seems to be on the road to recovery. You get the feeling that a lot got left out...and I don't know what (yet). I know Danny Kaye was 'discovered' in the Broadway show...and that he had special material. Danny was under contract to Sam Goldwyn by the time this was made...so neither he nor any of his special material made the transition into this film. This film is a visual knock out...and a restored print should be made and hi-def DVD's struck...so we can watch this from time to time. It cannot help but remain dated and politically incorrect....that is the legacy of its 1940 dateline.. but it will certainly always be stunning to look at.
Psychiatry takes a front seat
blanche-222 August 2019
"Lady in the Dark" from 1944 is an adaptation of the Broadway musical of the same name, which starred Gertrude Lawrence and made a star out of Danny Kaye. Mischa Auer, Jon Hall, Ray Milland, and Gail Russell. Auer is in Kaye's role, and his show-stopping number, "Tchaikovsky" was cut.
Actually, the music in this version is incidental to the film. Ginger Rogers plays Liza, the editor of a fashion magazine. She sees a doctor because of headaches and inability to concentrate. He sends her to a psychiatrist (Barry Sullivan).
Psychology and psychiatry really hit their stride during World War II for obvious reasons. Though "Lady in the Dark" is dated in its views toward women, the unraveling of Liza's psyche through musical dreams is very entertaining.
Ginger Rogers is spectacular - a beautiful actress and dancer, she radiates light in her gorgeous gowns, which belie her normal non-dream office attire. She gives a touching performance of a conflicted, unhappy woman who can't embrace life but doesn't understand why.
Ray Milland is charming and funny as Charley, Liza's office nemesis, and Mischa Auer as the temperamental photographer is excellent. Jon Hall and Warner Baxter are very good, but their characters don't have the development of the other roles.
Probably the 1954 Lady in the Dark starring Ann Sothern is better and truer to the show. This Lady is worth seeing for Ginger.
Actually, the music in this version is incidental to the film. Ginger Rogers plays Liza, the editor of a fashion magazine. She sees a doctor because of headaches and inability to concentrate. He sends her to a psychiatrist (Barry Sullivan).
Psychology and psychiatry really hit their stride during World War II for obvious reasons. Though "Lady in the Dark" is dated in its views toward women, the unraveling of Liza's psyche through musical dreams is very entertaining.
Ginger Rogers is spectacular - a beautiful actress and dancer, she radiates light in her gorgeous gowns, which belie her normal non-dream office attire. She gives a touching performance of a conflicted, unhappy woman who can't embrace life but doesn't understand why.
Ray Milland is charming and funny as Charley, Liza's office nemesis, and Mischa Auer as the temperamental photographer is excellent. Jon Hall and Warner Baxter are very good, but their characters don't have the development of the other roles.
Probably the 1954 Lady in the Dark starring Ann Sothern is better and truer to the show. This Lady is worth seeing for Ginger.
Colourful Lady gets out of the dark?
allans-76 December 2008
I found this to be moderately enjoyable and much smoother than I was expecting, after reading of all the problems in making it and the cutting of musical numbers from the original score. Would love to see it as was originally intended (in a restored DVD version).
The psychoanalysis as it unfolds is interesting and makes sense, except to the point of the woman needing to be dominated by the man. I don't know if this was dictated by the culture of the time, but all that was really needed was for Liza to know she needed to give time to gaining fulfillment in a relationship (without the aspect of dominance) and not be so driven work wise (her substitute), and it would have come out without the nasty taste it leaves now (in regards to this aspect of the film).
Director Mitchell Leisen dealt with this sort of theme also (without the psychoanalysis) in Take a Letter Darling which was funnier and sharper, and without the need for the man to have to dominate the woman.
Some of the visual imagery in the dream sequences is a lot of fun and apparently a lot of care was put into their production.
As well the movie seems like it is a 50s product but that could just be the colour.
The psychoanalysis as it unfolds is interesting and makes sense, except to the point of the woman needing to be dominated by the man. I don't know if this was dictated by the culture of the time, but all that was really needed was for Liza to know she needed to give time to gaining fulfillment in a relationship (without the aspect of dominance) and not be so driven work wise (her substitute), and it would have come out without the nasty taste it leaves now (in regards to this aspect of the film).
Director Mitchell Leisen dealt with this sort of theme also (without the psychoanalysis) in Take a Letter Darling which was funnier and sharper, and without the need for the man to have to dominate the woman.
Some of the visual imagery in the dream sequences is a lot of fun and apparently a lot of care was put into their production.
As well the movie seems like it is a 50s product but that could just be the colour.
Entertaining
AAdaSC1 February 2010
Liza (Ginger Rogers) is the editor of a magazine who can no longer make decisions. She suffers headaches because she is highly strung about work and she has a love life that she is not comfortable with. Through psychoanalysis with Dr Brooks (Barry Sullivan), she unravels her troubles by recounting 3 dream sequences. Can she regain her decisiveness?
This film is a bit girly in that it concerns one woman's journey to discover lost memories and understand her behaviours. It has great colour, good costumes and it's well acted with a spattering of humour throughout. The bulk of the film comes in the form of dream sequences which are musical, colourful and surreal. The 2nd sequence has a pointless dance scene which drags on a bit but overall the dreams are entertaining. The rest of the film follows the romances that Liza has alongside her role as a tough "boss lady". The film is fun and has a happy ending.
This film is a bit girly in that it concerns one woman's journey to discover lost memories and understand her behaviours. It has great colour, good costumes and it's well acted with a spattering of humour throughout. The bulk of the film comes in the form of dream sequences which are musical, colourful and surreal. The 2nd sequence has a pointless dance scene which drags on a bit but overall the dreams are entertaining. The rest of the film follows the romances that Liza has alongside her role as a tough "boss lady". The film is fun and has a happy ending.
Ginger's dreams become a misogynistic nightmare ...
AlsExGal24 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
... in spite of all of the talent involved. Directed by Mitchell Leisen over at Paramount, who, by now, certainly knew how to direct Ray Milland, who showed real chemistry with star Ginger Rogers if you have ever viewed "The Major and the Minor" from two years earlier, based on a story by Moss Hart, and even giving a minor role to Warner Baxter - what went wrong when so much talent produces something that lands with such a thud? Part of it, I am sure, are the changing times. Ginger plays Liza Elliott, the editor of fashion magazine "Allure", dresses in rather mannish dresses, and keeps all men at arm's length except Kendell Nesbitt (Warner Baxter), with whom she claims to be in love. She goes to her physician saying for some reason she has become a nervous wreck, just certain that disaster is upon her. The doctor refers her to a psychiatrist, the idea of which at first she rejects. But then she has another hallucination and changes her mind. The psychiatrist, Dr. Brooks (Barry Sullivan) is really very demanding, claiming he KNOWS the meaning of Liza's dreams and problems before she is barely through telling them to him. The end lesson, with which Liza heartily agrees, is that she doesn't really love Kendall - he was just safe because he was tame as a kitten, reminded her of her dad, and was technically taken with an estranged wife who would not give him a divorce. What she needs is to be dominated by a man! The kind of man who would talk about her behind her back, embarrass her in public, and try to take her job, trying to justify his actions by claiming that a woman editor "flies in the face of nature" - in short, a real heel, Charley Johnson (Ray Milland). So it turns out that every Virginia Slims girl is just looking for the Marlboro Man according to this film.
Well, if I am going to watch the films of 1944, I had better be prepared to deal with the values of 1944. I think what made the movie a difficult slog for me were all of the elaborate yet dull tableaux numbers with completely untuneful songs and the extended dream sequences. They were meant to explain Liza's predicament from her point of view, but I just found myself staring at my watch and getting restless.
This whole film is just a case of reverse synergy. And one more thing. I do wish Liza had sprung up off of her analyst's couch and said "I get it doctor! The reason I am avoiding long term commitments with men and dressing in drab clothes is ...I am gay!" And then ran out of the room. Not in 1944. Not with Joe Breen as head censor.
I'd say if you are a film history buff it is probably worth it just to say you've seen it, to be able to cite an example of a film that should have worked and failed. For the viewer just wanting to be entertained, I'd look elsewhere.
Well, if I am going to watch the films of 1944, I had better be prepared to deal with the values of 1944. I think what made the movie a difficult slog for me were all of the elaborate yet dull tableaux numbers with completely untuneful songs and the extended dream sequences. They were meant to explain Liza's predicament from her point of view, but I just found myself staring at my watch and getting restless.
This whole film is just a case of reverse synergy. And one more thing. I do wish Liza had sprung up off of her analyst's couch and said "I get it doctor! The reason I am avoiding long term commitments with men and dressing in drab clothes is ...I am gay!" And then ran out of the room. Not in 1944. Not with Joe Breen as head censor.
I'd say if you are a film history buff it is probably worth it just to say you've seen it, to be able to cite an example of a film that should have worked and failed. For the viewer just wanting to be entertained, I'd look elsewhere.
Interesting failure
vert00130 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
LADY IN THE DARK is the odd case of a major hit which did no good for the careers of anyone involved, and does not seem to have been remembered with fondness by any of its participants. There's a fine line between a flawed masterpiece and an interesting failure, and LITD seems a perfect example of the latter. It's from a successful, indeed, revolutionary stage production, had a massive budget and oodles of talent behind it, and is undeniably successful in certain respects (costuming and set design in particular). So who messed up? No doubt a lot of people, but my vote goes to producer Buddy DaSylva as the chief culprit.
The root problem is that DaSylva had no interest in the project and didn't want to do it. Most disastrously, he hated Kurt Weill's music and cut out most of it. In losing the key song 'My Ship', this reached the level of idiocy. Director Mitchell Leisen doesn't seem to have been particularly interested in the project either, and though he wrote the screen adaptation himself (unfortunately emphasizing the strong Freudian aspects, in retrospect a very bad idea), Leisen clearly concerned himself more with those set designs and the costuming than he did with the actors. He directed more than his share of fine movies, but one suspects that he did so with more enthusiasm than he ever gave LADY IN THE DARK.
Ginger Rogers did want to do the movie. As a matter of fact, she insisted on it before signing a three picture contract with Paramount. She wasn't the most obvious choice to play Liza Elliott, but I'm not sure that anyone in Hollywood at the time was more obvious. Judy Garland was still pretty young for the role, and only Irene Dunne comes to mind as a serious alternative. I'm not sure that I can picture Irene doing 'Song of Jennie', and since that is the most successful scene in the picture I'm not sure that I can really see Irene in the role. Having no box office pull, and from what I've seen of her in a couple of small parts back in the thirties no real camera presence, Gertrude Lawrence, the originator of the stage role, was never a serious possibility.
The movie's strong points: A pretty good presentation of a woman suffering from depression; imaginative sets for the magazine office; sparkling Technicolor; lavish costumes, especially the famous dress for the Jennie number; a complete success in presenting the 'Song of Jennie', the idea of the youthful Liza watching herself being brought to trial in a cage being a particularly nice trope that couldn't have been duplicated on stage.
The movie's weak points: A misogynistic theme derived largely from Freudian psychology (author Moss Hart had recently gone through psychoanalysis himself before writing the play) which Leisen unwisely emphasized; the removal of most of the original music and radical reduction of two of the three dream sequences, which leaves the movie thematically hollow; the completely ridiculous decision to excise the song 'My Ship', which must have left any audience paying close attention utterly bewildered; miserable direction of a dance that was buried in dry ice and visual obstructions; and a general vulgarity that permeated the entire film.
As for performances, Ray Milland has no chance his character is so obnoxious, but as it's Liza Elliott's show all the way this hardly matters. Ginger Rogers is tight and buttoned down, which is in character for Liza but out of character for Ginger. Stage productions generally give Liza the chance to blossom during the dream sequences; in the movie's first two dreams, Liza is presented as a gargoyle, which may be a contrast to her real life depression but not the right kind of contrast. No doubt it's not a coincidence that the one dream that stays close to the original (Song of Jennie) is the most successful scene in the picture. I also think that Rogers nails it in the scenes of Liza's youth. This is where the crucial song 'My Ship' was cut. You can hear Rogers singing it in a radio version of LITD where she keeps her voice in its youthful character rather than singing all-out as most, if not all, other Lizas do. It's strikingly effective and would have helped the movie immensely.
Truth to tell, Mitchell Leisen's career had peaked once Wilder and Brackett stopped writing his scripts. Various circumstances meant that Ginger Rogers' film career was also within shouting distance of a gradual descent. LADY IN THE DARK didn't delay either process.
The root problem is that DaSylva had no interest in the project and didn't want to do it. Most disastrously, he hated Kurt Weill's music and cut out most of it. In losing the key song 'My Ship', this reached the level of idiocy. Director Mitchell Leisen doesn't seem to have been particularly interested in the project either, and though he wrote the screen adaptation himself (unfortunately emphasizing the strong Freudian aspects, in retrospect a very bad idea), Leisen clearly concerned himself more with those set designs and the costuming than he did with the actors. He directed more than his share of fine movies, but one suspects that he did so with more enthusiasm than he ever gave LADY IN THE DARK.
Ginger Rogers did want to do the movie. As a matter of fact, she insisted on it before signing a three picture contract with Paramount. She wasn't the most obvious choice to play Liza Elliott, but I'm not sure that anyone in Hollywood at the time was more obvious. Judy Garland was still pretty young for the role, and only Irene Dunne comes to mind as a serious alternative. I'm not sure that I can picture Irene doing 'Song of Jennie', and since that is the most successful scene in the picture I'm not sure that I can really see Irene in the role. Having no box office pull, and from what I've seen of her in a couple of small parts back in the thirties no real camera presence, Gertrude Lawrence, the originator of the stage role, was never a serious possibility.
The movie's strong points: A pretty good presentation of a woman suffering from depression; imaginative sets for the magazine office; sparkling Technicolor; lavish costumes, especially the famous dress for the Jennie number; a complete success in presenting the 'Song of Jennie', the idea of the youthful Liza watching herself being brought to trial in a cage being a particularly nice trope that couldn't have been duplicated on stage.
The movie's weak points: A misogynistic theme derived largely from Freudian psychology (author Moss Hart had recently gone through psychoanalysis himself before writing the play) which Leisen unwisely emphasized; the removal of most of the original music and radical reduction of two of the three dream sequences, which leaves the movie thematically hollow; the completely ridiculous decision to excise the song 'My Ship', which must have left any audience paying close attention utterly bewildered; miserable direction of a dance that was buried in dry ice and visual obstructions; and a general vulgarity that permeated the entire film.
As for performances, Ray Milland has no chance his character is so obnoxious, but as it's Liza Elliott's show all the way this hardly matters. Ginger Rogers is tight and buttoned down, which is in character for Liza but out of character for Ginger. Stage productions generally give Liza the chance to blossom during the dream sequences; in the movie's first two dreams, Liza is presented as a gargoyle, which may be a contrast to her real life depression but not the right kind of contrast. No doubt it's not a coincidence that the one dream that stays close to the original (Song of Jennie) is the most successful scene in the picture. I also think that Rogers nails it in the scenes of Liza's youth. This is where the crucial song 'My Ship' was cut. You can hear Rogers singing it in a radio version of LITD where she keeps her voice in its youthful character rather than singing all-out as most, if not all, other Lizas do. It's strikingly effective and would have helped the movie immensely.
Truth to tell, Mitchell Leisen's career had peaked once Wilder and Brackett stopped writing his scripts. Various circumstances meant that Ginger Rogers' film career was also within shouting distance of a gradual descent. LADY IN THE DARK didn't delay either process.
terrible!
standardmetal5 October 2002
A product of the times but still dreadful! Ginger looking rather mannish (get it?) until she finds a man. Almost all songs deleted except for "Jenny" ("My Ship" which is the crucial key to the solution of her problems was also inexplicably deleted.). Film composers were generally treated like dirt including Leonard Bernstein in "On the Town" with "improvements" by Roger Edens. But this one is the worst! Historically of some interest but still to be avoided.
Visually splendid, needs more dynamic storyline
lora6430 June 2002
I won't criticize much because I really like everything that Ginger Rogers does, yet somehow I get the feeling about this film, "there should have been more." At least I think more could have been done with the story.
Also, it brings to mind her later film, "It had to be You" which is a similar, comedic journey into the subconscious layers of the mind, obviously a popular topic of the day.
Ray Milland is in fine form here and I consider it one of his best roles.
The scenes are beautifully presented, very stagey at times with actors seemingly going through the motions, but the artistry of the settings and gowns is impeccable. All in all it's meant as light entertainment and ought to be viewed in that manner. Wish the video was available too.
Also, it brings to mind her later film, "It had to be You" which is a similar, comedic journey into the subconscious layers of the mind, obviously a popular topic of the day.
Ray Milland is in fine form here and I consider it one of his best roles.
The scenes are beautifully presented, very stagey at times with actors seemingly going through the motions, but the artistry of the settings and gowns is impeccable. All in all it's meant as light entertainment and ought to be viewed in that manner. Wish the video was available too.
Unfortunately, Ginger doesn't do much singing or dancing
psteier2 August 2000
A Technicolor spectacular, with costumes and wonderful sets to match, but the story isn't much, mostly what you might expect to read in Popular Psychoanalysis magazine.
Best are the dream and reverie sequences, especially the trial in the circus ring. These are where the singing and dancing is, but there is not much and what little there is is not very exciting.
Best are the dream and reverie sequences, especially the trial in the circus ring. These are where the singing and dancing is, but there is not much and what little there is is not very exciting.
Ginger in the dark, and Paramount, too.
marcslope31 July 2000
Great score mutilated, interesting stage libretto turned into an anti-feminist tract: It seems that our heroine, a successful and independent woman, needs a man to dominate her to be happy. (The stage version had the same basic story, but the rhetoric wasn't so vehemently misogynistic.) Ginger was more than a singer-dancer -- she could act, and had an Oscar to prove it -- but here her playing is dull and unimaginative. She, the art and costume and make-up departments, and the director seem concerned with two things only: the look of Ginger, and the look of the film. She looks fine, and the gaudy production design is a Technicolor riot, if not in the best of taste. The visual splendor makes the film worth seeing, but you'll have to tune a lot of nonsense out.
Ginger goes on a dream girl binger.
mark.waltz1 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
She's got glamour surrounding her with furs, jewels, the latest fashions, and all the available men at her beck and call. Yet, she's terribly unhappy, filled with self doubt, depression and on the verge of a breakdown due to nervous exhaustion. Even in dowdy suits that don't hide her loveliness, Ginger Rogers' Liza Elliott seems barely living, only going through the motions. Yet, she has a fantastic fantasy life, and with psycho analysis tries to make sense of it all.
Even before "Oklahoma!", this Broadway hit went to places in musical theater that most shows avoided. A smash hit for Gertrude Lawrence, it seems the perfect vehicle for any movie musical queen to take on. Who would it be? Judy at MGM? Alice at 20th? Rita at Columbia? The independently working Ginger Rogers got the key part, and does her best to instill it with every emotion known to mankind, er womankind, that is when she chooses to act like a typical mid 20th Century woman.
Perhaps the fact that this seems quite ahead of its time can be utilized as the reason for its awkwardness. It's certainly lovely to look at, but that one key ingredient, magic, is missing. The Kurt Weill/Ira Gershwin score seems to move in and out, played mostly over the fantasy sequences, and no more substantial than the humming in her head of the show's glorious ballad, "My Ship".
Surrounding Rogers are the wisecracking Ray Milland who refers to Rogers as "boss lady", Warner Baxter as her devoted suitor who bears more than a passing resemblance to her father, Jon Hall as a hunky movie star, and Mischa Auer as the very effeminate photographer whose statements about Hall are filled with obvious sexual innuendo.
There's so much to like, if not love, in this big colorful spectacle. This show, rarely revived, has been documented in the Gertrude Lawrence musical bio "Star!" (where Julie Andrews camped it up in an over-the- top "Jenny") and a profile featuring original cast member Danny Kaye and a seductive Lynn Redgrave on the PBS special "Musical Comedy Tonight". Hopefully, this will get a proper revival one day, but something tells me that its attitudes about women and careers are considered very dated.
Even before "Oklahoma!", this Broadway hit went to places in musical theater that most shows avoided. A smash hit for Gertrude Lawrence, it seems the perfect vehicle for any movie musical queen to take on. Who would it be? Judy at MGM? Alice at 20th? Rita at Columbia? The independently working Ginger Rogers got the key part, and does her best to instill it with every emotion known to mankind, er womankind, that is when she chooses to act like a typical mid 20th Century woman.
Perhaps the fact that this seems quite ahead of its time can be utilized as the reason for its awkwardness. It's certainly lovely to look at, but that one key ingredient, magic, is missing. The Kurt Weill/Ira Gershwin score seems to move in and out, played mostly over the fantasy sequences, and no more substantial than the humming in her head of the show's glorious ballad, "My Ship".
Surrounding Rogers are the wisecracking Ray Milland who refers to Rogers as "boss lady", Warner Baxter as her devoted suitor who bears more than a passing resemblance to her father, Jon Hall as a hunky movie star, and Mischa Auer as the very effeminate photographer whose statements about Hall are filled with obvious sexual innuendo.
There's so much to like, if not love, in this big colorful spectacle. This show, rarely revived, has been documented in the Gertrude Lawrence musical bio "Star!" (where Julie Andrews camped it up in an over-the- top "Jenny") and a profile featuring original cast member Danny Kaye and a seductive Lynn Redgrave on the PBS special "Musical Comedy Tonight". Hopefully, this will get a proper revival one day, but something tells me that its attitudes about women and careers are considered very dated.
What's bothering Liza?
bkoganbing26 February 2015
Even with 3 Oscar nominations Lady In The Dark was by all accounts a grave disappointment for the movie going public. For one thing the film did not retain Kurt Weill's and Ira Gershwin's score save for the two primary numbers My Ship and The Saga Of Jenny. But worse than that, Gertrude Lawrence was not brought to Hollywood to make the film. Lady In The Dark more than most was a personal star vehicle and rumor has it that that particular star was furious at being left out. Listen to her recordings of those two songs I mentioned and you'll agree with me. Ginger Rogers the star in the film was ruthlessly compared with Gertrude Lawrence and not for the better. Sad because Ginger does do a decent job in the part.
Lady In The Dark is about psychoanalysis and the subject is the lead character Liza Elliott successful career woman and editor of Allure Magazine. But she's in analysis now because of persistent headaches and recurring daydreams that the medical profession can't find a reason for. So she's on Dr. Barry Sullivan's couch for sessions while trying to put out her magazine.
Her problem seems to be the men in her life and they include assistant editor Ray Milland, publisher Warner Baxter who just can't quite break up his marriage for her, and visiting movie star Jon Hall. So Ginger Rogers like her role model Jenny takes the whole to finally make up her mind.
The strength of Lady In The Dark is the elaborate sets used for the various dream/fantasy sequences from the show. No surprise here because director Mitchell Leisen started out as a set designer. Art Direction was one of the nominations Lady In The Dark got as well as for musical scoring and color cinematography. It might have won one or two, but in 1944 Paramount was putting its big publicity guns out for Going My Way because the studio meal ticket Bing Crosby was the star.
Lady In The Dark is also a great example of the gay cinema in some very repressive years. Mischa Auer plays the flamboyant fashion photographer Russell Paxton in a role Danny Kaye originated on Broadway. See how Auer effervesces over the person of Jon Hall when his film star character comes to the offices. On Broadway Kaye had the song Tschaikowsky interpolated into the score for him. It was written by his wife Sylvia Fine. Auer doesn't do that, but in every other way he repeats Kaye's characterization with I'm sure a few touches of his own.
Fans of both Gertrude Lawrence and the music of Kurt Weill were disappointed then and still today.
Lady In The Dark is about psychoanalysis and the subject is the lead character Liza Elliott successful career woman and editor of Allure Magazine. But she's in analysis now because of persistent headaches and recurring daydreams that the medical profession can't find a reason for. So she's on Dr. Barry Sullivan's couch for sessions while trying to put out her magazine.
Her problem seems to be the men in her life and they include assistant editor Ray Milland, publisher Warner Baxter who just can't quite break up his marriage for her, and visiting movie star Jon Hall. So Ginger Rogers like her role model Jenny takes the whole to finally make up her mind.
The strength of Lady In The Dark is the elaborate sets used for the various dream/fantasy sequences from the show. No surprise here because director Mitchell Leisen started out as a set designer. Art Direction was one of the nominations Lady In The Dark got as well as for musical scoring and color cinematography. It might have won one or two, but in 1944 Paramount was putting its big publicity guns out for Going My Way because the studio meal ticket Bing Crosby was the star.
Lady In The Dark is also a great example of the gay cinema in some very repressive years. Mischa Auer plays the flamboyant fashion photographer Russell Paxton in a role Danny Kaye originated on Broadway. See how Auer effervesces over the person of Jon Hall when his film star character comes to the offices. On Broadway Kaye had the song Tschaikowsky interpolated into the score for him. It was written by his wife Sylvia Fine. Auer doesn't do that, but in every other way he repeats Kaye's characterization with I'm sure a few touches of his own.
Fans of both Gertrude Lawrence and the music of Kurt Weill were disappointed then and still today.
misogynistic horror!
claudecat5 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I was looking forward to seeing this film, because I had heard the wonderful Weill/Gershwin songs from the Broadway version. Much to my dismay, all but one-and-a-half of the songs were cut, and the storyline is one of the top-ten most sexist I have ever seen on the screen. I'm very surprised that only one other reviewer commented on that aspect of it! Ginger plays a publishing executive who [THIS IS PROBABLY A SPOILER BUT I MUST WRITE IT] "needs" to learn that she should dress up prettier (though her costumes are by Edith Head!), and let a man take over her business, otherwise she'll continue on her downward spiral toward insanity. Seriously. Ray Milland plays a jerk of the first water; I have never forgiven him. I was glad to hear from another reviewer that the Broadway show isn't this bad, but the movie should be avoided if this sort of thing upsets you at all. If you can laugh about it, you might enjoy the colors, the wacky 40's sets, and the foolish scenes where Ginger visits her idiot of a psychiatrist.
A Repulsive Film
richardchatten27 November 2016
For just three minutes towards the end of this overproduced travesty of Moss Hart's 1941 Broadway hit we finally get a hint of what might have been, when Ginger Rogers (a coarse substitute for Gertrude Lawrence, who declined to submit to the indignity of testing for the part) is finally allowed to sing a song from Kurt Weill & Ira Gershwin's acclaimed score - the magnificent 'Saga of Jenny' - the only song from the original production to make it into the film. (The flashbacks to her childhood and youth that follow actually manage to be quite touching.)
At $2.6million the most expensive film yet made by Paramount, at the box office the studio received a handsome return on its investment. But the hectoring misogyny that makes this film almost unwatchable today is probably just one reason that nobody has ever bothered to do a decent restoration of the film, so we really don't get the full benefit of the Oscar-nominated Technicolor photography and art direction that wowed critics and audiences back in 1944.
Ray Milland is excruciatingly misused as a charmless boor who Ginger is required by the script eventually to fall into the arms of (Cary Grant might just have pulled it off), and her rejection of Warner Baxter and Jon Hall for being insufficiently Alpha is just another twist of the knife of the already unpleasant sexual politics of this piece. (Ginger, by the way, actually looks pretty cool to my eyes in her 'unattractive' mannish suits.)
But at least we don't get Danny Kaye's mugging from the Broadway original as the camp fashion photographer Russell Paxton (Mischa Auer is a far more agreeable substitute), and are spared his 'hilarious' patter song 'Tschaikowsky (and Other Russians)'.
Mary Phillips does her best in an underwritten part (as indeed are most of them). Edward Fielding, by the way, who plays Ginger's physician in the opening sequence, also appeared uncredited as Dr. Edwardes in the dream sequence of Hitchcock's 'Spellbound' (1945), Hollywood's other high profile exercise in cod psychology from this era.
At $2.6million the most expensive film yet made by Paramount, at the box office the studio received a handsome return on its investment. But the hectoring misogyny that makes this film almost unwatchable today is probably just one reason that nobody has ever bothered to do a decent restoration of the film, so we really don't get the full benefit of the Oscar-nominated Technicolor photography and art direction that wowed critics and audiences back in 1944.
Ray Milland is excruciatingly misused as a charmless boor who Ginger is required by the script eventually to fall into the arms of (Cary Grant might just have pulled it off), and her rejection of Warner Baxter and Jon Hall for being insufficiently Alpha is just another twist of the knife of the already unpleasant sexual politics of this piece. (Ginger, by the way, actually looks pretty cool to my eyes in her 'unattractive' mannish suits.)
But at least we don't get Danny Kaye's mugging from the Broadway original as the camp fashion photographer Russell Paxton (Mischa Auer is a far more agreeable substitute), and are spared his 'hilarious' patter song 'Tschaikowsky (and Other Russians)'.
Mary Phillips does her best in an underwritten part (as indeed are most of them). Edward Fielding, by the way, who plays Ginger's physician in the opening sequence, also appeared uncredited as Dr. Edwardes in the dream sequence of Hitchcock's 'Spellbound' (1945), Hollywood's other high profile exercise in cod psychology from this era.
Not quite up to the Broadway show, but a film worth seeing
FISHCAKE2 June 1999
About the only Kurt Weill-Ira Gershwin song included from the Broadway show about a lady advertising executive undergoing psychoanalysis is "The Saga of Jenny", but that is almost enough. Just why this film version appears lost to Television and Video viewers is a puzzle to me as well as a great pity. It was a great vehicle for Ginger Rogers, and as a story, both thoughtful and entertaining. Remember the line from the song, something like this: "Jenny made her mind up when she was twelve, that into foreign languages she would delve. But at seventeen at Vassar, it was quite a blow. In twenty-seven languages, she couldn't say no!" What a song!
"She shouldn't be top man...it isn't in her nature...."
planktonrules8 February 2021
"Lady in the Dark" is a film which Paramount spent a ton of money making. The costumes in the dream sequences are lavish and the IMDB trivia section has some astounding information about how free-spending the studio was with this movie. Sadly, at least for me, I think the money was wasted, as these fancy and ultra-expensive dream sequences were simply awful.
The story is about a workaholic career girl (Ginger Rogers) who is having lots of physical complaints. But her doctor assures her the pains are not physical but psychological, so he refers her to an psychoanalyst. During these sessions, she free associates and talks about her very lavish dreams. But what the movie seems to really be saying is that a career woman really needs to be a woman first...and career girl second...if at all!
This movie stars a rather amazing cast...Ginger Rogers, Ray Milland, Barry Sullivan and Warner Baxter. Despite this, the color cinematography and all, the film is only fair. It's not all because of the dream sequences but also because the film is so dated and the message is sure to annoy many today. I wasn't annoyed...but more aware how silly it all was.
The bottom line that is if you choose to watch it, consider the dream sequences a great opportunity to use the bathroom or grab some snacks or play a game on your cellphone. An overly produced and overly lavish bore.
The story is about a workaholic career girl (Ginger Rogers) who is having lots of physical complaints. But her doctor assures her the pains are not physical but psychological, so he refers her to an psychoanalyst. During these sessions, she free associates and talks about her very lavish dreams. But what the movie seems to really be saying is that a career woman really needs to be a woman first...and career girl second...if at all!
This movie stars a rather amazing cast...Ginger Rogers, Ray Milland, Barry Sullivan and Warner Baxter. Despite this, the color cinematography and all, the film is only fair. It's not all because of the dream sequences but also because the film is so dated and the message is sure to annoy many today. I wasn't annoyed...but more aware how silly it all was.
The bottom line that is if you choose to watch it, consider the dream sequences a great opportunity to use the bathroom or grab some snacks or play a game on your cellphone. An overly produced and overly lavish bore.
Making Your Mind Up
Lejink10 July 2022
I don't know who was the more confused, Ginger Rogers' character, the lady in the dark of the title, or me trying to make sense of the plot and her character's motivations.
She plays Liza, the stressed-out-of-her-box fashion magazine editor, who as if she hasn't got enough problems, also has two, soon-to-be-three ardent admirers in hot pursuit of her. Quite how she manages this is questionable given her generally frosty outlook and tendency to dress unflatteringly in male-cut clothes.
Anyway, she goes to her doctor for help but he only sends her to a psychiatrist because of course it's in her subconscious where her problems lie. The shrink soon traces her issues back to her childhood relations with her now deceased mother and father, the former who was cold to her and the father who seemed to care for her but who always deferred to his bossy wife.
Now a boss-lady herself, as Ray Milland's irritating but ambitious lead designer constantly terms her, how is she going to decide which guy to romance, which theme to go with for the next issue of the magazine and most importantly get a good night's sleep without slipping into the most amazing, surreal, technicolour dreams which keep her awake?
I've read speculation that Lisa is covering up her own homosexuality, while the other more likely takeaway is that really she just yearns for a strong, dominating man to remove all her worries and leave her free presumably to be the dutiful housewife and mother.
Neither of these scenarios of course play well today thankfully in today's more enlightened times and it's something of a pity to see such a strong-minded actress as Rogers docilely play a character who caves in so easily to what society appears to demand of her.
And about those dream sequences, they're impossibly lush and surreal as we see Rogers letting herself go by stepping out on the dance-floor in a beautiful ball-gown.
You'll have to watch the film to the end to determine her final decisions as regards both her future employment and love-life but I must admit I found it all very unconvincing and shallow. Although it would like to think that this is a hip delve into the voguish subject of psychoanalysis, in truth it just panders to contemporary concepts of chauvinism and female subservience.
I understand that whole swathes of the original Broadway musical score were excised from the finished movie as apparently one of the producers didn't care for Kurt Weill's composing ability. Me, I only have to see and hear the rendition of the brilliant "Poor Jenny" to take the composer's side.
Overpowering on the eye, but underpoweref in content, I've made up my mind that this particular movie could have been a lot better than it actually turned out.
She plays Liza, the stressed-out-of-her-box fashion magazine editor, who as if she hasn't got enough problems, also has two, soon-to-be-three ardent admirers in hot pursuit of her. Quite how she manages this is questionable given her generally frosty outlook and tendency to dress unflatteringly in male-cut clothes.
Anyway, she goes to her doctor for help but he only sends her to a psychiatrist because of course it's in her subconscious where her problems lie. The shrink soon traces her issues back to her childhood relations with her now deceased mother and father, the former who was cold to her and the father who seemed to care for her but who always deferred to his bossy wife.
Now a boss-lady herself, as Ray Milland's irritating but ambitious lead designer constantly terms her, how is she going to decide which guy to romance, which theme to go with for the next issue of the magazine and most importantly get a good night's sleep without slipping into the most amazing, surreal, technicolour dreams which keep her awake?
I've read speculation that Lisa is covering up her own homosexuality, while the other more likely takeaway is that really she just yearns for a strong, dominating man to remove all her worries and leave her free presumably to be the dutiful housewife and mother.
Neither of these scenarios of course play well today thankfully in today's more enlightened times and it's something of a pity to see such a strong-minded actress as Rogers docilely play a character who caves in so easily to what society appears to demand of her.
And about those dream sequences, they're impossibly lush and surreal as we see Rogers letting herself go by stepping out on the dance-floor in a beautiful ball-gown.
You'll have to watch the film to the end to determine her final decisions as regards both her future employment and love-life but I must admit I found it all very unconvincing and shallow. Although it would like to think that this is a hip delve into the voguish subject of psychoanalysis, in truth it just panders to contemporary concepts of chauvinism and female subservience.
I understand that whole swathes of the original Broadway musical score were excised from the finished movie as apparently one of the producers didn't care for Kurt Weill's composing ability. Me, I only have to see and hear the rendition of the brilliant "Poor Jenny" to take the composer's side.
Overpowering on the eye, but underpoweref in content, I've made up my mind that this particular movie could have been a lot better than it actually turned out.
please, let me translate....
ptb-86 July 2008
The lady is in the 'dark' about being a lesbian. Oh why can't somebody just say it. I guess you could on Broadway and with Gertrude Lawrence in 1940 but at Paramount in '44 with Ginger, well, she just had to stay in the dark and have repressed sexual dreams about her fur in a cage and her eggs at a circus (see the Jenny number) ... and see that dress she unfurls.. a vagina representation of ever I saw one on a movie screen that wasn't x rated. In this ultra glamorous dreamy musical film Ginger is a business woman in business attire (read: lesbian .....) and she is tormented between her real business and society's demands that she marry and be with a man. Hence dilemma, dreams and fur openings and the egg circus (see the Jenny number) ... the storyline demands she relate to a man when she does not want to hence the dream sequences of antagonism and sexual wonderings. Ray Milland is the sop she is deemed to marry when anyone from this century can see she really wants to stay in a women's world and stop being a frustrated big angry prowling pussy in a cage (see the Jenny number) .... Kurt Weill knew what he was on about and so do we... but Paramount, in masking it for the masses in '44 pushed the pussycat into the fantasy sequences, hired a gay director and let loose on the dreams and shot the lot in the best most stylish Technicolor you ever saw outside of YOLANDA AND THE THIEF and THE PIRATE. In this according to Paramount, all Ginger needed was a jolly good roger.... ing.....
1940's Chick Flick with the word SEX in it
HarlequeenStudio27 March 2018
How unpopular have Freud and Jung become in the post-Sex and the City era! Therefore, this films gets panned by the suddenly enlightened "critics". I'll give it a 10 to fix its overall score and for very good reasons: exceptional photography, extraordinary musical numbers that could have been written by the above mentioned geniuses Freud & Jung; great acting, great screenplay, spectacular costumes and sets... Really, is it so offensive that a domineering woman needs a domineering man? I personally enjoyed watching their battle. In the end, she LETS him dominate. Her Mr. Big is such a potty mouth that my jaw dropped at his insolence, but being shocked is such a pleasure - I did not expect it from a Hays Code era movie. Since feminism or misogyny are not and should never be considered art criteria, let's talk about the color palette, the deep, dark blues to pale greens and pinks of our heroine's reality to vibrant blues, gold and white of her dreams in which she dances in white and red princess dresses and her domineering man sports a purple sequined suit and top hat (her prince is busy signing autographs and the married man she wants to marry is her father figure). One needs to know the symbolism of colors - our repulsive Mr. Big who is about to tame our heroine wears a traditional feminist color. And can't freedom also be defined as a lack of fear to be dominated? "Poor is the man (or woman!) whose pleasure depends on the permission of another."
A spectacular fashion epic of glitz and glamour
spotted-owl18 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
"Lady in the Dark" (1944) is a visually spectacular film. The surrealistic dream sequences are stunning, with glamorous costumes, lavish sets, and multicolored swirling fog, all in vivid Technicolor. This movie has some of the most extravagant and expensive costumes in film history. "Lady in the Dark" (1944) is one of the great fashion epics of film.
Liza Elliott (Ginger Rogers) is a fashion magazine editor-in-chief. She is a hardworking, serious woman, and wears plain suits. Liza is having an affair with a married publisher. Charley Johnson (Ray Milland) is Liza's wisecracking advertising manager.
However, Liza is close to a nervous breakdown. She sees a psychoanalyst to interpret her dreams. Liza has a Blue Dream, a Wedding Dream in gold and white, and a Circus Dream that is multicolored. The dreams represent Liza's subconscious. The final scenes of all the dreams are bizarre and unsettling, reflecting Liza's subconscious unresolved issues.
In the Blue Dream, Liza wears a beautiful blue ballgown. Liza's psychoanalyst suggests that she really wants to be glamorous.
In the Wedding Dream, she wears a fairy tale wedding dress, with an elaborate headdress and a long train.
In the Circus Dream, Liza wears a spectacular dress of mink fur, lined with pink satin and gold sequins. She performs a sultry song and dance number, shows her legs and sings "The Saga of Jenny." This dream is especially colorful, in shades of pink, green, and yellow.
Director Mitchell Leisen designed the costumes, including the famous mink gowns. Leisen worked as a costume designer, before he became a director. Two mink dresses were made. The first mink dress, lined with glass rubies and emeralds, cost $35,000 to make. However, this dress was too heavy for dancing. A second version of the mink dress was created, lined with sequins, which was lighter so that Ginger Rogers could dance in it. Both dresses are shown in the movie. The dress with the glass jewels was donated to the Smithsonian Institution.
Ginger Rogers' performance is excellent. She effectively portrays a variety of different roles: serious fashion executive, troubled woman in psychoanalysis, and sultry singer and dancer.
"Lady in the Dark" (1944) has artistic merit, and should not be dismissed because it is politically incorrect. The storyline is dated, and some of the dialog has an anti-feminist sharp edge. A simple revision of the script which eliminates the anti-feminist aspects, would have improved the storyline. Also, the lovely song "My Ship" should have been included. However, the movie remains an artistic achievement, a colorful fashion epic of glitz and glamour.
Liza Elliott (Ginger Rogers) is a fashion magazine editor-in-chief. She is a hardworking, serious woman, and wears plain suits. Liza is having an affair with a married publisher. Charley Johnson (Ray Milland) is Liza's wisecracking advertising manager.
However, Liza is close to a nervous breakdown. She sees a psychoanalyst to interpret her dreams. Liza has a Blue Dream, a Wedding Dream in gold and white, and a Circus Dream that is multicolored. The dreams represent Liza's subconscious. The final scenes of all the dreams are bizarre and unsettling, reflecting Liza's subconscious unresolved issues.
In the Blue Dream, Liza wears a beautiful blue ballgown. Liza's psychoanalyst suggests that she really wants to be glamorous.
In the Wedding Dream, she wears a fairy tale wedding dress, with an elaborate headdress and a long train.
In the Circus Dream, Liza wears a spectacular dress of mink fur, lined with pink satin and gold sequins. She performs a sultry song and dance number, shows her legs and sings "The Saga of Jenny." This dream is especially colorful, in shades of pink, green, and yellow.
Director Mitchell Leisen designed the costumes, including the famous mink gowns. Leisen worked as a costume designer, before he became a director. Two mink dresses were made. The first mink dress, lined with glass rubies and emeralds, cost $35,000 to make. However, this dress was too heavy for dancing. A second version of the mink dress was created, lined with sequins, which was lighter so that Ginger Rogers could dance in it. Both dresses are shown in the movie. The dress with the glass jewels was donated to the Smithsonian Institution.
Ginger Rogers' performance is excellent. She effectively portrays a variety of different roles: serious fashion executive, troubled woman in psychoanalysis, and sultry singer and dancer.
"Lady in the Dark" (1944) has artistic merit, and should not be dismissed because it is politically incorrect. The storyline is dated, and some of the dialog has an anti-feminist sharp edge. A simple revision of the script which eliminates the anti-feminist aspects, would have improved the storyline. Also, the lovely song "My Ship" should have been included. However, the movie remains an artistic achievement, a colorful fashion epic of glitz and glamour.
Acting range in the midst of chaos
OldieMovieFan9 January 2023
"Lady in the Dark" is legendary for its chaotic work environment. Cast and crew have recalled the problems with lighting, with scenery, with the special effects and with the immense crowds around the stages. In spite of these difficulties, Leisen the director was terrific with scenes and the set and camera and staging. Nevertheless, it has to be said that those kinds of problems can be laid nowhere else than at the director's feet.
Leisen is unique among the directors that Ginger Rogers worked with, in that he criticized her professionalism. With 73 films to her credit, and high praise from directors like Wilder, Wellman, Seiter, Stevens, and LaCava, a single director talking like that tends to reflect on himself rather than her. Why only him? Especially when he lost control of his movie set. Leisen's view is widely disputed by crew members who said Rogers was always courteous and professional, including Edith Head who pointed out that Leisen was always difficult and got progressively worse over the years. In the final analysis, Leisen was unable to comprehend that he was working with an actress fully immersed in a role. He had probably never seen this before.
Some contemporary critics were rather lukewarm, whilst modern commentators, more interested in cultural revisionism than in film criticism, have mostly abandoned the field. Iconic directors like Spielberg and Scorcese have declared Lady in the Dark a masterpiece and they are perfectly correct in that assessment.
All of the dream sequences are stunning.
If the critics were unanimous about anything regarding this film, it was that Rogers' performance was nothing like Gertrude Lawrence's stage version. Critics were expecting a Dale Tremont or perhaps a Francey Morgan or Polly Parrish. Instead they got a thoroughly original interpretation of the deeply repressed and nuerotic Liza Elliot, a compulsive, driven executive who exhibits auditory and visual hallucinations of grandeur and narcissism and who dangles the men in her life like bracelets, discarding them if they get too close. The decisiveness of Kitty Foyle is nowhere to be seen here.
Rogers knew publishing executives, knew their world. Bennett Cerf married her cousin; Harold Ross introduced her to Hollywood; both were lifelong friends. Rogers disappeared into the world of Liza Elliot just as she had disappeared into her portrayals of Ellie May Adams and Roxie Hart. This film should be watched back to back with those, in order to understand acting range at the highest levels.
Leisen is unique among the directors that Ginger Rogers worked with, in that he criticized her professionalism. With 73 films to her credit, and high praise from directors like Wilder, Wellman, Seiter, Stevens, and LaCava, a single director talking like that tends to reflect on himself rather than her. Why only him? Especially when he lost control of his movie set. Leisen's view is widely disputed by crew members who said Rogers was always courteous and professional, including Edith Head who pointed out that Leisen was always difficult and got progressively worse over the years. In the final analysis, Leisen was unable to comprehend that he was working with an actress fully immersed in a role. He had probably never seen this before.
Some contemporary critics were rather lukewarm, whilst modern commentators, more interested in cultural revisionism than in film criticism, have mostly abandoned the field. Iconic directors like Spielberg and Scorcese have declared Lady in the Dark a masterpiece and they are perfectly correct in that assessment.
All of the dream sequences are stunning.
If the critics were unanimous about anything regarding this film, it was that Rogers' performance was nothing like Gertrude Lawrence's stage version. Critics were expecting a Dale Tremont or perhaps a Francey Morgan or Polly Parrish. Instead they got a thoroughly original interpretation of the deeply repressed and nuerotic Liza Elliot, a compulsive, driven executive who exhibits auditory and visual hallucinations of grandeur and narcissism and who dangles the men in her life like bracelets, discarding them if they get too close. The decisiveness of Kitty Foyle is nowhere to be seen here.
Rogers knew publishing executives, knew their world. Bennett Cerf married her cousin; Harold Ross introduced her to Hollywood; both were lifelong friends. Rogers disappeared into the world of Liza Elliot just as she had disappeared into her portrayals of Ellie May Adams and Roxie Hart. This film should be watched back to back with those, in order to understand acting range at the highest levels.
Briiliant Film
imf-9473610 October 2022
This is a wonderful example of early 1940s Hollywood cinema. Paramount pulled out the stops. The most important leading lady in musicals at that time, Ginger Rogers, who even though has little opportunity of showing off her music and dance talents in this film, for what she does could not be bettered. This Oscar-winning actress gives us a spot on performance. Ray Milland, as ever, also hits the mark. Jon Hall, well cast as is Mischa Auer and Warner Baxter. The film 'looks' good too. This film does not reflect the musical play, which it is based upon. The Kurt Weill/Ira Gershwin score is almost gone, not quite, and the screenplay which even though it sticks to the Moss Hart original veers about, but nevertheless this is much more faithfully treated. When G. R., Fred Astaire's most important dancing partner dances, one feels that what she has been given is not the best to be given, but she is fun to watch in this film. It's amusing that the song Suddenly It's Spring, which almost was to become 'a standard', replaces all of that Weill/Gershwin score....but it is there and even that song is not given a proper vocal airing.....but that said...this is an enjoyable film of its period.....and if you are lucky to see a good copy, the technicolor alone is worth the price of a ticket.....it is brilliant...quite brilliant and can rival anything from Fox.....No, there is no Gertrude Lawrence, who originated the lead part on Broadway stunningly, no, the score is not there, no, Moss Hart's work has been fiddled with.....but this is an entertaining film which looks just great and has so many flavourable performances especially Ginger Rogers....... SEE IT.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
