The bride-to-be actually gets to have a personality. I can appreciate old films and there certainly are no actors left like Audrey, Humphrey, and Fred, but I can only handle so much blatant sexism. Kay is just an accessory and just a caricature of womanhood. I found the whole film seriously, seriously obnoxious.
share[deleted]
I believe the poster meant Audrey [Hepburn], Humphrey [Bogart] and Fred [Astaire] - assuming anyone on IMDB would know this.
share[deleted]
Well, you should consider that the film is largely told from the father's point of view (he's the narrator, and the film largely focuses on how the characters and events impact him). I take it that the image we get of Kay is primarily the image her father has of her as "his little girl," which, I suppose, is one "caricature of womanhood." He does seem to see her as his daughter, and not as a fully independent human being with a well-developed personality of her own; and this is probably why her character doesn't seem well-rounded.
And depending on how you think the film expects us to react to Stanley's perspective (it certainly seems problematic in certain ways), it may be that we're not supposed to think that we're getting a very accurate picture of just who Kay is.
I agree. This movie is focused on Spencer Tracy. It is told by him as his own story. If it were told from Kay's perspective, you might say the same thing about him.
steffany
For a while, I preferred the remake to the original. But, having re-watched the original, I found it a really good movie.
I think, too, the remake was done very well. And there were many cute/funny moments in the remake - like when Annie tells her Dad she's getting married and, in his mind, he sees this little girl mouthing the words and, of course, Franck. But I thought the Father/Steve Martin seemed a bit 'sweeter' in the remake - i.e. like when he went to the bar to console Brian. But, perhaps Spencer Tracy wasn't supposed to be that 'warm and fuzzy' (or it could just be the time the picture was made).
‘Six inches is perfectly adequate; more is vulgar!' (Prime of Miss Jean Brodie Re: An open window).
Don't bring too much political correctness to a film from 1950. Keep it in context: this was a different time, and for all purposes, a different culture than we live in today. And in another 50 years, our era at the "turn of the century" will probably be viewed as incredibly unenlightened as well. By judging a 60 year old film using today's standards and getting upset because those times were not as enlightened as today's, you're missing some fine film making.
Society is (hopefully) continuously evolving as it moves forward, and allowing the conditions of an earlier moment on that time line to upset you is like being angry at a child for not having the temperament of an adult. We move along, improving through the years, doing the best we can at any given point in time.
Ron Hildebrand
I'm watching the original now and finding it charming, but it's hopelessly dated and I definitely prefer the remake. The OP is right - while Elizabeth Taylor is beautiful as always, Spencer Tracy is really the only one allowed to shine. Joan Bennett is kind of a bore.
I don't know why the remake has such a low IMDB score - it's such a delight with perfect performances from Martin, Williams, and Keaton. It's slicker and downright funnier...more realistic too.
Frankly, I'm not particularly a fan of Spencer Tracy, personally. He has an inimitable, crusty but likable film persona, but he seems to play the same one-note character in every movie, without digging that deep dramatically. And just about everything he's appeared in is dated - either formally in its storytelling or content-wise, or both as is the case here. His numerous rom-coms with Kate Hepburn are dated, though she's one of the few things that isn't.
This is absolutely a first. "...He seems to play the same one-note character in every movie, without digging that deep dramatically." No one, in the history of film criticism, has ever uttered those words.
Go to your room.
That just goes to show you. You go someplace and there you are.
I also think Don Lockwood is missing the boat when he says the remake is "more realistic." Huh? In what reality would you find Martin Short's wacky, vaguely European wedding planner character? The Leo G. Carroll character in the original is much more believable, and in his own way, funnier. The humor in the original is more realistic and observational, while the remake leans a little too much on dumbed-down slapstick.
sharesame one-note character. Lol. Sometimes. Typecasting is something all actors deal with and actors are usually hired because the director wants that same one-note character. Not the actor's fault though. Spencer Tracy's Oscar-winning turn as a Portuguese fisherman in Captains Courageous can't possibly be considered the same one-note character.
shareI can only handle so much blatant sexism.
"The title of the movie is not "The Bride's Wedding"; it is "The Father of the Bride". The whole movie is his story."
-I can't believe it took 12 posts for someone to point this out!
Well, I found the remake just ridiculous, because the sentiments of the father were actually 50ties sentiments. I couldn´t believe a today´s father going crazy, because his daughter, after a stay-off home, announces she´s going married. It was believable in 1950, the girl never leaving home, but not today!
shareThe solution to this is simple: don't watch any films made before the 1980s.
As others said, this film is told from the father's point of view. It's how he sees these events and people in his life. But also, the film was made in 1950... what on earth did you expect?
I'd also have to disagree in general. I think Kay had plenty of personality.
I am grateful for not knowing the OP in real life. Get some perspective, and understand what you are talking about. Is that too much to ask?
What a boring vulgar feminist POV. Are the other men in the film portrayed with more and more positive character development? No. Yet the OP focuses on the daughter. Who btw DOES have character and is portrayed by the great Liz Taylor.
Also missing is recognition of the mother's character, which is formidable.
And then as others have pointed out this film was made (now over) 60 years ago. Perspective, perspective.
Some people...
Exactly how many times was Liz Taylor married, anyway?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
The OP said that he/she likes other older films, just not this one.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
[deleted]