High Society (1956)

A lot of fun.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

First the good- Louis Armstrong-the grace Kelly and frank Sinatra your sensational number a convincing flirtation.grace Kelly was lot more attractive and less irritating than Katherine Hepburn in the 1940 film. the rest- Bing ludicrous as the ex suitor- looked old enough to be her grandpa. john lund twice as attractive made you wonder why she had a pensioner fixation Instead.Frank Sinatra with black hair looking like a left over from the munsters sang well enough but wasn't convincing. as a newspaper hack -then there was the always middle aged Celeste Holm in girly dresses looking like Sinatra's ma- finally there was father figure looking like serial killer, top that up with awful colour and ghastly sets- the garden was particularly awful.As it was Kelly's last film she looked as though she was already the true princess she became- .there was sense of her being above the whole dreary caper . all in all flat champagne with a plausible title change from high society to slumming it

Wow. How do you miscast such towering talents such as Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby and make chumps out of them? You take the classic dramatic melodrama "The Philadelphia Story," give each of them second-banana parts, and then cast the female lead with the lightweight, former clothes-horse Grace Kelly (twenty-seven years younger than her "leading man," Bing) in the incredibly complex role of Tracy Lord, Katharine Hepburn's signature stage and film role. Throw in the cringe-worthy, patently out-of-place musical numbers by Der Bingle and Ol' Blues Eyes, corrupted by Kelly's tin-eared accompaniment, and the result is an unintentionally comical iteration of the poignant, multi-layered original. Sinatra had won Best Actor at the Oscars for his masterful portrayal of Maggio in "From Here To Eternity" just a few years before, but his miscast, ossified perf in pic was an embarrassment. Crosby's only bright spot is when he's jammin' with Satchmo (Grace Kelly reacted to Bing as if he had terminal halitosis). Going for the Big B.O. (Box Office) is a prime motivation of Hollywood productions. So Grace Kelly, in her last film perf before becoming a caged canary as the Princess of Monaco, is showcased as an updated Tracy Lord. What Big Slacks she had to fill after Hepburn. Kelly goes through her stilted modeling-poses, her "technique" of acting the challenging lead role, all without the slightest trace of human emotion marring her porcelain face. Though Sinatra as reporter Mike Connor valiantly tries to get a little chemistry going with Kelly, she gives off the unmistakable impression that she hasn't the slightest sexual interest in Frank or in any of the other male players. Phillip Barry wrote the role of Tracy Lord is written as a woman who appears totally self-absorbed and intolerant of human frailty in others, but still has deep-rooted emotional and sexual needs yet untapped. Hepburn, for whom the original play was written by Barry, was able to perceive the multi-faceted character and give us a nuanced, hypnotic performance. Hepburn deftly revealed Tracy's vulnerability in spite of her efforts to conceal it. She made you cheer for Tracy, in spite of her haughty, privileged patina.In stark and painful contrast, Grace Kelly's portrayal of Tracy is a stuffy, supercilious prig, who comes off - worst of all things for any leading lady - as a sexless mannequin, bereft of the slightest trace of suppressed sensuality. Her Serene Highness Grace seems like she'd really be a bum lay compared to the feisty, fiery Katharine Hepburn.Much has been written about the age differences between Kelly and the other creaky male stars populating the cast. Bing, playing Dexter, looks way older than he is with his fuddy-duddy wardrobe, his terrible rug, and his lack of any convincing physicality with Grace, and is hardly convincing as a man Kelly would have been married to. Sinatra looks simply terrible, probably in part by the die-job on his rug plus being shorter than Grace Kelly. The flat, unflattering lighting and cheap production values show up every wrinkle and line on everyones' faces. Watch the original with Hepburn, Grant, Stewart after viewing "High Society," and you'll be astounded at the difference in the quality of the acting and the wonderfully paced story in the original compared to this moribund musical masquerading as credible remake.

I don't usually review films just to give them a pasting, but for a glossy, prestige 1950's production this is a very poor show when compared with the original 'Philadelphia Story'.Why would Grace Kelly even look at Der Bingle, who is old enough to be her father? Why would Frank Sinatra look twice at Kelly's boring rich girl, when he has sparky Celeste Holm right by his side? Tracy is supposed to have 'hidden fires', but played by Kelly she is just a vacuous prig. There isn't even any fun to be had from the supporting cast, Uncle Willy is a cypher and scheming editor Sidney Kidd disappears completely. Louis Armstrong adds some life to the proceedings, but was he the only performer at the Newport Jazz Festival that year? The direction is incredibly dull, just a series of VistaVision mid-shots which keeps the actors miles away from the audience, and some of the clumsy goofs mean the boom microphone should have got its own 'also featuring' credit.Everybody seems to have been asleep on this job: cast, crew, director and producers.

OK. It's boxing day, and for some obscure reason Channel 5 (HD) is on. After sitting through a terrible Big Brother commercial and preparing to quickly change the channel, the old time MGM logo appears. "Ok, this could go somewhere". I've gotta say, this was a fun movie. I'm not usually one for musicals, but boy this had a lot going for it. I mean, it's fun in the sense that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Everything is shown in such vibrancy and enjoyment that its hard not to keep watching. I don't know if this happened a lot in mid-50's movies, but seeing an Armstrong/Crosby/Sinatra combo in one movie was cool. Grace Kelly and all those guys in moustaches were really good too. Their performances were great comedically and portrayed the narrative very well. I'd say they were good emotionally, but this movie is so light-hearted it would suffer from being emotionally deep in any way. The introduction of Sinatra and Holm's characters was a standout point for me, because it just lifted happiness levels even more. They're addition to the mix of music and laughs (and husbands) was brilliant, because they were all involved in a charming way. They're musical number was a treat, one that I would usually be disinterested in. It's not amazing, but it's good for what it is. There were a lot of things that could have been done better, like mild continuity and plot issues, but it wouldn't have been made that much better. There are a number of pretty funny moments, too, especially from Louis Calhern's character. They're not like 'Spit out your milk' funny, but 'chucklable'. A classic and fun 50's romp, that's fit for family viewing and extended air travel. It's made me want to watch 'Oklahoma!' all over again.