Our Town
May. 24,1940 NRChange comes slowly to a small New Hampshire town in the early 20th century. We see birth, life and death in this small community.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
best movie i've ever seen.
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
Nice approach to life in New England in the beginning of the 20th century. It is told from the viewpoint of one of it's inhabitants, who acts as the narrator throughout the movie. Adapted from a Broadway show, it tells of the coming of age of two teenage neighbors who grew up together and eventually marry. It has an attractive cast with a good supporting actors to flesh out the story, a simple and predictable tale of simple and predictable people.The story is perhaps too true to life, as it is unexciting and lacks a compelling scene or event to draw the viewer in. Pleasant and agreeable, but plodding and even-handed and somewhat overrated for my taste. But that's what moviegoing is all about. The star rating is in the heading. The website no longer prints mine.
An adaptation of the popular play by Thornton Wilder, "Our Town" the film should not be judged in comparison to the play. The film has the advantage of a wonderful score by Aaron Copland, special effects that cannot be achieved on stage, and other changes that were made with the blessings of Wilder.The story takes place in Grover's Corners, NH--a small town of 2,642--where it feels like things are always the same, but things do change. The viewer is given a guided tour by Mr. Morgan (Frank Craven), proprietor of the town soda shop, who operates both as an integral member of the community and also as an omniscient being who provides a broad overview of Grover's Mill and its history. His point of view, aided by others who help him describe the town, is the most important conceit of the film, allowing the viewer to consider the town and its events from the broadest possible vantage point.Mr. Morgan introduces the main characters--George Gibbs (William Holden) and Emily Webb (Martha Scott)--and their families. They live moderated lives in their conservative town, with big dreams but small aspirations not much different from those of their parents. Mr. Morgan first takes us to 1901 when George and Emily are friendly teenage neighbors. He calls that portion of the presentation "Daily Life".Then he shows us 1904 ("Love and Marriage"). Little has changed in the town, but the milkman now dispenses the milk in bottles. George and Emily are getting married. Their youthful anxieties have been replaced by wedding day cold feet. A flashback shows George and Emily in the soda shop as their relationship changes from friendship to courtship.The final stop is 1913. The milkman has traded his horse for a newfangled car. Emily is having complications in childbirth and her life is in danger. We are shown the town's hilltop graveyard, where those buried there are represented by their ghostly images. Though they are emotionless and quiet, they can communicate. As a new presence there, Emily is more talkative and she sparks a conversation about life and death that is the central theme of the film.Viewers may see similarities with "A Christmas Carol" and "It's a Wonderful Life", which would follow in 1946. The viewer, given a broader view of life, is encouraged to not become so mired in the details of daily life that they can't see the bigger picture. It's the same message as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"--cherish every day. Appreciate the details as you experience them.Emily--as a ghostly presence--returns to her sixteenth birthday and reevaluates every occurrence with eyes that can now appreciate what she took for granted while living. She laments, "It goes so fast and we don't have time to look at one another." Her words are so true. It's a universal observation that connects emotionally with the viewer. The play's message was responsible for it winning the Pulitzer Prize.William Holden is at the start of his career, only one year after his breakout performance in "Golden Boy" and ten years before the notable films "Sunset Boulevard" and "Born Yesterday". But this is a film of ideas more than personalities.
I was deeply disappointed by this film directed by Sam Woods. I do love the sets, and the scope of showing the town, but the best thing about the original three-act play is that the play is performed without a set and the actors mime their actions without the use of props. Author, Thornton Wilder once said: "Our claim, our hope, our despair are in the mind – not in things, not in 'scenery.' Throughout the play, Wilder uses meta-theatrical devices, such as narration by a stage manager who tells them what they are seeing. Still, it's for the audience to use their imagination vision to put it in motion. In this movie, it's more set in stone, what the producers want us to see. Set in the fictional American small town of Grover's Corners, it tells the story of an average town's citizens in the early twentieth century as depicted through their everyday lives. Scenes from the town's history between the years of 1901 and 1913 are performed. The film mostly focus this same three act format. Act I: Daily Life introduces the audience to the people living in Grover's Corners in 1901. There is a lot of filler scenes about minor characters that play no big part in the main plot. Honestly who cares about the newspaper boy and milk man? The only characters, the film should focus on, is the Webb and Gibbs households. William Holden and Martha Scott are pretty typecast as George Gibbs and Martha Scott. They are too old to play teenagers, and the dialogue between them is wooden and dull. The movie is a bit boring, watching somebody mundane life that you're asking yourself. What is the point of this? I shouldn't be watching this? I'm wasting life, here! I think the only thing that was interesting and tense, was portraying young people prepare to wed. The second act is badly written in both the play, and the film. I don't care that Our Town won Pulitzer Prize; the flashbacks written sucks. It really hurt the already slow pacing being out of order. Once again, you're asking yourself, why am I watching this? Another thing, the movie does is talk about eternity in a lengthy monologue. I like it, but I was hoping a 'show, don't tell'. This movie and play is so tell to the point, it makes us look like clueless idiots. It's really dark story, but it does have a good message in the end. The ending to the film is way different than that of the play. There have been a lot of irate critics about the change in the ending. This part of the film, I think its works. The play has such a cynical ending. In 1946, the Soviet Union prevented a production of Our Town in the Russian sector of occupied Berlin, on the grounds that the drama is too depressing and could inspire a German suicide wave. I think the movie did better to show the message of living each day the fullest message than the play. I have to say the Stage Manager (Frank Craven) was pretty good in this movie, but I have to say, the 2003's remake with Paul Newman is the one worth watching. Even the 1977's version with Hal Halbrooks works a lot better than this. The Stage Manager plays as a God-like symbol. Although Our Town avoids discussion of religion, Wilder hints that a spiritual entity manages human life in much the same way that the Stage Manager dictates the flow of this play. I do like the freedom of breaking the fourth wall with him walking in and out of scenes, asking questions to the audience, and telling characters to shut up. It's rare to see this in 1940's movies and even rare to see it, today films. The movie hasn't aged well. The film is litter with scratches and marks. Even with playing it in my DVD player, I felt like any minute, the film was going to rip apart. One thing that I love about the film is the soundtrack. It's such a beautiful tune that I think the song will outlive the play in future time. In my opinion, Our Town could had been better written, even for the times, its set. Our Town would had shown life between and after the Industry Revolution Turn of the Century, a lot better with putting more immigrations, showing more technology etc. etc. Instead, the town is nearly the same from 1901 to 1913. The film lacks any social community. Despite the townspeople's well-meaning nature, they have only a limited ability or willingness to act or confront societal problems. It really limited the film. It's such a nostalgic archetype that reminds me of any town in America at the time to the point, it doesn't stand out. A mythical place where people are born, grow up, work, fall in love, get married, and die. Characters are archetypes, almost stereotypes, representing time-honored small town American ideals. It was somewhat mirror to a point, that Walt Disney model the design for Main Street USA in Disneyland. Perhaps a political message in itself, Our Town privileges the study of human life and its complexities over blatantly political works that point fingers, stereotype others, and otherwise divide people from one another. If only it focus less on main characters, and more on 'the town', it might had work. This movie should be the case study of society behind human trials and tribulations. Still, it lacks the very thing that makes a community study. Sorry, but our town is not my town.
Like "Harvey", "The Second Woman" and "Good Morning, Miss Dove", "Our Town" is set in an underpopulated United States town. Its 1901 look shares features with theirs, as do some of its story elements. Everyone knows practically everyone else; and the very fact that such towns are not the sort of place where important thing happens renders what does happen peculiarly intense, as if it had been placed under a magnifying lens in a powerful light. Author Thornton Wilder and his co-writers here adapt what was a most successful and atmospheric play into a deliberately-paced by I suggest an absorbing screenplay. It has the build perhaps of "Picnic" with the underlying calm of a good early western; only the setting here is Grover Corners, New Hampshire, a decidedly northeastern setting.. Sam Wood directed the film with his usual understated skill; and the writers I believe have retained the best of Mr. Wilder's crisp and often memorable dialogue. The film really divides into three parts--which I would nominate as Introduction, George and Emily and Two Futures(?). George Gibbs and Emily Webb in this film become two of the best remembered characters in U.S. fiction. Sol Lesser produced, with music by Aaron Copland, whose repressed melodies seem to me perfectly to serve this understated masterwork of dramatic construction. Production designer William Cameron Menzies and cinematographer Bert Glennon here tried for an uncompromising atmosphere rather than quaint or merely attractive compositions. Julia Heron did the remarkable interiors, with simple but effective wardrobe by Edward P. Lambert. Among the cast, Martha Scott is wonderfully young and unspoiled, and as Dr. Gibbs, Thomas Mitchell plays with Fay Bainter as his wife more-than-expertly. As their neighbors Editor Webb and his wife, Guy Kibbee is unusually restrained and Beulah Bondi as usual solidly dependable or better in every scene she is given. Stuart Erwin ad Frank Craven (as the stage manager) are quite good, and young William Holden shows to much better advantage than he did in several other films of the period. The supporting cast is not given a great deal to do but they do it very seamlessly, in my opinion. But what one remembers of "Our Town" I assert is its haunting, almost poetic quality. The production's pace is leisurely without being slow, electrically tense without being excited and focused without becoming too sad. The story here is about life, death, youth, love, honesty and fear--and the narrative evokes these emotions in the viewer honestly I claim because it is never pretentious and never striving for the effect that it admirably earns. It is I argue a touching black-and-white classic; and it is quite well acted also throughout._____________________________________