Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

Although one certainly cannot say Gentleman's Agreement is not passionate in its aim to uncover the invisible cloak of anti-Semitism in post-war America, the execution of that objective could have used slightly more dramatic tension and immediacy.

Released the same year and touching on the same subject was Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire, which dealt with anti-Semitism at its extremes: murder with anti-Semitism as the motive. Gentleman's Agreement takes a more humanistic and subtle approach--one that is too subtle at times. Where Crossfire dropped the bomb of anti-Semitism into the laps of the audience, Gentleman's Agreement gives it to you in periodic shots in the arm in the form of a sermon, and each one says the exact same thing: anti-Semitism is bad. (But we knew that.) Yes, the message is an important one, but feeding it to the audience in a manner that is literally shoving it down our throats every few minutes doesn't help the digestion any.

Also lacking in Gentleman's Agreement is a three-dimensional protagonist. Peck's crusading writer who masquerades as a Jew is simply too zealous and unswerving for his own good. He has no faults, no inner conflicts and no doubts about himself. Whether he's being shunned by bigots or Dorothy McGuire, he's such a straight-shooter you know what he's going to do before he does: the right thing right away.

There's no real dramatic arc in the story, with the entire weight of the movie resting on the torrid on-again-off-again love affair between Peck and McGuire. She symbolizes the hypocrisy and passiveness of the everyday American on anti-Semitism, and he points it out to her every chance he gets-and that's all. It pretty much rambles on the same dramatic level all throughout the picture, dividing its time between love scenes and sermons, most of which are indistinguishable from one another.

In the end, the important message and the overall entertainment value of the picture suffers from this redundancy.

Fmovies: just as philip's magazine editor told him, any hack could write a column on the subject based on facts and figures. what they needed was a different angle that would capture the audience on a gut level. the theme wasn't about showing a Jewish guy get discriminated against. those incidences provide the backdrop and the link to philip's realization of a much more pernicious side to the subject. his magazine article may have started out with the idea of what it actually is like to be discriminated against as a Jewish man, but it moved into an analysis of how well- meaning, "nice," people who woudn't consider themselves bigoted or prejudiced, will sit by and let it happen without saying or doing anything. that's why kathy's rocky relationship with philip is so important and the ultimate resolution of the film.

Certainly the preachiest film ever to win Best Picture, and almost the preachiest film ever to be made, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Gentleman's Agreement isn't a good movie. In fact, I thought it was a fine film and an important one. It's heavy-handedness is mostly evened out by a lot of good dialogue, good filmmaking, and exceptional performances. I'll start there. I thought every principal actor succeeded with flying colors; even when they have to deliver awful and obvious message speeches, they almost always ended up making that writing sound a lot better than it was. Gregory Peck gives one of his very best performances. I'm glad to see him give this performance, too, after being stupefied by that wooden performance in the same year's The Paradine Case. The script does well with the character of Phil Green. When he begins his quest to discover the anti-semitism around him, he is involved very impersonally. It's a job, a job he doesn't really want to do, a job he doesn't even know how to do. And when he gets his big idea, to pretend he's Jewish himself, it seems almost arrogant. How dare he, I thought. But, through the film, he does get personally involved, so deeply involved that the insults and jokes and so forth become personal attacks. I doubt he ever expected that it would hurt so much. In comparison to the other film about anti-Semitism in 1947, Crossfire, also nominated for Best Picture, Gentleman's Agreement certainly does not hold up in terms of filmmaking and artistry. However, which film do you think had more of a chance to make a difference? Where Gentleman's Agreement succeeds, and Crossfire fails, is its ability to make the audience look inside themselves. Sure, it has to hit its audience with a sledgehammer before they look inside themselves to find their own prejudices and shortcomings, but I really think it works.

Gentleman's Agreement fmovies. Gregory Peck is slick as a writer for a publisher who is trying to find something to inspire him after his wife dies. He must take care of his young son and has his mother in New York to help him out. Anti-Semitism hits a chord as WWII has just ended with news of the Holocaust just barely starting to sink into the national consciousness. The timing for release of this movie is obvious, but it is carefully thought out as the director tries to convey the sinister and insidious way in which prejudice worms its way into the mainstream of everyday life. A well done film that works! A clever and intelligent portrayal that deserved the attention it received. Not an entertaining movie in the strictest sense, but one where the audience must do the work of thinking their way through it. It is a film worth navigating, however, because the ugly mirror of prejudice is held up to us all who are watching. It makes you feel uncomfortable because most of us are guilty of witnessing prejudice but we end up doing nothing about it.

I recommend this film, but it won't be for everyone and many of us would rather just pass this one by. But we shouldn't even though it holds up this mirror making us feel guilty and uncomfortable. I should point out that the ending relating to the love interest in the story just doesn't work, but then that is not the purpose of the film. Prejudice, anti-Semitism and discrimination are, and these elements are worked out well. A disturbing but intelligent portrayal which is worth taking in for what it is worth.

This movie was very well done, and in my opinion should be shown to young people at school. That way it can help to prevent prejudices and bigotry from taking root in future generations. As John Garfield's character in the movie showed: discrimination and racial intolerance can be eliminated if we fight it. Garfield's willingness to take a supporting role in this movie because of the power of its message should compel the skeptics to watch this movie.

The sterling cast meshed together perfectly. Gregory Pecks gentility was exactly what the lead role in this movie had to have. Dorothy Mcguire was also excellent at conveying her emotions in such a demanding role. Its too bad that Garfield and Mcguire are not as well known as other Golden age stars.

On the one hand, Gentleman's Agreement has a highly enlightened prejudice, even today, let alone 1947. Gregory Peck plays a journalist who decides to pretend to be Jewish so he can attain a real-life perspective on anti-semitism. Peck's transformation from a determined writer looking for an edge to a crusader against prejudice is nothing short of profound. The twist of course is that Peck gets lost in the assignment, starts seeing himself as a Jew and struggles to maintain his composure amid all the anti-semitism he experiences. Considering that, it's a shame that the film's abilities to tell a story lag so far behind the movie's depth and boldness. There's a lot of emphasis on the romance between Peck and his editor's niece, which is pretty overdone for a pair who has as little chemistry as McGuire and Peck. I think the worst part of that is hearing Gregory Peck referring to McGuire's character as "my girl" like he's in middle school, especially considering I've always associated Peck with characters of tremendous maturity. Additional randomness comes from the fact that the film also focuses on Peck's relationship with his ailing mother, which doesn't have much to do with the central plot at all. What seemed to be an attempt to give a more well-rounded view of the character, the story felt bogged down by those elements. Still, a worthwhile movie, overall, *** out of ****