Such a frustrating disappointment

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

"I'M not racist, but…"Do your eyes roll and fists clench in frustration before the sentence has finished? Fear not - Gentleman's Agreement is on your side. You'd expect a 'Social Problems Picture' dating from the better part of a century ago to play as cornball, and adorably (or troublesomely) antiquated. Instead, it's sobering how, in a contemporary context, Elia Kazan's scrappy interrogation of the deeply harmful societal prejudices imbedded in seemingly innocuous or inconsequential gestures and comments plays as just as poignantly timely as ever. Seventy years on, Gentleman's Agreement has lost none of its robust, fierce urgency, remaining one of the most intelligent conversations on privilege, and how distressing societal imbalances can be carved by those unable to acknowledge it. Many Hollywood films profiling racism dive straight into tackling overt, violent hate crimes. Here, screenwriter Moss Hart, adapting Laura Z Hobson's groundbreaking expose of societal antisemitism, is bold enough to dig one step deeper, into the more subtle, pervasive forms of racial and religious discrimination proliferating in so- called 'polite society' - job hunting, risqué jokes, schoolyard bullying, and general passive- aggressively rude treatment. It's solemn stuff, but Hart's eloquent screenplay, while occasionally toeing the line of excessive 'staginess,' nimbly gets the point across without devolving outright into pedantic preaching. Kazan's direction is just as provocative, framing his film with plentiful New York establishing shots to firmly ground the problem with pervasive antisemitism as a here and now problem, not a distant epidemic easy to wave away. The hook entails Peck's brooding journalist spreading rumours of a falsified Jewish identity in order to 'method write,' believing himself to be better equipped to write about antisemitism when he himself has been subjected to its ugly underbelly. For many, the premise will sound warning bells of a reappropriative, saccharine saviour of the Jewish community, who dabbles in empathy only to shrug off its hardships and cloak himself with his privilege anew upon the closing credits. It's a fair concern, and one, thankfully, that Kazan and Hart anticipate and circumvent, with peppery reminders throughout branding antisemitism, and any other such religious and cultural discrimination, to be everyone's problem, and that those who allow it to subtly fester by allowing dubious comments or actions to pass unchallenged, as just as culpable. In one sardonic instance, a real-life conversation between Jewish industry executives urging the filmmakers to quash the film for fear of 'rocking the boat' makes its way into the script itself, lending it even more power and wry credibility. Occasionally, the film stumbles somewhat over its own noble intentions. To make its point, Peck's compacted experience is a touch clumsily over-exaggerated (though it's a sad realization that this heavy-handedness is ultimately necessary for the message to properly land, whether in 1947 or current day), and there's no denying that a contemporary viewing necessitates suspension of disbelief regarding the more exposition-heavy tropes of the time. Nonetheless, some of Peck's grim, sanctimonious lectures still verge on tiresome 'Mansplaining,' even for the 1940s. Even more curiously but poignantly, Kazan and Hall's reticence in grounding the film in its contemporary cultural context (the script does take pot shots at some of the more outspokenly antisemitic government officials of the time, but abstains from any mention of the Holocaust, or World War II at all, outside of John Garfield's chipper GI) shows how touch-and-go evasion of Hayes Code censorship was. Regardless, Kazan keeps the pace brisk, entwining Peck's experiences of discrimination around a burgeoning romance that, irksomely, might not be as safe from outside microaggressions as he'd hope. Though both he and Kazan have retroactively disparaged his work here as too hesitant, Peck proves an excellent fulcrum for the film's message to roll off. Curbing his legendary dignity and calm with a bristling righteous indignation, Peck's grimness suggests he rankles at the oppression - both that he and his family personally experience, but also in a macro sense - with every fibre of his being. His refusal to let in dregs of his legendary warmth do leave his performance as somewhat wanting in levity, but he's seething and charismatic enough to effortlessly win attention regardless. Similarly, Dorothy McGuire is superb as his impassioned fiancée, and McGuire is wise and skilled enough to remain fundamentally enigmatic, commanding audience sympathy while simultaneously keeping them at arm's length with just enough eyebrow-raising comments to continually postpone a consensus on her character's affability. Finally, John Garfield provides the welcome reprieve of boisterous charisma the film sorely needs, though many of its more unexpected, quietly resonant moments are grounded in watching his face imperceptibly shift to weary resignation coming to terms with the subtle and overt hardships he, as a Jewish citizen is invariably subjected to, war hero status and all. Many will criticize Gentleman's Agreement as being overstated, earnest, or corny in a contemporary environment. Sadly, its message remains as urgently topical as ever in a global climate rife with socio- political intolerance and hatred - both overt, and as knowingly nigh-imperceptible as the film's title. And if a Gregory Peck civil rights double-bill (this and To Kill A Mockingbird, of course) could serve as the cultural balm the world needs, or causes a single viewer to pause and reflect before uttering a politically dubious generalization over dinner, then Gentleman's Agreement is beyond intelligent, eloquent, and piercing: it's borderline essential. -9/10

This is part of my ongoing personal project to see all of Elia Kazan's movies. I've seen most of his 20 movies already, starting with A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) and ending with The Last Tycoon (1976). Some of his movies are very hard to find and others already make up my staple viewing. I CAN--I must--separate his wonderful craft from his controversial political past with HUAC. Why? Because there is just TOO MUCH good art in his work to ignore it, and I consciously—and willingly--choose NOT to ignore it. To me, Kazan is one of the great directors—period. I also understand that his very creative directing probably ended after Splendor in the Grass (1961). Still, I want to see his whole body of work if I can find it. Gentleman's Agreement is based on Laura Z. Hobson's novel. It won Oscars for Celeste Holm (Best Supporting Actress); Elia Kazan (Best Director); and Darryle F. Zanuck (Best Picture). Other Oscar nominations included: Gregory Peck (Best Actor in a Leading Role); Dorothy McGuire (Best Actress in a Leading Role); Anne Revere (Best Actress in a Supporting Role); Harmon Jones (Best Film Editing); and Moss Hart (Best Writing, Screenplay). As the movie opens 'Philip' Schuyler Green (Gregory Peck) and his young son, Tommy (Dean Stockwell), are walking through the streets of New York City. Phil is a widower from California who has brought Tommy and his mother (played by Anne Revere) to NYC to work as a feature writer on a big magazine. Phil meets Kathy Lacy (Dorothy McGuire) at a party in his new boss's house. Kathy is recently divorced and she and Phil soon fall in love. But, their courtship eventually falls upon rocky grounds because of his assignment at the magazine. The assignment is to write a long feature article that will 'blow the lid off of anti-Semitism.' The magazine feature has to be something different, without all the usual facts, figures, and empty platitudes. It needs an angle to bring it to life. As Phil grapples with his assignment, he runs up against brick walls until he comes up with the idea of actually BEING Jewish for 8 weeks in order to see what it feels and looks like from the inside and present it to an outside audience. (This reminds me of John Howard Griffin's 1959 book, Black Like Me, which may have been inspired by this movie and its source novel.)Phil (who, in reality, is a WASP) will earnestly pretend to BE Jewish without letting anyone know his plan except Kathy and his boss, John Minify (Albert Dekker). That is, none of his fellow workers must know that he is NOT Jewish; they must believe that he IS. This means that, for the idea to work successfully, even his mother and son must 'become' Jewish, too. The movie's use of Phil having an old Army buddy, Dave Goldman (John Garfield), who REALLY IS Jewish adds another dimension to both the story and the story within a story: Phil's feature articles for the magazine. As 'a Jew' on the magazine staff he gets to see how other Jews see themselves. For example, his secretary, Elaine Wales (June Havoc) sees her Jewishness negatively. On the other hand, his female co-worker, Anne Dettrey (Celeste Holm), uses humor to fend off anything that may come too close to the feeling of her 'Jewishness.' The personally difficult issues for Phil in this movie include: 1) when his boy, Tommy, is attacked for being called 'a dirty little Jew'; 2) when he is turned down from a restricted luxury resort hotel; and 3) when his girlfriend--now fiancée--Kathy, wants to 'break the secrecy of his NOT being Jewish' so that the two can celebrate their upcoming marriage at party at Kathy's sister's house in Connecticut. Kathy's sister, Jane (Jane Wyatt), lives in exclusive upscale neighborhood where her friends and neighbors have to be pre-screened to make sure that Phil's being a Jew wouldn't matter and wouldn't be brought up in polite conversation. As Kathy accidentally explains to Phil, there (in Jane's Connecticut neighborhood) there is a sort of a 'Gentleman's Agreement' about Jews (and when and where they will be accepted). As the movie comes to a close, there is a lot of 'truths and soul searching' on everyone's part. As Phil is about to finish his assignment for the magazine, his mother sneaks a peak at his upcoming manuscript and reads it aloud near the end of the movie. This 'sermon' (or should I call it a testimonial?) by Anne Revere was just a little over-the-top to me!

A reporter (Gregory Peck) pretends to be Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism, and personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred.Looking back, this film may seem a little bit over the top at times. But it likely is not terribly exaggerated. Even now (2015) being Jewish means something. The prejudice may not be quite as strong, and I don't know if "restricted" hotels still exist, but the subtle dislike has certainly not gone away.What makes this film extra good is the timing, not long after World War II. Sometimes we (America) likes to say we were heroes who saved the Jewish people from the Holocaust. But, this is not really true, and even if it was, it does not mean the Americans were not prejudice in the 1940s.

Reporter Phil Green is hired by magazine publisher John Minify to write an article on anti-Semitism, but he just cannot figure out how to approach the subject. We watch the movie patiently waiting for him to come up with the idea of pretending to be a Jew. When he finally reveals that on a previous occasion he pretended to be an Okie in order to write about the plight of the Okies, and that on another occasion he pretended to be a coal miner in order to write about coal mining, we are a little irritated that it took him so long to think about pretending to be a Jew. Having done this sort of thing twice before, it should have occurred to him right off. This delay might have been improved dramatically if someone else had suggested the idea to him. We might imagine his mother saying, "You once pretended to be an Okie to learn what it was like to be an Okie, so why don't you pretend to be a Jew?" But since the movie has Phil come up with the idea himself, we can't help thinking, "It's about time!"When he finally does start pretending to be a Jew, he is shocked by all the prejudice he encounters, as when he tries to check into a high-class hotel and is refused service. Well, what did he think was going to happen? In fact, he seems to know less about anti-Semitism than everyone else in the movie. We get the impression that the person most ignorant about anti-Semitism has been picked to write an article about it. His girlfriend Kathy has to tell him that people with houses in nice neighborhoods have a gentleman's agreement not to sell or rent to Jews. Why is it that she knows about this, but he does not? Maybe she should be writing the article. At the very least, Phil could have collaborated with his Jewish friend and his Jewish secretary. Instead, the man who knows least about anti-Semitism thinks he has to write the article all by himself.And this raises the question, Why not have a Jew write the article? It does turn out that the magazine Phil is going to write the article for discriminates against Jews in its hiring policy, which Minify changes when he becomes aware of it. But that doesn't explain why Minify, who seems so determined to combat anti-Semitism, did not hire a Jew to do the job from the very beginning. We almost get the feeling that the article (and the movie itself, for that matter) would not be meaningful unless the Jewish experience were filtered through the mind of a gentile.Furthermore, since Phil is not a Jew, it is hard to believe that he would feel the effect of prejudice the same way a real Jew would. Phil acts deeply offended when he encounters prejudice. But if I had pretended to be a Jew in order to be able to write about anti-Semitism, every time someone offended me, I would gleefully sneak off to the restroom to write down notes, thinking, "Boy, this is going to be good stuff for that article I'm going to write."