Truly Dreadful Film

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

LADY IN THE DARK is the odd case of a major hit which did no good for the careers of anyone involved, and does not seem to have been remembered with fondness by any of its participants. There's a fine line between a flawed masterpiece and an interesting failure, and LITD seems a perfect example of the latter. It's from a successful, indeed, revolutionary stage production, had a massive budget and oodles of talent behind it, and is undeniably successful in certain respects (costuming and set design in particular). So who messed up? No doubt a lot of people, but my vote goes to producer Buddy DaSylva as the chief culprit.The root problem is that DaSylva had no interest in the project and didn't want to do it. Most disastrously, he hated Kurt Weill's music and cut out most of it. In losing the key song 'My Ship', this reached the level of idiocy. Director Mitchell Leisen doesn't seem to have been particularly interested in the project either, and though he wrote the screen adaptation himself (unfortunately emphasizing the strong Freudian aspects, in retrospect a very bad idea), Leisen clearly concerned himself more with those set designs and the costuming than he did with the actors. He directed more than his share of fine movies, but one suspects that he did so with more enthusiasm than he ever gave LADY IN THE DARK.Ginger Rogers did want to do the movie. As a matter of fact, she insisted on it before signing a three picture contract with Paramount. She wasn't the most obvious choice to play Liza Elliott, but I'm not sure that anyone in Hollywood at the time was more obvious. Judy Garland was still pretty young for the role, and only Irene Dunne comes to mind as a serious alternative. I'm not sure that I can picture Irene doing 'Song of Jennie', and since that is the most successful scene in the picture I'm not sure that I can really see Irene in the role. Having no box office pull, and from what I've seen of her in a couple of small parts back in the thirties no real camera presence, Gertrude Lawrence, the originator of the stage role, was never a serious possibility.The movie's strong points: A pretty good presentation of a woman suffering from depression; imaginative sets for the magazine office; sparkling Technicolor; lavish costumes, especially the famous dress for the Jennie number; a complete success in presenting the 'Song of Jennie', the idea of the youthful Liza watching herself being brought to trial in a cage being a particularly nice trope that couldn't have been duplicated on stage.The movie's weak points: A misogynistic theme derived largely from Freudian psychology (author Moss Hart had recently gone through psychoanalysis himself before writing the play) which Leisen unwisely emphasized; the removal of most of the original music and radical reduction of two of the three dream sequences, which leaves the movie thematically hollow; the completely ridiculous decision to excise the song 'My Ship', which must have left any audience paying close attention utterly bewildered; miserable direction of a dance that was buried in dry ice and visual obstructions; and a general vulgarity that permeated the entire film.As for performances, Ray Milland has no chance his character is so obnoxious, but as it's Liza Elliott's show all the way this hardly matters. Ginger Rogers is tight and buttoned down, which is in character for Liza but out of character for Ginger. Stage productions generally give Liza the chance to blossom during the dream sequences; in the movie's first two dreams, Liza is presented as a gargoyle, which may be a contrast to her real life depression but not the right kind of contrast. No doubt it's not a coincidence that the one dream that stays close to the original (Song of Jennie) is the most successful scene in the picture. I also think that Rogers nails it in the scenes of Liza's youth. This is where the crucial song 'My Ship' was cut. You can hear Rogers singing it in a radio version of LITD where she keeps her voice in its youthful character rather than singing all-out as most, if not all, other Lizas do. It's strikingly effective and would have helped the movie immensely.Truth to tell, Mitchell Leisen's career had peaked once Wilder and Brackett stopped writing his scripts. Various circumstances meant that Ginger Rogers' film career was also within shouting distance of a gradual descent. LADY IN THE DARK didn't delay either process.

I like this movie. It is confusing and difficult, but you can't help but like it. Ginger Rogers plays a fashion magazine editor...and she finds herself having headaches and feeling dissatisfied. This makes no sense, as she has an exceptional job (especially for 1940) three suitors, and conscious and unconscious lives that are fabulously costumed. She goes to her doctor who recommends a psychiatrist...a drastic move for the time...which she promptly declines...but then does finally go to. Ginger undergoes a great deal of stress in this film,and keeping a bottle of aspirin at hand might be wise. As she makes progress with her shrink...her dream sequences become more and more lavish. The film is beautifully costumed...even clothes left lying on a chair...are fabulous. And there are HATS. HATS. Hats... mousey through military...lots of hats...and FURS...Ginger has one dress with a floor length mink skirt...lined with gold and scarlet sequins, two or three fur coats, a muff, and several other dresses trimmed with fur. Pull the shades and make certain that no one from PETA is around when you run this film. The dream sequences are the real meat of this...they are very beautiful and very surreal. In the end, of course, Ginger selects one of the men (no, not the married one) and seems to be on the road to recovery. You get the feeling that a lot got left out...and I don't know what (yet). I know Danny Kaye was 'discovered' in the Broadway show...and that he had special material. Danny was under contract to Sam Goldwyn by the time this was made...so neither he nor any of his special material made the transition into this film. This film is a visual knock out...and a restored print should be made and hi-def DVD's struck...so we can watch this from time to time. It cannot help but remain dated and politically incorrect....that is the legacy of its 1940 dateline.. but it will certainly always be stunning to look at.

A Technicolor spectacular, with costumes and wonderful sets to match, but the story isn't much, mostly what you might expect to read in Popular Psychoanalysis magazine.Best are the dream and reverie sequences, especially the trial in the circus ring. These are where the singing and dancing is, but there is not much and what little there is is not very exciting.

Great score mutilated, interesting stage libretto turned into an anti-feminist tract: It seems that our heroine, a successful and independent woman, needs a man to dominate her to be happy. (The stage version had the same basic story, but the rhetoric wasn't so vehemently misogynistic.) Ginger was more than a singer-dancer -- she could act, and had an Oscar to prove it -- but here her playing is dull and unimaginative. She, the art and costume and make-up departments, and the director seem concerned with two things only: the look of Ginger, and the look of the film. She looks fine, and the gaudy production design is a Technicolor riot, if not in the best of taste. The visual splendor makes the film worth seeing, but you'll have to tune a lot of nonsense out.