|
By
NICK ZEGARAC
I am still at a loss to
explain how Ginger Rogers performance in Sam
Wood's Kitty Foyle (1940) earned her the Best
Actress Oscar over Joan Fontaine's tour de force
in Hitchcock's Rebecca. Does Ms. Rogers give a bad
performance? -- decidedly not. But there is no
sparkle to it when compared to the latter.
Katherine 'Kitty' Foyle (Rogers) is the product of
an era when working women were considered a
novelty. The film spoofs the -- even then --
bygone era of the turn of the century through rose
colored glasses; you know, the days when women
were perceived as ancient fragile flowers in need
of a man's care and concern. Fast track to
contemporary (at least for 1940) life -- a woman
doesn't get any consideration or even a seat on
the bus.
Kitty is a struggling working gal -- albeit living
in fashionable clothes in her equally fashionable
apartment and with narrowly a care in the world.
Hers and the film's biggest dilemma is which man
she should choose for herself -- the self-centered
rich beau, Wynnewood Strafford VI (Dennis Morgan)
who merely toys with her affections while leaving
her repeatedly high and dry, or the flirtatious
doctor, Mark Eisen (James Craig) who has offered
his hand in marriage and only seems to have
Kitty's best interests at heart. Well…duh? Like
who would any woman pick?
Still, Kitty's heart goes flip and flutter-up each
time Wynn bats an eye. Though she's less of a
cliché around Mark, there's really nothing to
suggest that Kitty will choose either of them
before the final fade out. RKO Pictures spent a
lot on cultivating a story they thought would
appeal to their primarily female based ticket
buyers -- and to the tune of $869,000 they were
surely not disappointed. Yet the film continues to
feel flat in spots -- the machinations of 'will
she or won't she' reaching their most entertaining
crescendo after Kitty confronts Wynn's stuffy
parents and family -- declaring her independence
from being a 'kept' woman in need of being looked
after. Overall then, the best that can be said of
the film in retrospect is that it does not expect
too much of its audience. Rogers delivers a rather
par for the course performance, but the rather
impressively mounted film has mood, setting and
atmosphere on its side -- all three undoubtedly
proving winners with the audience.
Warner Home Video's transfer is another treat.
Picture quality on this DVD is remarkable. The
grayscale has deep solid blacks and fine tonality
throughout. Whites are generally clean.
Age-related artifacts are kept to a bare minimum.
This is a wholly visually satisfying transfer. The
audio has been cleaned up and is presented in its
original mono at an adequate listening level.
Extras are weak -- two short subjects from the
vintage. |
