Login
Ginger Rogers' name usually gets brought up and the name Fred Astaire quickly precedes or follows it. But she made more movies without Astaire than she did with him. And she existed in films before him, nor was she really his first partner. Just his best. Nowadays she's practically known for just her musical career, but in Kitty Foyle she proves that her lone Oscar nomination and win was no fluke. There was always something about her that didn't fit the mold of glamorous divas of the era like it did so effortlessly on, say, Joan Crawford or Greta Garbo. Rogers looked like the chorus girl who made good. Crawford might have played numerous shops girls who took the world by storm, but Rogers actually looked the part.
It's a pity that Kitty Foyle isn't a better movie. It's far too long and needed some serious edits to tighten up the pace, the story, and remove many of the repetitive scenes that bog it down. How many times do I have to see her rich-boy lover come into conflict with her blue collar roots and his white collar background? How many times do I have to see her in the wrap around segments talking to herself in the mirror, debating whether or not she should run off with the dubious rich-boy or the nice-guy doctor? Too damn many.
And that completely unnecessary intro which traces the woman's suffrage movement? Cut it. It's distracting. I get it, women went from "happy" home-makers to working girls during the WWII era. (But they quickly went right back into the kitchen after it was all over, well most of them.) It's bizarre and pure padding. There's also something that leaves a nasty after-taste in the mouth once it is over. Notice how lovingly, brightly the woman is filmed during the first part and how harshly she is by the end? Perhaps the filmmakers are trying to send a not-so-subtle message that all women who dare to do something other than raise kids and take care of their husbands and homes are doomed to spinsterhood and bad lighting? It comes across as anti-feminist. And as a pro-rights, pro-peace, humanist, I find it offensive.
What is refreshing is to see a woman in the main role as the primary motivator in both of her romantic dalliances, her social climbing, and life choices. Rogers is stubborn, street-smart, tough and driven. When her rich-boy's family wants to send her to finishing school, she walks out on him knowing full well that this is but the first of many arguments they are bound of have about their different social levels. And credit must be given for a film made during this era that doesn't shy away from pre-martial sex, pregnancy out-of-wedlock and miscarriages. It's a meaty part, and could have been a classic women's picture if given the right editing.
While this may sound terribly melodramatic, and much of it is, it never really plays out that way. Rogers keeps everything very subdued and quiet in her performance. After her miscarriage, any scenes where she's involved with children during the present day take on a new resonance. She's subtle and disarming in her central role and keeps the movie going as best she can. I wonder what she could have done with a role like Mildred Pierce, if she had only been given the chance.
