Judy Garland and The World's Fair

More views of - or after - Cambridge Film Festival 2011
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)

18 December

In some ways, Meet Me in St. Louis is a curious film, which projects from 1944 (when it was released) back to 1903 (and just into 1904) a vision of a family in Missouri, with its imminent World’s Fair (a thing that would have sent a bold message in wartime).

First things first: I have no idea if Gomez in The Addams Family was modelled on the character played by Leon Ames as Alonzo Smith (more often Lon or Lonnie), head of our family. Sometimes things that appear linked are just coincidental and one wrongly reads in joins that are not there, but I wouldn’t be surprised. (There are other connections that may spring to mind as I continue.)

I have no idea how accurate to the times the portrayal is, but, at hallowe’en, I was surprised by the wanton destructiveness of burning in the street anything, however useful, that could be dragged to it – throwing flour in the face of one’s adult neighbours and telling them one hated them then seemed relatively tame, although, with the right choice of victim, performing the deed carried a particular accolade.

This sinister tinge to things was pre-empted by the youngest of the four Smith daughters, nicknamed Tootie (Margaret O’Brien), rejoicing in the thought of burying one of her dolls in a place already prepared for her – she has four diseases, but, as the driver of the ice-cart on which she is riding observes, one is enough. (We are left to imagine why this girl keeps this company and occupation.)

On the night in question, she accuses a male neighbour of killing cats with poisoned meat and then burning them on the fire, but this seems a crime ranking no higher (or no lower) than keeping empty whiskey bottles in the cellar. Truly, a neighbour deserved to be well pasted with flour.

Later, her sister Agnes and she put a dressed dummy on the track of the streetcar in the hope of derailing it when the driver applies the brakes, but the incident is dealt with in a manner that only passingly suggests reproof for such actions, as well as that of blaming John Truitt (Tom Drake), their neighbour and beau of her sister Esther (the starring 22-year-old Judy Garland), who discovers their activities.

In the meantime, he has been given a good pasting by Esther (or ‘Es’, as her sister Rose calls her). When, learning the truth, she comes back to apologize, he jokingly asks if she is free to beat him up the following night, too!

A friend of mine has posted recently on her blog how certain things may be more likely to be done now by telephone, rather than face to face, but this film opens by envisaging a proposal of marriage being forthcoming by long-distance call from a beau of Esther’s elder sister, Rose – the maid sagely remarks that she would not accept such a proposition being made using an invention. In all these things, a strangely modern film for all its carefree appearance.

But I shouldn’t finish without some comments about the stars: young O’Brien won a special Oscar for her performance, and Garland made hits of ‘The Trolley Song’ and (having, in context, much more significance than the words usually convey) ‘Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas’, both of which she delivered with her distinctive voice. The purity of her singing voice, almost without vibrato, and with the same tones and qualities that make her so distinctive when she speaks, was a delight.

For this reason, I have no doubt that Judy Garland is a great performer, because she also dances splendidly, but, whether it was always part of her film-acting, she brings, even when she is not meant to be nervous, an uneasy and even lost character to it, which does not make me feel that it or film go well together. This means that the relatively few opportunities, despite its being an MGM musical, that she had to show what I see in her then as her real talents are valued, and so this does not see the ideal vehicle for them.

It is an enjoyable film, but I have one final reservation. Family resemblance and casting cannot achieve a counsel of perfection, but, without her being an example of classical beauty, I found myself spending rather too much time thinking of the striking nature of her looks (which, of course, is there in her daughter): at that age, there was still time for her facial features to develop and mature, and I really should reacquaint myself with some later performances when the chance presents itself.


If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here