User Reviews

"Meet Me in St. Louis" is Judy's Garland's film and nobody else. Producer Arthur Freed and Director Vincente Minnelli lavish Garland with plush Technicolor, great tunes and photography that showcases Judy in a way that she had never been seen. She was never more beautiful on screen.

The story centers around the affluent Smith family of St. Louis: Father Alonzo (Leon Ames), Mother Anna (Mary Astor in an inspired bit of casting), daughters Esther (Garland), Rose Lucille Bremer), Agnes (Joan Carroll) and cutsie Tootie (Margaret O'Brien). Also there is Lon Jr. Henry H. Daniels Jr., Grandpa (Harry Davenport) and the maid Katie (Marjorie Main). They all live in a palatial mansion, wear all the latest fashions and generally live lives that few of us could imagine.

The time is 1903 six months before the opening of the 1904 St. Louis World Fair. Esther and Rose are looking for husbands. Rose has her eye on New York socialite Warren Sheffield (Robert Sully) and Esther on the boy next door John Truett (Tom Drake), who doesn't seem to have any family but lives in an equally palatial mansion. Tootie and Agnes are up to no good on Halloween. As the year ends, Alonzo announces that he is moving the family to New York. everyone becomes despondent. But at the last moment..........................

The songs in this film are memorable. Tunes such as "The Boy Next Door", Clang, Clang Clang Goes the Trolley" and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" have since gone on to become classics. Garland pretty much has center stage all to herself. There is no "A" list leading man for example, to detract from her performance. She sings all of the songs and sings them well.

Garland and Minnelli would soon become an item and would eventually marry resulting in daughter Liza Minnelli. None of the supporting players would achieve major stardom except for a bit player who played the Iceman: Chill Wills.

I'd never seen this movie until a few weeks ago. After I rented it from Netflix last month (I still have it, but I plan to buy my own copy soon), I saw it on AMC. Has it been on TV before? I mean, I've known of its existence, because I've seen the title in the sheet music for Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. I heard James Taylor talk about the movie in an interview after he recorded that song in response to 9/11 and I've been wanting to see it ever since. Now I've become a MMISL junkie. I can't stop watching it!

I've read everything I can find on the Internet about it (and about the St. Louis World's Fair, which is absolutely fascinating--did you know that one of the pavilions featured actual premature babies in incubators?), and I just started reading Sally Benson's original book. For those who complain that this film is some kind of idealized or fantasized representation of life in America, I say read the book. It's based on Sally Benson's actual recollections of growing up in St. Louis and the movie dialogue and situations are lifted almost word for word from the book. It jibes pretty well with other things I've read about the era and with stories I've heard my parents and grandparents tell, so I have no trouble believing it at all.

Actually, the situations and relationships are not that different from what families face today (at least the normal, two-parents-of-the-opposite-sex kind that I'm familiar with). Just listen to Mrs. Smith tell her husband to count to three before responding to his daughter. (He counts to three and shouts at her anyway!) As for Mr. Smith giving up a lucrative career move for the sake of his family's happiness and well-being, how many parents have not faced similar decisions?

I think there are five main reasons I like this movie: 1. Judy Garland. She's just one of the greatest performers of the 20th century, that's all there is to it. 2. Margaret O'Brien. What a joy to watch on the screen. Now I know why she was one of the most beloved child stars in America. 3. The wonderful songs. It doesn't get much better than "The Trolley Song," "The Boy Next Door," and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas." 4. The beautiful Technicolor cinematography. In the DVD version, the colors are so brilliant that it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday. And Rose and Esther's clothes are simply stunning. I especially love the (Oriental?) robes they wear at home. 5. Last but not least, I enjoy its refreshingly positive, upbeat take on family life and life in these United States.

I just wish I hadn't had to wait fifty years to see this sixty-year-old movie!

None of the songs in this film bears any relation to the story line, but few people notice because there is no story line, no plot. Nothing, beyond, Will the family go to the fair?

So why watch such a boring movie? Nostalgia.

Set in 1903-4, made in 1944, Meet Me in St. Louis is the equivalent of looking back at 1971 today, at least mathematically. 1904 must have seemed so long ago, even in 1944, and in the depths of World War II, surely the peaceful normalcy must have had great appeal with audiences.

What makes St. Louis of some interest today is that it is a very early example of a full-blown modern movie musical, and of Technicolor. There were musicals in the Thirties, but much of the music was staged, performed by performers. Gradually, beginning perhaps with The Wizard of Oz, studios shifted over to free form musicals, where singing and dancing arose spontaneously from ordinary people. Garland played a key role in the evolution of these musicals because of her top notch musical interpretations.

To get a feel for the development of the modern musical, you need to see Meet Me in St. Louis, and see other movies around this time period to get perspective. Another key musical was State Fair in 1945, the first Rodgers & Hammerstein musical on the screen. State Fair copied the device of the opening song about the fair, passed around among the characters, but otherwise was distinct. Some say St. Louis was inspired by the theme of the earlier non-musical State Fair in 1933.

When you compare the two, the music in State Fair is far more closely integrated to the story line, and is an expression of the thoughts of the characters -- the Rodgers & Hammerstein hallmark. There is some free form singing, but much of it is tied to musical performances, so it is still mostly old form. On the other hand, The Trolley Song is great fun, but the words are glaringly inconsistent with what you see on the screen. State Fair has a stronger story line, and a more elaborate, expressive dance number choreographed by Hermes Pan, during the Iowa song. There is more humor and more pathos. But it is essentially a light, escapist story, like Meet Me in St. Louis.

When I look at the two, State Fair 1945 makes me heartsick for the normalcy and decency of an America we seem to be losing, while St. Louis produces no such emotion, perhaps because it is so long ago, but mostly because it looks so artificial.

St. Louis has Garland, the charming Margaret O'Brien, demonstrating her remarkable ability to cry on cue, and Marjorie Main, performing some delightful scenes. Some people love this movie, and these are probably why. And some people just go gaga over the theatricality of musicals, the color, dancing, music, even when there is little or no plot to hold it together.

The movie opens with the main characters singing the title song. Gee, I wonder what's going to happen? The suspense is killing me! What follows is a grab bags of scenes from family life, circa 1903-04, some cute, some quaint, but mostly cliché, and some nice songs we used to sing at summer camp. Let's face it, Meet Me in St. Louis is famous for its songs, especially the Trolley Song. Take out the music, and what have you? A movie without a plot, a slice of life story.

Garland is at her best singing Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. But listen to the words closely; it is not Garland in 1903, it is Garland talking about WWII:

Next year all our troubles will be miles away,

Someday soon, we all will be together

If the Fates allow

What does this have to do with the movie? The song was first published in 1943.

Without the music I would rate this movie a 3 out of 10; with it, a 5. It is highly over-rated. State Fair 1945 is almost forgotten, yet has a lot of polish and fine detail, and a story line of eternal appeal, in short, a classic, so it is highly under-rated.

Part of the contemporary 10 star hype surrounding St. Louis may be because it is a clean family movie that mostly fits the bill of Christian fundamentalists, though there is a shocking premarital kiss or two. On the other hand, I feel sorry for those who are so jaded they give it 2 stars. It's still fun, in a brainless sort of way.

By all means, see Meet Me in St. Louis. It has an important place in the history of cinema. You will probably enjoy it and hear some fine singing by Judy Garland.

If you like this type of story, you should watch the 1949 Little Women, which stars a slightly older Margaret O'Brien. Or Life with Father, 1947. Or I Remember Mama, 1948. Or even Cheaper by the Dozen. They are all semi-autobiographical stories of family life, far more interesting and better acted. A fictional family slice of life movie with O'Brien is Our Vines Have Tender Grapes, also starring Edward G. Robinson and Agnes Moorehead. It is a clean family values film that anyone can enjoy.

And for a musical on a similar family theme, see the 1945 State Fair (not to be confused with the 1963 remake). The Technicolor work is actual much more impressive, though the sound quality is not as good. It is a vastly superior film than St. Louis, which will warm your heart.

Spoiler alert:

In the last two minutes, the family finally arrives at the fair. They spend the first minute talking about where to eat, and the second exclaiming how beautiful it is. The end.

I'd seen this film several times as a child before studying it in earnest as part of a college film class. Now, nearly 20 years past, I look more at the nuances and subtleties of the performances and direction in a movie that seems easy to characterize as sentimental. Indeed, the vibrant color, the relatively simple plot contrivances, and the resolution of the big question of the movie all make for what seems superficially like a film for fans of Corny Musicals.

Let me argue against "sap" for the main reason that a deep undercurrent of real and heartfelt emotion underlies the entire enterprise. And the credit can be spread wide for that:

1. The rich and subtle performance of Judy Garland, who does not miss a step, a note, a glance or an inflection throughout the entire movie. For many la Judy can be an acquired taste, but she shows her "stuff" here. Watch her primping at the mirror with Rose, watching Tootie as she sings "Dear Mother," or in the scene where The Boy tells her he can't get his tuxedo out of the cleaners. She was a marvelous actor, and it shows in the small scenes as well as the grand singing ones. Her transition from worry and disappointment to exuberance in The Trolley Song is a wonder to behold.

2. Margaret O'Brien as Tootie (and also the writer's characterization of Tootie): here is a child who is not "nice" or "cute" the way TV/Movie kids are today. But she is compelling and wonderful in own right - a real flesh and blood kid. In particular the Halloween scene really shows the dark side of childhood where scary fantasies can become real, and the depths of her despair at leaving St. Louis capture the essence of leaving everything that is familiar and right.

3. The acting company is so wonderful from the smallest supporting actor to the largest role, there is a give and take (note the "passing" of the title song from person to person at the beginning of the film) and the easy banter, the dinner table interactions, the scene where everyone finds out about the Big Move, and you get a sense that this is a real family.

4. The integration and the transition from the emotion of the scene directly into the emotion of the song, and then back to the scene is repeated again and again. This is not an easy thing to do, and for all I can recall, Minnelli was the first to master it. Most musicals would stop dead in the their tracks to do a song, but the music here is so organic and truthful you hardly notice the strings moving in the background.

5. And don't get me started on the score, which is really wonderful, echoing the various themes at just the perfect moment. The Halloween bonfire music is especially good. I think credit goes to George Stoll for that.

6. And for putting the package together, a tip of the hat to Vincente Minnelli and Arthur Freed, who went on to do many wonderful musicals, but none perhaps as wonderful as this one. Minnelli works magic with staging (the "Skip to My Lou" and "Trolley Song" are wonderful group numbers), and it must have been true love that helped Judy Garland's wonderful performance.