Film Matters Magazine

Sophia Stolkey: In the beginning of the book, you set out to shed light on the underrated film musical that is Summer Stock and “elevate” it to a higher standard of renown. Could you tell readers a little bit about why this film tends to be overlooked in the canon of Hollywood’s Golden Age from your perspectives, and why it deserves greater attention overall?

David Fantle: As for why it doesn’t get as much attention, and why it’s not in the same conversation as Singin’ in the Rain, or Easter Parade, or those great musicals, I think one reason is that the plot is a bit trite. You know: “Let’s put a show on in a barn…” It’s a little bit of a throwback to films that Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney were doing ten years earlier. But we thought the film was worth closer examination because after writing about it and screening it many, many times, what we’ve realized in audiences we have watched it with is that in the 109-minute runtime, there’s arguably more outstanding musical numbers in those 109 minutes than any of these aforementioned “classic” musicals that are always talked about. We have Gene Kelly’s all-time favorite dance number with the squeaky board, Judy Garland’s iconic swan song to MGM, “Get Happy.” We have “Dig-Dig-Dig Dig for your Dinner,” a terrific tap number. We have arguably the best dance duet that Gene and Judy did out of the three films they worked on together. So, minute per minute, number by number, we think this film has so many showstoppers.

Tom Johnson: What drew us to this, too, was the backstory. There was so much drama in getting this made; it was Judy’s last film at MGM. After fifteen years of work at MGM, the only studio she ever knew, she parted with them right after this movie. And as Dave said, it was sort of a trite plot — no one wanted to do it. Gene, Judy, director Chuck Walters, they were all trying to get out of it. But they all came together as sort of a security blanket for Judy Garland, because she was really up against it with her drug dependencies, raising her daughter Liza pretty much as a single parent, and all these things she had problems with at the time. So they surrounded her, the professionalism was there, and they got the thing done, which was just amazing. And what you see in the numbers, and especially in some of the dramatic scenes, is the real feeling that Judy and Gene had for each other. There’s a real love there. It wasn’t even really acting — you could just tell. And I don’t think that exists in any other Judy film, where you see that real regard for each other, and love for each other.

Film Matters: Please tell us about your article that is being published in Film Matters.

Sloane Dzhitenov: “In the Infinite Pool: The Cinematic Spectatorship of Sleep Has Her House (2017)” is an exploration of the slow and landscape cinema values contained within Scott Barley’s Sleep Has Her House, with a specific focus on modes of viewership and the audience-screen relationship. It touches on a lot of readings and concepts I’ve long been fascinated with, such as Deleuze’s concept of the cinema or Brakhage’s filmography, making it especially valuable to me, personally.

Film Matters: Please tell us about your article that is being published in Film Matters.

Emily Moore: My article explores the documentary-genre influence on Brief Encounter, with specific focus on Griersonian-influenced short films. In a way, the paper is split into two, first examining what constitutes a documentary, before then exploring how the film aligns with these principles through protagonist Laura’s narration and perspectives.

Film Matters: Please tell us about your article that is being published in Film Matters.

Monica Foster: Much has been said about Charles Baudelaire’s nineteenth-century figure, the flâneur, and its relation to a variety of different disciplines. The flâneur was and still is a figure of modern mobility; he is one who strolls and observes his surroundings. My article for Film Matters introduces the female iteration of the flâneur, the flaneuse, by examining Paweł Pawlikowski’s 2013 film, Ida. The act of flâneurie, is typically a metropolitan activity, and is done at one’s leisure; in other words, it is not a serious activity that involves much labor. In contrast, the flâneuse in Ida, is reflective and has a purpose to her wandering, especially given the film’s historical context: 1960s communist Poland. Through flâneuserie, Ida, the film’s protagonist, navigates urban and rural settings to discover a truth about herself and the world around her. This article gives much to female subjectivity and consciousness under the effects of the Second World War and communism and how the past continues to inform one’s present.