Tabu der Gerechten (1947) Online

1947 Gregory Peck Dorothy McGuire John Garfield Elia Kazan

Original Title :: Gentlemanu0027s Agreement
Genre :: Movie / Drama / Romance
Year :: 1947
Directror :: Elia Kazan
Cast :: Gregory Peck,Dorothy McGuire,John Garfield
Writer :: Laura Z. Hobson,Moss Hart
Budget :: $2,000,000
Type :: Movie
Time :: 1h 58min
Rating :: 7.4/10

Tabu der Gerechten (1947) Online

Philip Green is a highly respected writer who is recruited by a national magazine to write a series of articles on anti-Semitism in America. He's not too keen on the series, mostly because he's not sure how to tackle the subject. Then it dawns on him: if he was to pretend to all and sundry that he was Jewish, he could then experience the degree of racism and prejudice that exists and write his story from that perspective. It takes little time for him to experience bigotry. His anger at the way he is treated also affects his relationship with Kathy Lacy, his publisher's niece and the person who suggested the series in the first place.

Complete credited cast:
	Gregory Peck	-	Philip Schuyler Green
	Dorothy McGuire	-	Kathy Lacy
	John Garfield	-	Dave Goldman
	Celeste Holm	-	Anne Dettrey
	Anne Revere	-	Mrs. Green
	June Havoc	-	Elaine Wales
	Albert Dekker	-	John Minify
	Jane Wyatt	-	Jane
	Dean Stockwell	-	Tommy Green
	Nicholas Joy	-	Dr. Craigie
	Sam Jaffe	-	Professor Fred Lieberman
	Harold Vermilyea	-	Lou Jordan
	Ransom M. Sherman	-	Bill Payson

Gregory Peck did not get along with director Elia Kazan. Kazan told the press he was very disappointed with Peck's performance and the two men never worked together again.

Despite winning an Oscar for his direction, Elia Kazan revealed in a later interview that he was never fond of this movie, feeling that it lacked passion on his part and he thought that the romance was too forced.

In 1984 Gregory Peck claimed to have been misquoted in a 1967 interview in which he said Elia Kazan was the wrong director for the film. The actor said, "That's a misunderstanding. I don't think there could have been a better director for the film. What I meant was that he and I didn't have a rapport; emotionally, we were not on the same wave length. I don't think that I did my best work for him. If I worked with him now -- as a mature man -- I think I would give him everything he would want".

Gregory Peck later said regarding this film, "We felt we were brave pioneers exploring anti-Semitism in the United States -- today, it seems a little dated."

The role of Phillip Green was first offered to Cary Grant, but he turned it down. Grant refused the role because he contended he was Jewish and thought he looked Jewish. He maintained, "The public won't believe my portrayal of a gentile trying to pass himself off as a Jew."

Elia Kazan thought Gregory Peck was the wrong actor to play Philip Schuyler Green.

The movie mentions three real people well-known for their racism and anti-Semitism at the time: Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-Mississippi), who advocated sending all African-Americans back to Africa; Rep. John Rankin (D-Mississippi), who called columnist Walter Winchell "the little kike" on the floor of the House of Representatives; and leader of "Share Our Wealth" and "Christian Nationalist Crusade" Gerald L.K. Smith, who tried legal means to prevent Twentieth Century-Fox from showing the movie in Tulsa. He lost the case, but then sued Fox for $1,000,000. The case was thrown out of court in 1951.

Celeste Holm is on record as saying that she found Gregory Peck to be no fun to work with.

When other studio chiefs, who were mostly Jewish, heard about the making of this film, they asked the producer not to make it. They feared its theme of anti-Semitism would simply stir up a hornet's nest about a problem which they preferred to handle quietly. Not only did production continue, but a scene was subsequently included that mirrored that confrontation.

The timeliness of the film is revealed by a telling exchange that took place between screenwriter Moss Hart and a stagehand, as reported in "The Saturday Review", December 6, 1947, pg. 71: "You know," a stagehand is reported to have said to Mr. Hart, "I've loved working on this picture of yours. Usually I play gin-rummy with the boys when scenes are being shot. But not this time. This time I couldn't leave the set. The picture has such a wonderful moral I didn't want to miss it". "Really?" beamed Mr. Hart, pleased not only as a scenarist but as a reformer. "That's fine. What's the moral as you see it?". "Well, I tell you," replied the stagehand. "Henceforth I'm always going to be good to Jewish people because you never can tell when they will turn out to be Gentiles."

Anne Revere plays Gregory Peck's mother, despite being only 12 years older.

Many were concerned that this film would somehow lend credence to the bizarre belief among the political right that "Jewish-friendly" films and novels from the time were inspired by communism, or were intentionally made as Communist propaganda. That fear was legitimized somewhat when many of the people involved with the film were brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) -- which was tasked with uncovering "Communist subversion" in the entertainment industry -- including Darryl F. Zanuck, Anne Revere, (perhaps most notoriously) Elia Kazan and John Garfield. Garfield was brought before HUAC twice, was blacklisted, taken off the blacklist and put back on it again; it was believed that the stress of these experiences led to the heart attack that killed him at the age of 39.

Laura Z. Hobson wrote her novel after vitriolic ant-Semitic comments by Mississippi Senator John Rankin were applauded on he floor of Congress. The novel was then serialized in "Cosmopolitan" magazine from November 1946 to February 1947, immediately causing quite a stir. This prompted Fox studio boss Darryl F. Zanuck (one of the few studio heads who was not Jewish) to snap up the novel's rights.

In September 1948, the film was rejected for showing in Spain. The New York Times reported that the ban was instigated "by order of the ecclesiastical member of the Film Censorship Board on moral grounds. According to a source close to the board, the banning order stipulated that while it was a Christian duty to 'stimulate love among individuals, societies, nations and peoples,' this should not extend to Jews." The report listed six points or "theological errors" of the film that warranted the ban, including that the film declared "that a Christian is not superior to a Jew" and that the film asserts that "for many Jews it is a matter of pride to be called Jews. Pride of what? The pride of being the people who put God to death? Of being perfidious, as they are called in Holy Scripture?" On October 3, 1948, according to Hollywood Reporter, the President of the Board of Film Censors in Madrid, Gabriel Garcia Espina, called the statement reported in New York Times to be a "calumny" and that the film was, in fact, banned because anti-Semitism was not an issue in Spain. Espina stated, "There is no racial problem in Spain. We do not know here the conflict of Semitism or anti-Semitism. And precisely because of the beautiful and traditional Spanish idea of human freedom, these anguishing racial differences that have disturbed so much, and apparently do disturb, the lives of the peoples, are alien to us and we want them to continue being alien to us." The film, however, was approved for showing in Spain on January 12, 1949 under the title La Barrera Invisible.

Darryl F. Zanuck felt the time was right to bring up the subject of anti-Semitism, following the full disclosure of what had actually gone on in the Nazi death camps.

Fox's top-grossing picture of 1948.

Gregory Peck's agent advised him against doing this film, believing that he would be endangering his career.

Shooting started in late May 1947 and took three months. The film opened in November of that year to overwhelming critical acclaim.

Constance Bennett turned down the Oscar-winning role eventually played by Celeste Holm.

Dialogue in the film refers to a number of then-prominent demagogic figures known for their bigotry, including U.S. Senator Theodore Gilmore Bilbo, from Mississippi, who advocated deporting all African Americans to Africa; Representative John E. Rankin, also from Mississippi, who in a statement from the House floor called broadcaster and columnist Walter Winchell "the little kike"; and Gerald L. K. Smith, a Christian Nationalist Crusade leader. In May 1947, Darryl F. Zanuck queried Fox legal counsel George Wasson on whether they were breaking any laws by making the references. After Wasson responded that no court would consider the references a violation of "right to privacy," and that there was only a slight risk of libel, Zanuck wrote, "Let them sue us. They won't dare and if they do nothing would make me more happy than to appear personally as a witness or a defendant at the trial." In April 1948, Smith did sue Twentieth Century-Fox in a Tulsa court to ban the film in Tulsa, his home for the previous six months. After a district judge refused to issue a restraining order, Smith took his complaint through the court system, suing the company for $1,000,000, but in February 1951, the case was dismissed.

"Lux Radio Theater" broadcast a 60 minute radio adaptation of the movie on March 15, 1954 with Dorothy McGuire reprising her film role.

The film was the second largest grossing picture up to that time in the South.

The only Best Picture Oscar winner starring Gregory Peck.

"Lux Radio Theater" broadcast a 60 minute radio adaptation of the movie on September 20, 1948 with Gregory Peck reprising his film role.

Features Dorothy McGuire's only Oscar nominated performance.

A best-picture Oscar for Gentleman's Agreement,1947, sold for $492,000, at auction in 2018.

Included among the American Film Institute's 1998 list of the 400 movies nominated for the Top 100 Greatest American Movies.

Phil Green's middle name in the film was Schuyler, although early in the film he is known as Schuyler Green. This came up in jocular conversation when Green attended a dinner party at the Minifys' house. John Minify: "What do people call a guy whose name is Schuyler?" Phil Green: "Phil". John Minify: "Good, then I don't have to say 'Green' all the time. Too hard the last name and Schuyler is impossible. I wouldn't call a dog Schuyler". Coincidentally, Schuyler happens to be the middle name of Celeste Holm's third husband, A. Schuyler Dunning, whom she married in 1946.

In the scene where Phil (Gregory Peck) goes to check on his mother Mrs. Green (Anne Revere) after she suffers a mild heart attack, she says, "No need to look like Hamlet, I feel wonderful." "Gentleman's Agreement" won the Best Picture Oscar of 1947, and Sir Laurence Olivier's "Hamlet" won the Best Picture Oscar of 1948.

Fox legal records report that Morris Carnovsky was originally hired to play Professor Lieberman, but his contract was terminated by mutual agreement.

The only Best Picture Oscar nominee of 1947 to have an Oscar nomination for Best Actor (Gregory Peck). It is also the only Best Picture nominee to be nominated for Best Actress (Dorothy McGuire) as well.

Both the original author, Laura Z. Hobson, and one of the films stars, Jane Wyatt, had sons named Christopher and Michael.

John Garfield (real name Julius Garfinkle) was happy to take on the supporting role of Dave, as he felt the film's subject was one that needed to be heard.

John Garfield accepted the role after producer Darryl F. Zanuck promised that the film would be faithful to Moss Hart's script. Despite his limited role, Garfield was paid a full star's salary.

User reviews

Rare

I hate to say it, but before I saw this movie, I did not realize that there was racism against Jews in the post war period. I couldn't understand it: why would Americans promote the very thing they fought against in the war? Then I was informed that they weren't fighting against racism or discrimination, but against the Nazi regime and genocide. There is a large difference between one person's opinion and a government policy. I'm a teenager, and the fact that Jews were still discriminated against was never mentioned to me. Maybe it should be better known. I am doing Modern History next year and we will be studying the Second World War, and I'm very glad I saw this film (despite its inaccuracies).

Anyway now to the plot. Phillip Green (Gregory Peck) is a writer who pretends to be Jewish to find out about anti-Semitism. Through this, he learns how much people discriminate against Jews and it affects him deeply and changes his life.

I was never bored in this film. I am forever fascinated by Peck, who I've always remembered as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird (1962). This is only the second film I've seen with Peck in his younger days (it's quite a pleasure watching him). Celeste Holm also is amazing and I love how she can laugh so easily very realistic. The only thing I wasn't satisfied with is the romantic choices by Peck's character. I wish he would have chosen the happy blonde Anne instead of the sappy, boring Kathy. Oh, how I was hoping he would choose Anne! Perhaps Dorothy McGuire was miscast; maybe someone else could have brought more energy to her character. John Garfield is fantastic as Green's Jewish friend.

This was ground breaking at the time and I really respect the people who participated in this film for taking a risk. Despite being made almost 60 years ago, I have not only learned from it but enjoyed it. Yes, there are some inaccuracies and plot holes, but I don't particularly care and it doesn't distract me. It's a great film, go see it.

Anarawield

It's hard for today's audience to appreciate the impact of Gentlemen's Agreement in 1947. The Holocaust was not in textbooks then, it was in newsreels showed in American theaters. The state of Israel was coming into being and there was debate about that with Harry Truman shortly overruling a lot of his own trusted advisers including his own Secretary of State George C. Marshall, in giving recognition to the nascent Jewish state.

During the course of the film names like Gerald L.K. Smith, Theodore G. Bilbo, and John E. Rankin are mentioned. The first was a Protestant evangelical minister who started out with Huey Long, but then developed a line of anti-Semitism in his sermons. He had a considerably large following back in the day though the Holocaust did a lot in killing his recruiting. Theodore G. Bilbo and John E. Rankin were a couple of Mississippi politicians who for their redneck constituency successfully linked anti-Semitism and racism. They didn't like foreign born either and used a whole lot of ethnic slurs.

But the anti-Semitism that Gregory Peck takes on is not that of Bilbo, Smith, and Rankin. It's the genteel country club anti-Semitism that manifests itself in restricted resorts, quotas as to how many Jews will some white shoe law firm accept if any, discrimination in hiring practices, unspoken covenants {gentlemen's agreements} not to sell to Jews in certain areas; all these we see in Gentlemen's Agreement.

Peck is given an assignment to write about it and he hits on a novel approach. Just being hired by publisher Albert Dekker, he gets Dekker's backing when he says he will pretend he's Jewish and see how he's being treated. He gets quite an experience in the bargain.

Running parallel to Peck's masquerade is his courtship of Dorothy McGuire. She's a divorcée, he's a widower with a young son. The whole thing puts a strain on their relationship, especially in dealing with her sister, Jane Wyatt who lives in one of those restricted by Gentlemen's Agreement communities.

Gentlemen's Agreement came up with several nominations and three Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director to Elia Kazan, and Best Supporting Actress to Celeste Holm as a tart tongued fashion writer at Peck's magazine who proves to be a friend. Peck himself was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Ronald Colman for A Double Life. Holm also beat out Anne Revere nominated for the same film, probably helped by the fact that Revere had won a few years earlier for National Velvet.

John Garfield who was Jewish took a small supporting role in the film as Peck's long time childhood friend who educates Peck into how a Jew deals with the rebuffs he's finding out about. Had he not been up also for Body and Soul as Best Actor, he might well have earned a Supporting Actor nomination here.

Also note Sam Jaffe as the fictional professor Lieberman which is a thinly veiled caricature of Albert Einstein probably the most noted figure in the world of Jewish background. Like Lieberman, Einstein's a cultural Jew, not religious in any sense of the word. Nevertheless he was a leading figure at the time in the Zionist movement, having endured all that Peck endured in Germany and seeing what was coming with Hitler, fled his native Germany for safe harbor in the USA.

My favorite character in the film however has always been June Havoc as Peck's secretary. She changed her name to something ethnically neutral to get her job in the very magazine that will now crusade against anti-Semitism. She's also become a self hater, a phenomenon that other discriminated people also experience. GLBT activists are fully aware of what self hate has done, not hardly unknown among other groups as Ms. Havoc demonstrates.

Of course Gentlemen's Agreement is dated with its topical references to post World War II trends and events. Yet it still has a powerful message to deliver. It made Gregory Peck one of the great liberal icons of Hollywood and still should be seen by all as a great lesson in the pitfalls of unreasoning hate.

Buriwield

I love this film, though it has faults. It isn't very lively or humorous, and some parts are just plain baffling. Peck is supposed to be the moral spokesman, but so many of the other actors--John Garfield, Dorthy McGuire, Dean Stockwell, Celeste Holm, Sam Jaffe--suggest less priggishness/puritanism and more humanity/warmth than he does. How can we think him morally superior when he comes across like a sulking browbeater? I wish a Spencer Tracy or even a James Stewart had played his role. Sometimes, I feel like saying, "Lighten up, Greg! Say, did you ever here the one about the Rabbi and the three bellydancers? You'll love it."

Nor is it just the casting. Many of Anne Revere's lines make me wince with their naivety, and I think she has the most embarrassing role in the movie. However, I really hate the scene when Peck berates his secretary, June Havoc, basically telling her that the only thing that differentiates a Jew from a Christian is just a word--as if cultural and ethnic differences didn't exist or matter.

I could go on, because I think I know this film's faults as well as any of its critics. However, the movie's virtues obviously outweigh its shortcomings and dated moments. In fact, after over sixty years, not one other Hollywood film confronts bigotry as intelligently as this one. That's right; not one. Why? Because every other one deals only with bigotry in the extreme--and the result is they don't really attack bigotry, they attack violence. Many bigots who keep their kids out of culturally diverse schools can watch MISSISSIPPI BURNING, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, CROSSFIRE, etc., and can self-congratulatingly say to themselves, "Well, that's not me; I know I'm not a racist." Of course, violent prejudice is the worst form there is, but, in case you didn't know, it is not violent prejudice that minorities confront on a daily basis. It is the unspoken, insensitive attitudes that GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT is brave enough (and unique enough) to attack. Despite its dated moments, it's no wonder this movie raises nervous hairs to this day. It makes one actually wonder: is it wrong to tell a politically incorrect joke? Those who think the answer is simple, please think again.

Some have commented that they don't understand what the title refers to and it is significant. A gentleman's agreement is one made without writing or even speech--an agreement that's understood or assumed to be understood. In regards to the film, the term refers to those innumerable bigots who so unthinkingly assume that their prejudices are agreed upon. Speaking as a member of the U.S.'s privileged minority (a white, anglo-saxon, Protestant heterosexual male), I can attest that all of the sexist, racist comments I have had to hear have always been spoken by someone who silently assumed that I would agree with him, making it a gentleman's agreement. The movie, of course, says it's time to break the agreement. A lot of people didn't like such a message when the film came out, and a lot of them don't like it now.

Doulkree

20th Century Fox currently is releasing a new "Studio Classics" DVD series, each a famous film from the past packaged with often compellingly interesting special features. Few releases are more important than 1947's Academy Award winning "Gentleman's Agreement," a for-the-times daring expose of anti-Semitism, a prejudice rarely if ever before that year acknowledged in film.

Laura Z. Hobson, an accomplished novelist, wrote the book of the same title and it sold well. Hobson unveiled the so-called "Gentleman's Agreement" whereby Jews were excluded from professions, clubs, resorts and employment and residency opportunities as well as simple social associations by a silent compact by mainly white Christians to engage in exclusionary practices. While discrimination against blacks was mandated by unambiguous law supported by inflexible government authority, the relegation of Jews to often second-class status in the dominant Christian community was by deception, denial and deceit.

A Christian, Darryl F. Zanuck was one of the few true Hollywood moguls who wasn't Jewish. He was also intensely offended by bigotry of any kind. Hobson's novel, of no interest to Jewish producers who preferred to live in their own world which consciously often aped the society from which they were barred, was his to buy for the screen. He did so for $75,000 and he set out to find a first-class crew to make the film.

Elia Kazan signed on to direct (and to revise the screenplay after Moss Hart finished it). Gregory Peck, already a box office idol, was chosen to play Philip Schuyler Green, a widower with a young boy (played by Dean Stockwell). Dorothy McGuire is Green's troubling love interest, Kathy Lacey. John Garfield, one of the many Hollywood denizens who changed their names to avoid being typed as Jewish, is Army Corps of Engineers captain Dave Goldman. Celeste Holm won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress as Anne Dettrey. Anne Revere, soon to lose twenty years of productive life because of the Blacklist, is Green's wise mom. June Havoc is Green's secretary, Elaine Wales, who in the film changed her name to get work, her real name being clearly Jewish. Lastly, Albert Dekker is magazine publisher John Minify, a man determined to expose to the light of day the insidious anti-Semitism of his social and economic universe. Unfortunately he's a bit naive about what goes down in his own shop.

This is a message film, direct and uncompromising. Agreeing to write a series exposing anti-Semitism, Green struggles to find a theme while falling in love with the divorced Kathy. His brilliant concept is to pretend to be a Jew and to record how others respond to him, a clearly well-educated, socially competent man, in that guise. His childhood buddy, Goldman, tries to warn him off but Green is determined.

Stridently polemical, the movie traces the growing number of incidents where Green is slighted because of his announced religion. From a building superintendent who doesn't allow a Jewish name on a lobby mailbox to a haughty resort manager of a "restricted" facility (the code word of the time for exclusion of Jews and blacks), Green gets a rapid course in the crude discrimination lurking behind most doors including the high society of his new beloved.

Green's son, told not to reveal that he and his dad aren't Jewish, runs into his own cruel rejection by classmates. Peck's Green lacks the depth of understanding of a child's vulnerability that his Atticus Finch later displays in "To Kill a Mockingbird." The boy is basically told that the other kids are wrong, we're right and that's that. Too simplistic even for this movie. Green is adamantly and unwaveringly sure of himself and woe betide any who do not share his abhorrence at any manifestation of discrimination, starting with Kathy.

The romance between Green and Kathy is as back-and-forth as any Hollywood potboiler, the difference being that their arguments and falling-outs revolve entirely over Kathy's inability to grasp the absolute righteousness of her fiance's crusade. The dispute is artificial and wearying to some degree and I rooted for Celeste Holm's lovely, witty and totally tolerant Anne, a fashion editor with attitude, as the top gal in the film. I would have married her in a New York minute!

Younger audiences today may well dismiss "A Gentleman's Agreement" as formulaic and preachy but they do not understand the nature of the tragedy, and that it was, that afflicted America at the time. The war had been won, the Cold War was getting into high gear and Nazi criminals were on trial in various European courtrooms. The reality of the concentration camps was known to all but already many had accepted the belief that only some Germans and their allies were actual murderers. Holocaust studies had not begun.

The period of "A Gentleman's Agreement" was a time in which many top colleges and universities that didn't ban Jews entirely had what are now acknowledged as "Jew quotas." Many Jewish doctors didn't enter that profession because that's what their moms wanted but due to the near blanket exclusion of Jews from engineering schools. Architecture schools also had a low quota for Jews (Louis Kahn's experiences are recounted in the current and outstanding documentary, "My Architect"). Whole communities lived by a sub rosa agreement never to admit Jews (and blacks), often solidifying their intent by restrictive covenants that courts enforced). What added to the awfulness of the prejudice is that communities comprised of Jews usually excluded blacks and other non-whites. No Caucasian group, whatever their religion, deserves exoneration for the acts they practiced against minorities. Blacks get no mention in this movie but lynchings were still in vogue-let's not forget that.

For many Americans harboring anti-Semitic beliefs, the bestiality of the Nazis was far more troubling than the fate of millions of their innocent victims, Jewish or not. Decrying Auschwitz in no way caused them to re-think less lethal but highly pervasive discrimination that they practiced or, as the film shows, disliked but nonetheless condoned without protest.

In that sense "A Gentleman's Agreement" was Hollywood's, actually Zanuck's, wake-up call. The politics of the producer, director, screenwriter and much of the cast aren't hidden. Several references to Bilbo and Rankin, two of the most evil racists and bigots ever to pollute Congress's halls, are as direct and clear as the sharp DVD images. And it's no surprise that virtually everyone associated with this film went on to be called by the House Un-American Activities Committee to be questioned about ties to communism (John Garfield died at age 39 of a heart attack the night prior to a second command appearance before that run-amuck committee). That committee hunted communists publicly but pursued a barely hidden anti-Semitic agenda and Hollywood provided plenty of potential victims.

The special features on this disc include a short documentary on its genesis and the subsequent reaction to the film as well as interviews with several stars including the still imposing Celeste Holm. Zanuck and Kazin deserved their Oscars as did Ms. Holm.

"A Gentleman's Agreement wasn't the only film to highlight anti-Semitism at that time. In fact it wasn't the first such film of 1947. Released shortly earlier, "Crossfire" starring Robert Ryan is a film noir capturing the violent bigotry of a thug who kills a Jewish victim for little better reason than his religion. An exciting film in its own right, its importance is secondary to Zanuck's which blew the lid - almost literally - off a brand of discrimination indulged in by educated and affluent Americans who would never commit assault or murder against anyone because of their race or religion.

Hollywood's Jewish moguls must have been surprised at the success of Zanuck's movie which in a small but real way began rolling back the kind of anti-American bigotry that the congressional committee investigating Tinseltown not only didn't care about: they shared it.

10/10 (for its historical impact and lasting value)

Snowskin

A Gentleman's Agreement is the second motion picture of Elia Kazan that I have seen, the first being On the Waterfront. When I saw the movie starring On the Waterfront about two years, I had not much knowledge about Stanislavsky's method of acting; to me, as an Indian teenager more exposed to Bollywood films, acting meant overdone expressions that indicated emotions of the character at the moment and blaring music in the background to suggest the mood. But after having read his works and being in contact with theater actors, I have realized how tough and delicate 'true' acting is. It can be compared to a tightrope, you tilt more to the side and you fall. Similarly, if you overdo or underperform, you fail – it is about developing yourself externally and internally to portray another person. And so have I begun to appreciate more welcomingly the works of great directors and actors; I am able to sense more keenly whether the actor is 'feeling' or 'acting as if he is feels'.

Elia Kazan, as I read about him in Wikipedia, has been proclaimed as an 'actor's director' for implementing his Method techniques in his film in a way that brings out the truest emotion within his actors. When Marlon Brando hails him as the best experience he has ever had with a director, it means a lot. And Gentleman's Agreement has a lot to say about the director's way of handling his actors and the subject of the film. The film seems rather like a filmed play, blackouts after every scene, unelaborated production and specific focus on actors. And the actors never sob their eyes out or scream their lungs out; their actions seem controlled and natural. There is scant music during the scenes, and therefore we never are made to feel in a particular way; everyone in the audience is entitled to feel his/her own way. And that's what made me astonished, as I was expecting high-voltage drama with the message bombarded upon the viewers. Although there were some unneeded moments, the impact that the film had on me was much more because all the actors collaborated so well without having any 'Movie Star' moment.

The matter is contentious and provocative – in the 40s; a reporter pretends to be a Jew for an article to directly be able to understand their feelings and presence in the white Christian dominated society. He is supported wholeheartedly by his openhearted mother and precocious son while equivocally by his fiancé. His decision leads to many confrontations, though most are not very serious, and a newfound friendship. The film distinguishes the varying attitudes of people – some take the initiative for the better, some for the worse while most sit on the fence. Here, Gregory, as Schuyler Green has been assigned to cover about anti-Semitism, which at that time was widely prevalent. He remains indecisive for a while but with the support of his family goes ahead and hits upon the idea of going undercover as a Jew. Gregory portrays him with immaculate sincerity though his character could have been written in a cleaner and riskier way. By this I mean his character does not experience to a fuller extent the discriminations among Jews because the radius his character chooses is limited to the upper caste society which remains more discreet in conveying its feelings. Also, there was abundant focus on his relationship with Kathy, his fiancée which although was very interesting as it gave focus to her own views on racism, but it neglected his interactions with other people. Yet, to take up this matter in the 40s is very brave.

Some viewers on IMDb denounce Kathy for being shallow, but I have to say that most people even today are like her in some or the other way. We know that something is wrong yet we sit and do nothing. And Dorothy McGuire channels this feeling of 'shame of not doing something' to a tee. And regarding certain viewers' complaint regarding the ending of the film, I say that basic human feelings such as love should not alter because of one incompatibility. I shall give a personal example here: My grandmother is staunchly against a leader's administration and is quite vocal about it but she would always reprimand my grandfather whenever he would provide criticism about the reader in the newspaper. That does not mean my grandpa will divorce my grandma and go soul searching; I was not disappointed by Schuyler's decision in the end.

The supporting cast act like pillars in the film, with not one misstep from the actors. Celeste Holm is simply amazing as the feisty fashion editor who believes in equality. And I felt she really had her feet on the ground, unlike fireball Bette Davis in All about Eve, whose character too has the similar zest but seems to spit ember and heat up all the scenes. Celeste is fun, over-the-top and believable, she also wonderfully acts especially in her final scene. Anne Revere is equally brilliant, and John Garfield and June Havoc give their best in their short roles. Garfield surprisingly didn't receive supporting actor nomination, since he has some climatic scenes and dialogs. And what conviction does the young Dean Stockwell display!

The ensemble is one of the best I have seen, and under Elia's guidance, deliver their best and most genuine. It may get dreary for those expecting swelling music and over-the-top moments but anyone who can notice the director's courage for making this shall be greatly impressed.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

NI_Rak

On the one hand, Gentleman's Agreement has a highly enlightened prejudice, even today, let alone 1947. Gregory Peck plays a journalist who decides to pretend to be Jewish so he can attain a real-life perspective on anti-semitism. Peck's transformation from a determined writer looking for an edge to a crusader against prejudice is nothing short of profound. The twist of course is that Peck gets lost in the assignment, starts seeing himself as a Jew and struggles to maintain his composure amid all the anti-semitism he experiences. Considering that, it's a shame that the film's abilities to tell a story lag so far behind the movie's depth and boldness. There's a lot of emphasis on the romance between Peck and his editor's niece, which is pretty overdone for a pair who has as little chemistry as McGuire and Peck. I think the worst part of that is hearing Gregory Peck referring to McGuire's character as "my girl" like he's in middle school, especially considering I've always associated Peck with characters of tremendous maturity. Additional randomness comes from the fact that the film also focuses on Peck's relationship with his ailing mother, which doesn't have much to do with the central plot at all. What seemed to be an attempt to give a more well-rounded view of the character, the story felt bogged down by those elements. Still, a worthwhile movie, overall, *** out of ****

MisTereO

This movie was very well done, and in my opinion should be shown to young people at school. That way it can help to prevent prejudices and bigotry from taking root in future generations. As John Garfield's character in the movie showed: discrimination and racial intolerance can be eliminated if we fight it. Garfield's willingness to take a supporting role in this movie because of the power of its message should compel the skeptics to watch this movie.

The sterling cast meshed together perfectly. Gregory Pecks gentility was exactly what the lead role in this movie had to have. Dorothy Mcguire was also excellent at conveying her emotions in such a demanding role. Its too bad that Garfield and Mcguire are not as well known as other Golden age stars.

Elizabeth

just as philip's magazine editor told him, any hack could write a column on the subject based on facts and figures. what they needed was a different angle that would capture the audience on a gut level. the theme wasn't about showing a Jewish guy get discriminated against. those incidences provide the backdrop and the link to philip's realization of a much more pernicious side to the subject. his magazine article may have started out with the idea of what it actually is like to be discriminated against as a Jewish man, but it moved into an analysis of how well- meaning, "nice," people who woudn't consider themselves bigoted or prejudiced, will sit by and let it happen without saying or doing anything. that's why kathy's rocky relationship with philip is so important and the ultimate resolution of the film.

Yannara

Certainly the preachiest film ever to win Best Picture, and almost the preachiest film ever to be made, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Gentleman's Agreement isn't a good movie. In fact, I thought it was a fine film and an important one. It's heavy-handedness is mostly evened out by a lot of good dialogue, good filmmaking, and exceptional performances. I'll start there. I thought every principal actor succeeded with flying colors; even when they have to deliver awful and obvious message speeches, they almost always ended up making that writing sound a lot better than it was. Gregory Peck gives one of his very best performances. I'm glad to see him give this performance, too, after being stupefied by that wooden performance in the same year's The Paradine Case. The script does well with the character of Phil Green. When he begins his quest to discover the anti-semitism around him, he is involved very impersonally. It's a job, a job he doesn't really want to do, a job he doesn't even know how to do. And when he gets his big idea, to pretend he's Jewish himself, it seems almost arrogant. How dare he, I thought. But, through the film, he does get personally involved, so deeply involved that the insults and jokes and so forth become personal attacks. I doubt he ever expected that it would hurt so much. In comparison to the other film about anti-Semitism in 1947, Crossfire, also nominated for Best Picture, Gentleman's Agreement certainly does not hold up in terms of filmmaking and artistry. However, which film do you think had more of a chance to make a difference? Where Gentleman's Agreement succeeds, and Crossfire fails, is its ability to make the audience look inside themselves. Sure, it has to hit its audience with a sledgehammer before they look inside themselves to find their own prejudices and shortcomings, but I really think it works.

Ffyan

Gregory Peck is slick as a writer for a publisher who is trying to find something to inspire him after his wife dies. He must take care of his young son and has his mother in New York to help him out. Anti-Semitism hits a chord as WWII has just ended with news of the Holocaust just barely starting to sink into the national consciousness. The timing for release of this movie is obvious, but it is carefully thought out as the director tries to convey the sinister and insidious way in which prejudice worms its way into the mainstream of everyday life. A well done film that works! A clever and intelligent portrayal that deserved the attention it received. Not an entertaining movie in the strictest sense, but one where the audience must do the work of thinking their way through it. It is a film worth navigating, however, because the ugly mirror of prejudice is held up to us all who are watching. It makes you feel uncomfortable because most of us are guilty of witnessing prejudice but we end up doing nothing about it.

I recommend this film, but it won't be for everyone and many of us would rather just pass this one by. But we shouldn't even though it holds up this mirror making us feel guilty and uncomfortable. I should point out that the ending relating to the love interest in the story just doesn't work, but then that is not the purpose of the film. Prejudice, anti-Semitism and discrimination are, and these elements are worked out well. A disturbing but intelligent portrayal which is worth taking in for what it is worth.

Cordanara

Although one certainly cannot say Gentleman's Agreement is not passionate in its aim to uncover the invisible cloak of anti-Semitism in post-war America, the execution of that objective could have used slightly more dramatic tension and immediacy.

Released the same year and touching on the same subject was Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire, which dealt with anti-Semitism at its extremes: murder with anti-Semitism as the motive. Gentleman's Agreement takes a more humanistic and subtle approach--one that is too subtle at times. Where Crossfire dropped the bomb of anti-Semitism into the laps of the audience, Gentleman's Agreement gives it to you in periodic shots in the arm in the form of a sermon, and each one says the exact same thing: anti-Semitism is bad. (But we knew that.) Yes, the message is an important one, but feeding it to the audience in a manner that is literally shoving it down our throats every few minutes doesn't help the digestion any.

Also lacking in Gentleman's Agreement is a three-dimensional protagonist. Peck's crusading writer who masquerades as a Jew is simply too zealous and unswerving for his own good. He has no faults, no inner conflicts and no doubts about himself. Whether he's being shunned by bigots or Dorothy McGuire, he's such a straight-shooter you know what he's going to do before he does: the right thing right away.

There's no real dramatic arc in the story, with the entire weight of the movie resting on the torrid on-again-off-again love affair between Peck and McGuire. She symbolizes the hypocrisy and passiveness of the everyday American on anti-Semitism, and he points it out to her every chance he gets-and that's all. It pretty much rambles on the same dramatic level all throughout the picture, dividing its time between love scenes and sermons, most of which are indistinguishable from one another.

In the end, the important message and the overall entertainment value of the picture suffers from this redundancy.

Agalen

I've seen a lot people describe this movie as "a period piece" and a great movie but irrelevant in our time.

However, this movie has lessons that every new generation should learn.

The lessons taught in this movie can be applied to other forms of prejudices such as sexism, racism, and homophobia among others.

Our society today is still full of "nice" people who detest bigotry and intolerance, but stand idly by while it happens right in from of them. Watching this movie could change all that.

Tebei

I've seen "Gentleman's Agreement" at least a half dozen times, but the effect never lessens and I write these words still wiping tears from my face.

Of course so much of the movie - including its basic premise - is complete nonsense. If a magazine editor really wants a first-person account of what it means to be the victim of anti-Semitic prejudice, why not just hire a Jewish writer? And there are characterisations that are absurd - the "anti-Semitic" secretary, for example.

And yet - the film packs an emotional punch that has not lessened in the sixty years since it first came out. The most powerful moment in the entire film, for me, comes when Phil's young son returns from school to report that he had been at the receiving end of anti-Semitic verbal abuse from other children. Phil's WASP girlfriend, always ready with the wrong thing to say, hugs him and reassures him that everything is OK because he's not really Jewish. From that moment on, it seems that the relationship between the two leads is doomed, as it should be.

The most likable characters in the film are John Garfield and Celeste Holm, the latter winning a well-deserved Oscar for her performance.

The film succeeds in spite of its premise, in spite of some silly characterisations, and even in spite of the tacked-on happy end (Phil should wind up with Anne). It succeeds because it addresses the issue of anti-Semitism with an extraordinary power, and Gregory Peck demonstrates here, as in "To Kill A Mockingbird" that when you need an actor to embody basic human decency, he's your man.

Juce

Laura Hobson's novel is brought to the screen in 1947, when it took courage to present a film of this subject. You'd think with Elia Kazan's direction and top notch casting, it would be a great film. It isn't. I think the fault lies in the adaptation of the novel. It is watered down so as to not offend anyone. In other words Zanuck took the easy way out and made it into a soap opera instead. This is a shame as the actors were very capable of giving true and genuine performances. Gregory Peck as the man who passes himself off as Jewish, seemed restrained and unable to bear down on the message of the plot. It was the writing that never gave him this opportunity. The durable Dorothy McGuire, known for ENCHANTED COTTAGE, TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN, was wasted in an unsympathetic role as the girl friend who can't be understood. Their love scenes were stale. I did like the unsaid dinner scene where they couldn't look at each other or speak. Very well played. John Garfield, the Jewish friend, and a brilliant actor, walked through this film, where he could have done so much more. Celeste Holm, in her Academy Award performance, had a few moments, but far from award winning performance. It seemed she too was restrained from being the babe out to get Peck for her own. Anne Revere again plays the mama with the words of wisdom. It seems to be her fate to play these roles. See her in NATIONAL VELVET, SONG OF BERNADETTE and PLACE IN THE SUN. You never are quite sure what she's thinking. She walks around with a smug look on her face. Other roles played by June Havoc, the bigoted secretary, Albert Dekker, the publishing boss who wanted the story, Sam Jaffe, wonderful in a small role, Jane Wyatt, wasted in a thankless role as McGuire's sister and young Dean Stockwell, one of the better juvenile actors of the time as the son. All could have added great depth to this, but the writing and I believe the studio's fear of offending prevented this from being a powerful message. DIARY OF ANNE FRANK captured this. As did HOME OF THE BRAVE for the African American. Too bad. Could have been better.

Dangerous

I'm sad to say that I've finally viewed a film by Elia Kazan that I detest.

Gentleman's Agreement is a well meaning film that goes so far into highlighting anti-Semitism as to border on the absurd. It is true enough that America had (even today) its share of leading citizens who openly practiced anti-semitism. However, this film goes much further. So far in fact as to highlight anti-Semitism in people who did not have the requisite intent of being anti-Semitic. In other words, the well meaning gentile, Green, denounces even jews who innocently regurgitate stereotypical statements about Jews. This obviously enters the realm of Orwellian 'thought crimes.' To Green, the fraudulent gentile, purporting to be Jewish, one is guilty when private thoughts are merely spoken. So much for freedom of speech. Clearly this is the more dangerous poison than the one Green wished to snuff out.

Its interesting that all of this 'hate crime' hunting predates Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution by almost twenty years. Thus, one can conclude that the seeds of political correctness were taking root many decades ago in our own land.

Even if all the above statements are ignored, the film is a tortuous plodding mess. Investigative successes and bold denunciations by the perfect Green are nullified by restatement piled upon one another. After 30 minutes, this film offers no more surprises.

The audience, unless in a stupor, is apt to scream, "O.K. I get it, anti-Semitism is bad." Unfortunately, a film such as this takes hold of the audience and turns them hostage. In other words, you will accept this benevolent message or you are just as guilty as the pigs in this movie.

This type of movie making is completely unfair. Its not a triumph to guilt trip the audience into agreeing with the supermortal views espoused by the taint free Peck/Green.

I found Peck's secretary to be a much more believable character. She was a Jew who recognized anti-Semitism in the mainstream business world yet overcame it. Of course Kazan had to demonize even her and highlight her own anti-Semitism, something I truly doubt as authentic in one who understood first hand the perils of prejudice.

Please don't take my word for it. I urge you to view this film and see how bad it is for yourself.

Uleran

Hollywood loves to give Oscars to films of social significance or British imports that have intellectual appeal. They had a chance in 1947 to award an Oscar to the British-made masterpiece, "Great Expectations", from the Charles Dickens novel. Instead, they opted to give their gold award to a preachy, artificial film about anti-Semitism that has me wincing when I watch it today.

Some films improve with age, like good wine, but "Gentleman's Agreement" now seems bland and obvious, not the effective, earnest and gripping film it was meant to be. Gregory Peck gives an earnest performance but Dorothy McGuire's character seems naive and poorly defined. Celeste Holm gives an ingratiating, witty performance but hardly one that seems Oscar-caliber. (Martita Hunt, who played Miss Havisham in 'Great Expectations' wasn't even nominated!) Seen from the distance of time, it's a film that dates badly in its attitudes and its attempt at giving us a strong viewpoint about the ills of anti-Semitism. The only vital character is June Havoc, as Peck's Jewish secretary. John Garfield is surprisingly bland in a supporting role.

The whole film has a preachy attitude that never develops any real dramatic conflict. In addition to the bland script and leisurely pace of the film, there is not even praise one can give to the ordinary black and white photography or set decoration. Production-wise, it looks as if Zanuck was watching the budget, not expecting the "controversial" film to be the hit it was at the time. Just shows you what time can do to a story of social significance.

The award should definitely have gone to the more distinctive "Great Expectations", David Lean's British masterpiece. Hollywood gave many of its awards in the coming years (and still does) to great British films but, surprisingly, they shunned the David Lean film.

Trivia note: To give it a documentary feel, there is almost no background music at all. Alfred Newman must have been busy that year working on his very dramatic score for "The Snake Pit" and opted to use almost no music for this one.

Ffan

In his commentary for the DVD of `Gentlemen's Agreement,' critic Richard Schickel spends some of it criticizing the flaws in the movie (something I wish more commentaries would do). Mostly I disagreed with him, especially about Dorothy McGuire's fine performance. She has by far the toughest role in the picture as Gregory Peck's conflicted fiancée, whose complacent belief that she doesn't have an anti-semitic bone in her body is severely tested when he decides to pretend to be Jewish for a newspaper article. I often think of prejudice as the act of automatically assuming something is fact about someone we don't know, based on stereotypical preconceived notions. Anti-semitism is the reference point for the movie, but what it really does is examine the subject of prejudice from many different angles, from its most virulent to its most subtle forms. It even explores the role played by Jewish self-hatred in exacerbating the problem. The only time the film begins to resemble an `After School Special' is in Ann Revere's preachy speech towards the end. On balance, however, `Agreement' is much more complex than it's been given credit for. (I may be too late, but in answer to the User Commenter who wanted to know the name of the main title theme: it's an Alfred Newman original that is only heard that one time in the film. He developed it more extensively a couple of years later in Kazan's "Pinky.")

Risinal

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

A "gentleman's agreement" is a euphemism for a polite, unspoken act of racial bigotry. Yes, a sort of wink to not allow blacks or hispanics or Jews into a certain resort or club or restaurant.

That's the real point of the movie. Not hard core racism or prejudice, but that subtle stuff, the stuff that goes on every day even now. And ultimately, it is aimed at the people who say, "I'm not prejudiced," and yet who let other people wink and act like polite bigots.

There is a lot of background to the movie, in the making and acceptance of it in the industry and in the country (in short, Hollywood insiders avoided the idea and the public liked it). But the main point is how the movie works and plays out as a story, then (in our heads) and now (on the screen).

The answer? Very well. Yes, it's "preachy" of course. Of course! That's what a message movie does. But does it do it well? Yes, but it does mean there is a lot of talking. The key talker and thinker is main character, goy journalist Phil Green, played by Gregory Peck. He struggles out loud through how to approach an article he has to do on anti-Semitism with his mom, and then struggles through the actual highly veiled anti-Semitism of his potential wife, played by Dorothy McGuire. We know they are made for each other, but McGuire's character just can't quite get how her "looking the other way" or "feeling outrage" isn't enough.

The real acting gem is by Celeste Holm, who plays a sidekick, another writer, and someone who audiences probably want to see with Mr. Green because she has innate principles and the guts to show them. (She won an Oscar, too!) John Garfield, who was Jewish, plays an openly Jewish character in a deliberately restrained role as a returning G.I. It's 1947, and the country that has helped to save the remaining Jews in concentration camps is now wondering how to "save" them at home from internal barriers.

It might have been a mistake to set the movie in New York City, which was over a quarter Jewish at the time and probably had more familiarity with assimilation and difference than the movie implies (especially at the publisher's). But the scenes in stuff Connecticut make more sense. There is the love plot pushed on the whole thing, and the weirdly perfect house that was built and decorated but never lived in as if that's the future, waiting and ready. And yes, there is all the talking and moralizing.

But give director Elia Kazan credit for making this as fluid and involving as he has, and cinematographer Arthur Miller's beautiful post-War visuals hold up that end of the experience really well. And you know what, the "lessons" built into this kind of "message" film are worth sitting through because we all need reminders of how insidious our own prejudices can be, and how we need to constantly address them, openly.

Nilarius

Surprisingly robust and moving problem picture, one of a number to have come out around this time and a reasonably brave film for a major Hollywood studio to undertake. Its subject is anti-semitism and the film handles the whole subject of prejudice with an all encompassing frankness, though stylistically it could be argued that it's all a bit cosy and it's certainly far removed from the 'rawer' Kazan movies that were to follow. Still, it is an immaculate example of high-toned seriousness with a script by Moss Hart and an all star cast lending their liberal credentials to the proceedings.

Gregory Peck is the crusading journalist who poses as a Jew in order to expose anti-semitism 'from the inside', finding it in some unusual places such as the doubting heart of his liberal fiancée (Dorothy McGuire), whose idea it was to do the articles in the first place. It is interesting to compare Peck's performance here with the one that finally won him his Oscar since his role here is not dissimilar to Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird", roles that ultimately set him up as the quintessential decent American. It was said that Peck could play anything - teak, oak, pine - but actually he is very good here, better even than he was in "Mockingbird", and there are moments when his performance seems to have touched a nerve. Others involved include John Garfield as his best friend who happens to be Jewish, Anne Revere, (superb as always), as his mother, (whose mother in movies did Revere not play), and Celeste Holm in an Oscar-winning turn as the fashion editor with the hots for Gregory.

In hindsight perhaps the subject of anti-semitism was less brave for Hollywood to tackle than, say, the plight of Native Americans or something as taboo as homosexuality, (in "Crossfire" the victim became a Jew rather than the homosexual he was in the novel), particularly since many of the studios were run by people of the Jewish faith. Nevertheless, anti-semitism was still rife in the country and movies like "Gentleman's Agreement", which put the problem in the forefront of things, are always welcome. Hollywood certainly thought so as it went on to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Critics have been less kind to it in the intervening years and sadly I think it remains very under-rated.

Felolak

"Gentleman's agreement" was certainly a courageous move at the time,1947,but now it seems Hollywoodian,dated and rather static. From the start,the dice were loaded ."I've been a miner (for a heart of gold?),to be able to describe their lives,I became one of them,I thought like them,and I endured all they had been thru",says the hero .Who could buy such claptrap?Only a minor can think like a minor,only a minor can feel what a minor feels ,only a minor suffers like a minor does:the hero knew from the start he would become a chic journalist again,among the elite of the town.He knew that it would be for a very short time.

Then ,the Jews:Kazan's manifesto is not convincing;McGuire's character is nothing but a spoilt child ,a millionaire whose frame of minds are sometimes infuriating;Peck is the journalist prototype that will be the hero of many a political movie afterwards ;he's hollywoodian to the core ,but the chances he takes are not that much horrendous:best/worst example:the scene in the luxury hotel for rich wealthy VIP 95% of the IMDb users (including myself) can only dream of!How could Kazan think that such a scene would revolt us ?All right it's unfair the poor Jews cannot go horse-riding in the sumptuous gardens !All right!Most of the movie takes place in chic apartments -special award for Celeste Holm's gourmet buffet,complete with caviar.

John Garfield's character could have provided the movie with the character it cruelly lacked :but it's an underwritten part,and his main purpose it to reunite at the last minute the two lovers to secure a ridiculous -and illogical - happy end.Melodrama elements come at the most awkward moment ,such as the mother's heart problems or the obligatory scene when they call the kid a dirty yid.

A scene between this kid and Peck could have been wonderful,when he explained to him what a Jew is,but it's only skimmed over.In the world ,lots of people do not even know that the Christian,Jewish (and Muslim!)religions have the same basis .I was brought up a Catholic,and my best American friends are Jews. I remember the long evenings we would spend ,talking about what we had in common-much more than we ever thought of-.The one thing that puzzled me in the Jewish religion is that there's no life after life:it's the only religion which does not promise something after;"we survive through our children" one of my friends would say.Had Kazan developed his scenes with the young boy ,instead of taking Peck from one reception to another.

Directing is static,and the movie is very talky,without the greatness of Kazan's golden 1952-1963 heyday,from " a "streetcar named desire " to " America America" ,with these masterpieces of lyricism such as "East of Eden" and "splendor in the grass" or visionary works such as "a face in the crowd".

Rolling Flipper

Gentleman's Agreement is Elia Kazan's film from 1947 that stars Gregory Peck as a writer (Green) who pretends to be Jewish to find out about antisemitism. The concept is a good one, but there are many serious flaws to this film. First there is Dorothy McGuire completely miscast as Green's fiancée Kathy. And the idea of confronting relatively subtle antisemitism with no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust which ended just two years before the book and film is like ignoring the six million pound gorilla in the room. But that's not unique to this film; the Holocaust was a taboo subject in film until relatively recently.

The story is an interesting one, but much of it is filled in with preachy dialogue which is overacted and hurts believability. Especially some of the speeches given by the characters, such as when Green tells Ms. Wales (June Havoc), "Feel my hand, it's the same hand, the only thing different is the word 'Christian'". Seems a heavy-handed overreaction to say the least. And an inconsistency here is that Ms. Wales is at first an ally with Green as she tells him about the antisemitic policies of the magazine they work for, but then in the next scene she becomes the antisemite (though she is Jewish). Also the fact that she did the same thing he did (sent out two resumes, one Jewish and one not) seems more contrivance than coincidence.

John Garfield is great as always as Green's Jewish army buddy. But there is a scene with he and Kathy where he tells her to "hit back" at antisemites. Discounting McGuire's mediocre performance ("Can I? Can I?") the answer of hitting back is acceptable, but the film treats it as a profound truth.

Peck and Garfield are both great actors, so the flaws aren't a reflection on them. The film seems to begin on a first rate level, but goes downhill in dialogue quality. I like how Green tells the staff, "I'd feel the same way about this even if I wasn't Jewish myself", and the Jewish guy's reaction, "just let us handle it in our own way". Green's son Tommy is played by Dean Stockwell who was later excellent in "Long Day's Journey into Night". One flaw here is when Green tries to explain to Tommy what antisemitism is. He ends up defining Jewishness in the religious sense, though that's contradicted later by Dr. Lieberman's speech, "since many Jews are not religious there is only such a thing as a Jewish TYPE". I tend to agree with Lieberman (no relation to the right wing Senator thankfully) on that.

Green's mother is played by the great Anne Revere, who was blacklisted under McCarthy (ironically she's a direct descendant of Paul Revere). The final speech she gives is overly intense and rambling, "suddenly I want to live to be very old...it's not the Russian century or the American century...it's got to be soon"...I don't know, it doesn't work for me.

Garfield was also blacklisted and some still don't forgive Kazan for cooperating with McCarthy. Anyway in spite of all this the film is worth seeing as a rare 1940s take on antisemitism.

Gravelblade

Philip Schuyler Green is a journalist who is asked by a New York magazine publisher to write an article on anti-Semitism in America. He is initially reluctant to accept the commission, but eventually agrees, and although he is a gentile decides to adopt a Jewish identity and to write about his own experiences. This is not difficult as he is not well-known in the city, having recently moved there from California. Green adopts the Jewish-sounding name "Phil Greenberg" and is shocked by the prejudice he encounters. A doctor makes unprofessional remarks about a Jewish colleague, he is refused admission to an upmarket "restricted" hotel and his son Tommy is subjected to anti-Semitic bullying at school. To make matters worse, Green discovers that anti-Jewish prejudice exists even at the supposedly liberal magazine he works for. His secretary, Elaine Wales, reveals that she is Jewish but was forced to adopt a gentile-sounding pseudonym in order to get the job. (When she applied under her real name, Estelle Walovsky, her application was rejected).

Besides Green's professional work, the film also deals with his personal life. He is a widower with a young son, living with his mother. An important theme in the film is his romance with Kathy, the niece of his publisher, a romance which is placed under strain when he begins to suspect that Kathy's views on racial matters may be less liberal than his own. The title "Gentleman's Agreement" refers on one level to Kathy's home affluent town of Darien, Connecticut, whose residents have an unwritten agreement not to sell property to Jews. On a wider level, however, the title also refers to a "gentlemen's agreement" among American gentiles (and, indeed, among some American Jews) not to mention or to confront the problem of anti-Semitism.

It was a brave, and controversial, move for the studio, 20th Century- Fox, to tackle this subject in 1947. Many Americans would have preferred to believe that anti-Semitism was something alien, associated with the evil Nazi regime which they had defeated two years earlier, and did not want to hear that it was still a problem in their own country. The film was, apparently, a personal initiative by the studio's head, Darryl F. Zanuck, who held strong views about the issue. Zanuck, in fact, was one of the few Hollywood moguls of the era who were not Jewish, and some influential Jewish figures in the industry tried to persuade him not to make it. The film's political theme drew it to the attention of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which called Zanuck, director Elia Kazan and some of its stars to testify before it.

Zanuck was rewarded for his courage when the film was nominated for eight Oscars and won three including Best Picture and Best Director for Kazan. (The third went to Celeste Holm as Best Supporting Actress). Yet in my view it is, artistically speaking, not a very good film. It is certainly not in the same class as Kazan's other Oscar-winner "On the Waterfront". I have not seen all the films which were in contention for "Best Picture" in 1947, but one which definitely deserved the Oscar far more was David Lean's masterly version of "Great Expectations". (Another unsuccessful nomination, "Crossfire", which I have not seen, also dealt with the subject of anti-Semitism).

The film's artistic faults are twofold. Firstly, it is overlong and static, too dominated by talk with little in the way of action. Secondly, the character of Green, as played by Gregory Peck, is an unattractive one, the sort of liberal who is so convinced of the rightness of his views that he becomes a self-righteous bore and even something of a bully, prepared to harangue mercilessly not only those who disagree with him but also those whom he suspects of agreeing with him with insufficient fervour. I found his berating of Elaine particularly distasteful. Certainly, some of Elaine's views do seem objectionable; she is, for example, less than happy when the firm introduces a new, explicitly non-discriminatory recruitment policy because of her fears that the "wrong sort" of Jews will be attracted to the company. It did, however, seem presumptuous of the gentile Green, on the basis of eight weeks pretending to be a Jew, to lecture a Jewish woman on the best way to combat anti-Semitism, a problem she has presumably had to fight all her life. Whenever Green gets onto the subject of prejudice with Kathy he seems less like a man speaking to the woman he loves than a politician engaging in a heated debate with an opponent, so much so that my sympathies were with Kathy when she stormed out on him.

Hollywood could indeed make excellent films about racial prejudice, and Peck was later to star in one of the greatest of these, "To Kill a Mockingbird". Another good one from the late forties is Clarence Brown's "Intruder in the Dust". "Gentleman's Agreement", by contrast, serves as a reminder that not every film made in support of a good cause is necessarily a good one. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that all those Oscar nominations were made more on account of the film's politics than on account of its artistic merits. 5/10

Thordira

After the defeat of nazism and the revelation of its horrors, people in the Allied nations were suddenly compelled to talk about that racial prejudice that existed in their own backyards. It's an indicator of how fiercely the issue was beginning to burn, that even cautiously commercial Hollywood was in on the act, making a high-class production of Gentleman's Agreement.

But unlike most of the movies on racism that were to follow in later years, Gentleman's Agreement is not about persecution of black people, but about anti-Semitism. This is not to downplay anti-Semitism, but given the relative scale of the problem in the USA it does seem as if Hollywood is just taking baby steps in the field of race relations. Especially since the movie specifically defines Jewishness as a matter of faith, not ethnicity. What's more, Gentleman's Agreement only really attacks prejudice as it exists in upper-class society – being refused entry to a club or having people turn their noses up at a dinner party – a long way from the hatred and violence that makes up the thin end of bigotry's wedge.

Given that it now seems such a weedy condemnation of prejudice, perhaps better to view it simply as a drama. After all, director Elia Kazan is ace at dramas. Kazan's style is marked by the confidence to keep his subjects further back within the shot. There's a bit where Celeste Holm calls Gregory Peck from within her office, and their conversation follows with no change of angle, no cut to a close-up of Holm. While there never are any actual close-ups, the layering within the frame can produce an intense feeling of closeness at times. When Peck and Dorothy McGuire have an argument after he is refused a room at the hotel, they move from being near a set of double doors at the back of the room, then they move to the foreground, and the sudden gulf between them and the doors in the background make it feel like they have suddenly stepped into our personal space.

And then of course we have a cast of top dramatic actors. Sadly lead man Peck's performance is rather a corny one. Watching his deliberation as he comes to the decision to pose as Jewish is almost painful. He's only good when he's being stern and forceful, and it's later in the movie he starts to come into his own. The great performances in Gentleman's Agreement belong to its women. Dorothy McGuire is nicely understated, her voice near to a husky whisper as she delivers her most pertinent lines. Celeste Holm is excellent, for most of the movie a joyful and easygoing presence, so carefree and likable that her steely outburst towards the end seems all the more stark and powerful. Anne Revere, always a monument of dignity even in the grip of an angina attack, proving herself one of the most effortlessly natural actresses of her generation. In her smaller role, June Havoc is very good too.

Unfortunately, if we're going to take Gentleman's Agreement as a drama, it starts to look a very flimsy movie indeed. The romantic angle is as bland as day-old kebab meat, and the dialogue is corny and dull. It's a shame then that this was the first movie condemning racial prejudice to receive major plaudits, not because the social evils it portrays weren't worth attacking, but that there were other movies doing it far better. In the same year Crossfire also looked at anti-Semitism in a much more dynamic story framework, and with deeper eloquence and insight, but it was a runner up to Gentleman's Agreement's Best Picture win. A few years later Pinky (also directed by Kazan) and No Way Out would address anti-black racism, but while Pinky would receive a fair bit of attention, the ahead-of-its-time No Way Out was practically relegated to B-movie status. It's in a way remarkable that these other pictures existed at all, but a pity they didn't get the credit they deserved.

Zieryn

When it was made, this was a noble effort to counter antisemitism. However, due to the passing of many decades, in the 21st century the film seems really dated and dumb. The entire idea of a Christian American suddenly pretending to be Jewish seems absurdly simplistic and perhaps insulting to those who have had to deal with racism and prejudice their entire lives. And, to make things MUCH worse, the reactions to this are downright cartoonish at times--particularly in his fiancée. Her role was written to be about as believable as the average Huckleberry Hound cartoon. AND, to make that even worse, Peck eventually agrees to marry this shallow bimbo AFTER she realizes how shallow she's been and asks for forgiveness! Hmmm,...this lady loves you and respects you until she thinks you are Jewish,...then later apologizes and all is forgiven?! Gimme a break! One of the only genuine performances in this preachy mess was by John Garfield's character--no doubt influenced by Garfield's real-life experiences growing up Jewish.

Jube

Having known a talented woman who couldn't make it into any of the big companies she applied for just around the time where "Gentleman's Agreement" takes place, resonated with this viewer, as the reason for watching it. Never having read the Laura Z. Hobson's novel, we can't opine whether this adaptation by Moss Hart and Elia Kazan is true to the book. Arthur Miller, a distinguished writer, dealt more or less with the same problem in his novel "Focus", which was made into a film a few years ago.

As directed by Elia Kazan, this film will probably look dated, as most of the insidious prejudice in the American society seems to have vanished. "Gentleman's Agreement", as has been pointed by other contributors to IMDb, seems preachy dealing with the subject matter: anti-Semitism.

Phil Green, the man at the center of the story, seems to be a decent individual. He is hired by a New York magazine to write an expose about anti-Semitism in the society of that era. In order to get down to the root of the evil he was to cover, Phil makes himself pass as a Jew, a fact that is revealed to all the editors of the magazine, who turn a cool shoulder to him. The only one that became friendly is the fashion editor, Anne Dettrey, who seems to be the only one with an open mind in the whole place.

Although the prejudice toward Green is not blatant, it's ironic that he would encounter more opposition to his passing for a Jew, from unexpected sources. The well intentioned Kathy Lacey, the niece of his boss, shows she is a decent woman. However, she is not one to speak up about what she feels in her heart is wrong. Also, Green's secretary, Elaine Wales, proves to be an insensitive Jewish woman who has assumed a new personality in order to get employment in the magazine.

Gregory Peck makes a good appearance as Phil Green. This actor was a solid performer when he got decent direction, as the one he got from Mr. Kazan in the movie. Mr. Peck is an imposing sight as the man that wants to expose the narrow mindedness of prejudice by impersonating to be Jewish himself.

Dorothy McGuire, as Kathy doesn't come out as well. In fact, at times, she proves to be an irritating woman because she wants to be upright, but in fact, she is a coward who never stands up to speak when she hears jokes, or comments disparaging Jews.

Celeste Holm makes a better impression as the woman who befriends Green and stays by him no matter what is going on around the office. June Havoc, as Elaine Wales, the secretary, made the best out of the limitations of her character. John Garfield is seen as the childhood friend Dave Goldman, who can't imagine why his friend Phil is doing what he is doing, but stays by him. Anne Revere, plays Mrs. Green, the understanding mother.

This is a curious film that made history at the time it came out because what it decided to tackle.

Categories

Related Videos

Tabu der Gerechten (1947) Online

User reviews