Donald O'Connor outshines Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"

Cafe Society
1

This is the first time I’ve started a Thread immediately after watching Singin’ in the Rain, but were I to start a Thread immediately following every viewing of that movie: this is exactly the Thread I would start each time.

Now, this is not meant to hate on Gene Kelly. Gene Kelly was a great song and dance man! But as an actor, “actor” would be a less accurate term than “screen personality”. He did deliver well as a screen personality, but all his projects were built around that tried and tested personality such that he never really had to do much acting.

Donald O’Connor, on the other hand, was a great song and dance man as well as a great character actor. O’Connor’s Cosmo Brown is an interesting character in contrast to Kelly’s Don Lockwood- who could just as well be selling dishwashing detergent.

Kelly is a ham (a term I use with affection, reminder: I like Kelly in this film) whereas O’Connor is keen and subtle. O’Connor is responsible for the best of the humor in the film- yet his deft comic delivery is always understated. Such understated delivery could even be called daring in the shadow of the ham: one could let this movie play in the background while doing housework and fully appreciate all of Kelly’s work (provided you remember to look up at the screen when the dancing begins, of course), yet if not paying close attention you would miss the brilliant subtlety of O’Connor’s best contributions.

Charged with delivering Comedy alongside Gene Kelly’s broad performance, a lesser artist would second guess himself and craft a characterization as over the top as possible.

Then, on top of developing such an interesting character and so slyly delivering great comedy . . . Donald O’Connor was a great song and dance man!!! Maybe he wasn’t the visionary that Gene Kelly was, but as an interpretive artist working with the choreography that he was given by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen I think O’Connor’s song and dance performances in this film are better than Gene Kelly’s performances.

On that last point, I can fully respect popular opposition. I can’t really argue with anyone who should take the fully merited position that Kelly’s song and dance in this film is better than O’Connor’s. Still, watching the film I consistently prefer O’Connor’s song and dance performances over Kelly’s.

Still the worse you can say about O’Connor’s song and dance performances would still have to allow that he holds his own alongside Kelly- and when it come to song and dance, holding one’s own alongside Gene Kelly is pretty damned impressive. Add to that the acting and comedy wherein O’Connor outshines Kelly, and you come to the inspiration of this Thread.

Donald O’Connor outshines Gene Kelly in Singin’ in the Rain.

2

Is it “Singing in the Rain” that has Donald O’Connor performing “Make 'em Laugh”, and running up walls? I had heard that song so many times and never thought it was remotely funny until I saw O’Connor do it.

3

Yes, that’s it.

I never thought O’Conner was particularly subtle in the film – he definitely hams it up and is too deliberately frenetic. It works, but it’s hardly subtle.

And I don’t see how you can say Kelly hams it up at all. He certainly has limitations as an actor, but he’s playing things perfectly straight for the acting style of the day.

As for dancing, it’s a matter of taste. There is no doubt “Be a Clown” – excuse me, “Make 'em Laugh” – is a fine musical number. But “Singin’ in the Rain” is by far the best expression of a person in love ever shown via dance. As for the duets, I don’t see much difference between Kelly and O’Connor.

As for the comedy, of course O’Connor is funnier – he’s the comic sidekick. Kelly has to be more realistic as the romantic lead.

4

One of the points that Danny Peary makes in his Cult Movies book chapter about SitR is that Kelly is perfectly happy to share the screen with O’Connor and Debbie Reynolds; he doesn’t hog the screen time and they all get their moments.

I agree that O’Connor is an absolute pleasure to watch. :smiley:

Incidentally, Danny Peary is a fine and perceptive critic and you should buy all three of his Cult Movies books and read them through cover-to-cover without coming up for air.

5

I did a paper on the relationship between Don and Cosmo for my college film class. Nothing really enlightening; just pointing out that they had been together in their act for years and now Don is a big silent-screen star and Cosmo a lackey. Don dresses casually with open collars; Cosmo wears sweater vests over button-down shirts with neckties.

Lina, of course, never acknowledges Cosmo’s presence as he can do her career no good; Kathy is the heroine, so she will be Cosmo’s friend. Even their names: “Don Lockwood” is a marquee name; “Cosmo Brown” sounds like some schlub, but those apparently were their real names, as they used them in the vaudeville act way back when.

Of course Kelly got two of the three big set dance pieces, but O’Connor is definitely no second banana in “Fit as a Fiddle” and “Moses Supposes.” He is a co-star.

6

I love this movie so much. Around my house we say, “I kehnnn’t STANNIM” with about as much regularity as we say, “That don’t make no sense!” “It’s a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.” (O Brother Where Art Thou?)

In fact, the kids were watching it upstairs just this past weekend. “What part are you on now?” I hollered. “Lena just got a pie in the face!” they hollered back.

Anyway, I’ll never forget the first time I watched O’Connor do “Make 'Em Laugh.” I was just speechless. (I was also about 14.) It was just about the most amazing dancing I’d ever seen on the screen, and in an entire MOVIE filled with more and more AND MORE fabulous dance numbers! It’s the apex of dance movies; you couldn’t pack one more in or it would burst like a giant cake filled with tap shoes and argyle sweaters.

My one criticism is in the overly long “Gotta Dance!” section. I just get bored out of my mind after about five minutes of it. I also don’t love the scene where Gene sings to Debbie on the empty sound stage. I like the concept but it’s boring also, in a frantically paced movie loaded with great dancing, singing and laughs. I’ve tried to memorize Moses Supposes for years; I’ve just about got it all.

Gotta be a rose 'cause it rhymes with Mose!"

7

Apostasy!!! J’accuse!!!

8

Subtle may be the wrong word, but part of the delight in rewatching that movie is to watch O’Connor at all times when he is onscreen - ESPECIALLY when the focus is off him. He’s the master of the eye roll in that movie (“Dignity, always dignity.”) He is an entire Greek Chorus through his reactions.

Somehow, most of that cast just convinces you they were having fun making that movie.

There is a point in Moses, Supposes that Kelly and O’Connor look at each other with a “are you keeping up” - “sure, are you?” expression in their faces that delights me every time.

9

I had the pleasure of seeing this movie for the first time in my life on the big screen back in 89’ where a local independantly owned theatre was showing classics.
I was blown away.
The satire of over inflated ego stars like Lina is still relevant today. Whenever I watch the Oscars and see everyone kissing eachothers asses giving their all important acceptance speeches like they were getting Nobel prises I can still here Lina: “If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes us feel as though our hard work ain’t been in vain for nothin’. Bless you all.”

10

I wouldn’t say O’Connor “outshines” Kelly but he did do a great job as the wise-cracking but always loyal sidekick.

I think what it proves is that O’Connor had a talent for light (and sometimes broad) comedy that Kelly didn’t have and was well cast in the role.

And how about some love for Jean Hagen!

11

Next assignment: Donald O’Connor classing up the joint in “There’s No Business Like Show Business,” where he gets the girl (Marilyn Monroe!) and has to slow down so Mitzi Gaynor, playing his sister, can keep up with him.

12

Which is even more amazing when you read how miserable the shooting of it was, at times. Kelly was sick as a dog during SITR, they worked until all hours of the morning trying to perfect the routines, etc. In interviews, Debbie Reynolds talks like she was forced to endure torture for a good bit of it.

13

I love that movie. If you really want to watch a film where they let him shine, it’s a good one.

14

Especially with Ethel Merman as his mother. He survived that . . .

15

Though probably the minority opinion, I always viewed the uncredited dancer & CGI department in this 60 second UK TV spot to outshine Gene Kelly as well.

16

O’Connor had to shoot “Make Em Laugh” twice because (IIRC) of a problem with the film development. And he’d managed to bruise himself up pretty well the first time, then went back and reshot it.

17

I’m eight years late to this party but I joined here just to agree with the OP. My wife and I feel that O’Connor is simply a more natural dancer than Kelly. He’s got an ease, a relaxation Kelly lacks, particularly in his upper body. A humorous head wobble here, a coy glance there, always well timed to compliment his effortlessness. Very Astaire-esque, and this was always the kind of comparison you’d see between Astaire and Kelly. Not to suggest Kelly was stiff, but he just wasn’t as fluid as O’Connell.

Mindy Aloff (who interviewed him in 1979) put it better than I could:

He had style, speed, lightness, elegance, rhythmic wit; he partnered his female co-stars with respect and charm; his line readings were understated and droll; and, unusual for many male Hollywood dancers apart from Fred Astaire, O’Connor learned to care about port de bras: during the 1940s and ‘50s, he visualized his entire dancing figure in the frame and paid attention to how his entire body would read on the screen. Gene Kelly, his collaborator and erstwhile nemesis, also cared about port de bras; however, despite Kelly’s many sterling qualities, he couldn’t surpass O’Connor in terms of allegro facility, offhanded elegance, or precision of stylistic detail in complex footwork.

18

Well, there you have it, folks. If Kabeyun turns out to be an excellent contributor to this messageboard you have me to thank. Of course, if Kabeyun turns out to be an unhinged looney you’ll have me to blame!

Welcome, Kabeyun! Loved that you brought a great cite with your post! That looks like a wonderful interview- I’m going to take the time to read it.

19

Joseph Gordon-Levitt did the routine on live TV, complete with backflips.

20

That’s just a difference in style. Kelly was bravura; his style was to sell the number. O’Connor (and Astaire) were more laid back. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either approach and some work better for some numbers. O’Connor dancing “Singin’ in the Rain” (the song) would have been all wrong, for instance.