Week-End at the Waldorf

This remake of Grand Hotel makes a valiant effort to make it lighter. The basic story is still the same, but with comedic music and less of a dark cloud hanging over every scene, the studio tries to make the audience use let Kleenexes. In fact, there's even a reference to the earlier film., after Ginger Rogers says, "That's straight out of Grand Hotel!" Walter Pidgeon confirms, "That's right. I'm the baron, you're the ballerina, and we're off to see the wizard." Instead of the Grand Hotel in Budapest, it's the Waldorf Astoria in New York. Ginger Rogers is an actress (not a ballerina like Greta Garbo), who mistakes witty reporter Walter Pidgeon (not a fake baron like John Barrymore) for a cat burglar in her room. Lana Turner is a secretary who whistles down the hallway (not hardened and street-smart like Joan Crawford) employed by both the hotel and slimy businessman Edward Arnold (not nearly as creepy as Wallace Beery). Van Johnson is a wounded soldier about to get an operation that may or may not save his life (but he's young, attractive, and confident unlike the sickly Lionel Barrymore). Lana notarizes his Last Will, and they hit it off; he asks her out like he does it every day of the week. And if it isn't different enough, instead of Jean Hersholt worrying about his pregnant wife, Robert Benchley is worried about his pregnant puppy. If you know the original, the remake just doesn't work. It's supposed to be a tearjerker. People checking in, people checking out, with tragedies in everyday life. But Van Johnson could pick up any girl he wants to, especially wearing a uniform during wartime. Where is the tragedy in his "last chance at love"?

This film must have been more impressive in the 1940's when most movie goers could only dream of staying in a luxurious hotel like the Waldorf. The individuals who were staying at the Waldorf this particular weekend had interesting stories and romance was certainly in the air. It is nothing special in the 2020's compared to the travel opportunities we have today but the stories remined me of the cascading stories of the 1970's TV series Love Boat. I give this film a ho hum 5 out of 10 IMDb rating. Worth watching for the cat and mouse game played by the stunning Ginger Rogers and her love interest Walter Pidgeon.

Sometimes you just want to watch a movie that is not too "deep" from an earlier era like the 1940's. Walter Pidgeon is the absolute stand-out here. Surprisingly funny and yet combined with a no-nonsense attitude, his performance easily stands-up to Ginger Rogers' iciness (until of course she melts). The other star of the movie is the Waldorf Hotel itself. It's absolutely fascinating to see the inner workings of what must have been state-of-the-art hospitality service. Lastly, although I'm not a big fan of either Lana Turner or Van Johnson, they're both effective and touching. If you're looking for art this is not it, however, if you're looking for something pleasant this will certainly do.

While I have some criticisms of this film, overall it's a pretty pleasant way in which to spend a couple of hours. But first, the criticisms. First and foremost, I think the story has too many plot lines, and as a result what could have been decent stand-alone films get short-changed. Plot line #1 -- Ginger Rogers, a glamorous actress, gets trapped in a sort-of common law marriage with war correspondent Walter Pidgeon; could have been a good film on its own. Plot line # 2 -- Correspondent Pidgeon gets hooked into a newspaper story with a cub reporter (Keenan Wynn) about fraud in a Middle Eastern oil deal with the crooked Edward Arnold; could have been a good film on its own. Plot line # 3 -- There's a mix-up with just who Ginger Rogers is in love with, and will it affect Phyllis Thaxter's marriage to a doctor; this is one of the subplots which could have most easily been dispensed with. Plot line # 4 -- Van Johnson, an alone soldier who is facing lief-threatening surgery, falls in love with stenographer Lana Turner, who wants to climb to the top by being a "special" aide to Edward Arnold; this could have really been a good romantic film on its own. And then there's Robert Benchley's participation...which was a total waste of time, other than as narrator. My other major criticism is that -- probably because of too many story lines and a rather long run time (over 2 hours) -- the wrap up to all those story lines is way too quick. Very disappointing. On the positive side, as indicated, most of those subplots were good story lines, and the acting is fine. I'd actually give the highest grade here to Van Johnson. Interestingly, some of the film was actually shot at the Waldorf Astoria, though most of it was shot in Hollywood. It's entertaining. Give it a view.

As everyone agrees, WEEKEND AT THE WALDORF follows the outline of GRAND HOTEL while radically lightening its tone. It's structured by three parallel and occasionally intertwining stories connected mostly by its setting, the famous Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. The fraudulent schemes of Edward Arnold are so woefully underwritten that they hardly count. The heart of the movie lies in the other two plot-lines, a romantic comedy verging on screwball between lonely, overworked actress Ginger Rogers and burned-out war correspondent Walter Pidgeon, and a sentimental romance between wounded war veteran Van Johnson and gold- digging stenographer Lana Turner. The former is pretty funny and the latter rather touching, but the inter-cutting between them does neither any favors. They might have done better as separate, and considerably shorter, movies in their own right. As it stands, the film is way too long. Heck, around the two hour mark we stop everything cold for a couple of mediocre musical numbers! Which is not to say that there are not considerable virtues in WALDORF. The interior sets are amazing, you would think that you really were at the hotel, and we are given a good idea of the immense effort that goes into running such a magnificent establishment. It's the Waldorf itself that is (quite intentionally) the movie's true main character. And the human performances ain't bad, either. Walter Pidgeon, normally rather stodgy to my eyes, is charming and clever and witty to a degree that I've never seen from him elsewhere. He shows surprising chemistry with Ginger Rogers, who gives a cool and amusing performance as the kind of character she would often portray (I'm tempted to say, would be saddled with) for much of her later career, a successful yet unhappy actress. Lana Turner is okay in a role that could have used considerable expansion. Van Johnson's performance seems problematic to me. In and of himself he presents us with an immensely likable character who is a pleasure to watch, but what sense does this make of the character? He appears remarkably healthy for someone who has only a 50/50 chance of making it till next Wednesday. And why would his soldier have no friends? We see a guy who's handsome, charming, articulate, friendly, respectful, and while rather subdued does not come across as intensely shy. Actually, he comes across as pretty much perfect. It makes his story pleasant but shallow. One might say the same for the entire film.

Last night my wife and I, watched this film, made towards the end of WWII. When I sat down to watch this, it was immediately captivating once I accepted that this was to be made in the idiom of the time. This was shot when we were at war, with news of the death or maiming of a loved one a fear that those who went to the movies wanted to get some relief from. We first see Van Johnson, the decent every-guy who was facing an operation to remove shrapnel from his chest,close to his heart, that would obviously cut his life short, unless removed. The operation was scheduled for Tuesday (The Weekend is two days of real time.) The first scene is the surgeon dictating the letter to the military hospital, as we see the reaction of the stenographer, Lana Turner, as she learns he has only a fifty percent chance to survive, and that's only if he has a "will to live." Lana Turner and Van Johnson were movie stars whose picture on the cover of fan magazine was a sure boost for sales. In this film, with the complex plot unfolding, they were true actors playing their part, conveying lines written by others that they embraced fully. Johnson become the decent pilot whose best friend he "kidded" into joining him on a mission, that he did not survive. A guilt that consumed the Pilot, making that necessary will to live something that was problematic. For those who want a narrative of the story, it is on the Wikipedia article (with a note that it may be too detailed) but this is written on a political website, and I'm going to make detour using this film as a template for a conversation between two eras, that of when the film was written, that happens to be when I was just grasping the world as a toddler, and today, some three quarters of century of the progression of history. One graphic illustration of the change of this time span is the scene out the window, a view South showing the Empire State Building 18 blocks to the South, with this skyscraper then the tallest building in the world since completion in 1933, , and still standing alone like the Washington Monument in D.C. There was no building done in the United States, and actually the world, as the depression started soon after the opening, and then the war. That was twelve years of two very different causes of economic paralysis. So this contrived plot, from the view out the window to the interplay of the fictional characters had a ring of truth that is exceptional. We see Stenographer Lana Turner, with intelligence, ambition and beauty having to make a choice. Either she could become a private secretary to an amoral international con-man, allowing her to live a life that would wipe out the memory of her raw hell's kitchen childhood, or it was growing old as she worked in an office. While the lines were fiction, the choice for those times were genuine. And the film depicted this challenge, and her decision that was not sugar coated, but one that reflected perfectly what life as like for the vast majority of women. The several shots of the bank of telephone operators, an exaggeration of the numbers for the 1500 room hotel, but not of the millions of women who spent their working life with conversations limited to responding to "number please." As far as racial issues, they were completely avoided, as there wasn't a single frame, including in the crowd shots of anyone who was other than than, on appearance, being of the "Caucasian" race. In the two reviews that are extant, Variety and the N.Y. Times, this is not noted, as this is the way things were. There were "race films" in this era --and then everything else. The division between male and female, black and white in the film were a starting point for drama or comedy. Not a single person who viewed this film, absolutely absorbed in the humor and the drama sequestered in the darkness of their local theater could have imagined the world we live in now.

Pleasant reworking of Grand Hotel changes most of what made that film a classic but is entertaining enough on its own. For starters, the tone to this one is far different than Grand Hotel. This is a lighter film with more focus on romance and humor. The setting is changed as well as it is updated to WW2 America. The war figures heavily into several of the story lines. As with Grand Hotel, this is about various characters staying at a plush hotel and how their stories intertwine. The hotel here is the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. Most of the plots have been altered from the original but certain characteristics remain. Ginger Rogers plays a weary actress who falls for equally weary war correspondent Walter Pidgeon, believing him to be a jewel thief. Lana Turner is a stenographer who ponders boss Edward Arnold's "indecent proposal" while falling for bomber pilot Van Johnson. Other actors include Robert Benchley, George Zucco, Keenan Wynn, Samuel S. Hinds, and Leon Ames. Xavier Cugat plays himself and provides a little music. It's all watchable enough and even enjoyable, especially if you aren't nagged by comparisons to Grand Hotel. The cast is nice (except for an overacting Rosemary DeCamp) and the MGM production is classy as you might expect. It won't change your life but I highly doubt you'll regret watching it.

The movie on which this was based, Grand Hotel, is not a great film, but it has a lot of enjoyable parts, thanks to great acting and a good script. This movie has neither of those. The script is really worthless. There is no attempt to tie all the stories together, and the stories are not interesting. There is no clever dialogue. Talented actors are left with a dull script. There is really nothing here to watch. Even the dance numbers aren't interesting.

"Week-end at the Waldorf" (1945) directed by Robert Zigler Leonard is a bit of New York City and because of that, it is also a curious movie well illuminated by light inside the shadowy rooms, the elevators, the hall, the corridors and the floors, the views from the windows, even the decoration of the doors, when a kind of candidate for a burglar of high society and a melancholic actress lodged each one there, somewhere with a common door. That is the core of the story with countless sparks and stark's episodes, also a Mexican orchestra and a visit of a business delegation of a given country from an important region from the world. The oil affair is there as background of a trick for happiness like the loneliness of a gentle man officer remembering as the recently death of a friend in fighting on the finishing war in Europe. Even a small sequence, here and there of a kind of documentary in the middle of this fiction movie, it was very interesting from the time where "I guess he laughs" it was a line said by this Irene about him. The sensation of claustrophobia that this hotel as location in itself brings to the story is minor. When he goes traveling abroad by plane, this one turns the wings near the skyscraper where from the other side she stays observing it through the window of her room - as in close and counter close perspectives of the shots in the last scene - saying reciprocally good bye visually each other, in spite of distances with him by the small window from the plane as in an aerodynamic view of Manhattan and its architectural modernity of the time from the sky in a competitive way with the gray building of the hotel.

The movie's best part, to me, is seeing the actual army of hotel workers required to keep a high-rise like the Waldorf operating. It's impressive, and sure a lot of free advertising. Anyway, despite the attractive cast, the various light comedy threads fail to gel, making the screen time seem longer than its actual 130 minutes. The movie adds up to bland entertainment, at best. The one sparkling scene is when Johnson's flight captain and Turner's working girl meet, some winsome chemistry there. The screenplay, however, comes across as a rather clumsy patchwork, at best. For example, shady tycoon Edward Arnold is apparently up to no good (and with oil sheiks, no less), but we never find out more. And what's with Thaxter's role. It comes across like a half-digested morsel, maybe serving as a screen test for a younger MGM performer. Nor does Robert Leonard's uninspired direction help. In fact, it seems odd that the studio didn't assign a top- flight director to what would appear a prestige project. The biggest disappointment, however, is with the Pigeon-Rogers romance. Now they're both highly capable, charming actors. The problem again is with the screenplay. Pigeon's impersonation of a jewel thief is, I gather, supposed to be zany and out of character. Instead, it comes across as not just implausible but also downright silly despite the pair's best comedic efforts. However, there is one compensation for Rogers— she gets to model an array of 1945's best high fashion, and lovely she is. Anyway, the script looks to me like a rush job, comparing poorly with Grand Hotel's first-rate screenplay. Unfortunately, this version amounts to a general waste of superior talent, though I must admit coming away with a new appreciation of the boyish Johnson's acting talent. Too bad, some of that didn't better inspire the writers or at least give them more time.