Watch Goodbye, My Fancy For Free

Must See Movie...

A different way of telling a story

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

"Goodbye, My Fancy" stars Joan Crawford, Robert Young, Eve Arden, and Frank Lovejoy and was made in 1951. It was originally a play by Fay Kanin that enjoyed a run of over a year. Madeleine Carroll starred.Crawford in 1951 was 44, and in those days, after an actress turned 30, she went into supporting roles. It's to Crawford's credit that she stayed a leading lady well past 30, albeit in lesser films.This film is actually a good one. Crawford plays a Congresswoman, Agatha Reed, who is invited back to her old college to receive an honorary degree. She is thrilled, for more than one reason. She has happy memories there and has never forgotten her old love and, though she doesn't state it, she's hoping to see him again. Also, she finds it amusing that she's been invited -- she was expelled from the school for staying out all night and didn't graduate.Agatha and her able assistant (Eve Arden) travel to the college, dogged the entire way by a photographer (Frank Lovejoy) with whom Agatha had an involvement a few years back.Agatha has filmed a documentary that she wants to show at the school. The film is about what happens when people are denied their freedoms, and deals with book burnings, persecution of teachers, etc. She is shocked to find that there is some question as to whether or not the film will be shown."Goodbye, My Fancy" is about going home again, and underneath Agatha having two men interested in her, it makes a statement about McCarthyism which was so rampant at the time. It's also about standing up for what you believe in and having integrity -- true ethics kick in when you've got something to lose.I saw some comments about Crawford being miscast - I'm not sure why - she played strong career women for many years. The casting is off, but it's not Crawford. It's partly the script and partly the casting. Robert Young is very good as the President -- handsome, charming, and formal. Eve Arden is funny as the assistant, wisecracking her way through the role. Shirley Booth played the role on Broadway.The role that's miscast is Frank Lovejoy as Matt Cole. The role called for a macho, attractive tough guy and instead we get the rather sloppy, wisecracking Lovejoy. The ending of the film seemed to come out of nowhere.Otherwise, fairly enjoyable, good cast.

Although I gave this film a "7" last time around, I was still a bit harsh about it. Now, having watched it a second time, my "7" will remain, but I'm going to chill out a bit about the film.Here a brash Congresswoman (Crawford) Agatha Reed returns to her alma mater to receive an honorary degree, although her prime motive is to rekindle an old romance with the college president (Robert Young). But, a reporter is after her, too (Frank Lovejoy).It's not the "Mommie Dearest" thing, but -- particularly this late in her career -- I have a difficult time seeing Joan Crawford as a sentimental character, or even being in a romantic comedy. But, Crawford comes across pretty well in the other half of her role here --a Congresswoman. So. it's a balance.Having Crawford as a brass Congresswoman is just about enough brashness for any film, but here we also have -- as her secretary -- Eve Arden. Arden excelled at being brash, and is no less so here. And only she could have pulled this off without the film going overboard in the brashness department.In a way, it almost seems to me that Robert Young was trying out his "Father Knows Best" persona here...just 3 years before that iconic role came his way. I enjoy him here; this is one of his better performances.It's a little difficult to understand why a mellow Young would be so attracted to the brash Congresswoman here. That's one of my biggest problems with this film. She seems more suited to Frank Lovejoy's newspaperman character...but of course, in real life they'd almost certainly end up in a divorce court a few years down the road.There's an interesting subplot about a teacher's freedom to teach students to think...although it falls flat at the end of the film...seems to have been forgotten about. The bottom line here, for me, was why this film grates on me a bit. And I think I finally figured it out. Joan Crawford as a Congresswoman...well maybe. But Joan Crawford fighting for education and freedom and democracy? I just can't buy that. Pretty good movie, but terribly miscast in terms of Crawford. (And her eyes drive me crazy...spooky!). Well worth watching it...once. Oops. Guess I should say twice.

Miscast, highly-contrived screen-adaptation of Fay Kanin's play about a U.S. Congresswoman and her devoted secretary going back to the same all-girl college the fiery female politician was expelled from twenty years ago. Seems the President of Administration wants to give her an honorary degree, however the Board of Trustees are concerned over the Congresswoman's 'radical' political views--and are as yet unaware of the President and the Congresswoman's scandalous past together! In the lead, Joan Crawford anxiously strides up and down like a woman possessed; the role doesn't require it, and the star's angst is as misplaced here as is Frank Lovejoy's crass portrayal of a combat-photographer from LIFE who used to date Crawford and now wants her back. Joan dabs at her eyes and shoos away male suitors, yet we never know what she's doing to cause so much emotional turmoil (this Congresswoman is all business, no fun). Eve Arden (dry as ever) and Robert Young (with overstated gray streaks in his hair) come off best, but Lurene Tuttle plays to the rafters as Joan's former roommate whose husband just happens to be the most vocal objector on the Board. The young woman who now occupies Crawford's old dorm-room happens to be Young's daughter, who tells the Congresswoman after a chat, "I grew up a little today, thanks to you." A stilted nosegay, designed for blue-hair audiences of another era. ** from ****

Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") – but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher – and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine – and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers – this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie – with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth – herself at 18 "eager, expectant – a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 – when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "…and then Joan does…" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college – quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale –a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion.