faterson
I dislike comedies in which the actors' performances fairly scream at you: "Hey, this is a *comedy*, you know? We're supposed to be *funny* here! So, go ahead and *laugh*, will you?" Unfortunately, _The Gazebo_ falls into this category. I for one don't think human life as such needs embellishments in order to create a comical impression on its contemplators; if you just faithfully show life for what it is, it will, by necessity, be *funny* to look at -- besides also being *tragic*, along with a host of other attributes. An artist may wish to focus on this or that side of life, preferring one or the other point of view; while highly accomplished artists may even wish to portray two seemingly *incompatible* aspects of human life at the same time, so that a work of art is then *funny* and *tragic* at the same time, just like human life often is. *That* is supreme art. In any case, there is no need to *embellish* anything, to step away from *realism* the way the actors do it in _The Gazebo_ from the opening minute to the last.Whenever this happens on a consistent basis in a movie -- this intentional withdrawal from reality -- it is the director who bears responsibility. And so, I disagree with George Marshall's take on _The Gazebo_. Yes, all the actors here, most noticeably the two leads, Glenn Ford and Debbie Reynolds, are supremely accomplished actors, professionals of the highest merit, and they definitely are "cute" to watch. But the result is not a good, fully enjoyable comedy. In fact, I mostly find fault with the performance of the two leads: because neither Ford, nor Reynolds lend credibility to their 2 characters, as they are simply and obviously *actors playing parts*, trying to elicit laughs from the audience. Yes, they manage to do so quite frequently even for me (such as Ford viewing the havoc in his living room "upside down" from between his own legs, pushing his hanging tie aside for a better view; Ford drawing a flashlight circle on his living-room wall around another flashlight reflection dancing there). But an amassment, or sum total, of such funny moments isn't enough for a truly satisfactory comedy for me. If you feel a disconnect from the main characters -- and I do, from the very beginning, because they are so artificial -- well, all the shenanigans won't save the movie.I'm afraid _The Gazebo_ got off on the wrong foot from the very start: Glenn Ford, and George Marshall as the director, set the wrong tone for everything in that in the opening scenes, Ford as a supposedly stressed and neurotic TV director, is *not* credible; his neuroticism does not ring true; you're painfully aware you're observing an *actor playing his part*, one that is supposed to be "funny", because this is a "comedy". Is there a greater omission for an actor, than to fail to be *convincing* in the portrayal of the person he or she is supposed to portray? If you're not *convincing*, it doesn't matter how cute or funny or beautiful you may be otherwise -- you didn't get the actor's *main* job done.There is an even more awful character than the two lead ones: I mean the housekeeper played by Doro Merande, who keeps hollering at everyone. On the first one or two occasions we meet her, the resulting "joke" is so-so; afterwards, each of her appearances (including the one by proxy, on the phone) only gets more awkward. Can you say "far-fetched", and "milking the same old joke"? The movie's brightest side? Why, of course it's John McGiver in the role of a contractor putting the gazebo in its place; if anyone can be fully believed in _The Gazebo_ and portrays a genuine human being here, it's McGiver. A terrific, nuanced performance; McGiver does not need to do anything "extra" to be funny; he is who he is -- the character he plays in the movie; and that by itself is funny enough; I wish *everyone* in _The Gazebo_ was like that. I also enjoyed Carl Reiner's smart, and pretty understated, performance as the D. A. Understatedness is what Debbie Reynolds, but particularly Glenn Ford and George Marshall were missing in _The Gazebo_. Perhaps they were afraid that in being understated, they would not be "funny enough"; as it is, however, they just *try too hard* to be funny, which is at least as bad as not being "funny enough".For another plus, the movie is visually impressive. Made in exquisite Cinemascope black & white at a time (late 1950s) when movies of this sort were expected to be produced in full colour, it was an excellent choice that suits the action of a "black comedy" perfectly. The Oscar-nominated costume design by Helen Rose deserves every praise.
MartinHafer
This is a bizarre comedy that seems to try very hard to be kooky--which is a very tough sell due to the darkness of the plot. A dark, dark film combined with kooky is a very, very hard sell! The film concerns a couple (Glenn Ford and Debbie Reynolds). Ford works like a dog and you soon learn that he's working so hard because he's paying off blackmailers--blackmailers that have nude photos of Debbie when she was younger. Now the idea of Debbie Reynolds posing naked is a very tough sell--it just doesn't seem possible. Eventually Ford is so fed up with the never-ending blackmail that he decides to kill the blackmailer and hide the body in the foundation of the new gazebo. But, while the killing seems to go off without a hitch, things only get worse after the evil deed was done.Killing, nude photos of Debbie and burying a body in the yard--all this is a very tough sell for audiences expecting to see a cute little film. While some of the film is a bit cute and even funny, the overriding black hole which is the plot is just too difficult to make funny! And, by trying so hard to make this a comedy, the film just doesn't quite work. It's interesting...but not all that great. A time-passer and a strange one at that.
Svengali-2001
The dalliances that once occurred on "The" gazebo are nothing compared to what might have been under it...if only Elliott could have read some Tarantino before the end of this brill flick. Glenn Ford had begun to show signs of his great comic timing in Imitation General, but I think his unique brand of humour finds its feet in this film. There is something delightfully neurotic about Glenn's gift of busy humour. These days he'd be called a thinking man's Jerry Lewis (until Jerry made The King of Comedy and put his own ghosts to bed), but Glenn has an energy that defies his laconic roles like in The Rounders. For a man who claimed only to play himself on screen, he shows a delightfully schizoid turn in this film.(Like he should have be born a Gemini) While the film displays some great moments by Debbie Reynolds, Carl Reiner and a delightful ensemble cast it is the sheer energy of Glenn Ford which makes it hum along. In most of Glenn's films you are confronted with his unerring intensity, deep pride and honesty, but in this we see a little of that pure naivety of spirit that only good people possess. I don't mean wholesome in the apple-pie way, but more the deep-seated belief that life is good nad it's only people who fall off the rails from time to time. This is one of the lovely points about this film. So much is lightly turned on its head. This is the sort of film David Lynch might have made if he had been married to Doris Day or Shirley Temple. When you think about some of the themes and how lightly murder and blackmail are dealt with, you could suspect that you had entered Twin Peaks c1960. Whoever thought up the Alfred Hitchcock sequence deserves an award and I'd love to know what the chap was really saying on the other end of the line!!! I admire the people who can get TCM and I was glad I blackmailed and murdered my way to a bootlog copy of this great flick. And if the critics failed to realise the quality of its writing and acting then that would only be par for the course, (Just ask Cate Blanchett) While I cannot give it a 10, I can tell anyone who likes there humour smart and slick then this is well worth a quick squizz.
