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.
dougdoepke
Turn on the sink spigot and water shoots out the stovetop; flick a light switch and the TV comes on. Add a housekeeper whose voice can be heard in Australia, and you've got a promising comedy. In fact there are a number of clever ideas in this screen adaptation of a stage play. Nonetheless, in my book, the movie's only fitfully funny.Now, Glenn Ford wrote the book on effective low-key acting, a style adapting most readily to a droll brand of comedy, as in The Sheepman (1958). Here, however, Ford's in a perpetual tizzy that would tax even the expert delirium of a Cary Grant. He strives mightily, but the demands of 100-minutes of forced hyper is really over-stretching the effort and grows pretty thin. I agree with reviewer Blanche2—the part calls for a comedic actor like a Jack Lemmon or an Ernie Kovacs.Then too, this is really tricky material. After all, Ford is meticulously intent on a criminal act, namely, murder; still, I was surprised when he actually pulls the trigger. What's needed with slippery black humor of this sort is a light touch all the way through. Wisely, for example, Ford looks the fool in his outlandish murder get-up, while the victim staggers around like an all-night drunk. But the cops and especially Martin Landau appear not to be in on the joke. They're too serious by half, reminding me of an unwanted fact-- that once Ford pulls the trigger, he's morally guilty of a crime whether his bullet finds the mark or not, a sour note the script understandably glosses over. Again, this is really tricky material to bring off successfully.I don't mean to imply the film doesn't have its moments or that players like McGiver and Reiner aren't amusingly droll or that the perky Reynolds isn't more restrained than usual. It's just that the 100-minutes remains a patchwork of promising parts that unfortunately adds up to an uneven whole.
