V I D E O • A G E NO V E M B E R/ DE C E M B E R 2 0 0 8 6 Fred Astaire: A Dance Musical Talent For All Financial Crises of the way musicals were shot and edited. When he transitioned to the silver screen from the theater in the early ’30s, musicals generally adhered to the aesthetic favored by director Busby Berkeley. This meant a lot of geometriclooking arrangements of “dancers [coming] out of fountains, down from clouds, peeping out of immense pools, with feathers, fans, boots, headdresses flapping and flying all over the joint.” The effect was frivolous and moreover completely ignored film’s most valuable tool: the close-up. When Astaire began appearing in films, he insisted on being shot simply, in a medium shot that let the audience see his entire body at once, thus fully showcasing his talent. Additionally, he pioneered the close-up of facial expressions during songs, which allowed for a lot more emotion than Berkeley’s theatrical showgirl numbers and set a new standard for how Hollywood musicals looked. Although Astaire was a brilliant dancer There has never been a more apt time for analysis of the rise of the musical comedy in American film than in the midst of an economic crisis. Perhaps today we can all learn something about entertaining a financially stricken audience from a look at the genre that rose to popularity, and eventually dominance, during the Great Depression. A new book about one of Hollywood’s finest song-and-dance men, Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein (2008, Yale University Press, 198 pages, U.S.$22), highlights the key component to Astaire’s success, and the success of the musical genre as a whole: It provided audiences with a much-needed dose of escapism. The biography first came toVideoAge’s attention because of an incomprehensible review in the New York Times’ weekly Book Review insert. The review focused, puzzlingly, on Astaire’s relationship with his sister, a factor that was little more than a footnote in a book that sought to explain the performer’s significance in Hollywood and American culture. The Times emphasized the fact that Astaire’s sister and original partner, Adele, was the superior dancer and of the two “loved life [more] and let it come as it may.” In centering on this triviality, the reviewer overlooked the most valuable part of the book, its examination of Astaire’s role in building a reputation for the musical. When one talks about Fred Astaire the first thing that comes to mind is dancing partner Ginger Rogers. The second thing is: Were they involved romantically? Though Epstein touches on both topics briefly, the description of Fred and Ginger’s relationship is lacking in depth and explanation. Astaire’s private life, including a marriage to a nonactress that was largely kept under wraps and even the chapter that involved Ginger, is one of the book’s most disappointing omissions. But let’s proceed in order. Astaire’s appeal to the down-at-theheels audience of the 1930s was his effortless elegance. However, Epstein points out that his early life was a far cry from the upper-crust lifestyle he came to represent. Born Frederich Austerlitz in 1899, Astaire’s lower-middle class childhood was devoid of any of the glamour of his later films. At a young age, Astaire and his sister, the aforementioned Adele, were spirited away from their Omaha, Nebraska home to New York City by their ambitious mother Ann to pursue careers in dance of income. Such exclusions occur consistently throughout the book, which seems determined to paint a rosy picture of Fred Astaire’s life at the cost of candor. Of Astaire’s talent as a hoofer (as dancers were called in those days), Epstein is adamant to communicate that Astaire was not a natural. Rather, beginning with his earliest performances as a child tapper, he was a perfectionist of “unrelenting ambition” and trained with a determination that far exceeded his sister’s. Like his dance routines, Astaire’s rise to stardom looked easily graceful, but actually required a great deal of work. By his early 30s, he was a Broadway sensation ready to make the transition to film. Adele, who was a few years older, had just about reached the age limit of female dancers and retired to marry a British aristocrat. Fred was free to fly, or rather dance, solo, but his freedom was not destined to last. Astaire might have been the man that put the musical comedy movie on the map, but he couldn’t have done it alone. When he signed on with RKO in 1933, he was paired, more or less by chance, with bombshell Ginger Rogers in Flying Down to Rio. Despite the fact that they rarely kiss on camera and despised each other in real life, something about the Fred and Ginger partnership hit a note with the American people. Fred and Ginger went on to make 10 more movies together over the course of the ’30s and early ’40s, including Top Hat, The Gay Divorcee, Roberta and Swingtime, which are considered classics of the genre. More importantly, they brought light-hearted (and cheap) entertainment to people struggling to keep food on the table. Fred and Ginger idealized romanticism in America and set the bar for many future films. As Epstein puts it “America loved Fred and Ginger together” and they were paired up in picture after picture because they never failed to sell movie tickets. However, one of Astaire’s contributions to American film topped even his duets with Ginger: His complete reinvention B o o k R e v i e w on the vaudeville circuit. Ann Austerlitz dubbed the young duo “Astaire” at the suggestion of a dance teacher, in order to evoke “a star” or, according to Epstein, “a stairway, perhaps one leading to Paradise.” With their brand new name in tow, the Astaires set out to conquer the theater world, a task that involved hours of rehearsal, seedy venues and little time for the kids to be kids. Though Epstein hints at the idea that Ann Austerlitz and the other adults involved were exploiting the vastly talented children, he never explicitly points out that the Astaire siblings were their mother’s sole source When Astaire began appearing in films, he insisted on being shot simply, in a medium shot that let the audience see his entire body at once, thus fully showcasing his talent. and excellent all-around performer, his reputation has been sullied by reports of his reticence and reluctance to be interviewed and to attend social events. Again, Epstein glosses over this imperfection in the icon’s life story. The author’s reluctance to address any problem, hardship or character flaw of his subject is the book’s biggest downfall. For although Astaire might have been perfection on stage and screen, surely he was still human. ES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI4OTA5