jovana-13676 How unpopular have Freud and Jung become in the post-Sex and the City era! Therefore, this films gets panned by the suddenly enlightened "critics". I'll give it a 10 to fix its overall score and for very good reasons: exceptional photography, extraordinary musical numbers that could have been written by the above mentioned geniuses Freud & Jung; great acting, great screenplay, spectacular costumes and sets... Really, is it so offensive that a domineering woman needs a domineering man? I personally enjoyed watching their battle. In the end, she LETS him dominate. Her Mr. Big is such a potty mouth that my jaw dropped at his insolence, but being shocked is such a pleasure - I did not expect it from a Hays Code era movie. Since feminism or misogyny are not and should never be considered art criteria, let's talk about the color palette, the deep, dark blues to pale greens and pinks of our heroine's reality to vibrant blues, gold and white of her dreams in which she dances in white and red princess dresses and her domineering man sports a purple sequined suit and top hat (her prince is busy signing autographs and the married man she wants to marry is her father figure). One needs to know the symbolism of colors - our repulsive Mr. Big who is about to tame our heroine wears a traditional feminist color. And can't freedom also be defined as a lack of fear to be dominated? "Poor is the man (or woman!) whose pleasure depends on the permission of another."

Angus T. Cat "Lady in the Dark" is a curiosity. The circus sequence with "The Saga of Jenny" gives a taste of what the movie version of the Broadway show might have been like (as other commentators have noted, the song is the sole survivor of the Broadway score by Weill and Gershwin, aside from snatches of "My Ship" and "Suddenly it's Spring", and a verse from "Once Life to Life" which Ginger Rogers recites). Ginger is a knockout, even in her "plain" business suits. The visual design is so rich you could swim in it- it was lovely to see the 40s magazine design as well as the sets. And the costumes! The sequin lined mink skirt is stunning, and so is the gown in the wedding sequence. The psychoanalysis storyline is well handled for a movie made in this period when analysis was strange and frightening to the audience. However, what could have been an exquisite soufflé is let down by the bizarre decision to cut all but one of the numbers and the development of the plot. It suggests that women are miserable in business suits and are far happier wearing frou frou gowns and being "dominated" by men (its terminology, not mine). I will say in the plot's defense (if I may take Ray Milland's part in the circus sequence for a moment) that it doesn't have Ginger pairing off with irresistible but insecure movie star Randy Curtis. When she announced that she was going to marry him and give up her job I yelled out, "You'll be sorry!" The writers recognize that Randy and staying home to be a housewife (even a Hollywood one) would bore Ginger's character out of her tree. Her sparring colleague is a far better choice, and there's a hint in the final that perhaps neither Ray or Ginger will dominate the other, but be partners in running the magazine (they're both overwhelmed with enthusiasm for it). But this hint of equality isn't enough to redeem Ray's earlier nastiness to Ginger, or the tone of misogyny. The movie still comes down with a thud, like Ginger at the end when Ray takes her chair.

radodge I like this movie. It is confusing and difficult, but you can't help but like it. Ginger Rogers plays a fashion magazine editor...and she finds herself having headaches and feeling dissatisfied. This makes no sense, as she has an exceptional job (especially for 1940) three suitors, and conscious and unconscious lives that are fabulously costumed. She goes to her doctor who recommends a psychiatrist...a drastic move for the time...which she promptly declines...but then does finally go to. Ginger undergoes a great deal of stress in this film,and keeping a bottle of aspirin at hand might be wise. As she makes progress with her shrink...her dream sequences become more and more lavish. The film is beautifully costumed...even clothes left lying on a chair...are fabulous. And there are HATS. HATS. Hats... mousey through military...lots of hats...and FURS...Ginger has one dress with a floor length mink skirt...lined with gold and scarlet sequins, two or three fur coats, a muff, and several other dresses trimmed with fur. Pull the shades and make certain that no one from PETA is around when you run this film. The dream sequences are the real meat of this...they are very beautiful and very surreal. In the end, of course, Ginger selects one of the men (no, not the married one) and seems to be on the road to recovery. You get the feeling that a lot got left out...and I don't know what (yet). I know Danny Kaye was 'discovered' in the Broadway show...and that he had special material. Danny was under contract to Sam Goldwyn by the time this was made...so neither he nor any of his special material made the transition into this film. This film is a visual knock out...and a restored print should be made and hi-def DVD's struck...so we can watch this from time to time. It cannot help but remain dated and politically incorrect....that is the legacy of its 1940 dateline.. but it will certainly always be stunning to look at.

claudecat I was looking forward to seeing this film, because I had heard the wonderful Weill/Gershwin songs from the Broadway version. Much to my dismay, all but one-and-a-half of the songs were cut, and the storyline is one of the top-ten most sexist I have ever seen on the screen. I'm very surprised that only one other reviewer commented on that aspect of it! Ginger plays a publishing executive who [THIS IS PROBABLY A SPOILER BUT I MUST WRITE IT] "needs" to learn that she should dress up prettier (though her costumes are by Edith Head!), and let a man take over her business, otherwise she'll continue on her downward spiral toward insanity. Seriously. Ray Milland plays a jerk of the first water; I have never forgiven him. I was glad to hear from another reviewer that the Broadway show isn't this bad, but the movie should be avoided if this sort of thing upsets you at all. If you can laugh about it, you might enjoy the colors, the wacky 40's sets, and the foolish scenes where Ginger visits her idiot of a psychiatrist.