1952 was a strange year at the Oscars, that's for sure! It's the year that Jean Hagen was nominated for supporting actress, while SINGIN' IN THE RAIN was not nominated for best picture.
It's only strange in retrospect. In 1952, "Singin' in the Rain" was a flashy musical comedy with tried-and-true musical numbers and lavish production values. It was not taken seriously. Read what N.Y. Times movie critic
Bosley Crowther had to say about it. As great as the review is, I think it's apparent he doesn't believe it's as significant as folks think it is today.
I offer this paragraph as evidence of Crowther's way of seeing the film 56 years ago:
Take as a token of the picture its title, "Singin' in the Rain," which has no more to do with its story than it has to do with performing dogs. Of all things, this song-and-dance contrivance is an impudent, offhand comedy about the outlandish making of movies back in the sheik-and-flapper days when they were bridging- the perilous chasm from silent to talking films. And its plot, if that's what you'd call it, concerns a silent film star who is linked with a slut-voiced leading lady while wooing a thrushy new young thing.
That sort of dismissive way he describes the story and characters was typical back then.
Few movies of this kind were taken "really seriously". The comedies that did make it with the critics and "establishment", like "Adam's Rib", embraced social issues. The musicals had to be loftier, like "An American in Paris" and its artistic ballet that allowed many critics and Academy voters to forgive (and, thus, reward) Alan Jay Lerner for his tired screenplay.
In 1952, "With A Song in My Heart" was far more highly regarded as a motion picture musical with a strong real-life heroine. It was a "dramatic musical" film. A lot of folks express disbelief today that "Singin' in the Rain" didn't win the Oscar for music adaptation (confusing that category with "Best Musical"). Either way, "With A Song in My Heart" was pretty much a sure thing that year.
Yes, times have changed and "Singin' in the Rain" is appreciated more fully for its tale of Hollywood's changeover from silents to talkies and its parody of personalities who did and did not succeed with the changeover. Gene Kelly's wonderful title song dance, and the "Broadway Ballet" give it an added appeal for "most" movie fans of all ages/persuasions (except JRand, of course!).
Historically, it is another golden star in a list of of gold-star accomplishments by the Freed Unit at MGM. Seen as a whole, movies made by Arthur Freed and his unparalleled team of associates look positively brilliant compared to most fare from other studios during those years (1940s through 1950s).
I don't watch "Singin' in the Rain" all that often. It's fun, but it wears thin after a while.
Some folks think that's true of all musicals, but t'ain't so.
