Faithful in My Fashion (1946)

The Worst Film Ever

Just what I expected

Just perfect...

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Jeff (Tom Drake) has been away at war for years and has just returned home. The first place he goes is not home but to see his fiancee, Jean (Donna Reed), at her job at the department store. However, she's now engaged to another man...but doesn't tell him and her co-workers go along with this. So through most of the movie, she lies to him as they plan the wedding!"Faithful in My Fashion" has a LOT running against it. After all, WWII had just ended and the notion of a guy coming back from the war to find his fiancee engaged to another is a tough sell...particularly when it's supposed to be a romantic comedy. I bet a lot of theater goers (particularly those who'd been in the war) were ticked to see such a film. Additionally, IF she ends up marrying the nice soldier by the end, you'd wonder WHY he would take her back! And, most importantly, how could you string all this along for 81 minutes?! After all, he returns, you tell him, he goes on with his life....5-10 minutes tops! To make it worse they cast Tom Drake--the perfect 'nice guy' actor for such a role and the notion of a woman lying to him or cheating on him seems particularly evil!! Yet somehow someone at MGM thought this would make a great film...and parts of it are (ALL the portions with Harry Davenport are like gold)...but overall it's a dud....an ill-conceived one at that. Slickly made...but horrible.

Donna Reed and Tom Drake are a perfect pair in this 1946 light film about a returning soldier who doesn't know that the love of his life has been promoted in the place they both work in and as has a new love life interest.Margaret Hamilton reminded me of Lily Tomlin with the way her hair was set for this film.The wonderful supporting cast tries to keep the news from Drake for the two weeks that he is in before he'll officially be discharged from the army.Invariably, Drake finds out the truth and the group sets upon an idea to bring the two back to each other. How they compare it to selling shoes is funny.Sig Ruman is great as the Russian music teacher who is occupying the apartment that Reed left when she was promoted.Light fanfare with Harry Davenport good as the great-grandfather to Drake, who hopes to see him marry Reed.

My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.10/10

On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.