San Francisco (1936)

"Pay attention to her singing" is what another reviewer wrote. Well, it would be kinda' hard NOT to pay attention since 90% of this movie is nothing but Jeanette McDonald's caterwauling. I can appreciate music of just about any kind, but I did not think I would literally be watching a musical, starring a goody two-shoes, who has about as much stage presence as a turnip. I also did not know I would be captive to so many meddlesome people in one movie. Spencer Tracey played the local priest, and I wanted to slap him until my arms got tired. He was always into everybody's business. Jeanette McDonald's character was so wishy-washy, you never knew from one minute to the next which man had become her flavor of the month. Clark Gable was, well, Clark Gable. This is certainly not one of his best, and it was nice to know it took some MAJOR persuasion to convince him to do the role. He and McDonald had absolutely ZERO chemistry.The ending, which was the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, was pretty spectacular for a movie made in 1936, but was ruined by a Joan-of- Arc McDonald again wailing "Nearer my God to Thee." The director (and all others involved) managed to choke people on the "better quit your sinning" message, which finally tolled the death knell for me.

You get the feeling that what director Woodie Van Dyke REALLY wanted to do was reenact the great San Francisco earthquake scene of destruction on the 30th anniversary of its occurrence. Of course, MGM studio head Louis B. Meyer is not going to fork over money for that, so a story is constructed that merely contains the scene he really wanted to do as the climax of the film. The whole thing is a well acted but rather maudlin morality tale in the production code era tradition. You've got the personification of the Barbary Coast entrepreneur in Blackie the atheist saloon owner, perfectly cast with Clark Gable in the role. You have the voice of virtue in the person of priest Father Tim Mullin, again perfect casting with Spencer Tracy in the role, and you've got your virtuous songbird of a lady in Jeanette McDonald as Mary Blake, looking for work as a singer. Did anybody on the MGM lot in 1936 have a better voice than hers? Square jawed Jack Holt comes over from Columbia to play society scion Jack Burley, who in the end is no better, maybe worse, than Blackie. He claims he is respectable but when he and Blackie are fighting over the affections of Mary, there is no blow that is too low for him to land. In the middle of all of this conflict - scion versus rascal, man of God versus atheist, a woman who is torn between the man society tells her that she is supposed to love and the man she really does love comes the great quake. When you watch it think about the work that went into this given the technology that did not exist at that time and it becomes even more wondrous. Unfortunately, at least for me, the movie gets rather hokie at that point. I'll let you watch and get the details.In the final analysis, Jeanette McDonald is probably given more to do in this movie than she should have because Louis B. Mayer thought she was "hawt!". Meanwhile the production code was the best thing that ever happened to Spencer Tracy. No doubt he was a great actor, even greater when you realize that off camera he was a heavy drinker and bedding every MGM (and before that Fox) starlet he could get his hands on, and yet he plays a priest quite believably!. And Blackie suddenly believes in God because the person he loved is not dead in the rubble? What about all of the other dead people? Should, by the same logic, the people who loved them have become atheists? Not as long as head censor Joe Breen was on the job, and he would be for another 16 years.Highly recommended in spite of the hokie ending. It is just a shame that they couldn't have made it in 1933 when things were allowed to be a bit saucier and more realistic.

"San Francisco" is two movies. The first is a boring love story about a morally suspect nightclub owner (Clark Gable) and the singer he's hired (Jeanette McDonald) to perform there. The second is a disaster movie about the great San Francisco earthquake and its aftermath. The first half of the movie you might as well sleep through, because it's obvious that the filmmakers themselves considered it only filler until the main event. McDonald is prim and dull, the kind of heroine that makes you wonder why so many men want her. Gable is his usual charming self, but he's not charming enough to make us care about the plot, nominal as it is. But then the big bang hits and the walls start a shaking'. Special effects wizard A. Arnold Gillespie takes responsibility for tearing San Fran apart, and the results were no doubt state of the art at the time. Unfortunately, the action sequences are quick edited into incoherence for modern day viewers.The grand finale is corny as all get out, but it manages to be pretty emotionally rousing anyway."San Francisco" was nominated for 6 Academy Awards in 1936, winning for Sound Recording but losing out in all other categories: Best Picture, Director (W.S. Van Dyke), Actor (Spencer Tracy, surprisingly nominated for lead in what is clearly a supporting role), Original Story, and Assistant Director, a category that only existed for a few short years in the 30s.Grade: B

I watched this film to see the depiction of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, sans computer effects. I agreed with the review I had read, that it was really well done. Certainly, the depiction of the devastation, all the people wandering about, was effective.The story line was easy enough to follow. I was cheering for Clark Gable's character throughout. Not sure how great I thought his acting was, compared to other films from that era, but he was dashing enough. My biggest complaint was the singing of Jeanette MacDonald's character. Not my taste at all and rather on the hard-to-hear side towards the end.I could see it coming that he'd turn to God at the end, after all his denials. But I liked that part just the same.This film is well worth watching, especially for the effects!