Gentleman’s Agreement (1947)

Gentleman’s Agreement (1947)

The premise is a gimmicky one, a reporter will pass as a Jew for an unspecified amount of time to write an article on antisemitism.

Not only have I seen this kind of stunt done in real life (for example, a reporter will accompany a group of undocumented migrants across the border into the US to experience first-hand what the immigrants do,) but the premise is very similar to some comedies from the 80s where women dressed up as men, or where a White guy attempted to pass for Black, obviously with comedic intent, but then with serious lessons learned by their conclusion.

It’s a relatively common premise with a varied range of specifics dating back possibly to Mark Twain.

This, however, is no comedy.

The subject is obviously aware that he will experience some ‘discomfort’ during his project, and a perceptive audience might soon expect that it will be a learning experience for all the players.

I suspect that even were one to update the story to the present this would still be the case.

What’s revealing to the subject, and to contemporary audiences, is maybe just how quickly this happens or how soon revelations begin to happen.

When his son asks what antisemitism is, the answer is awkwardly given, (if this guy didn’t need to be taken to a certain point of character growth, he might have had a better answer, specifically by indicating antisemitism is not only immoral but also unconstitutional in the U.S. It’s not only weird that he does not start with this, but also that he never even mentions it to the boy. Writing this with 2024 hindsight, I may be judging the scene much too harshly.)

Coming from California, the reporter is a virtual unknown at his New York job, and when he openly announces he is a Jew in a board meeting he does so in a roomful of strangers to their immediate reaction.

Having heard it through the grapevine, his recently hired secretary not only confides she changed her name to get hired (at that same publisher) where she otherwise would not have been, but is quite blasé about it all and mentions how she must downplay her Jewishness, (using a different term for which she is reprimanded,) but also at the dangers of a new policy to hire anyone regardless of creed because other Jews might not be so careful.

Unexpectedly, more personal frictions surface when he finds he has been invited to socialize with his girlfriend’s family and acquaintances even though she has been in on it from the start, but also since it was her idea that inspired the project in the first place.

And that’s just the beginning of his trials…

Many refuse to see commercial films as anything other than entertainment. They’ll argue that films are there only for enjoyment and that no messages should be expected or looked into.

I am not sorry at all to point out that, at least as early as this, there was already a progressive current where certain slurs were already seen as socially unacceptable. Though many have complained about this as 'a loss of liberty of self-expression' or some sort of infringement on their rights over the decades, this is not a new thing.

If you ain't that old, maybe listen to the 'You Must Remember This' podcast or maybe read Kliph Nesteroff's 'Outrageous: A History of Showbiz and the Culture Wars' for some clarification about how things used to be, and what was socially acceptable and what was not.

This film is an example that should not only immediately prove the error of the belief that progressive attitudes are a new development, but it’s also a rare document of a time which large segments of the population would argue were the ‘good old days when people weren’t yet woke’. Well, here is proof that wasn’t the case despite the risk involved in those in the production.

There was belief the film would ‘stir up trouble’ and that the involved players were risking their careers. The HUAC was upset with the film, and a couple of people in the production were blacklisted.

Although at its heart it's about antisemitism, (and bigotism, and unacceptable language and attitudes in general,) its focus is the people who sit in the sidelines and tsk, tsk while at the same time refusing to become activists... or even, at a minimum, to loudly dissent.

‘Yeah, yeah, yeah’, you ask, ‘but is it a good film?

I would have preferred more subtlety in its messaging, but I suppose sometimes only a sledgehammer will do. Sometimes, not even that is enough. Because of that aspect, some will immediately feel the film is too preachy.

Gregory Peck's character himself is part of the problem.

Is the film meant to focus on his own growth? Because if it is it's hardly noticeable: He goes from a person opposed to antisemitism to a person opposed to antisemitism who's just a little better informed having now felt it in the flesh.

Despite his solid stance on the issue, he inexplicably has a problem talking to his kid, (compare this character to Atticus Finch.) That's a bit unbelievable. I remember talking to my kids about everything and anything, but specifically not having a problem with issues I had strong beliefs about.

The character who makes a breakthrough is his fiancé, and even hers is merely a small step from passivity to activism. Mockingbird works because the story is focused on the children and their learning process. This film could have been focused on his fiancé or even on the child, (who's pretty good but is there only as a prop.)

Acting and other technical aspects are all fine. This is not only a professionally made film, but it was nominated and won several Oscars. It’s also been curated into the 20th Century Fox 75th Anniversary Set but, based on some contemporary attitudes, I can already tell it won’t appeal to some, specifically those who need to watch it the most.

With Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, John Garfield, Celeste Holm, Anne Revere, June Havoc, Albert Dekker, Jane Wyatt, and Dean Stockwell.