Our Town

OUR TOWN is a timeless classic, and this 1940 film version captures the major themes from Thornton Wilder's great play.

At once simple and profound, unsentimental and heart-breaking, the story of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, and its citizens is a time capsule of early 20th Century America. Two neighboring families are examined in their everyday lives, and we especially follow George Gibbs (William Holden) and Emily Webb (Martha Scott) as they grow up and marry.

A stage convention, the Stage Manager (Frank Craven), acts here as a tour guide and talks directly to the audience and tells them the history of the town and stories about the characters. Independent of time, the Stage Manager can also see into the future and matter-of-factly see the various deaths of several characters as well as their pasts.

The scene from the cemetery is chilling yet is quite wondrous as the characters there ponder the timelessness of the universe. Also great is Emily's visit back to her family on her birthday, where she finally understand that life is made up or so many small and insignificant details that we hardly notice as times flies by.

The film boasts a terrific cast with Fay Bainter and Beulah Bondi outstanding as the mothers , Thomas Mitchell and Guy Kibbee solid as the fathers. Also notable are Doro Merande as Mrs. Soames, Arthur Allen as the professor, Philip Wood as the organist, Spencer Charters as the constable, Stu Erwin as the milkman, and Ruth Tobey as Rebecca, who gets to tell the "mind of god" anecdote.

The ending is different from the play's but works well in this version.

This is a film that badly needs restoration

"Our Town" was like a dramatized sermon about the fleeting nature of life and the need to appreciate every moment to the fullest. It depicted life in a small town, relying heavily on narration. I was astonished, that such a flimsy (though charming) movie should boast a Thornton Wilder script and an Aaron Copland score. Despite its flimsiness, this movie is infinitely more lovable than similar movies, like "It's a Wonderful Life". It was blissfully devoid of drama, its mood was poetic, pleasing to the eye and ear, the dialogue fairly articulate and intelligent. The most poignant line was a girl saying to her mother: "Mom, am I pretty enough to Interest anyone?"

Thornton Wilder's "Our Town" is considered an American classic and it's a play that is often discussed in schools here in the States. Because of this, I was somewhat familiar with the story and remember disliking it. However, it seems that this was because instead of watching the play being performed or watching this movie (that was adapted by Wilder for the screen), my class in middle school read the play--the worst possible way to understand and appreciate it. Now, 35 years later, I finally got around to seeing it like it should be seen--and I am glad I did.

This is an interesting play because of its cast. In addition to a lot of familiar supporting actors such as Guy Kibbee, Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Thomas Mitchell and Frank Craven (who assisted Wilder with the screenplay), the film marks the debut of Martha Scott and William Holden. I really appreciate how many of the actors are the same folks who starred in the Broadway play and how the studio let Wilder keep control of his script--this, unfortunately, is pretty rare. Too often, a studio buys a play and then completely changes it--showing utter contempt for the actors and playwright.

As far as the story goes, it's quite peculiar in style. The closest film I can think of like this is the film version of Eugene O'Neill's "Strange Interlude"--but the O'Neill play didn't really work well on screen. Both featured characters speaking their thoughts out loud to the audience--an unusual innovation to say the least. Another innovation in "Our Town" is having the character of the Mr. Morgan (Craven) also acting as the narrator. Because of this unusual style and the leisurely pace of the film, it's one that might lose viewers who don't have the patience to stick with this one. Don't give up--especially when the film gets depressing--it's a delight and the payoff is definitely worth the long wait.

Impressively written, full of wonderful performances and expertly directed, this one is well worth seeing. And, fortunately, since it's in the public ___domain, it's downloadable from the link on IMDb. Give it a chance--it's a delightful piece of Americana.

Why is this a film I dont wanna watch...because it moves me to uncontrollable tears everytime...It hits home...Thornton Wilder must have known my family ,understood my psyche..It hits home... Americana at the turn of the century.. my parents born... not in samll town america but Mid size city... still the thought the virtues the principals, the ideals were the same the happiness of a a home in America.. Mom & Dad providing a home, warm morning breakfasts on a cold winter day.. family members irrelevant yet unforgettable... the birthdays the graduations & the weddings the changes & the phases of life... and death are simply adequately & beautifully presented by Thornton Wilder & his play & screen play.. Emily portrayed by Marhta Scott is superb... if this doesnt bring a tear to your eye, you are not human... & George played by William Holden perfectly & the best supporting cast ever assembled.. Fay Bainter, Beulah Bondi, Thomas Mitchel, Guy Kibee,Dora Merande etc etc...non stop emotions.. non stop truth.. and the score ,all so memorable... i shouldnt watch this film..becsause its non stop tears everytime... but to me its an American Classic,,, maybe underrated...watch it absorb every line & cry your eyes out..

This might be the slowest of all slow-burners, so if you're going to watch it, brace yourself and be very, very patient. The first hour in this small turn of the century town is for the most part quaint and frankly pretty boring, as we are introduced to various characters and follow them in their everyday lives. There are flashes of a larger meaning in an omniscient narrator, who points out when some of them are going to die, but mostly we seem to be watching simple, mundane events, and a romance completely devoid of spark or chemistry. The production quality is not very high either; even if one takes into account the desire to keep some semblance of Thornton Wilder's lean aesthetic from the stage, there is not enough life in these characters (at least to my modern eyes), the quality of the film stock seems to have deteriorated, and William Holden is both poorly cast and quite wooden.

However, it's all a buildup to that last half hour, and this is where the film really shines, starting with going into the thoughts of the characters at the wedding, and continuing on when the narrator strolls through the cemetery. Wilder's play was both existential and deeply humanistic, and its power comes forth, even with the alteration to the ending, something I'd normally hate. It puts our humble lives into a skeletal framework, and then with its cosmic perspective, forces us to see how brief they are, and how we should treasure every moment, even the simple ones.

Playwright and professor Donald Margulies said that Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life' owes a great deal to 'Our Town', and while he didn't expand on that too much, it's a great point. They ask some of the same questions, such as what's the meaning of this life and do we make a difference being here, but while Capra's answers are positive and joyful and sentimental, Wilder is a little more on the fence, or at least, he lets us interpret (and perhaps this is where the changes in the film were a mistake). In both works the point is made that we need to open our eyes to appreciate what we have and the people around us, but Wilder shows us that our lives are going to be all-too-brief and all-too-small in the grand scheme of things regardless. And yet, he says, "There's something way down deep that's eternal about every human being." We are both meaningful and meaningless at the same time. This is not 'Our Town', it's 'Our Lives', or 'Our Humanity'.

The film's incredibly reserved, staid approach is something that doesn't necessarily work 80 years later, in a world that's much faster paced. As a result, it may be hard to appreciate just how groundbreaking and touching it was at the time. In many cases, audience members at the play responded by openly weeping at the end, and as early critic Brooks Atkinson of the New York Times put it, the play "transmuted the simple events of human life into universal reverie" which contained nothing less than "a fragment of the immortal truth." It's pretty hard to translate such a quiet, introspective play to film or to the present world, and as with Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot', it may evoke the reaction that "not enough happens," but I think there's actually quite a bit here, if you wait for it.