User reviews

I hate to say it, but before I saw this movie, I did not realize that there was racism against Jews in the post war period. I couldn't understand it: why would Americans promote the very thing they fought against in the war? Then I was informed that they weren't fighting against racism or discrimination, but against the Nazi regime and genocide. There is a large difference between one person's opinion and a government policy. I'm a teenager, and the fact that Jews were still discriminated against was never mentioned to me. Maybe it should be better known. I am doing Modern History next year and we will be studying the Second World War, and I'm very glad I saw this film (despite its inaccuracies).

Anyway – now to the plot. Phillip Green (Gregory Peck) is a writer who pretends to be Jewish to find out about anti-Semitism. Through this, he learns how much people discriminate against Jews and it affects him deeply and changes his life.

I was never bored in this film. I am forever fascinated by Peck, who I've always remembered as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird (1962). This is only the second film I've seen with Peck in his younger days (it's quite a pleasure watching him). Celeste Holm also is amazing and I love how she can laugh so easily – very realistic. The only thing I wasn't satisfied with is the romantic choices by Peck's character. I wish he would have chosen the happy blonde Anne instead of the sappy, boring Kathy. Oh, how I was hoping he would choose Anne! Perhaps Dorothy McGuire was miscast; maybe someone else could have brought more energy to her character. John Garfield is fantastic as Green's Jewish friend.

This was ground breaking at the time and I really respect the people who participated in this film for taking a risk. Despite being made almost 60 years ago, I have not only learned from it but enjoyed it. Yes, there are some inaccuracies and plot holes, but I don't particularly care and it doesn't distract me. It's a great film, go see it.

A thought-provoking and brooding film with good performances , dealing with brooding and thoughtful events . It deals with a magazine writer Phil Green (Gregory Peck) looks for a new angle on his writings when he agrees to research by writing a series of articles on anti semitism for a powerful publisher (Alfred Dekker) . Along the way he personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred . And his new identity pervades his life affecting his relationship to new girlfriend (Dorothy McGuire) and son (Dean Stockwell) resulting in unexpected consequences and troublesome ways .

An interesting and rabid attractive drama in which a reporter pretends to be a Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism , only to find the masquerade entailing a backlash of grief and pressure for himself and his own family . Archetypical Hollywood social comment and the 20th Century Fox studio's fondness for realism looks remarkable dated in places . However , relying heavily for complicated loving relationships , tension and on a handful of attractive dramatic pieces and offering an important analysis of the problem . This sentimental and muddled film was Hollywood's first major attack on anti-Semitism. A successful movie that received 8 Oscar nominations and three wins, including Kazan's first for Best Director. Gregory Peck gives a terrific acting in an upright role similar to Atticus Finch , he is a journalist who has to deal with both overt and covert prejudice . John Garfield has a small but essential role as Phil's Jewish friend Dave . Starring Gregory Peck and Dorothy McGuire are accompanied by a very good support cast , such as : Celeste Holm , Anne Revere , June Havoc , Albert Dekker , Jane Wyatt , Dean Stockwell and Sam Jaffe.

The film was compellingly made by Elia Kazan who did not get along with actor Gregory Peck ; as usual Kazan dealing with thoughful and provoking issues . In fact , his films were concerned with personal or social issues of special concern to him. Kazan writes, "I don't move unless I have some empathy with the basic theme." And this first such "issue" film was Gentleman's agreement (1947). It was followed by Pinky (1949), one of the first films in mainstream Hollywood to address racial prejudice against black people. A streetcar named Desire (1951), an adaptation of the stage play which he had also directed, received 12 Oscar nominations, winning four, and was Marlon Brando's breakthrough role. In 1954, he directed On the waterfront (1954), a film about union corruption on the New York harbor waterfront. In 1955, he directed John Steinbeck's East of Eden (1955), which introduced James Dean to movie audiences. Rating : 6.5/10 .Notable . Controversial in its day , yet still timely .

In his commentary for the DVD of `Gentlemen's Agreement,' critic Richard Schickel spends some of it criticizing the flaws in the movie (something I wish more commentaries would do). Mostly I disagreed with him, especially about Dorothy McGuire's fine performance. She has by far the toughest role in the picture as Gregory Peck's conflicted fiancée, whose complacent belief that she doesn't have an anti-semitic bone in her body is severely tested when he decides to pretend to be Jewish for a newspaper article. I often think of prejudice as the act of automatically assuming something is fact about someone we don't know, based on stereotypical preconceived notions. Anti-semitism is the reference point for the movie, but what it really does is examine the subject of prejudice from many different angles, from its most virulent to its most subtle forms. It even explores the role played by Jewish self-hatred in exacerbating the problem. The only time the film begins to resemble an `After School Special' is in Ann Revere's preachy speech towards the end. On balance, however, `Agreement' is much more complex than it's been given credit for. (I may be too late, but in answer to the User Commenter who wanted to know the name of the main title theme: it's an Alfred Newman original that is only heard that one time in the film. He developed it more extensively a couple of years later in Kazan's "Pinky.")

Gregory Peck is slick as a writer for a publisher who is trying to find something to inspire him after his wife dies. He must take care of his young son and has his mother in New York to help him out. Anti-Semitism hits a chord as WWII has just ended with news of the Holocaust just barely starting to sink into the national consciousness. The timing for release of this movie is obvious, but it is carefully thought out as the director tries to convey the sinister and insidious way in which prejudice worms its way into the mainstream of everyday life. A well done film that works! A clever and intelligent portrayal that deserved the attention it received. Not an entertaining movie in the strictest sense, but one where the audience must do the work of thinking their way through it. It is a film worth navigating, however, because the ugly mirror of prejudice is held up to us all who are watching. It makes you feel uncomfortable because most of us are guilty of witnessing prejudice but we end up doing nothing about it.

I recommend this film, but it won't be for everyone and many of us would rather just pass this one by. But we shouldn't even though it holds up this mirror making us feel guilty and uncomfortable. I should point out that the ending relating to the love interest in the story just doesn't work, but then that is not the purpose of the film. Prejudice, anti-Semitism and discrimination are, and these elements are worked out well. A disturbing but intelligent portrayal which is worth taking in for what it is worth.

It's hard for today's audience to appreciate the impact of Gentlemen's Agreement in 1947. The Holocaust was not in textbooks then, it was in newsreels showed in American theaters. The state of Israel was coming into being and there was debate about that with Harry Truman shortly overruling a lot of his own trusted advisers including his own Secretary of State George C. Marshall, in giving recognition to the nascent Jewish state.

During the course of the film names like Gerald L.K. Smith, Theodore G. Bilbo, and John E. Rankin are mentioned. The first was a Protestant evangelical minister who started out with Huey Long, but then developed a line of anti-Semitism in his sermons. He had a considerably large following back in the day though the Holocaust did a lot in killing his recruiting. Theodore G. Bilbo and John E. Rankin were a couple of Mississippi politicians who for their redneck constituency successfully linked anti-Semitism and racism. They didn't like foreign born either and used a whole lot of ethnic slurs.

But the anti-Semitism that Gregory Peck takes on is not that of Bilbo, Smith, and Rankin. It's the genteel country club anti-Semitism that manifests itself in restricted resorts, quotas as to how many Jews will some white shoe law firm accept if any, discrimination in hiring practices, unspoken covenants {gentlemen's agreements} not to sell to Jews in certain areas; all these we see in Gentlemen's Agreement.

Peck is given an assignment to write about it and he hits on a novel approach. Just being hired by publisher Albert Dekker, he gets Dekker's backing when he says he will pretend he's Jewish and see how he's being treated. He gets quite an experience in the bargain.

Running parallel to Peck's masquerade is his courtship of Dorothy McGuire. She's a divorcée, he's a widower with a young son. The whole thing puts a strain on their relationship, especially in dealing with her sister, Jane Wyatt who lives in one of those restricted by Gentlemen's Agreement communities.

Gentlemen's Agreement came up with several nominations and three Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director to Elia Kazan, and Best Supporting Actress to Celeste Holm as a tart tongued fashion writer at Peck's magazine who proves to be a friend. Peck himself was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Ronald Colman for A Double Life. Holm also beat out Anne Revere nominated for the same film, probably helped by the fact that Revere had won a few years earlier for National Velvet.

John Garfield who was Jewish took a small supporting role in the film as Peck's long time childhood friend who educates Peck into how a Jew deals with the rebuffs he's finding out about. Had he not been up also for Body and Soul as Best Actor, he might well have earned a Supporting Actor nomination here.

Also note Sam Jaffe as the fictional professor Lieberman which is a thinly veiled caricature of Albert Einstein probably the most noted figure in the world of Jewish background. Like Lieberman, Einstein's a cultural Jew, not religious in any sense of the word. Nevertheless he was a leading figure at the time in the Zionist movement, having endured all that Peck endured in Germany and seeing what was coming with Hitler, fled his native Germany for safe harbor in the USA.

My favorite character in the film however has always been June Havoc as Peck's secretary. She changed her name to something ethnically neutral to get her job in the very magazine that will now crusade against anti-Semitism. She's also become a self hater, a phenomenon that other discriminated people also experience. GLBT activists are fully aware of what self hate has done, not hardly unknown among other groups as Ms. Havoc demonstrates.

Of course Gentlemen's Agreement is dated with its topical references to post World War II trends and events. Yet it still has a powerful message to deliver. It made Gregory Peck one of the great liberal icons of Hollywood and still should be seen by all as a great lesson in the pitfalls of unreasoning hate.

On the one hand, Gentleman's Agreement has a highly enlightened prejudice, even today, let alone 1947. Gregory Peck plays a journalist who decides to pretend to be Jewish so he can attain a real-life perspective on anti-semitism. Peck's transformation from a determined writer looking for an edge to a crusader against prejudice is nothing short of profound. The twist of course is that Peck gets lost in the assignment, starts seeing himself as a Jew and struggles to maintain his composure amid all the anti-semitism he experiences. Considering that, it's a shame that the film's abilities to tell a story lag so far behind the movie's depth and boldness. There's a lot of emphasis on the romance between Peck and his editor's niece, which is pretty overdone for a pair who has as little chemistry as McGuire and Peck. I think the worst part of that is hearing Gregory Peck referring to McGuire's character as "my girl" like he's in middle school, especially considering I've always associated Peck with characters of tremendous maturity. Additional randomness comes from the fact that the film also focuses on Peck's relationship with his ailing mother, which doesn't have much to do with the central plot at all. What seemed to be an attempt to give a more well-rounded view of the character, the story felt bogged down by those elements. Still, a worthwhile movie, overall, *** out of ****

I often hear movies described as powerful. Most of the time the word is misused. Not this time.

It's 2021 as I write. I watched this movie last night for the simple reason that there was nothing else on tv worth watching at 1 AM other than reruns of The Monkees. Seeing as how I love The Monkees, it's weird that I chose to watch this movie instead. I think I know why though.

The description doesn't do this movie justice. I almost changed channels after reading it, but one of the early scenes caught my attention and every scene after kept it. The more I watched, the further from shore I walked until it was impossible to swim back.

I am 62 years old and more set in my way of thinking than any other white male Georgia boy there is. Or so I thought. Thank God I was wrong. Born and raised a small town Confederate Conservative. Nuff said? No. That's one of the truths of this movie. Watch it and quit putting people in the groups that even today's society say are morally correct. Lesson learned.

Just by being who I am and where I'm from, I know what it's like to be stigmatized.

I'm a racist. That's the box the world says I belong in. That's the label in big bold letters that I wear every where I go. I always took pride in knowing the label was wrong. From that day long ago when I made friends with the first black kid to be placed in my elementary school after segregation, I have lived my life riding a different wave. The road I took led me on different paths. Racist was the opposite of who I am. 62 years of living this life proved it. This movie made its way deep inside and for the first time I realized I have spent my life seeing my reflection in a fun house mirror. The image of my reflection was distorted. That's a hard truth to swallow. I knew everyone else was wrong, (yes you are), the reflection you see is warped, but mine? Yes. Even mine.

Watch this movie alone. Don't let anything disturb you. And hopefully you will see your true self for the first time. I did. Maybe it will change you. Hopefully, it did me. Time will tell.

If this movie is in book form, it should be required reading for every high school student. If not, it should be recommended that every college grad watch it before receiving their diploma. The world would be so much closer to God's intent if we did.

Gentleman's Agreement (1947)

A "gentleman's agreement" is a euphemism for a polite, unspoken act of racial bigotry. Yes, a sort of wink to not allow blacks or hispanics or Jews into a certain resort or club or restaurant.

That's the real point of the movie. Not hard core racism or prejudice, but that subtle stuff, the stuff that goes on every day even now. And ultimately, it is aimed at the people who say, "I'm not prejudiced," and yet who let other people wink and act like polite bigots.

There is a lot of background to the movie, in the making and acceptance of it in the industry and in the country (in short, Hollywood insiders avoided the idea and the public liked it). But the main point is how the movie works and plays out as a story, then (in our heads) and now (on the screen).

The answer? Very well. Yes, it's "preachy" of course. Of course! That's what a message movie does. But does it do it well? Yes, but it does mean there is a lot of talking. The key talker and thinker is main character, goy journalist Phil Green, played by Gregory Peck. He struggles out loud through how to approach an article he has to do on anti-Semitism with his mom, and then struggles through the actual highly veiled anti-Semitism of his potential wife, played by Dorothy McGuire. We know they are made for each other, but McGuire's character just can't quite get how her "looking the other way" or "feeling outrage" isn't enough.

The real acting gem is by Celeste Holm, who plays a sidekick, another writer, and someone who audiences probably want to see with Mr. Green because she has innate principles and the guts to show them. (She won an Oscar, too!) John Garfield, who was Jewish, plays an openly Jewish character in a deliberately restrained role as a returning G.I. It's 1947, and the country that has helped to save the remaining Jews in concentration camps is now wondering how to "save" them at home from internal barriers.

It might have been a mistake to set the movie in New York City, which was over a quarter Jewish at the time and probably had more familiarity with assimilation and difference than the movie implies (especially at the publisher's). But the scenes in stuff Connecticut make more sense. There is the love plot pushed on the whole thing, and the weirdly perfect house that was built and decorated but never lived in as if that's the future, waiting and ready. And yes, there is all the talking and moralizing.

But give director Elia Kazan credit for making this as fluid and involving as he has, and cinematographer Arthur Miller's beautiful post-War visuals hold up that end of the experience really well. And you know what, the "lessons" built into this kind of "message" film are worth sitting through because we all need reminders of how insidious our own prejudices can be, and how we need to constantly address them, openly.

I love this film, though it has faults. It isn't very lively or humorous, and some parts are just plain baffling. Peck is supposed to be the moral spokesman, but so many of the other actors--John Garfield, Dorthy McGuire, Dean Stockwell, Celeste Holm, Sam Jaffe--suggest less priggishness/puritanism and more humanity/warmth than he does. How can we think him morally superior when he comes across like a sulking browbeater? I wish a Spencer Tracy or even a James Stewart had played his role. Sometimes, I feel like saying, "Lighten up, Greg! Say, did you ever here the one about the Rabbi and the three bellydancers? You'll love it."

Nor is it just the casting. Many of Anne Revere's lines make me wince with their naivety, and I think she has the most embarrassing role in the movie. However, I really hate the scene when Peck berates his secretary, June Havoc, basically telling her that the only thing that differentiates a Jew from a Christian is just a word--as if cultural and ethnic differences didn't exist or matter.

I could go on, because I think I know this film's faults as well as any of its critics. However, the movie's virtues obviously outweigh its shortcomings and dated moments. In fact, after over sixty years, not one other Hollywood film confronts bigotry as intelligently as this one. That's right; not one. Why? Because every other one deals only with bigotry in the extreme--and the result is they don't really attack bigotry, they attack violence. Many bigots who keep their kids out of culturally diverse schools can watch MISSISSIPPI BURNING, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, CROSSFIRE, etc., and can self-congratulatingly say to themselves, "Well, that's not me; I know I'm not a racist." Of course, violent prejudice is the worst form there is, but, in case you didn't know, it is not violent prejudice that minorities confront on a daily basis. It is the unspoken, insensitive attitudes that GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT is brave enough (and unique enough) to attack. Despite its dated moments, it's no wonder this movie raises nervous hairs to this day. It makes one actually wonder: is it wrong to tell a politically incorrect joke? Those who think the answer is simple, please think again.

Some have commented that they don't understand what the title refers to and it is significant. A gentleman's agreement is one made without writing or even speech--an agreement that's understood or assumed to be understood. In regards to the film, the term refers to those innumerable bigots who so unthinkingly assume that their prejudices are agreed upon. Speaking as a member of the U.S.'s privileged minority (a white, anglo-saxon, Protestant heterosexual male), I can attest that all of the sexist, racist comments I have had to hear have always been spoken by someone who silently assumed that I would agree with him, making it a gentleman's agreement. The movie, of course, says it's time to break the agreement. A lot of people didn't like such a message when the film came out, and a lot of them don't like it now.

Laura Hobson's novel is brought to the screen in 1947, when it took courage to present a film of this subject. You'd think with Elia Kazan's direction and top notch casting, it would be a great film. It isn't. I think the fault lies in the adaptation of the novel. It is watered down so as to not offend anyone. In other words Zanuck took the easy way out and made it into a soap opera instead. This is a shame as the actors were very capable of giving true and genuine performances. Gregory Peck as the man who passes himself off as Jewish, seemed restrained and unable to bear down on the message of the plot. It was the writing that never gave him this opportunity. The durable Dorothy McGuire, known for ENCHANTED COTTAGE, TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN, was wasted in an unsympathetic role as the girl friend who can't be understood. Their love scenes were stale. I did like the unsaid dinner scene where they couldn't look at each other or speak. Very well played. John Garfield, the Jewish friend, and a brilliant actor, walked through this film, where he could have done so much more. Celeste Holm, in her Academy Award performance, had a few moments, but far from award winning performance. It seemed she too was restrained from being the babe out to get Peck for her own. Anne Revere again plays the mama with the words of wisdom. It seems to be her fate to play these roles. See her in NATIONAL VELVET, SONG OF BERNADETTE and PLACE IN THE SUN. You never are quite sure what she's thinking. She walks around with a smug look on her face. Other roles played by June Havoc, the bigoted secretary, Albert Dekker, the publishing boss who wanted the story, Sam Jaffe, wonderful in a small role, Jane Wyatt, wasted in a thankless role as McGuire's sister and young Dean Stockwell, one of the better juvenile actors of the time as the son. All could have added great depth to this, but the writing and I believe the studio's fear of offending prevented this from being a powerful message. DIARY OF ANNE FRANK captured this. As did HOME OF THE BRAVE for the African American. Too bad. Could have been better.

A Gentleman's Agreement is the second motion picture of Elia Kazan that I have seen, the first being On the Waterfront. When I saw the movie starring On the Waterfront about two years, I had not much knowledge about Stanislavsky's method of acting; to me, as an Indian teenager more exposed to Bollywood films, acting meant overdone expressions that indicated emotions of the character at the moment and blaring music in the background to suggest the mood. But after having read his works and being in contact with theater actors, I have realized how tough and delicate 'true' acting is. It can be compared to a tightrope, you tilt more to the side and you fall. Similarly, if you overdo or underperform, you fail – it is about developing yourself externally and internally to portray another person. And so have I begun to appreciate more welcomingly the works of great directors and actors; I am able to sense more keenly whether the actor is 'feeling' or 'acting as if he is feels'.

Elia Kazan, as I read about him in Wikipedia, has been proclaimed as an 'actor's director' for implementing his Method techniques in his film in a way that brings out the truest emotion within his actors. When Marlon Brando hails him as the best experience he has ever had with a director, it means a lot. And Gentleman's Agreement has a lot to say about the director's way of handling his actors and the subject of the film. The film seems rather like a filmed play, blackouts after every scene, unelaborated production and specific focus on actors. And the actors never sob their eyes out or scream their lungs out; their actions seem controlled and natural. There is scant music during the scenes, and therefore we never are made to feel in a particular way; everyone in the audience is entitled to feel his/her own way. And that's what made me astonished, as I was expecting high-voltage drama with the message bombarded upon the viewers. Although there were some unneeded moments, the impact that the film had on me was much more because all the actors collaborated so well without having any 'Movie Star' moment.

The matter is contentious and provocative – in the 40s; a reporter pretends to be a Jew for an article to directly be able to understand their feelings and presence in the white Christian dominated society. He is supported wholeheartedly by his openhearted mother and precocious son while equivocally by his fiancé. His decision leads to many confrontations, though most are not very serious, and a newfound friendship. The film distinguishes the varying attitudes of people – some take the initiative for the better, some for the worse while most sit on the fence. Here, Gregory, as Schuyler Green has been assigned to cover about anti-Semitism, which at that time was widely prevalent. He remains indecisive for a while but with the support of his family goes ahead and hits upon the idea of going undercover as a Jew. Gregory portrays him with immaculate sincerity though his character could have been written in a cleaner and riskier way. By this I mean his character does not experience to a fuller extent the discriminations among Jews because the radius his character chooses is limited to the upper caste society which remains more discreet in conveying its feelings. Also, there was abundant focus on his relationship with Kathy, his fiancée which although was very interesting as it gave focus to her own views on racism, but it neglected his interactions with other people. Yet, to take up this matter in the 40s is very brave.

Some viewers on IMDb denounce Kathy for being shallow, but I have to say that most people even today are like her in some or the other way. We know that something is wrong yet we sit and do nothing. And Dorothy McGuire channels this feeling of 'shame of not doing something' to a tee. And regarding certain viewers' complaint regarding the ending of the film, I say that basic human feelings such as love should not alter because of one incompatibility. I shall give a personal example here: My grandmother is staunchly against a leader's administration and is quite vocal about it but she would always reprimand my grandfather whenever he would provide criticism about the reader in the newspaper. That does not mean my grandpa will divorce my grandma and go soul searching; I was not disappointed by Schuyler's decision in the end.

The supporting cast act like pillars in the film, with not one misstep from the actors. Celeste Holm is simply amazing as the feisty fashion editor who believes in equality. And I felt she really had her feet on the ground, unlike fireball Bette Davis in All about Eve, whose character too has the similar zest but seems to spit ember and heat up all the scenes. Celeste is fun, over-the-top and believable, she also wonderfully acts especially in her final scene. Anne Revere is equally brilliant, and John Garfield and June Havoc give their best in their short roles. Garfield surprisingly didn't receive supporting actor nomination, since he has some climatic scenes and dialogs. And what conviction does the young Dean Stockwell display!

The ensemble is one of the best I have seen, and under Elia's guidance, deliver their best and most genuine. It may get dreary for those expecting swelling music and over-the-top moments but anyone who can notice the director's courage for making this shall be greatly impressed.

My Rating: 9 out of 10

A little bit preachy, as these sort of films always are. The topic is somewhat timely, even as the movie is rather dated, inasmuch as anti-Semitism seems to be back in style, especially in Europe, where the greatest sins/crimes against the Jews were perpetrated. Growing up and living in the South, I really never saw much anti-Semitism, but also there were very few Jews, at least that I knew of. I expect that this film's Best Picture and Best Director Oscars were bestowed more because of the subject matter, than completely on merit. I did think that Celeste Holm was exquisite in her role. A film definitely worth watching. Grade: B-

Expectations were quite high for watching 'Gentleman's Agreement'. Despite seeing a lot of mixed reviews over time and that it has often been considered one of the weakest Best Picture winners, the subject was very hard-hitting, close to home and relevant back then. Elia Kazan was a fine director, especially in his direction of actors, and he showed in most of his films how he was able to tackle difficult subjects and explore them in an uncompromising way. A lot of great talent here.

'Gentleman's Agreement' disappointed me on the whole and generally to me it's lesser Kazan. Not his worst, that's 'The Arrangment' but of his 40s films it is second weakest (weakest being 'The Sea of Grass'). Its good intentions were laudable and much appreciated, those good intentions are obvious throughout. Its execution of the subject matter though is problematic, and it is really not one of Kazan's better handlings of difficult subjects. 'Pinky' also dealt with discrimination but as well as the subject being more relevant today it handled it much more tactfully and with much more nuance and complexity.

There are great things here, despite having said all of that 'Gentleman's Agreement' is not a terrible film. It looks great, especially the photography which is typically moody and stylish. The music is used scantly but is quite haunting and not too melodramatic when it is used. There are intelligently written moments and there are moving ones too.

Most successful is the cast and one can see here why Kazan's direction of actors was and still is acclaimed. Gregory Peck gives one of his best performances, his best up to this point of his career, and it is a role that really suits him. He was one of the best when it came to sincere and earnest roles, a prime example being in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', and his performance is full of sincerity that never feels forced. The other cast standout is a sparkling Celeste Holm, one can't help be endeared to her. June Havoc is a joy in her role and Anne Revere gives a lot of meaning to her role despite her dialogue being preachy. John Garfield gives raw intensity without over-playing.

Did not know what to make of Dorothy McGuire. She really does give everything she's got in a tricky role, but the performance could have done with more nuance and subtlety. Count me in as someone that really struggled with the character of Kathy, an irritating one and one that was pretty sketchy. She has very little chemistry with Peck, meant to be romantic but they actually looked rather awkward together and cold towards each other so rooting for the relationship was impossible. Especially when one also has to suffer through the dialogue they have together. Kazan was brilliant in his direction of actors, but he wasn't always successful and the rapport between Peck and McGuire is one of the failures.

While appreciating what 'Gentleman's Agreement' was trying to say and do, it could have done so in a much better way. The script has moments, but is mostly too talky and exposition-heavy. The scenes between Peck and McGuire are awkward and Revere's dialogue in the latter stages is like being sermonised to. The story also has moments, but could have gone into a lot more depth and been a lot less careful trying not to offend, it can be dull and the big decision at the end makes no sense at all. The message is a powerful one and hardly irrelevant today (the opposite), but the preachy and too simple way it's executed here holds it back.

So all in all, not a bad film but for me it was disappointing. 5/10

I've seen a lot people describe this movie as "a period piece" and a great movie but irrelevant in our time.

However, this movie has lessons that every new generation should learn.

The lessons taught in this movie can be applied to other forms of prejudices such as sexism, racism, and homophobia among others.

Our society today is still full of "nice" people who detest bigotry and intolerance, but stand idly by while it happens right in from of them. Watching this movie could change all that.

Although the approach and presentation of anti-Semitism is a bit dated by today's standards, that should not detract from the historical importance of this movie. For the first time, a movie showed anti-Semitism as being a part of mainstream American thinking. And it took two non-Jews, producer Zanuck and director Kazan, to bring it to the screen. No Jewish producer would touch this project. They were afraid of negative reaction. (Apparently, the fact that the book on which the movie was based was a best seller escaped their notice!)

Oddly, Kazan once said he hated this film. He did not want a happy ending, but Zanuck insisted that the love story should cure all.

20th Century Fox currently is releasing a new "Studio Classics" DVD series, each a famous film from the past packaged with often compellingly interesting special features. Few releases are more important than 1947's Academy Award winning "Gentleman's Agreement," a for-the-times daring expose of anti-Semitism, a prejudice rarely if ever before that year acknowledged in film.

Laura Z. Hobson, an accomplished novelist, wrote the book of the same title and it sold well. Hobson unveiled the so-called "Gentleman's Agreement" whereby Jews were excluded from professions, clubs, resorts and employment and residency opportunities as well as simple social associations by a silent compact by mainly white Christians to engage in exclusionary practices. While discrimination against blacks was mandated by unambiguous law supported by inflexible government authority, the relegation of Jews to often second-class status in the dominant Christian community was by deception, denial and deceit.

A Christian, Darryl F. Zanuck was one of the few true Hollywood moguls who wasn't Jewish. He was also intensely offended by bigotry of any kind. Hobson's novel, of no interest to Jewish producers who preferred to live in their own world which consciously often aped the society from which they were barred, was his to buy for the screen. He did so for $75,000 and he set out to find a first-class crew to make the film.

Elia Kazan signed on to direct (and to revise the screenplay after Moss Hart finished it). Gregory Peck, already a box office idol, was chosen to play Philip Schuyler Green, a widower with a young boy (played by Dean Stockwell). Dorothy McGuire is Green's troubling love interest, Kathy Lacey. John Garfield, one of the many Hollywood denizens who changed their names to avoid being typed as Jewish, is Army Corps of Engineers captain Dave Goldman. Celeste Holm won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress as Anne Dettrey. Anne Revere, soon to lose twenty years of productive life because of the Blacklist, is Green's wise mom. June Havoc is Green's secretary, Elaine Wales, who in the film changed her name to get work, her real name being clearly Jewish. Lastly, Albert Dekker is magazine publisher John Minify, a man determined to expose to the light of day the insidious anti-Semitism of his social and economic universe. Unfortunately he's a bit naive about what goes down in his own shop.

This is a message film, direct and uncompromising. Agreeing to write a series exposing anti-Semitism, Green struggles to find a theme while falling in love with the divorced Kathy. His brilliant concept is to pretend to be a Jew and to record how others respond to him, a clearly well-educated, socially competent man, in that guise. His childhood buddy, Goldman, tries to warn him off but Green is determined.

Stridently polemical, the movie traces the growing number of incidents where Green is slighted because of his announced religion. From a building superintendent who doesn't allow a Jewish name on a lobby mailbox to a haughty resort manager of a "restricted" facility (the code word of the time for exclusion of Jews and blacks), Green gets a rapid course in the crude discrimination lurking behind most doors including the high society of his new beloved.

Green's son, told not to reveal that he and his dad aren't Jewish, runs into his own cruel rejection by classmates. Peck's Green lacks the depth of understanding of a child's vulnerability that his Atticus Finch later displays in "To Kill a Mockingbird." The boy is basically told that the other kids are wrong, we're right and that's that. Too simplistic even for this movie. Green is adamantly and unwaveringly sure of himself and woe betide any who do not share his abhorrence at any manifestation of discrimination, starting with Kathy.

The romance between Green and Kathy is as back-and-forth as any Hollywood potboiler, the difference being that their arguments and falling-outs revolve entirely over Kathy's inability to grasp the absolute righteousness of her fiance's crusade. The dispute is artificial and wearying to some degree and I rooted for Celeste Holm's lovely, witty and totally tolerant Anne, a fashion editor with attitude, as the top gal in the film. I would have married her in a New York minute!

Younger audiences today may well dismiss "A Gentleman's Agreement" as formulaic and preachy but they do not understand the nature of the tragedy, and that it was, that afflicted America at the time. The war had been won, the Cold War was getting into high gear and Nazi criminals were on trial in various European courtrooms. The reality of the concentration camps was known to all but already many had accepted the belief that only some Germans and their allies were actual murderers. Holocaust studies had not begun.

The period of "A Gentleman's Agreement" was a time in which many top colleges and universities that didn't ban Jews entirely had what are now acknowledged as "Jew quotas." Many Jewish doctors didn't enter that profession because that's what their moms wanted but due to the near blanket exclusion of Jews from engineering schools. Architecture schools also had a low quota for Jews (Louis Kahn's experiences are recounted in the current and outstanding documentary, "My Architect"). Whole communities lived by a sub rosa agreement never to admit Jews (and blacks), often solidifying their intent by restrictive covenants that courts enforced). What added to the awfulness of the prejudice is that communities comprised of Jews usually excluded blacks and other non-whites. No Caucasian group, whatever their religion, deserves exoneration for the acts they practiced against minorities. Blacks get no mention in this movie but lynchings were still in vogue-let's not forget that.

For many Americans harboring anti-Semitic beliefs, the bestiality of the Nazis was far more troubling than the fate of millions of their innocent victims, Jewish or not. Decrying Auschwitz in no way caused them to re-think less lethal but highly pervasive discrimination that they practiced or, as the film shows, disliked but nonetheless condoned without protest.

In that sense "A Gentleman's Agreement" was Hollywood's, actually Zanuck's, wake-up call. The politics of the producer, director, screenwriter and much of the cast aren't hidden. Several references to Bilbo and Rankin, two of the most evil racists and bigots ever to pollute Congress's halls, are as direct and clear as the sharp DVD images. And it's no surprise that virtually everyone associated with this film went on to be called by the House Un-American Activities Committee to be questioned about ties to communism (John Garfield died at age 39 of a heart attack the night prior to a second command appearance before that run-amuck committee). That committee hunted communists publicly but pursued a barely hidden anti-Semitic agenda and Hollywood provided plenty of potential victims.

The special features on this disc include a short documentary on its genesis and the subsequent reaction to the film as well as interviews with several stars including the still imposing Celeste Holm. Zanuck and Kazin deserved their Oscars as did Ms. Holm.

"A Gentleman's Agreement wasn't the only film to highlight anti-Semitism at that time. In fact it wasn't the first such film of 1947. Released shortly earlier, "Crossfire" starring Robert Ryan is a film noir capturing the violent bigotry of a thug who kills a Jewish victim for little better reason than his religion. An exciting film in its own right, its importance is secondary to Zanuck's which blew the lid - almost literally - off a brand of discrimination indulged in by educated and affluent Americans who would never commit assault or murder against anyone because of their race or religion.

Hollywood's Jewish moguls must have been surprised at the success of Zanuck's movie which in a small but real way began rolling back the kind of anti-American bigotry that the congressional committee investigating Tinseltown not only didn't care about: they shared it.

10/10 (for its historical impact and lasting value)

That the USA is anti-semetic? Seriously! Made just after WW2 Peck plays a journalist who pretends to be Jewish and its amazing how many restaurants, hotels and the like he suddenly becomes very unwelcome in. You are good enough to die for the USA if youre Jewish or Black but they dont want you in their "nicer places" nor in the same schools as them is really the premise of this film which I did not know existed at this point in their history. Seems that only if you are "white" and non Jewish does the American people actually want you. Caution: there is no violence or strong language within this, its merely a presentation of the facts as they were then and likely as not still are today in some parts of the world.

This movie was very well done, and in my opinion should be shown to young people at school. That way it can help to prevent prejudices and bigotry from taking root in future generations. As John Garfield's character in the movie showed: discrimination and racial intolerance can be eliminated if we fight it. Garfield's willingness to take a supporting role in this movie because of the power of its message should compel the skeptics to watch this movie.

The sterling cast meshed together perfectly. Gregory Pecks gentility was exactly what the lead role in this movie had to have. Dorothy Mcguire was also excellent at conveying her emotions in such a demanding role. Its too bad that Garfield and Mcguire are not as well known as other Golden age stars.

(1947) Gentleman's Agreement SOCIAL COMMENTARY DRAMA

Inspiring writer(Gregory Peck) has an opportunity to work for popular magazine, but in order to prove he's qualified to handle any written assignments, he's ordered to write about a tough subject seldom written before, about "anti-semintism". So instead of doing any research and writing about the subject, he decides to use himself sort of an experiment by letting everyone know he's Jewish- his mother and his biological son included are also in this game as well and write about this instead! But as a result of doing this, his love life becomes very complicated as soon as he proposes marriage, leading her to involve other people, who eventually witnesses first hand about peoples reactions, particularly toward people who're Jewish! Second film I've seen he's done about racism, the other To "Kill A Mockingbird" released in 1962 whereas, in order to fully understand this, one would have to stick it out until at least half way! I have to say, some of the racist words quoted in this film can still be offensive, but uses them to make it's point! I liked this film, but preferred that his love life would turn to someone else rather than the other girl he proposes, since they barely see eye to eye on the subject anyway! Oddly enough though, actor John Garfield also stars as Peck's Jewish friend, but in real life one of the actors who was blacklisted during the McCarthy era for being a Communist, the reason why this was odd because this film directed by Elia Kazan mentioned 10 people working in the film industry at random for no apparent reason, just so he can continue to make films, preventing others from working from doing just that in the process because they were blacklisted!

Watching Gentleman's Agreement in 2021, 74 years after it was made and released, made my heart heavy. It's a black and white movie which I saw on TV broadcast in the afternoon like many other pictures from the 1940s. If I had seen it as a teenager back in the 1980s I would have found it dated and too earnest about its moralizing. I grew up in a large Jewish community and I thought anti Semitism like the kind Peck opposes was a thing of the past. I didn't know any restricted hotels; no one I knew had problems getting a job or finding housing just because they had a Jewish name.

The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the killing of Jews in Poway, and Neo Nazis chanting at Charlottesville that "Jews will not replace us" scared the hell out of me: I couldn't believe that in the 21st century American Jews are facing a rise of hatred and a rise of assaults, attacks, and vandalism of synagogues and Jewish spaces. So much of the dialogue from the film sounded like what I've seen on social media: I've seen many "nice" people express horrible things online and when challenged, exclaim that what they said wasn't anti Semitic and they weren't bigots, they were life long anti racists. I never thought I would live to see American magazines and newspapers publish articles debating whether American Jews should be as "white" in the sense of "benefiting from white privilege". I've told several people about my grandparents facing prejudice and discrimination at work and being barred by restrictive clubs and university quotas for Jewish students. Gentleman's Agreement was very hard hitting for its day for calling out anti Jewish bigotry: few films during the era dared to show openly Jewish characters, let alone speak about anti Jewish discrimination. (As for people who debate if Jews are "white" in the sense of oppressing minorities, I'd like to also mention the decades of support from Jewish leaders and the Jewish community for the Civil Rights movement and immigrant rights .) The exchange about Zionism and Palestine is pertinent for today as well: Phil Green asks Dr Lieberman, the world's greatest physicist (evidently modelled on Albert Einstein) about Palestine and Lieberman responds, "Which? Palestine as a refuge...or Zionism as a movement for a Jewish state?" After Phil answers, " The confusion between the two, more than anything" Lieberman replies, " If we agree there's confusion, we can talk.

We scientists love confusion..." I don't want to get into politics, but Gentleman's Agreement made me realise how much confusion there still is about what is legitimate criticism of Israel and and what is the reflection of age old hateful ideas about Jews. I wish more people were familiar with history and were more aware of the echoing of hateful tropes.

But most of all, I wish more people would realise like the characters in this film that Jewish people face prejudice, that they're not making it up or exaggerating complaints of anti Semitism for personal or political gain. Gentleman's Agreement is a timely reminder that discrimination and bigotry against any group was never seen as part of the American ideal, that it's not right for Jewish people to be made to feel rejected or threatened or afraid or belittled. It calls out for everyone not to accept bigotry but oppose it, to be unafraid to speak out against it. As one character says at the final, " I know its not the whole answer, but its got to start somewhere, and it's got to start with passion. Not pamphlets, not even your series. It's got to be with people. Rich people, poor people, big and little people. And it's got to be quick."

I think what this film did really well was the exposure of anti-semitism that was apparent at this time. I actually found it shocking how much there was during this time shortly after the World War that based around it. To showcase so much of this in America was shocking and new to me, considering that was what we had went to war about with Germany, and now post-war there was so much of it going on on our turf. What I didn't enjoy was the lingo and romance between Gregory Pecks character Dorothy Mcguire's character at times, especially the dialog of Peck calling Dorothy "my girl" throughout. I found that to be abit immature and cringey at times. All in all, it was a decent movie.

I'll make this review short and to the point. I'm 55 and I've watched this movie for the first time. All I can say is it really opened my eyes. I'm not Jewish, but this quote from the movie really makes a lot of sense and can be used today for any race, religion, or sexual orientation. Professor Fred Lieberman: "Millions of people nowadays are religious only in the vaguest sense. I've often wondered why the Jews among them still go on calling themselves Jews...Because the world still makes it an advantage not to be one. Thus it becomes a matter of pride to go on calling ourselves Jews." I would highly recommend this movie.

Magazine writer Philip Green (Gregory Peck) is hired to write a series on anti-Semitism. He decides to let everybody thinks he's Jewish and see what happens. He quickly finds out how strong bigotry and hatred against jews really is.

I've read back when this was made in the 1940s anti-Semitism was accepted and tolerated and this movie showed people how evil it was. I'm not Jewish but I've never had a problem with it and find it hard to believe people ever did. So this movie was an eye-opener for many people. Unfortunately it also comes across as obvious and sometimes overly preachy especially at the end when we get THREE speeches against it. Still it's not a bad movie at all and went on to win three Academy Awards including Best Picture.

Peck is good in his role and Dorothy McGuire was also OK as his girlfriend--but those two had no romantic spark between them. Their kisses came across as awkward and forced and I never believed they were in love. Celeste Holm is great in a supporting role and won an Oscar for it. Also John Garfield has a small but crucial role. Wonderful character actress Anne Revere is also in this. The script is sharp and intelligent and doesn't pull punches in its dialogue. It moves quickly too. Still, as a very liberal guy, I found it so obvious that it didn't really have a huge impact on me. I give it a 7.