A Majority of One (1961)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

MMDan

https://ok.ru/video/312694999715

4 years 7 months ago

jlfitz

If this movie was ever good, it hasn't survived well. Both Russell & Guinness were miscast in the lead roles.
The only thing notable in the movie was the appearance of Sulu pre-Star Trek.

10 years 9 months ago

The message of letting go of prejudice probably would have been more effective if an actual Japanese man and Jewish woman were cast in the lead roles but you know old Hollywood, had to have a name and didn't think anyone would watch a movie without white actors in the lead.
Could have been a good movie if not for that and fact it was far too long.

4 years 6 months ago

jeroeno

Whatever they were trying to do, it didn't work. Why would someone want to cast Guinness in this and why did he accept? Did they blackmail him into doing this ?

10 years ago

xianjiro

A wonderful, if dated, surprise. While I initially thought Guinness' casting bizarre as the Japanese CEO - and would have preferred a Japanese or, at least, a Japanese-American actor in the part - there is little doubt he was called upon for his character acting and ability to provide a flavour of that which he was not. Clearly the movie needed star power and someone at WB felt Guinness would bring that and present the role believably, acceptably, to an early 60s American audience which looked at the 50s of Eisenhower as the right way to live. While the name of an American actor suitable for the role escapes me, I wonder if playing a Japanese in 1961 might have felt similar to playing a gay man in 1989 - such roles were not popular once upon a time and I would have enjoyed seeing Cedric Hardwicke's take on Broadway. (Need I point out, he too was English by birth?)

This brings us to an important point, this movie feels very much like a play adapted for the cinema. The dialogue, blocking, and even set design are influenced by mid-20th Century theatre as much as studio-era Hollywood and carry a formality and stiffness we might call amateurish or quaint now. This movie reminded me of plays I've seen at the local 'little theatre.' It was nostalgic in quality and maybe that's one reason I found it charming.

The casting of Rosalind Russell was not only surprising but enjoyable. Older and certainly not glamorous or sultry in the role of the Jewish matriarch, she brought a warmth, strength, and likability to the role.

Danton and Rhue were safe choices as a diplomat and his wife (with Russell as in-law/mother). They played their roles and allowed the bigger names to enjoy their starring roles. But if anyone was a scene-stealer, that honor would have to go to houseboy and wannabe black marketeer Marc Marno. While acceptably Japanese, he was modern, in his own word, 'hep' and a great counterpoint to the stodgy and formal characters represented by the other four actors as they represented two distinct generations and eras.

If one can fault the writers and directors for anything other than being creatures of their time, it would be for relying so heavily on both Brooklyn Jewish and Japanese stereotypes in the portrayals of these characters. While it's likely playwright-screenwriter Leonard Spigelgass drew on personal experience, one wonders at the nuances Jewish and Japanese actors could have brought to these roles. But Hollywood hasn't changed much - box office stars are required to put moviegoers into seats. One wonders which American and English actors would be cast today ... I can think of many modern stars I'd enjoy watching much less than Guinness and Russell.

In closing, I enjoyed this movie for it's mid-century look at post-war blame and prejudice. Not only did it remind the viewer that such emotions cut both ways at a time when war losses were not-too-distant memories, it was an early look at what would one day become 'cross-cultural communication' and 'diversity,' both subjects of personal interest. Yes, A Majority of One has a quaintness in its outlook, message, and style but for some, that is as much the point. This is a rare film that seeks an even rarer viewer in today's world.

9 years ago