Gregory Peck delivers a solid performance in this thought-provoking drama that was way ahead of its time. Its themes are as relevant today as they were back then.

Muito bom, embora algumas cenas nos cause uma estranheza, beijos estáticos, romances apressados, diálogos objetivos, cortes secos, porém o roteiro adorável e a temática necessária são um ponto alto do filme, uma grande crítica social ao antissemitismo na década de 40 é de se tirar o chapéu, apesar de ter um objetivo claro de exaltar o sempre ativo heroísmo americano pós-guerra… ''Permanecer em silêncio é tolerar o preconceito.''

Thought provoking and relevant

Pretty rousing in what could be deemed a slightly sanctimonious manner but that would be to overlook just how rampant explicit displays of racism would have been in 1940s America. Arguably the most interesting aspect is that the film focuses on anti-semi Tien as opposed to the even more oppressive racist restrictions in black lives at the time. Too early maybe. Anyway, not much else to say about the film as the strength lay less in the plot than the strength of the convictions.

This film is way ahead of its time and is applicable to prejudice of all forms. It also addresses the the often not discussed guilt by silence.

Pacing of the film has good and the acting even better. John Garfield was my favorite as Peck Jewish childhood buddy. And a very young Dean Stockwell was also impressive. Surprised at how relevant the message of not staying silent when others make fun of a minority. Wished I seen this film years ago. I would have been a better person because of it.

It would be easy for a film about anti-Semitism to bash you over the head with caricatures of brutal bigots. Gentleman's Agreement isn't like that at all. The script is intelligent and nuanced and the cast is superb. The dialog gets a little preachy towards the end though, causing me to deduct a star.

Philip Green (Gregory Peck) is a journalist who's investigating a spread of Antisemitism in New York. To gather a more empathetic perspective on the subject matter, he paints himself as a Jewish person, switching doctors, changing his name and all sorts of things. He finds out that Jewish bigotry does exist as he gets bombarded with slurs, gets kicked out of hotels and a doctor refuses his service. As much as I enjoyed the movie fine, with the brilliant performances, Elia Kazan's directing, and fascinating topic, I wished the movie was more visual. You could make parallels between the subway stations and the Holocaust or have him travel to Germany. Better yet, have the movie focused on Peck's best friend (John Garfield), the Jewish World War 2 veteran who experiences Antisemitism in his home. Then again, that's a bit of a stretch, especially when Gentleman's Agreement gets a lot right. Like I said, the performances are brilliant, but the scene stealer belongs to Celeste Holm as the editor. She is a direct and charismatic woman who always spoke her Democratic mind. Beyond that, despite the controversy it received at the time, the film is only fine. (3 ½ Graffitied Pigeon Box Cards out of 5)

Powerful film with great performances.

Before Black Like Me and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Gentleman's Agreement was the breakthrough production that outlined the overlooked 'outliers' in what is all too commonly considered idyllic postwar America. It treats its subject with care, outlining the slimy nature of casual discrimination, weaving its way into the mind's eye of those who perceive racism as something that can only exist overtly. The film can't help but feel altogether too morally self-confident (particularly its ending, where the characters act as if they've 'solved' racism), and its focus on upper middle-class characters was probably a cop-out to achieve popular acceptance, but it is still an important film for the development of the public consciousness of mid-20th century America. (4/5)

It's sad to me that the theme of this movie is one that we are still dealing with 60 years later. While anti-Semitism may not be as openly rampant as it was in the 1940's, the assumption of gentile superiority still exists, and has been joined with the assumption of white superiority, heterosexual superiority, Christian superiority, and cis-gender superiority. And of course, all of these were preceded by the long-time assumption of male superiority. Sadly, there have always been those in society that imagine it is their right to tell others what their place will be. 1948's Oscar winning film, Gentleman's Agreement, addresses the assumption of gentile superiority head on. And it does so superbly. Gregory Peck plays Philip Green, a widowed writer who has moved from California to New York City with his son (a very young Dean Stockwell) and mother. The progressive magazine company he goes to work for requests him to write a story on anti-Semitism. Being a new citizen of the city, he decides he can use this to his advantage, and tell all those in his new job and social circle, that he is a Jew (even though he isn't). It takes no time at all for this information to spread throughout the company and for him to begin experience the belittling stings of discrimination. This discrimination eventually gets extended to his son, and to his new girlfriend. The discrimination is dealt with from all levels, from outright refusal to be given a hotel room or be allowed to live within certain neighborhoods, down to Jews who have changed their names in order to better fit in and who don't want other Jews to have the same advantages they have obtained. The movie also addresses how being Jewish is not an actual race, but an identity, and how most religiously non-practicing Jews still identified as Jewish, and the socially constructed reasons for this. The height of conflict comes from the relationship between Phillip and his eventual fiancée, Kathy (Dorothy McGuire). She is not anti-Semetic (the article Phillip is writing was her initial idea), but through Phillip's "Jewish" eyes, he can't help but come to see her as a contributor to the spread of such discrimination because of her acceptance of social norms, and her desire to politely excuse it when confronted by it. Providing heart, insight, and non-conformity to such prejudices is co-worker Anne (Celeste Holmes), who radiates with every scene she shares with Phillip. Celeste won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this performance, and one can easily see why. As a viewer of all their worlds, you can't help but root for Anne to hopefully win over Phillip's affections. The goal of the film is to address discrimination head on, clobbering it. Speaking out is not the job of the brave, but the job of all, regardless of how disrupting it can be to the status quo. This film was highly controversial when it premiered. Many of the actors (and director Elia Kazan) were black listed and called up to appear before the egregious House Un-American Committee of the day. The clobbering of the evils of discrimination is needed just as much today as when this film debuted. The world Phillip's mother predicted his article would usher, hasn't happened. But for many, we can continue to strive for it!

A film with an important message with some decent acting and interesting things that are told throughout. Its not perfect and does not explore everything that is going on. It shows it from a high society and does not showcase the problems form many different people and how America itself was dealing with it. Gregory Peck is as always is very watchable and the supporting cast are very good, including Anne Revere as Pecks mum and John Garfield. Garfield's character is the one who has lived as a Jew and so has the experience which Peck's character is looking for. Its odd that Peck's did not see how bad Jews were treated maybe he is like so many that is unhappy with it but does nothing about it. Does not say anything and just lives his life. Their are some very good scenes. Watching a young boy cry and have to tell his father how he was treated or the many conversations between Peck's character and his girlfriend. At times very thought provoking and not just about how Jew's were treated but giving strong insight in prejudice across the board. If we just ignore it and refuse to question are we ourselves to blame. You can see why it was well liked and won the best picture Oscar. Important film in its context but not perfect.

An early attack on discrimination, specifically anti-Semitism, which today looks downright tame by comparison, Gentleman's Agreement looks like it was filmed on the smallest of budgets, since most of it takes place inside various houses and apartments, and rarely do we see anyone outside. It has a fairly languid pace and is composed mainly of people talking, with few arguments or conflicts. I enjoyed the premise of exploring discrimination first-hand by fully involving yourself in the storyline, a la Gonzo journalism, but the realities of racism and prejudice are more acknowledged than they are analysed, and the films message seems to be no more profound than ‘Prejudice is bad'. I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know why the movie spent 2 hours saying this over and over again without really revealing to us how deep these negative feelings can go. As Best Picture winners go, this is one of those that's only really remembered for the fact that it won the top prize, as well as several others, but as a cinematic experience, a piece of entertainment, it doesn't have a lot to offer.

Dealing with anti-Semitism or any form of racism in a crowd-pleasing film is always going to be difficult but the Best Picture winner of 1948, the confusingly plotted Gentleman's Agreement spectacularly fails. I began watching this film hoping for a dated but still well meaning treatise on race relations in the aftermath of World War Two but found myself getting increasingly annoyed at the use of a white savior trope. Considering the fact that recent Best Picture winners, Green Book (2019) for example, still use this outdated plot conceit I suppose it should be expected in a film that's more than 70 years old. This film doesn't even have the grace and delicacy of Driving Miss Daisy (1989) in how it executes it's contrived premise and it gets hung up on a boring love story while it ditches it's most interesting characters. Phil ï¿ 1/2 1/2~Schuyler' Green, Gregory Peck, is a recently widowed journalist raising his son along with his supportive but tough mother, Anne Revere, as he enters into a new job in New York City. He meets his love interest Kathy, Dorothy McGuire, the night he is asked to write a story on anti-Semitism and as their love develops he struggles to figure out an angle for his story. Inspiration strikes after his mother suffers a heart attack and he decides to pretend to be Jewish in order to see what disadvantages Jews face. During this period he lectures his actually Jewish secretary, argues with Kathy about her potentially racist attitudes and actively tries to get persecuted. Throughout all of this we barely see him writing and he meets the charming firecracker Anne Dettrey, Celeste Holm, who works as the fashion editor at his newspaper and is in love with him and along with Mrs. Green she was the most redeemable character in the whole film. Hearing this entitled man lecture those around him about being Jewish whilst not having really experienced this himself is frustrating but the fact that the film never seems sure how to treat the anti-Semitism of his friends and family is even more annoying. Their treatment of Kathy is the worst as I initially thought that were going to have a complex, layered conflict between herself and Phil in which we could see the argument from both sides. I then quickly realized that this was not the film's intention and we were meant to be on our self-righteous hero's side the whole time but also Kathy's? Even the conclusion where we are meant to believe that Kathy has learnt an important lesson about race relations doesn't clearly convey it's message and I was confused in the final moments of the film when our lovers tearfully reunite. The film ignores it's most fascinating elements throughout as we spend time with the fantastically dull Phil and Kathy, McGuire and Peck have all the chemistry of Nick Nolte and Julia Roberts in I Love Trouble (1994). This is particularly exasperating when considering that Holm and Peck have terrific chemistry, they appear to be reconciling when the camera inexplicably cuts to black, and Phil and his mother have a very sweet relationship despite it's oedipal undertones. I would have enjoyed spending a lot more time with Phil and Anne or watching Mrs. Green lecture Phil about his lack of ability as a journalist. Another strange choice that director Elia Kazan makes is to drop characters like Mrs. Green who are main characters for the first 30 minutes of the film and then do not show up for 40 minutes. The screenplay treats it's least interesting characters as though their uninteresting problems are matters of life and death while Revere and Holm spin gold out of less than stellar dialogue. If you want to see a good film about anti-Semitism, from a Jewish perspective, watch Barry Levinson's Avalon (1990) or even Ralph Bakshi's American Pop (1981) which are far more sensitive in their portrayal of the hardships that Jewish people face in the United States. Don't go to Gentleman's Agreement expecting any of this understanding as the only parts of the film worth rewarding are the performances of Revere and Holm who were rightly both nominated for Best Supporting Actress, Holm even won. I would have given the Best Picture award to Great Expectations (1946) or a number of other better films released in this year that don't deal with controversial subject matters with so little grace.

Best picture winner. The story confronts the issues of anti-semitism in mainstream USA.

I just watched this movie again and it seems more powerful than when they made it. Antisemitism is alive and in our country, especially in our congress. Watch it again and post a review.

The best, GREATEST inspiring movie ever made! With the best movie character ever portrayed: Gregory Peck as Phil Green!

Still very relevant today, Gregory Peck takes us on a moving journey of what it's like to be in someone else's skin.

7.5 out of 10: It slowly delivers the message and will often derail from it, but the message is still strong and the acting is great.

This is a bit of a peculiar movie, then & now, Peck yet again pecking typewriter keys as a part of his role. And that it should win Best Picture ... What WAS the hangover of WW2 that interested Darryl Zanuck so much in the subject, and audiences. US troops would liberate Jews and then come home to exclude or "restrict" them. This film plays at times like a fancy classroom skit for a college Psychology class after which students discuss what they saw. But then this was the conservative right-wingnut era of McCarthyism ... It's interesting, too, that the Jewry of the day wasn't interested in pursuing this issue in the movies. In fact, they tried to discourage the Protestant Zanuck. As for the story: Here was an outstanding opportunity not to have the formula ending, especially with the Celeste Holm character emerging interestingly late in the narrative. The End, really, doesn't work after what's gone-on before. Those kinds of love interest differences & conflicts are not so easily resolved. Worth seeing; but a really peculiar, nearly preachy, entertainment ... then & now.