Fred Astaire was a god. He floated. He glided. But even gods have bad days at the office. The Belle of New York movie, released in 1952, is basically the cinematic equivalent of a fever dream directed by someone who really, really liked the idea of people walking on air. Literally.
Most people talk about Singin' in the Rain or An American in Paris when they discuss the MGM Golden Age. They don't talk about this one. It's a bizarre, Technicolor oddity that feels like it belongs in a different dimension. You’ve got Fred Astaire playing a high-society playboy named Charlie Hill—shocker, right?—who falls for a straight-laced Mission worker played by Vera-Ellen.
The twist? When they feel "true love," they literally float into the sky. It’s weird. It’s charming. It’s also kinda baffling if you’re looking for a coherent plot.
What Actually Happened with The Belle of New York Movie
This wasn't some new, experimental idea. It was based on an 1897 stage musical that was a massive hit in London but a bit of a dud on Broadway. By the time MGM got their hands on it in the early 50s, the material felt incredibly dated. It was a "turn of the century" period piece being made during the height of the mid-century musical boom.
Producer Arthur Freed, the guy behind almost every MGM classic you actually like, was the driving force. He wanted to recapture the magic of Easter Parade. He brought back the same director, Charles Walters. He brought back the same star, Fred Astaire. But lightning rarely strikes the same spot twice, especially when you're dealing with a script that feels like it was written on a cocktail napkin.
The production was plagued by a sense of "been there, done that." Honestly, the studio was struggling to find a way to make the Victorian setting feel fresh. They threw money at it. They used the massive "New York" backlot at MGM, which was legendary. But the chemistry between the leads felt... different.
✨ Don't miss: Who was the voice of Yoda? The real story behind the Jedi Master
The Vera-Ellen Factor
Vera-Ellen is one of the most underrated dancers in Hollywood history. Her technique was flawless. In The Belle of New York movie, she’s playing Angela Sayres, a Salvation Army-style reformer. She’s stern. She’s "good."
There’s a persistent rumor in film historian circles—and among eagle-eyed fans—about her appearance in this film. Vera-Ellen suffered from anorexia for years. In this movie, her costumes are famously high-necked, supposedly to hide the physical toll of her illness on her neck and chest. It adds a layer of sadness to her performance when you know what she was going through behind the scenes. Despite that, her dancing remains sharp, athletic, and precise. She keeps up with Fred, which is no small feat.
Why the "Flying" Scenes Still Get People Talking
We have to talk about the special effects. This was 1952. No CGI. No digital wire removal.
When Charlie Hill feels inspired by love, he walks up thin air. He dances on the rooftops of Washington Square. To achieve this, the crew used complex wire rigs and bluescreen-style matte shots that were incredibly advanced for the time. Does it look "real" to a modern audience? No. Not even close. But there is a whimsical, surrealist quality to it that you just don't see in movies anymore.
The song "Seeing’s Believing" is where this happens. Fred dances on the air, and it's meant to be a metaphor for his lightheadedness. The problem is that the movie takes it so literally that it breaks the reality of the world. In The Band Wagon, the dancing feels like an extension of the soul. In The Belle of New York movie, it feels like a magic trick.
🔗 Read more: Not the Nine O'Clock News: Why the Satirical Giant Still Matters
- The Music: Harry Warren and Johnny Mercer wrote the songs. You’d think that’s a winning combo. Mercer is a legend.
- The Result: The songs are... fine. They’re professional. They’re catchy enough while you’re hearing them. But try humming one five minutes after the credits roll. It’s tough.
- The Tone: It's too sugary. Even for a 1950s musical, it feels a bit like eating a giant bowl of frosting.
A Financial Disaster
MGM poured about $2.6 million into this thing. That was a lot of money in 1952. It ended up losing over $1.5 million at the box office. That’s a massive hit for a studio that was starting to see the decline of the big-budget musical era.
Audiences were changing. They wanted something a bit more grounded or, conversely, something spectacularly modern. This Victorian throwback felt like their parents' entertainment. Even Fred Astaire later admitted in his autobiography, Steps in Time, that the film didn't quite land. He liked the dancing, but the story was thin. Actually, "thin" is being generous. It's practically transparent.
The Technical Brilliance Nobody Noticed
Despite the flop, the cinematography by Robert Planck is stunning. The colors pop in that specific, saturated Technicolor way that makes your eyes hurt—in a good way. The choreography by Robert Alton (and Fred himself) is actually quite inventive.
One particular number, "I Wanna Be a Dancin’ Man," is a masterpiece of minimalism. Fred is in a simple outfit, dancing in front of a simple backdrop. It’s a tribute to the vaudeville hoofers he admired. It’s arguably the best thing in the whole movie. It has nothing to do with the "flying" gimmick, which is probably why it works so well.
The irony of The Belle of New York movie is that its best moments are the ones that ignore the central premise. When the movie stops trying to be "magical" and just lets two of the best dancers in history move, it’s brilliant. When it tries to force the whimsical "walking on air" stuff, it stalls.
💡 You might also like: New Movies in Theatre: What Most People Get Wrong About This Month's Picks
How to Watch it Today
If you’re a film student or a musical theater nerd, you have to watch this. Not because it’s a perfect film, but because it represents the end of an era. It’s the moment when the MGM "Dream Factory" started to lose its grip on what the public wanted.
You can usually find it on TCM or available for rent on the major streaming platforms. Don’t go in expecting Funny Face. Go in expecting a weird, beautiful, flawed experiment in early 50s special effects.
Critical Insights for the Modern Viewer
- Look past the plot: If you try to make sense of the character motivations, you’ll get a headache. Charlie Hill is a rich jerk who becomes a saint overnight because he sees a girl in a bonnet. Just go with it.
- Focus on the feet: The floorwork in the "Oops" number is classic Astaire. It’s playful, rhythmic, and looks effortless.
- Appreciate the craft: Look at the costumes by Helen Rose. She was the one who designed Grace Kelly’s wedding dress. The attention to detail in the period clothing is staggering, even if the movie itself feels lightweight.
- Compare it to its peers: Watch this back-to-back with Singin' in the Rain (also 1952). You’ll see why one became a timeless classic and the other became a trivia question. One has heart; the other has gadgets.
Practical Next Steps for Enthusiasts
If you want to dive deeper into this specific era of film, your best bet is to check out the "Warner Archive" collection, which has preserved many of these lesser-known MGM titles.
Read The World of Entertainment! Hollywood’s Greatest Musical Unit by Hugh Fordin. It gives the full, messy, behind-the-scenes history of the Arthur Freed unit at MGM, including the specific production headaches of The Belle of New York movie. It’s a goldmine for anyone who wants to know why certain movies fail despite having all the right ingredients.
Finally, track down the soundtrack. While the movie has its issues, the Mercer lyrics are clever, and the orchestrations represent the peak of the studio system's musical department. Listening to the tracks without the distracting 1950s "flying" visuals actually makes you appreciate the compositions more. It’s a fascinating case study in how a movie’s visual gimmicks can sometimes overshadow its genuine artistic merits.