|
Post by wmcclain on May 6, 2020 11:31:25 GMT
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), produced and directed by Frank Capra. Appointed to the US Senate, an earnest wide-eyed innocent runs afoul of a corrupt political machine. They will destroy him rather than give up a plush opportunity for graft. Can one man make a difference? Will the spunky office assistant help him? Famous bit of Americanna. Both promising -- one man can make a difference -- and cynical, because he is one in 96. Washington, both the politicians and press corp, hated it. The word "dangerous" was used. And yet: this was the film playing to full houses in Paris when the Germans rolled in. James Stewart seems born to play Jefferson Smith; I think he had to work to escape the image, hence his films with Hitchcock and Anthony Mann. Many familiar faces and particularly endearing roles for Jean Arthur (cynical gal pal reformed by idealistic Smith) and Thomas Mitchell (hard-drinking reporter who would like to stick it to the Machine). I want to make special note of two more actors: - Harry Carey as the President of the Senate, a folksy representative of the viewer inside the film.
- Claude Rains as a distinguished but corrupt Senator. This is a moving performance: his pain matches his villainy. We can't hate him, even as he does his worst.
"The more things change" notes: - The rube among the DC slickers is well done. I suspect this movie is the foundation of several generations' knowledge of politics.
- The corrupt manipulation of public opinion and control of the press: very dramatic.
- Smith punches a bunch of reporters his first day in office: I bet that is a common fantasy in some quarters.
- Among the many documents Smith reads during his filibuster: the New Testament.
Dimitri Tiomkin score. Photographed by Joseph Walker. Criterion Blu-ray with a commentary track by the director's son.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on May 6, 2020 12:06:04 GMT
Fantastic movie. Stewart's performance is often cited as the best NOT to win an oscar and it's hard to disagree. It was going to be screened at my local cinema until the quarantine shut it down the week before.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 6, 2020 15:15:41 GMT
Great movie for these cynical online times.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 6, 2020 20:44:49 GMT
Fantastic movie. Stewart's performance is often cited as the best NOT to win an oscar and it's hard to disagree. Yep. Stewart was certainly robbed of an Oscar for his iconic performance. So the Academy atoned the following year by giving him his Oscar for his less deserving work in The Philadelphia Story...and thus, in turn, robbed his friend Henry Fonda of an Oscar for his great performance in The Grapes Of Wrath. Oh well...
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on May 6, 2020 21:59:46 GMT
Yep I wouldn't put Philadelphia Story in Stewart's top 10 performances - maybe even top 20.
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on May 6, 2020 22:22:36 GMT
Wasn't Jimmy more of a supporting than lead performer?
Cary was more leading.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 6, 2020 22:47:41 GMT
6/10.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 6, 2020 22:48:46 GMT
Wasn't Jimmy more of a supporting than lead performer? Cary was more leading. Cary feels more like the leading man (and does end up with the leading lady). Still, although I've never really checked, I daresay he has no more screen time than Jimmy, and I'd go as far as to say that Jimmy gets more of it Cary-less than Cary does Jimmy-less. And Cary gets only one substantial scene alone with Hepburn, while Jimmy gets two, one of them quite long, very romantic and multi-layered. Smith is certainly the more bravura performance, but I can't quibble about Stewart's Philadelphia win. It's subtle yet dynamic work, and I'd even argue that he mined more performance gold from his 1940 opportunity than Fonda, Massey, Chaplin or Olivier did from theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 6, 2020 22:50:19 GMT
A good movie
|
|