Skip to main content

Mr. President, I stand guilty as framed!

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
(1939)

(SPOILERS) I’m by no means a die-hard Frank Capryte. His particular taste in earnestly extolled values can easily rub one up the wrong way, and when that blends with his later more cynical tack, the results are sometimes alarming (It’s A Wonderful Life is justifiably esteemed as a classic, but it’s also a deeply warped picture that finds cause for celebration in a man being resoundingly shat upon and manipulated by everyone he knows). Mr. Smith Goes to Washington saw the inception of this modified approach in the director’s work, where impossible goodness is pressed into service against the unvarnished corruption that lies at the heart of America. As a result, the viewing experience tends to swing wildly according to just how undiluted each side is being at any given moment.

Because James Stewart’s small-town, apple-pie country boy Jefferson Smith, the head of the Boy Rangers – a position ripe for aspersions these days, and perhaps should have been then too – thrust into Washington politics as a junior senator and finding himself up against a loaded system, is just too good to be true. Stewart gives a sterling performance of course, wholly believably committed and upright. But everything Capra throws at him is pure unvarnished naïve cheese, from his aw-shucks nervousness around senator’s daughter Susan Paine (Astrid Allwyn) to his really believing a bill in favour of a national boys’ camp is a valuable or meaningful notion.

Indeed, at this point in the proceedings, one might find oneself leaning towards Michael Lehmann’s scathing take in Trailers from Hell. Lehmann was then living in dread of a potential Vice President’s winning ticket and consequently saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as “a dangerous piece of political mumbo jumbo that has particular relevance in the day of Sarah Palin”. Essentially, Lehmann professed terror at the thought of traditional American values – which for him means flag waving patriotism and every concomitant negative he associates with the same – unleavened by political savvy proving the actual making of anyone in politics. And when you’re witnessing Stewart waxing lyrical about a boy’s camp, you are pretty much in agreement that this sap shouldn’t be let anywhere near the legislators and lawmakers.

Journalist: You’re not a senator. You’re an honorary stooge.

Except that isn’t the be all and end all of it, and Lehmann is way off in the conclusion he reaches, basically because his wish to make the movie all about the peril of a Palin is so thin. He went as far as expressing the view that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’s “message is tremendously misleading and off target. It frightens me. It scares me to death. I don’t want anybody to ever see this movie”. Ironically, he’s effectively forwarding a reactionary position, one supporting the status quo. Lehmann, who made three great, unruly movies before conspicuously losing his verve, is attempting to deny what everyone knows. Not least the homespun Capra, who tended to push the positives. Of course, he doesn’t say that. What he says is doublespeak, suggesting that because Smith – who is, at any rate, a totem, and embodiment of a value, rather than a real person, designed as an equal and opposite contrast to the other side – is shining a light on the system, that means the message is that system would be better if he was its embodiment. You know, treating the movie literally. As if The West Wing were actually a reflection of reality in the remotest way.

Governor’s Son: He’s the greatest American we’ve got too, dad!

Now, while Stewart’s Smith can be frequently insufferable, I don’t think that remotely earns the movie Lehmann’s doomsaying. Further still, his viewpoint is all the more alarming for what he leaves out when he comments “The message of this film is that our government is run by corrupt cynics and that if we only had sort of down to earth, real, solid American values and patriotism then everything would be better. I don’t really believe that. I don’t believe that at all”. Let’s take that apart a little. Because Lehmann conveniently ignores addressing the “corrupt cynics” bit.

Is he saying it isn’t true (I mean, just look around)? If he is, well, his absurd innocence makes Smith seem a corrupt cynic. And that being the case, one is left with the natural conclusion of “Well, what could be worse?” His wheeling out Palin as reasoning is glib in the extreme. Anyone can brandish faux values as a means of attempting to appeal to the electorate while remaining utterly insincere beneath. Indeed, that’s exactly how all but the most naïve understand the system to work. If Lehmann objected to Smith because his populist honesty might inspire the dishonest to present themselves that way, I might understand it. But that would be assuming they weren’t wont to play that card anyway.

It’s because of the way politics works that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’s treacly protagonist remains brutally on point and relevant. It’s no wonder there was discussion of the film’s suitability, due to its “generally unflattering portrayal of our system of Government”. Smith’s hero, Senator Joseph Paine (a typically note-perfect Claude Rains, and for me the highlight performance) is an entirely bought man, his status secured by businessman Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold). In Capra’s movie, Paine’s a bad apple, representing just one corrupt state, but we all know the implication. That no politician may enter office unless they are controlled by the elite (however you may wish to characterise “elite”).

The idea of a Smith, one who is untainted, is thus an evergreen and attractive one. It’s the reason anyone on board with Trump may be easy to mock, but they shouldn’t be. Because millions of voters respond to the idea that they might just get a politician for once who isn’t owned (he might not have been an aw-shucks yokel, but neither was he career politician, albeit a non-career politician mentored by the likes of Roy Cohn and Richard Nixon). One might take that further and suggest that, if QAnon is an AI programme (as some hold), then the entire design was banking on precisely that, on feeding the same appetite that turned Mr. Smith Goes to Washington into a huge hit nearly eighty years before. But in contrast to Lehmann’s take, there’s no fault here with problematic traditional values. Rather, the issue is starkly those corrupt cynics he chooses to let off the hook.

Would Smith have responded so strongly had his fight not hit so close to home (a dam being built on the land earmarked for the boy scouts)? Of course, he would, but it’s a weakness of Capra’s picture that it settles on both a yokel and a yokel-y mission. At the point Smith tells Paine he plans to study the bills he’s expected to vote on, there’s a slender hope this might become something actually politically versed. Alas, that potential is sent packing when Paine, a lawyer by profession, tells Smith even he doesn’t read them, and that “When the time comes, I’ll tell you how to vote”.

Smith: Why don’t you tell the people the truth for a change?

There’s also bile reserved for the press, but their fake news is more about opportunism than outright corruption in the corridors of power. Maybe eviscerating them would have been taking on too much. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington did, after all, come out a couple of years before Citizen Kane so did a number on Randolph Hearst; given the tycoon’s response, Capra was probably wise to pull his punches.

It’s also notable that, aside from the sacrificial Paine, very conveniently confessing through his troubled conscience – great as Rains is, the idea of a morally conflicted senator, one who has habitually made morally suspect decisions daily for years, is a stretch – the villains get away at the end. Or at least, Capra fails to show justice explicitly served. This is also true of It’s A Wonderful Life, and it might be the most realist element in his later movies.

There are some very enjoyable performances here. Jean Arthur continues her Capra collaborations and makes you believe she’d actually fall for a sap, which is an achievement in itself. Thomas Mitchell (Uncle Billy in It’s A Wonderful Life) plays the comic relief (“I got to go out and drink this over”). Harry Carey is the undisguisedly sympathetic President of the Senate, on Smith’s side while all around there are walkouts.

Pauline Kael offered Capra’s skillset a grudging respect even as she delivered some zinger put downs. She noted that Mr. Smith Goes to Washingtonhas more of the heartfelt in it than is good for the stomach, and it goes on for over two hours”. Which is definitely true; Capra’s pictures tend to favour making life difficult for themselves by outstaying their welcome. She also commented “No one else can balance the ups and downs of wistful sentiment and corny humour the way Capra can – but if anyone else should learn to, kill him”. Wise words there. As for Lehmann, it looks like he didn’t need worry. There never was any doubt the corrupt cynics would win out.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.