...I'm back to FOUR (since I started this one, it has ballooned to SIX) in the backlog. Let's try to get rid of two of them today, eh?
I'm watching the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a calendar year and writing my thoughts about the films here. Rules are here.
Film 20
20. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (AFI Rank #26)
This was my second viewing of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." I watched it, and wrote about it, last year when I started this quest. I didn't care for the film much last year, and found it odd that it would occupy such a lofty position in the countdown. Somewhere on this blog is that post. I'm not linking to it. It's here, though.
I still kinda feel that way, but I liked the film a whole lot more this year.
This is amongst the films I have watched with Julie lately. She is a big fan of the film, and having her in the room made me less rigid in my views on the improbability of a lot of what happens over the course of this feature. She's good for me, in that she and I tend to see things differently, yet we both have a mutual respect for the other's view. I definitely watched things differently because she was there. I still, for the record, find the idea of children (and those children actually being the Governor's kids) being run off the road by a gang of goons ridiculously manipulative. I also find a good portion of the Right/Wrong of this to be entirely too black and white.
I did, however, think about this film in historic perspective. There are some real balls being shown by Frank Capra in this film. The idea that Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) would be able to say, on the Senate Floor, that, essentially, Congress is completely corrupt...took some mighty bravado. In our cynical age, of course, we accept these things to be fundamental truths, but at the time, I can understand why this stretch of fancy was viewed with so much reverence/disdain. While the film, at times, seems almost too sickly-sweet, the bitter truths that it exposes merit a lot of consideration. I missed that last time, focusing on the manipulative, rather than the honesty. Capra also has some pretty stunning pictures that he shoots, especially of the Senate set, which they built almost to scale. You can see the work of a master in this film, that's for sure. It's got a lot of beautiful art.
I'm assuming you've seen the film, and am writing this from that perspective. I may be wrong. I'm not going to change my perspective, though. So, if you haven't seen the film, please watch it, so we may be on a similar playground.
Another thing I found on this viewing was the civics lesson within. We get what is a very real portrayal of the mundane nature of a good deal of business that a body which plays by Parliamentary Procedure has to deal with. The resigned way in which the President of the Senate (Harry Carey) goes about his business is so well executed, that one can't help but...feel sorry for the men/women in the Senate that have to abide by those rules. It makes one wonder how anything COULD get done, let alone DOES get done. I believe the film, to a certain extent, lets us understand just how remarkable these men/women are, and how much of their patience/intelligence/etc. is wasted in tedium. By the way, Harry Carey's acting in this is top notch. He understands just how vital Jefferson Smith is to the Senate, and we see that, at times, but he never lets slip his control on the proceedings. It's a wonderful performance.
Also wonderful...until the moment she has to be weakened by Hollywood's infatuation with a male/female love story is Jean Arthur's Saunders. She's a hard nosed, no-nonsense character. Smarter than just about anyone she comes into contact with, and certainly more skilled than even some of the Senators portrayed, we love
Saunders. And yet, in her moment of greatest triumph, basically willing a Senator to fight something which she knows to be wrong...we are left with her confessing her love to that character that she is love with him. Because, of course Hollywood needs that. It would be impossible for a woman to just act in the best interests of a group of people on her intelligence and reason alone. Nope, she must love the guy who can do the fighting as well. I know it was a different time, but I find that moment insulting. Sorry. I do.
Claude Rains seems to be slightly underutilized in this film. Rains was a terrific actor, capable of a huge range of intelligent emotion, and in this, unfortunately, he seems to be stuck into a fairly small box. He's the bad guy...but he's lost. Rains does Herculean work trying to show us how Senator Paine is lost, but I feel as if the ending scene is just too simplistic. The work is there...perhaps a different, more drawn-out show of his disgust with himself would feel more genuine. Like I said, the groundwork is there. What is presented, however, is just too quick, too "let's get this shit over with" for me. Again, like with Arthur, Rains character seems to be wrapped up for convenience's sake, rather than because that's the arc he's completing. I think Paine, in his relationship with Jim Taylor, especially, has room for much more range. I wish the focus, a little more, had been there to allow that.
And, of course, in the center is the remarkable Jimmy Stewart. Stewart is the lead actor in 5 films in the top 100, and I tend to believe that it is not because Jimmy Stewart just had a knack of picking good projects. I believe Stewart was an incredible actor, and his involvement in a film, when a good idea was there, helped make that film great. DeNiro brings a similar skill, as do a bunch of other actors whose names appear again and again on this list. Anyway, Stewart's portrayal of Jefferson Smith is a little more nuanced than I realized on first viewing. We see him going through emotional turmoil at several times, despite the fact that his character is decidedly singularly faceted...on first glance. The scenes which were shot in the Lincoln Memorial (with the expressed written forbiddance of the National Parks system) are stunning to watch, not only in a stirringly patriotic way, but because of what we see through our hero, as Jimmy Stewart portrayed him. It's an easy thing to film, but Stewart helped it have the impact that it did, that's for damned sure.
So. I've watched the film twice. I enjoyed it MUCH more the second time. I encourage you to watch it again, if you have seen it. If you haven't - watch this movie. It's worth your time. I promise. Roger Ebert didn't include this film in his series on Great Movies, so no link to his reflections this time.
This was my second viewing of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." I watched it, and wrote about it, last year when I started this quest. I didn't care for the film much last year, and found it odd that it would occupy such a lofty position in the countdown. Somewhere on this blog is that post. I'm not linking to it. It's here, though.
I still kinda feel that way, but I liked the film a whole lot more this year.
This is amongst the films I have watched with Julie lately. She is a big fan of the film, and having her in the room made me less rigid in my views on the improbability of a lot of what happens over the course of this feature. She's good for me, in that she and I tend to see things differently, yet we both have a mutual respect for the other's view. I definitely watched things differently because she was there. I still, for the record, find the idea of children (and those children actually being the Governor's kids) being run off the road by a gang of goons ridiculously manipulative. I also find a good portion of the Right/Wrong of this to be entirely too black and white.
I did, however, think about this film in historic perspective. There are some real balls being shown by Frank Capra in this film. The idea that Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) would be able to say, on the Senate Floor, that, essentially, Congress is completely corrupt...took some mighty bravado. In our cynical age, of course, we accept these things to be fundamental truths, but at the time, I can understand why this stretch of fancy was viewed with so much reverence/disdain. While the film, at times, seems almost too sickly-sweet, the bitter truths that it exposes merit a lot of consideration. I missed that last time, focusing on the manipulative, rather than the honesty. Capra also has some pretty stunning pictures that he shoots, especially of the Senate set, which they built almost to scale. You can see the work of a master in this film, that's for sure. It's got a lot of beautiful art.
I'm assuming you've seen the film, and am writing this from that perspective. I may be wrong. I'm not going to change my perspective, though. So, if you haven't seen the film, please watch it, so we may be on a similar playground.
Also wonderful...until the moment she has to be weakened by Hollywood's infatuation with a male/female love story is Jean Arthur's Saunders. She's a hard nosed, no-nonsense character. Smarter than just about anyone she comes into contact with, and certainly more skilled than even some of the Senators portrayed, we loveSaunders. And yet, in her moment of greatest triumph, basically willing a Senator to fight something which she knows to be wrong...we are left with her confessing her love to that character that she is love with him. Because, of course Hollywood needs that. It would be impossible for a woman to just act in the best interests of a group of people on her intelligence and reason alone. Nope, she must love the guy who can do the fighting as well. I know it was a different time, but I find that moment insulting. Sorry. I do.
Claude Rains seems to be slightly underutilized in this film. Rains was a terrific actor, capable of a huge range of intelligent emotion, and in this, unfortunately, he seems to be stuck into a fairly small box. He's the bad guy...but he's lost. Rains does Herculean work trying to show us how Senator Paine is lost, but I feel as if the ending scene is just too simplistic. The work is there...perhaps a different, more drawn-out show of his disgust with himself would feel more genuine. Like I said, the groundwork is there. What is presented, however, is just too quick, too "let's get this shit over with" for me. Again, like with Arthur, Rains character seems to be wrapped up for convenience's sake, rather than because that's the arc he's completing. I think Paine, in his relationship with Jim Taylor, especially, has room for much more range. I wish the focus, a little more, had been there to allow that. And, of course, in the center is the remarkable Jimmy Stewart. Stewart is the lead actor in 5 films in the top 100, and I tend to believe that it is not because Jimmy Stewart just had a knack of picking good projects. I believe Stewart was an incredible actor, and his involvement in a film, when a good idea was there, helped make that film great. DeNiro brings a similar skill, as do a bunch of other actors whose names appear again and again on this list. Anyway, Stewart's portrayal of Jefferson Smith is a little more nuanced than I realized on first viewing. We see him going through emotional turmoil at several times, despite the fact that his character is decidedly singularly faceted...on first glance. The scenes which were shot in the Lincoln Memorial (with the expressed written forbiddance of the National Parks system) are stunning to watch, not only in a stirringly patriotic way, but because of what we see through our hero, as Jimmy Stewart portrayed him. It's an easy thing to film, but Stewart helped it have the impact that it did, that's for damned sure. So. I've watched the film twice. I enjoyed it MUCH more the second time. I encourage you to watch it again, if you have seen it. If you haven't - watch this movie. It's worth your time. I promise. Roger Ebert didn't include this film in his series on Great Movies, so no link to his reflections this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment