Just an awful movie
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion
churei — 18 years ago(December 13, 2007 12:38 PM)
While I certainly agree that MY SON JOHN should be available for screenings, I also must note that it is one helluva lousy film. Yes, it was one of the movies made during the McCarthy era seemingly to prove how anti-Communistic and patriotic the film industry was. And some really abysmal movies resulted e.g. I Was a Communist for the F.B.I., The Red Menace, I Married A Communists egad Bad stuff all of it and, often, a waste of talent. MY SON JOHN, and I know how others feel, proves again the lack of any great talent from Leo McCarey. His films, more often than not, are now pretty hard to watch, but this one is really tragic. Robert Walker, then emerging as the truly fine talent he was, tries hard, but the character is written ridiculously and with an eagerness to appease McCarthy and his cohorts. Van Heflin can never be less than a most capable actor - even here. BUT Helen Hayes, overrated as ever, is deadly offering some of the worst dialogue in that period's history. The scene in which she forces Walker to denounce his awful ways is one of filmdom's most horrendously written moments. Losing this film, of course, is unacceptable, especially in scanning the remnants of the McCarthy era, but it is certainly a poor, wretchedly directed movie.
-
miriamwebster — 17 years ago(April 26, 2008 02:13 AM)
I just watched this tonight. Dreadful heavy-handed shlock in every departmentscript and production values look straight out of one of Jack Webb's flag-wavers and Helen Hayes once again gives impression that she studied at Hormel School of Dramatic Arts. Robert Walker, meanwhile, gives nothing but a Red-tinged rendition of snotty, effete character he played in Strangers on a Train.
Laughable drekmore Charlie McCarthy than Joe. -
churei — 17 years ago(April 27, 2008 02:00 PM)
You are pretty close to the mark on this film it really does suck. But I wouldn't ccmpare Robert Walker's work with the stellar performance in the Hitchcock film. our one disagreement. Love your comment about Helen Hayes what was it that made the toast of Broadway and a two-time Oscar winner in Hollywood? Just don't get it at all.
-
gradnick — 17 years ago(May 23, 2008 05:58 PM)
"Helen Hayes what was it that made the toast of Broadway and a two-time Oscar winner in Hollywood? Just don't get it at all."
Her casting in this film and the very particular portrait she fashions of the stereotypically idealized all-American mom of the 50s might reveal much about her stature. She had the ability to connect with the average American viewer, and to embody the American ideal of "God-given Liberty" that spoke directly to that audience. One should not forget how important that ideal has always been (and continues to be) to the American psyche. One need only listen to the political rhetoric of our time to realize that little has changed. Look at how the character played by Daniel Day-Lewis in THERE WILL BE BLOOD appeals to the citizens, winning them over by satisfying (reflecting back to them) their folksy and rather facile moral/philosophical beliefs. The blatant jingoism in the films of the 50s (and the performances within them) stand out today like sore thumbs. Such blatancy seems terribly transparent to contemporary eyes, but I suggest that American jingoism is still being expressed in American cinema today, only much more subtly.
When I saw MY SON JOHN recently, I was very impressed by the critical and barbed tone of the first part of the film. Not knowing much about McCarey (but impressed by the steely and damning social commentary of his earlier MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW), I was interested to see how MY SON JOHN would play out. None of the characters were obviously likable, and the various flaws of all were evident all the way to the end. The difference of course is that John is patently vilified; the two-dimensional Steadman remains a two-dimensional (and disturbing) moral guardian; Dad Jefferson's right-wing tendencies remain questionable but moderated; and Mom Jefferson's humane but morally selective religiosity continues to cocoon her (and it's possible that drugs may have finally become a regular element in her life).
The film is not as obviously propagandistic as it seems, which left me wondering if McCarey made the film to, a: deflect suspicion away from him during that shameful period in US history, and b: to make a film that appears to be an anti-communist (anti-leftist), pro-catholic, Conservative diatribe but that in the process exposes not only the transparent jingoism of the time, but its implicit hysteria and the equally implicit sinister undertones. It's interesting to note how subtly things are touched on and glossed over. One example (and there are a few) is when Steadman tears up the bill Mom Jefferson tells him he wouldn't have got the money anyway. The suggestion that the Jefferson's were never going to pay despite being responsible for the accident (Dad Jefferson wasn't looking where he was going, and presumably the law then was the same as it is today that the driver of a vehicle that rear-ends another is automatically at fault) was interestingly passed over. This may seem like nothing, but it alludes to a certain confidence in the assumption of being able to get their own way. In this respect, one could be forgiven for seeing a correlation with recent events that were propelled by conservative/fundamentalist agendas.
However, having read up a little on McCarey, it would seem that (as a devout Roman-Catholic) the film did in fact reflect his general view of things. Nevertheless, the film has value today as a potent example of the potential dangers of idealistic fundamentalism of all hues. It's a perspective that is as pertinent today as it was in the 50s - if not more so!- Cinema is an ocean. Some float on the surface - others dive for pearls.
-
hobnob53 — 17 years ago(January 14, 2009 12:02 AM)
I agree with the observations all the posters have made about this movie. It's been many years since I've seen it and would love to see it again, for its awfulness. (I just wrote a disquisition on it on another thread hereabouts.)
But as you say at the end of your post, gradnick, the film's content very much reflects Leo McCarey's twin obsessions in life: his devout, unquestioning, heavy-handed Roman Catholicism, coupled with an intense, essentially mindless anti-Communism. (He was an ardent supporter of, and contributor to, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and backed the HUAC forays into "exposing" Hollywood's Communists.) His later movies (with the exception of the dreadful "comedy"
Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys
in 1958) all dragged in either warm, cuddly priests (no doubt fresh from molesting altar boys in the rectory I said, "rectory") or menacing, thuggish Commies, or both. Even
An Affair to Remember
had those awful children singing those loud, obnoxious songs, courtesy a job arranged for Deborah Kerr by a cuddly priest who appears out of nowhere. McCarey's last film,
Satan Never Sleeps
(1962), is a terrible, ineptly done movie, and an amalgamation of both traits Catholic priests resisting the advancing Communists in 1949 China.
All this was a sad comedown for McCarey, who before becoming obsessed with religion in
Going My Way
, and later on with his McCarthyite sympathies, was one of Hollywood's best, most innovative directors, especially in the field of sophisticated comedy. He didn't win his two Oscars for nothing.
My Son John
is typical of where he stood by the 1950s, but it's at the bottom of a steep slope from the heights of his career. -
johnfcorc — 16 years ago(May 23, 2009 07:10 PM)
I haven't seen this movie and came here because Jonathan Rosenbaum, one of the critics I admire most, listed this as one of his Ten Best of 1952 and one of his "essential" 1000 films. I'd love to know why given his Leftist political beliefs.
It is somewhat sad that TCM will show "Mission to Moscow" and movies from the Hollywood Ten from time to time and yet not this film. -
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(May 26, 2009 12:56 AM)
TCM doesn't have the rights to show this film, which was released and is still owned by Paramount. TCM does show some Paramount films but they don't own them through the Turner library and have to acquire them from other sources. But I too would love to have them show
My Son John
.
Since I am utterly against any form of censorship or blacklisting I find nothing "sad" that TCM runs films by the so-called Hollywood Ten, or that have other connections with blacklisted actors, writers, directors, or others. Quite the opposite: I would find it outrageous if anyone refused to run any film of any political stripe just because of its content, or the associations of someone connected with it. As far as the "Ten" go, the vast majority of their films have no political content, certainly no "Communist" content, so why is it "sad" to run them? TCM also runs plenty of explicitly anti-Communist films in their library, such as
The Woman on Pier 13, The Whip Hand, I Want You, Prisoner of War, Trial
and many others.
Besides, if you tossed out all the films made by people whose politics you don't happen to agree with, you'd eviscerate the film libraries of the worldand after that they'd start in on your side of the political fence.
Mission to Moscow
, as I've said on its site, is one of the most dishonest, politically disgraceful, intellectually bankrupt, factually incorrect, morally reprehensible films ever made. But it is, first, a superb piece of
filmmaking
, and two, an important artifact of its era in showing how some people viewed, or wanted others to view, the USSR during the wartime alliance. I find it fascinating in large part
because
of its outrageousness, and admire its artistry even while I am angered and offended by its deceits.
My Son John
is, in my opinion, a bad movie not because of its anti-Communist viewpoint (although this is ludicrously portrayed, which doesn't help the film), but because it is dull, intellectually dishonest, stupid and simply not well done, despite a good cast. While the right always attacked Hollywood's liberals (and its actual Communists, who were never as ubiquitous or all-powerful as falsely suggested) for supposedly infiltrating "leftist" political content into films in the 40s and early 50s, in fact it was Hollywood's conservatives who made blatantly propagandistic films far more often.
My Son John
bears about as much resemblance to the actual state of the Communist Party in the United States at that time as
Mission to Moscow
is an accurate account of Stalin's benevolence. But while
MTM
is well-made and entertaining in its bizarre, negative sort of way,
MSJ
is just poorly done and idiotic. I don't mind propaganda, but at least make it interesting. I think McCarey was so obsessed with his McCarthyite politics and heavy-handed Catholicism that it clouded his judgment as to what made a good film, as the poor quality of all his later films attests.
Butif
My Son John
ever came out on DVD it has
never
been available on any form of home video I would absolutely buy a copy, for the same basic reasons I would love a copy of
Mission to Moscow
because it, too, is a fascinating artifact of its era. It just isn't a good movie. -
johnfcorc — 16 years ago(May 29, 2009 08:28 AM)
I didn't mean to imply that I felt it was "sad" that TCM showed pro-Communist films, only in the context that they don't show this film.
Particularly since noted critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, included this film in the Alternative to the AFI's Top 100 of American Films http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/100best.html and considers it one of the 100 best films worldwide from the 50s http://www.alsolikelife.com/FilmDiary/rosenbaum50s.html. Given that Rosenbaum is one of the most respected film critics in the world, particularly noted for his restoration of Welles's Touch of Evil, I think there is divergent critical opinion on this film.
I think a more accurate comparison point would be Polonsky's Force of Evil than Mission to Moscow. -
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(May 29, 2009 09:53 AM)
Got you.
You'd mentioned Rosenbaum's review before, and while I haven't read it it is surprising to me that any critic but an ideologue concerned more with propaganda than artistry would find this such a great film. (His credentials re
Touch of Evil
don't sit well with me because I prefer the original full-length cut to this so-called "restoration", an inaccurate term anyway because nothing was "restored" it was simply rearranged. Besides, you can't "restore" something that never existed in the first place. "Reconstruction" would be more correct.) But then, all this is personal opinions anyway, not engraved-in-stone cosmic facts.
As I say, I'd really like to see
My Son John
again after so many years. I doubt I'd change any of my opinions about it, but it needs further examination. Cinematically, I'd also like to get a fresh look at all the badly-done superimpositions of Robert Walker that McCarey copped from Hitchcock's
Strangers on a Train
after Walker died in mid-production. He even had to re-write the entire ending to accommodate the actor's death, making it an utterly ridiculous finale. McCarey should have spent the money to re-shoot it with a new actoror better yet, shelved the whole thing.
Mission to Moscow
may or may not be the most apt comparison (I used it because it came up earlier), but
Force of Evil
, while it obviously has a political subtext, is not a blatant piece of political propaganda like
My Son John
or
MTM
. Polonsky was one of the harder-line Communists or sympathizers among the original Hollywood Ten (John Howard Lawson and Ring Lardner, Jr., were the truest believers and remained dedicated Stalinists all their lives, though without the nuisance of the gulag), so his far-left beliefs (which he never relented on either) did infuse some of his work, most notably
Force
. But the most apt comparisons to the out-and-out mindless anti-Communism of
MSJ
would be similarly-themed films, or their blatantly pro-Communist opposites. In American cinema, there's a lot fewer of the latter! -
johnfcorc — 16 years ago(May 29, 2009 02:27 PM)
I think the use of restoration is designed to emphasize that the new version "restores" what Welles presented to the studio (as best as can be gathered from his notes). But that's just semantics. I agree though with the exception of the opening long shot, which I think is a definite improvement, I have mixed feelings on the changes. I just brought it up because it is likely what Rosenbaum is most known for. But his criticism, while often controversial, is universally respected. And yes, he is an ideologue, but a Leftist one. (And no, to preempt the obvious questions, he does not praise the movie as some kind of "double bank shot.")
I think what makes My Son John more interesting than other anti-communist films is the director. And of course, that only matters if you believe in the auteur theory. -
bestactor — 16 years ago(June 20, 2009 05:35 PM)
I saw My Son John when it was broadcast on ABC many years ago. This was during the late '60s and anti-communism meant anti-war. I was far more drawn to Walker's character and performance. There also seemed to be hints of his character being homosexual. The anti-communist scare completely backfired on me.
Compared to the other anti-commie propaganda movies, this was high quality Hollywood. I believe most involved with this movie were ultimately embarrassed by its heavy handedness and fascist overtones. However, there can be no denying the slick Hollywood production values that put it in a pretty package.
There is no reason to keep this movie from being seen and studied. The cast makes it deserving of being available. The terribly racist overtones of other mainstream movies has never kept them out of view. We should not forget our movement toward fascism out of communist fear. -
dizexpat — 16 years ago(January 27, 2010 08:02 PM)
Why did they keep showing John when he was making phone calls
being inside a phone booth where you could never hear him?
Made me wonder if those scenes had also been pulled from an earlier film and the sound deleted as they were still to be shot when Robert Walker died.
Just a guess.
They Got Guns
We Got Guns
All God's Chillun' Got Guns! -
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(January 27, 2010 09:39 PM)
You're correct, dizexpat these weird scenes of Walker were culled from
Strangers on a Train
, the voice either left blank (as in the phone scenes) or dubbed in (as when he's gunned down in the cab). Plus an obvious body double for Walker's final scene in his office. Very poorly done.
Having seen this movie for the first time since I was in my teens in the late 60s, I must say that while I recalled its content pretty accurately, overall it's even worse than I remembered. The film is somber, downbeat, plodding, unimaginative when it's not utterly ludicrous, cliched, poorly directed, written even more badly, and just generally, unrelentingly grim and dull, dull, dull. Nothing entertaining about it at all. The climactic car chase, and the final scene in the auditorium, are totally asinine.
And a lot of good actors giving some of the worst performances, in admittedly near-moronic roles, in their careers. The characters are among the stupidest and most annoying ever drawn: the loopy mother having a nervous breakdown because she suspects her son is a Red; the zealous, fanatic father, combinig raging ignorance and religious fundamentalism with his job as a
schoolteacher!
; the dull FBI man, investigating what?; the family doctor, dispensing unneeded pills, combining quackery with religious fanaticism and pharmacological hocus-pocus; a grumpy and self-righteous boob of a priest; and a son who goes to pieces because of his crackpot mother. How could anyone perform such roles with any degree of seriousness and conviction? No one could take these one-dimensional stereotypes seriously.
No wonder this movie was an enormous box office disaster, even in 1952. Contrary to popular belief, explicitly anti-Communist films all flopped, even in the early 50s, mostly because they just weren't good, or at least entertaining. This film is simply too slow, too stupid, and way too much of a downer to be believed, let alone enjoyed. The obvious slapdash nature of the final 15 or 20 minutes (after Robert Walker died in real life and the whole ending had to be rewritten) just makes this mess look more amateurish, unbelievable and dumb as a box of rocks.
By contrast, the film TCM ran this evening (1/27/10) immediately after
My Son John
I Was a Communist for the F.B.I.
at least had the merits of being well-acted, fast-paced, never dull, and to be based, however loosely, on a real person and real events. It was watchable and enjoyable, however over-the-top it certainly was.
So before any of our friends on the right begin touting
My Son John
as a work of art, just bear in mind that a film's content or politics have nothing to do with whether it's any good. Several people have insisted this movie is good simply because it's an anti-Communist tract. However, it
is
possible for an anti-Communist film to be bad, just on its artistry, and as a piece of cinema,
My Son John
is superlatively awful. -
dizexpat — 16 years ago(January 27, 2010 09:44 PM)
One plot element that struck me:
How it is that Helen Hayes catches a plane to Washington, visits her son at work, goes to the park, chats with an FBI agent, finds the door that the mysterious key opens, catches a plane back, and manages to get home and have a nervous breakdown before her husband notices that she's been gone?
They Got Guns
We Got Guns
All God's Chillun' Got Guns! -
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(January 27, 2010 10:00 PM)
I guess we put that down to that age-old movie axiom,
suspension of disbelief
. Like Van Heflin's staged car accident. How could he know Dean Jagger wouldn't be watching the road, so that he could conveniently run into him?
I liked the FBI surveillance cameras at the Commie woman's apartment, strategically placed to catch close-ups of Helen Hayes wherever she happened to turn. If she had gone to the bathroom, I'm sure there would have been cameras shooting her from every angle planted in there. Talk about "My Son
John
"!