No one has mentioned this one, which TCM ran as part of "Screened Out" this week. Did anyone else see it?
I remember this movie as being a Very Big Deal back in the day (the book was also a best-seller). I saw it in 1962, but I was far too young to really get it and I remember not liking it.
I didn't like it much this time around, either. I don't know -- something was missing. I thought the performances uniformly excellent, especially Walter Pidgeon, but there was a sort of distancing of the events of the story -- as interested as I am in the machinations of politics, this movie just did not draw me in. I don't know if the problem was the script or the director. There was something unfocused about the whole exercise, which is unusual in a Preminger film.
A few months back I had seen a broadcast of Gore Vidal's "The Best Man," a political drama of similar content set in the same era (and also starring Henry Fonda), and I liked that one much better.
Your thoughts?
Advise and Consent
Hi Judith -
Your comments on ADVISE & CONSENT pretty much sum up my own personal feelings about this film. I, too saw it when it first came out. I was fourteen and my impatience with all the talk led my adolescent mind to wander. I liked the way the film looked, but simply didn't care about what was going on. I saw it years later and was still unmoved by it all. Yes, it's interesting to see all these fine actors together in one wide-screen black & white film, but it just doesn't add up to very provocative entertainment. It all poiints to the inconsistent nature of Preminger's career as a director, particularly in his later years. And yes, I agree also that THE BEST MAN is a much more rewarding film than ADVISE & CONSENT.
Your comments on ADVISE & CONSENT pretty much sum up my own personal feelings about this film. I, too saw it when it first came out. I was fourteen and my impatience with all the talk led my adolescent mind to wander. I liked the way the film looked, but simply didn't care about what was going on. I saw it years later and was still unmoved by it all. Yes, it's interesting to see all these fine actors together in one wide-screen black & white film, but it just doesn't add up to very provocative entertainment. It all poiints to the inconsistent nature of Preminger's career as a director, particularly in his later years. And yes, I agree also that THE BEST MAN is a much more rewarding film than ADVISE & CONSENT.
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Judith & Dewey,
Your reactions reflect much of my own as well. I think that after Exodus, (which has very moving and exciting moments), Otto Preminger's career sort of fizzled out. What was it that happened to the guy, who was so good at suspense, pacing and characterization in some of his earlier works? Did he just get too big for his britches? Did the scripts get poorer? Did he need that structure offered by the studio? Or did his legendary disregard and abuse for his cast members finally doom what talent he had?
I remember thinking that when I first saw Advise and Consent years ago on tv that the gay themed story line with Don Murray's character could've been much more effective if we'd been allowed to feel more for Murray as an individual. We see his model family, complete with a wife who has that anonymous, well-groomed '60s look like an astronaut's wife, we see him pursuing his earnest way through the Washington jungle, but my compassion for his dilemma is minimal due to the flatness of the portrayal. My sympathy for him was also affected by the scene when Murray's former lover beseeches him to come back and talk to him in the gay bar. As the cab pulls away hurriedly with Murray, he literally pushes the guy face down into the gutter, (I guess, where we're supposed to believe he belongs??). Man, that's cold!
Of course, it's possible that the distance that one feels watching this story play out is meant to be part of the pathos of Murray's character, since Allen Drury's book and the "behind the curtain" atmosphere of this sort of movie is intended to show what lies beneath. It may have felt fresher, and more shocking in the '60s rather than now. His whole life is a smooth, empty surface. He says all the expected "nice", conventional things, but inside he's hollow, and going through the motions personally and politically.
I find Don Murray in interviews I've seen with him to be much more thoughtful, animated and engaging than he appears to be in his earlier roles. His work since he's gotten older, in the few times I've seen him in such things as Lifetime movies, seems warmer now, though he often seemed to me to have a problem expressing himself sympathetically in his earlier movies. His best seemed to be Bus Stop, but I can't say that he ever truly moved me. Maybe it's just me.
I was not moved by anything Henry Fonda did either, which is odd too.
As a matter of fact, I thought that his character, who was supposed to be Mr. Integrity lacked compassion for others, particularly his old friend who was implicated by Burgess Meredith's nebbishy character.
My favorites in this film were:
Charles Laughton, the old scenery chewer doing his best to enliven the proceedings with his poor grooming, manipulative behavior and messy political dealings. Even Laughton, who was quite ill with cancer at the time of the filming, couldn't wrest a coherent scene out of some of the meandering proceedings that he was asked to play.
Walter Pidgeon, who played one of his last, best parts as the power broker of the Senate. His decency and civilized understanding of human nature and the uses of power displayed by his character while coordinating events made me wistful for this non-ideological type of pol who's apparently vanished from American life.
I particularly enjoyed Pidgeon's ally and dogsbody, played wonderfully and cynically by Paul Ford. His expressions alone in scenes opposite the overly ambitious young Senator George Grizzard were a delight. I especially liked the scene when Ford, eyeing Grizzard's phalanx of flunkies, who are described as the senator's "brain trust", asked quietly, "What do those guys do for you, aside from spreading roses in your path?" Ford was one of the greatest character men, whether playing a buffoon, as he did so nimbly on the old Bilko show, or as a canny veteran of politics as he did here. Grizzard's characterization of the creepy know-it-all type added some zest to the proceedings, though his role as written, seemed to overemphasize his ambition and ideology at the cost of any nuance or real humor.
The film was also made bearable by the presence of Gene Tierney. While her health issues probably diminished her presence and made her look older than she might've in this, one of her last appearances on film, her Washington hostess, who preferred to be a mistress to Pidgeon rather than simply another wife, struck me as worldly-wise yet warm hearted.
Overall, I'd agree that a film dealing with similar material such as The Best Man is much better, though I actually prefer the immediacy and good acting of Seven Days in May myself.
Your reactions reflect much of my own as well. I think that after Exodus, (which has very moving and exciting moments), Otto Preminger's career sort of fizzled out. What was it that happened to the guy, who was so good at suspense, pacing and characterization in some of his earlier works? Did he just get too big for his britches? Did the scripts get poorer? Did he need that structure offered by the studio? Or did his legendary disregard and abuse for his cast members finally doom what talent he had?
I remember thinking that when I first saw Advise and Consent years ago on tv that the gay themed story line with Don Murray's character could've been much more effective if we'd been allowed to feel more for Murray as an individual. We see his model family, complete with a wife who has that anonymous, well-groomed '60s look like an astronaut's wife, we see him pursuing his earnest way through the Washington jungle, but my compassion for his dilemma is minimal due to the flatness of the portrayal. My sympathy for him was also affected by the scene when Murray's former lover beseeches him to come back and talk to him in the gay bar. As the cab pulls away hurriedly with Murray, he literally pushes the guy face down into the gutter, (I guess, where we're supposed to believe he belongs??). Man, that's cold!
Of course, it's possible that the distance that one feels watching this story play out is meant to be part of the pathos of Murray's character, since Allen Drury's book and the "behind the curtain" atmosphere of this sort of movie is intended to show what lies beneath. It may have felt fresher, and more shocking in the '60s rather than now. His whole life is a smooth, empty surface. He says all the expected "nice", conventional things, but inside he's hollow, and going through the motions personally and politically.
I find Don Murray in interviews I've seen with him to be much more thoughtful, animated and engaging than he appears to be in his earlier roles. His work since he's gotten older, in the few times I've seen him in such things as Lifetime movies, seems warmer now, though he often seemed to me to have a problem expressing himself sympathetically in his earlier movies. His best seemed to be Bus Stop, but I can't say that he ever truly moved me. Maybe it's just me.
I was not moved by anything Henry Fonda did either, which is odd too.
As a matter of fact, I thought that his character, who was supposed to be Mr. Integrity lacked compassion for others, particularly his old friend who was implicated by Burgess Meredith's nebbishy character.
My favorites in this film were:
Charles Laughton, the old scenery chewer doing his best to enliven the proceedings with his poor grooming, manipulative behavior and messy political dealings. Even Laughton, who was quite ill with cancer at the time of the filming, couldn't wrest a coherent scene out of some of the meandering proceedings that he was asked to play.
Walter Pidgeon, who played one of his last, best parts as the power broker of the Senate. His decency and civilized understanding of human nature and the uses of power displayed by his character while coordinating events made me wistful for this non-ideological type of pol who's apparently vanished from American life.
I particularly enjoyed Pidgeon's ally and dogsbody, played wonderfully and cynically by Paul Ford. His expressions alone in scenes opposite the overly ambitious young Senator George Grizzard were a delight. I especially liked the scene when Ford, eyeing Grizzard's phalanx of flunkies, who are described as the senator's "brain trust", asked quietly, "What do those guys do for you, aside from spreading roses in your path?" Ford was one of the greatest character men, whether playing a buffoon, as he did so nimbly on the old Bilko show, or as a canny veteran of politics as he did here. Grizzard's characterization of the creepy know-it-all type added some zest to the proceedings, though his role as written, seemed to overemphasize his ambition and ideology at the cost of any nuance or real humor.
The film was also made bearable by the presence of Gene Tierney. While her health issues probably diminished her presence and made her look older than she might've in this, one of her last appearances on film, her Washington hostess, who preferred to be a mistress to Pidgeon rather than simply another wife, struck me as worldly-wise yet warm hearted.
Overall, I'd agree that a film dealing with similar material such as The Best Man is much better, though I actually prefer the immediacy and good acting of Seven Days in May myself.
Last edited by moira finnie on June 29th, 2007, 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jdb1
Yes. Too much talk without much impact. There have been very talky films that have said much more.
My thought as I was watching was that this film, which I believe was trying to show the intricacies of 'nuts and bolts' politics, instead showed the mind-numbing and stifling Byzantine nature of the thing. I've seen more interesting and stimulating business done on C-SPAN.
I thought Laughton was quite subdued in his depiction of a florid and showboating old-style southern senator. He's been far more expansive than that. He was certainly ill while shooting this film, and he died the same year it was released.
Now that I'm thinking about it again, I believe that one of the things lacking in Advise and Consent was a sense of scope - of the idea that this was Washington, and anything that happened here had an impact on the world. There was not that sense of self-importance, which would have been appropriate in this case. Really strange -- who in Hollywood was more self-important than someone like Otto Preminger?
My thought as I was watching was that this film, which I believe was trying to show the intricacies of 'nuts and bolts' politics, instead showed the mind-numbing and stifling Byzantine nature of the thing. I've seen more interesting and stimulating business done on C-SPAN.
I thought Laughton was quite subdued in his depiction of a florid and showboating old-style southern senator. He's been far more expansive than that. He was certainly ill while shooting this film, and he died the same year it was released.
Now that I'm thinking about it again, I believe that one of the things lacking in Advise and Consent was a sense of scope - of the idea that this was Washington, and anything that happened here had an impact on the world. There was not that sense of self-importance, which would have been appropriate in this case. Really strange -- who in Hollywood was more self-important than someone like Otto Preminger?
Without a doubt, The Best Man was a much better movie both politically and in terms of H'woods' good vs. bad.
As for Preminger, I latched onto Deweys' comment about big star, Black and White movie. Going all the way back to 1952 and Angel Face, you wanted Jean Simmons to be punished, but kind of felt sorry for Mitchum. Later, in Anatomy of a Murder, I didn't like his clients, but I did want Jimmy Stewart to win his case, and Eve Arden to get paid, and old Arthur O'Connell to quit drinking. Also, in In Harm's Way, you want Mac to be okay, Jere Torrey to come around and grow up, and Paul to get his butt kicked among other things. What I'm saying is, you care about these characters, and the movie being in B&W makes you watch and listen more closely because you don't have all sorts of panoramas to gawk at.
However, in Advise and Consent, although fine acting talents were used, they didn't convey any plea for admiration or trust. I think this is an example of Preminger directing only because he had nothing better to do, even tho he had a best seller to work with, his stamp of allegiance wasn't there.
BTW, this movie was another example of what I think is a claim that 'gay is bad and must be punished'. Yes, the face down in the gutter was a very obvious example. Sorry folks, I didn't like the entire idea of the Screened Out series. Some of the movies stretched too far, and the series simply goes against my belief of live and let live.
Anne
As for Preminger, I latched onto Deweys' comment about big star, Black and White movie. Going all the way back to 1952 and Angel Face, you wanted Jean Simmons to be punished, but kind of felt sorry for Mitchum. Later, in Anatomy of a Murder, I didn't like his clients, but I did want Jimmy Stewart to win his case, and Eve Arden to get paid, and old Arthur O'Connell to quit drinking. Also, in In Harm's Way, you want Mac to be okay, Jere Torrey to come around and grow up, and Paul to get his butt kicked among other things. What I'm saying is, you care about these characters, and the movie being in B&W makes you watch and listen more closely because you don't have all sorts of panoramas to gawk at.
However, in Advise and Consent, although fine acting talents were used, they didn't convey any plea for admiration or trust. I think this is an example of Preminger directing only because he had nothing better to do, even tho he had a best seller to work with, his stamp of allegiance wasn't there.
BTW, this movie was another example of what I think is a claim that 'gay is bad and must be punished'. Yes, the face down in the gutter was a very obvious example. Sorry folks, I didn't like the entire idea of the Screened Out series. Some of the movies stretched too far, and the series simply goes against my belief of live and let live.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
I completely agree with this! I was very surprised to see him in this, as every movie I've seen Paul Ford in has been a comedy and I've always enjoyed his work. That being said, I felt he held more than his own with everyone else. In fact, every time he was off the screen, I found myself losing interest.moirafinnie wrote:Ford was one of the greatest character men, whether playing a buffoon, as he did so nimbly on the old Bilko show, or as a canny veteran of politics as he did here.
Another person I really enjoyed in this was Lew Ayres as the vice president that's just seems to be hanging around. I thought he was fantastic in the final scene where he finds out that the President has died and he negates the nomination. He goes from being invisible to suddenly being in great power and I thought he did a great job in portraying it. The look on his face, the change in his posture--very nice indeed.
To be honest here, I'm not a very big Preminger fan. Every time I've watched one of his movies, I've felt a disconnect afterwards. There's something in his directorial style that fails to move me. I know he makes "good" movies, but there's always too much bombast and controvery and never enough emotional substance for me to really care about the characters. I've been disappointed with Preminger's work ever since I saw Bonjour Tristesse--such a great cast (David Niven, Deborah Kerr), inventive screen techniques and a decent story, and I just felt flat afterwards.
There were so many great actors in this and the majority of them made me feel cold. Gene Tierney looked absolutely lovely and who knew Betty White was a brunette? I sure didn't, although her voice was unmistakable. Anyway, for me a good movie makes me to care about the people afterwards and with the exception of Paul Ford and Lew Ayres, I just felt "eh" towards everyone else.
"Some of the best parts of life are frivolous." - Arthur Kennedy in A Summer Place
-----
The Roadshow Version: A Modern Take on Classic Movies
-----
The Roadshow Version: A Modern Take on Classic Movies
-
jdb1
Paul Ford was wonderful at playing the background guy. He was the consummate Chamber of Commerce man. I thought he was terrific in Teahouse of the August Moon, and he had the unenviable task of replacing Louis Calhern in it. He was also a high spot in The Music Man and The Matchmaker. I think he would have been very interesting, and effective, in something like Babbit or Dodsworth (not to take anything away from Guy Kibbe or Walter Huston, of course).
There really was so much to Advise and Consent that simply didn't make all that much impact -- but maybe it's because we are too far removed from that time now: Franchot Tone was made to look like Eisenhower, and Lew Ayres had some distinctly Truman-ish qualities. Of course, in the days before LBJ, vice presidents didn't amount to much. Their role and importance have changed dramatically since then. And the old-style Dixiecrats are now a thing of the past. I can remember reading the word "filibuster" just about every day in the newspaper in the 50s and 60s.
Were Grizzard and his coterie a take on the 'best and brightest" Kennedy followers? They certainly looked the part. But I thought Grizzard looked distressingly like Hugh Hefner (or maybe Jerry Van Dyke).
Also the role of the Washington hostess is far more important than this movie shows. I think I recall that in the book Tierney's character had much more to say and do. Betty White's scene, as the Senator from Kansas, was one of the high points of the movie, and I think the rest of the movie would have benefitted from exchanges like it.
This is another film with relevance today that could stand a proper remake.
There really was so much to Advise and Consent that simply didn't make all that much impact -- but maybe it's because we are too far removed from that time now: Franchot Tone was made to look like Eisenhower, and Lew Ayres had some distinctly Truman-ish qualities. Of course, in the days before LBJ, vice presidents didn't amount to much. Their role and importance have changed dramatically since then. And the old-style Dixiecrats are now a thing of the past. I can remember reading the word "filibuster" just about every day in the newspaper in the 50s and 60s.
Were Grizzard and his coterie a take on the 'best and brightest" Kennedy followers? They certainly looked the part. But I thought Grizzard looked distressingly like Hugh Hefner (or maybe Jerry Van Dyke).
Also the role of the Washington hostess is far more important than this movie shows. I think I recall that in the book Tierney's character had much more to say and do. Betty White's scene, as the Senator from Kansas, was one of the high points of the movie, and I think the rest of the movie would have benefitted from exchanges like it.
This is another film with relevance today that could stand a proper remake.
-
jdb1
Yes, Ken, I recognized that Van Ackerman was supposed to be on the lunatic fringe --- it was his physical and sartorial appearance and that of his henchman that said Hyannis to me.ken123 wrote:Freddie VanAckerman ( George Grizzard ) was a composite of Joe McCarthy and J.Edgar Hoover. His character is also homosexual.
Van A and his group were a pretty creepy bunch, for all their cool duds and haircuts.
IMHO in regard to Advise and Consent - Tone = FRD - Ayres = Truman Murray = Nixon - Laughton = Sen. Richard Russell ( Dem - Georgia ) leader of the Southern Block in the U.S. Senate 1940's -'60's - Gizzard = Joe McCarthy/ J/Edgar Hoover - Meredith = Whittaker Chambers - Fonda = Alger Hiss. The novel and film are a take off on the Hiss - Chambers Case, with the action taking place in the U.S. Senate rather than the U.S. House. Chambers confronted Hiss in HUAC Hearings with Nixon (Murray ) taking a leading role. FDR was dead by the time of the HUAC Hearings and McCarthy took no role in the Hiss case, in 1952 Sen Joe often mistook Democratic Presidential Candidate Adlai Stevenson's first name for Alger, a very easy & honest mistake by "Tail Gunner Joe ", the winner in the 1946 GOP Wisconsin Senatorial primary by winning votes from the Communist run Unions in Milwaukee, the Senator further distinguished himself in Senate Hearings in regard the massacre of American troops at Malmedy ( Belguim ) in WW2, and the Army - McCarthy Hearings. McCarthy was Hoover's tool and when he ( McCarthy ) outlived his usefulness was thrown to the dogs.
It has been about ten years since I saw "Advise and Consent." I remember l liked parts of it (such as when Burgess Meredith shows up and starts testifying), but then other parts really subtracted from the film. I was utterly baffled that Peter Lawford suddenly switched sides on the final vote. I couldn't see the significance of that.
I think my favorite Preminger film is "Bunny Lake is Missing" which is very creepy and suspenseful. I was lucky enough to see that on the big screen, and it is electrifying there.
I think my favorite Preminger film is "Bunny Lake is Missing" which is very creepy and suspenseful. I was lucky enough to see that on the big screen, and it is electrifying there.