MovieChat Forums > Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) Discussion > Treats Sam Harris like a talentless idio...

Treats Sam Harris like a talentless idiot

posted 12 years ago by hobnob53
11 replies | jump to latest

George M. Cohan loved the way he was portrayed in this movie, apparently not caring how his former partner, Sam Harris, came across.

Harris was one of the most successful Broadway producers of his time. He brought many major shows to the stage, including long after he and Cohan split.

Yet in YDD Harris is depicted as a talentless sap, basically given an unexplained break by Cohan for Cohan's own purposes. Harris is seen as a nervous, unsure, boring guy (even to the point of giving the senior Cohan a birthday gift of "more ties that you don't need"), not once -- not once -- contributing a single thing to his and Cohan's success. Even within the context of the movie, the supposed reason Cohan takes him on as a partner makes no sense. And when they dissolve the partnership, Harris asks Cohan, "Who was the senior partner and who was the junior partner?" Really? After everything we've been shown? That remark simply comes across as gratuitous, if not downright pathetic.

Richard Whorf was never a great actor but he can't be blamed for how Harris is written in the script. Of course, depicting this important Broadway power as a boob along for the ride suits the tenor of this film, with its relentless falsifications and glorifications of its subject.

The filmmakers can tell all the fibs about Cohan they want (this is, after all, a Hollywood fantasy, not a documentary), but they should have allowed Sam Harris some dignity and character.

[–] joeparkson 12 years ago

Even within the context of the movie, the supposed reason Cohan takes him on as a partner makes no sense. And when they dissolve the partnership, Harris asks Cohan, "Who was the senior partner and who was the junior partner?" Really? After everything we've been shown?
__________

The movie was about Cohan, not about Harris or the partnership. Harris may have been a talented partner and businessman, but he didn't sing, dance, act, write plays or songs. There just wasn't much there to make an interesting movie.

With a 2 hour movie about a dynamo like George M. Cohan, you had to leave something out. His entire feud with Equity was left out. His first marriage was never mentioned. His acting triumph in Eugene O'Neill's "Ah Wilderness" is mentioned in a throwaway line. His movie "The Phantom President" 1932 is never mentioned. I've seen it; it's actually quite funny & timely and has been remade at least once.

What about his children? never mentioned.

He mentored several well known actors, among them Spencer Tracy. Never mentioned.

The movie didn't portray a factual or complete picture of George M. Cohan, but it did capture his charisma and dynamism.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I agree about everything the film didn't do, and flatly stated it could tell all the lies about Cohan it wanted to precisely because it is a movie about Cohan -- or really, his myth.

But your comment misses my point. It isn't necessary to dismiss Harris as some incompetent cipher who was nothing more than a glorified hanger-on in order to glorify Cohan. As I wrote, they could have accorded Harris some dignity and worth and been more factual about his contributions. Instead, he's treated as a clumsy clod whom a generous Cohan hooked up with -- for no apparent reason, as far as the film is concerned. Totally unnecessary.

[–] thegr8defender 11 years ago

The movie wasn't called "Sam Harris". It was called "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Thus, in the grand tradition of old time Hollywood films, secondary characters were either invented (like Mary), or glossed over (like Sam). I mean we're talking about an industry that made the movie "Night and Day" about Cole Porter - which was complete fantasy!

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Again, all true. But that's still not an excuse for portraying Harris as a talentless idiot and hanger-on. They could at least have made him a smart, competent guy. In the circumstances he would have fared better if they had glossed over him!

[–] smokehill retrievers 10 years ago

Although I see the point of the others -- that this is just typical Hollywood fantasy, concerned almost totally with perpetuating the Cohan myth (not that he wasn't a talented man with a great sense of patriotism).

However, any idiot could have simply changed a few lines in the film -- not necessarily even adding any extra time to it -- and given a much more fair & accurate picture of Harris. It was simply rude and lazy to portray him and his contribution this way.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Thank you, smokehill. The others, as I said, are right -- as far as the portrayal of Cohan goes. I said the same thing, and you make that point too.

But what you said regarding Harris,

It was simply rude and lazy to portray him and his contribution this way.

succinctly hits the nail on the head. Instead of this insulting depiction of an untalented, pathetically eager-to-please jerk who does nothing more than go along for the ride and even needs Cohan to come back and bail him out of financial trouble, Harris should have been accorded some dignity as the shrewd and successful producer he was.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 9 years ago

Even within the context of the movie, the supposed reason Cohan takes him on as a partner makes no sense. And when they dissolve the partnership, Harris asks Cohan, "Who was the senior partner and who was the junior partner?" Really? After everything we've been shown? That remark simply comes across as gratuitous, if not downright pathetic.

I agree. Like you say, their partnership never made sense even within the context of the movie since Harris was never shown contributing anything. I never did understand why Cohan needed Harris at all in that scene where they become partners.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Thank you, popper. Right as usual. (Especially since you agree with me!)

[–] snsurone 9 years ago

Just what kind of "talent" is needed to be a Broadway producer?
Sure, he had to have the ability to recognize talent and ability when casting a show and hiring directors and technicians.
And he had to know how to get financial backing from the "angels".

There was nothing in this film to suggest that Sam was lacking in any of these abilities.
And, since the movie is about George M. Cohan, naturally, Sam's role would be in relation to him.
Plus, I never saw him as a buffoon or a hanger-on, and I've seen this film many times.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Just what kind of "talent" is needed to be a Broadway producer?

Seriously, snsurone? You named two requirements yourself, and those are hardly minor or incidental. Talent doesn't simply refer to performing. Anyone who can succeed as a Broadway producer has to have an array of talents, ranging from business acumen to an ability to spot and nurture writing, acting, directing and myriad other talents in others. You need lots of skills to be a real producer (as opposed to being a hanger-on granted the title of "producer" or one of its innumerable subsets -- co- or associate producer, etc. -- simply for providing some money).

You're right that since the film is about Cohan, Harris's role would be in relation to him. Obviously. That's not a problem. But I also have to take issue with your statement:

There was nothing in this film to suggest that Sam was lacking in any of these abilities.

Well, what was there in this film to suggest otherwise? Where did this film even once suggest that Harris had any of these abilities, or show him exercising them? Where was his creative or business eye ever on display? In what scenes was Harris ever shown actually contributing anything to their partnership?

No, Sam Harris was depicted solely as a nervous, insecure adjunct to Cohan, without an original idea and too unsure of himself even to make a deal (as with the singer Faye Templeton, for whom "45 Minutes From Broadway" was written) without Cohan's brash self-confidence and critical intervention. If not -- quite -- a buffoon or hanger-on, he was certainly pictured as shaky, contributing nothing and almost inept throughout most of the film. The scene where they dissolve their partnership was virtually the only one in which Harris was accorded some dignity as Cohan's near-equal. Even if we grant that Harris should have been marginalized because this was Cohan's story, there was no reason to go the extra step to portray him as a do-nothing cipher.

[–] snsurone 9 years ago

Apparently, Jack Warner might have believed that fleshing out Sam Harris and depicting him as the skilled producer he was would cut into the film's running time (and budget), and distract from the main subject: George M. Cohan.

Re the scene with Faye Templeton, Sam never got a chance to open his mouth, what with Cohan behaving in such a cocky (and obnoxious) manner.
BTW, the real Faye was a delightful comedienne who worked with Weber and Fields at the turn of the last century, and not the pompous snob depicted in the film.