MovieChat Forums > The FBI Story Discussion > ''Father Knows Best' with machine guns'

''Father Knows Best' with machine guns'

posted 17 years ago by hobnob53
14 replies | jump to latest

That's what the NY Times DVD reviewer said of this film when it was released on disc -- in a basically favorable review of the film, as a matter of fact.

I've always liked this movie, even though many of its representations of the Bureau, or its history -- and certainly of J. Edgar -- are outrageously false or toadying.

But those constant side-tracks into the travails of the Family Hardesty are as monotonous and excruciatingly repetitive and boring as anything ever put on film. They argue -- they make up -- he loves the Bureau -- she hates the Bureau -- this endless, unedifying, stultifying back-and-forth, with generous doses of God poured onto every family crisis, almost to the point of being sacreligious -- one of the few times I really do want to scream in frustration at its cardboard saintliness and fake, sanctimonious piety. Just give us the gangsters, and blown-up moms in planes, and dynamited Indians, and South American snooping, and Commie spies having a hot dog at the football game, and skip the endless switching between case histories and crass Hardestys. You know, if anybody ever remakes the thing.

[–] rudeboy8080 15 years ago

I SPY FOR THE FBI STORY!

[–] Miss_Peterpuffer 14 years ago

I Pretty much enjoyed the review you did of this film also...lol..Miss Mary.

To a New World of Gods and Monsters.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Well, thank you, Miss Mary. I prefer posting on the boards to submitting a formal review.

Here's a in response!

[–] Errington_92 13 years ago

Just give us the gangsters, and blown-up moms in planes, and dynamited Indians, and South American snooping, and Commie spies having a hot dog at the football game, and skip the endless switching between case histories and crass Hardestys.

At times I thought the scenes between Chip and his Family were melodramatic, but they were included into the film in order for the audience to not only be on Chip's side whilst working for the FBI but feel for him emotionally when there were troubles in his family life.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Yes, of course I understand that, but it's the mechanical switching back and forth, almost by rote, that gets me -- that, and the nature of the family discussions.

My "just give us the crimes" line was obviously meant facetiously. I'm not against making the characters more three dimensional -- though I think they never managed more than two -- I just believe it could have been much better handled. The writing in this movie is okay, no more.

SPOILER:

I do think the idea of having their only son killed in the war was a bit unexpected and a good if melodramatic plot turn...although here again, their preoccupation with whether he had had time to say a prayer is really just too much, too redolent of the fake piety that inundates so much of this movie.

[–] Errington_92 13 years ago

I know what you mean when you refer to the piety within Chip's family, I also felt it was being brought up in the film too much but it is another way of getting the audience on Chip's side. In my opinion the film makers of "The FBI Story" gave strong emphasis on the Hardesty's religious values as its an aspect that portrayed them as an all - American family who American audiences would sympathies with. My point can be proven with a line from Chip refering to the target Whitey, "since he was a Communist, we knew he wasn't going to church."

Even though I understand this particular intention its not an aspect of the film I enjoyed because it felt forced, which is not surpising since "The FBI Story" conveys itself as a propaganda piece.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Right, and as I said, I understand the reason for this also, but agree with you that it just doesn't come off...or at least, doesn't hold up too well today.

Someplace around here I noted that while Chip delivers that somewhat sarcastic and superior line about Whitey -- "Since he was a Communist, we knew he couldn't be going to church" -- only a few minutes earlier, in his narration opening the sequence, he said that Communists threatened the home, education, and (among other institutions) "the church". "And yet," he continued, "Communists could be found in all these places." So apparently Commies could be found in the church, even though they knew a Communist wouldn't be going to one. Huh? Actually, masquerading as a church-goer would be excellent cover for a hardcore Communist spy to hide behind.

One of the things I like about this film is that final 25-minute Commie spy sequence at the end. Unlike the vast majority of the movie, which was shot on backlots and sound stages, this last part was filmed entirely on location around New York City (probably in the fall of 1958, by the looks of things and knowing when the film was released), and as I was a very little kid in NYC at that time, and knew Manhattan and the Bronx, these scenes really bring back early memories.

[–] Errington_92 13 years ago

"Since he was a Communist, we knew he couldn't be going to church" -- only a few minutes earlier, in his narration opening the sequence, he said that Communists threatened the home, education, and (among other institutions) "the church". "And yet," he continued, "Communists could be found in all these places."

That was obviously a mistake made by the writers.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Well of course it was a mistake made by the writers. Who else wrote all the dialogue, scenes and plot points in the movie? I wasn't saying this was James Stewart's fault. It's a problem with the film. In this case, the fault stems from the writers, but producer/director Mervyn Leroy also shares the blame, since he was the man in charge and obviously didn't catch this contradiction (or if he did, ignored it). I'm sure Stewart probably missed the mistake as well. But I suspect that even if they had noticed it, they would have left it in, since being able to smugly say that a Communist wouldn't be going to church played into the film's literal holier-then-thou, audience-pleasing under-theme.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

I've always liked this movie, even though many of its representations of the Bureau, or its history -- and certainly of J. Edgar -- are outrageously false or toadying.

Agreed. The main reason I've always had a special affection for this film is that it is the first film I can specifically remember going to see in a cinema as a kid.

But those constant side-tracks into the travails of the Family Hardesty are as monotonous and excruciatingly repetitive and boring as anything ever put on film.

Unfortunately, yes again. Duel parallel tributes to both Hoover's FBI and the ideal American white nuclear family carrying on with the business of living their white picket domestic life. It was another time.🐭

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Interesting that this was your first film in a cinema, spooky. I first saw it on TV years later, but at the time this was filmed I was going to school not far from Yankee Stadium, so all of those sequences, plus the ones shot in Manhattan (in Central Park, on Central Park West and other places) really resonate with me. The sights bring back the NYC of my childhood. That's why I have an affection for it.

It was another time, but even in 1959 more astute critics criticized the movie for constantly switching back and forth between family and caseload with monotonous regularity, and having the same old dreck in every family scene. The characters are all pretty one-dimensional.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

The characters are all pretty one-dimensional.

I'm drawn to the irony of Jimmy Stewart Hobnob, who a year earlier had been able to create in Scottie Ferguson such a memorably unsettling hero, recreating George Bailey, as a G-man at home. Vera Miles did manage to look rather sexy, when she let her hair down, which didn't occur enough. The kids; well ... you said something about dreck. 🐭

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

Perhaps the family vignettes were to make a point. That although these men (and at the time, they were men) were out there putting their lives on the line and doing what needed to be done, they could have been your next door neighbor. I know they've been mine, or the next best things... we lived in GTMO from '03-'14. The people that were supposedly torturing people and were being so horrible to detainees (who were there for a reason) were my daughter's soccer coach, CCD teacher, on the PTO board, sat behind us in church and were lay leaders in our church... these are not just the same person filling many roles - the alphabet soup people transfer in and out and there were a number of them from different agencies. No, they were not simply getting their jollies - they were doing their jobs, and at night going home to their families, going to church (I really don't know what you have against God), tucking their children in before bed, volunteering in classrooms.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Once again, and with respect, boxer, you miss the point. The problem isn't showing the Hardesty family as such. It's the way in which the film does this: first, the monotonous, predictable back-and-forth -- after each case, a family crisis; after each family crisis, a case -- over and over and over; second, the shallow, and again predictable, way in which that family life is depicted.

There was no reason why this movie couldn't have shown a more fleshed-out, less-clichêd family dynamic, even using the same basic situations. The loss of a baby, the death of their son in combat, are real personal crises many have faced, and the film is to be commended for showing such things and not making them all a group of happy-go-lucky people without a care in the world.

Unfortunately the film handles these events in a soggy, repetitive manner, with the tug-of-war over Chip's conscience re-emerging at each occasion -- "It's this Bureau!" "It's this place!" "What did Sam die for?" "Why do those crumbs go on living?" -- and always resolved in the exact same way -- Chip gets a grip on himself, the family realizes he's doing the right thing staying in the Bureau, and everything's fine until the next crisis. Dramatically, this is simply badly done, boring, and poorly written and directed.

And I take great exception to your frankly obnoxious statement:

(I really don't know what you have against God)

Not that my beliefs are anyone else's business, but for the record, I have nothing against God. That's a pretty damn stupid remark. What I do have "something against" is the way some people (in this case, this movie's makers, but others in public life as well) insist on proving their alleged piety by ostentatiously dragging God into every possible situation, not out of genuine reverence but for some cheap effect. The FBI Story diminishes the Almighty by its incessant, phony invocation of Him at every possible turn. Its purpose is to hit the audience over the head with the notion that Chip, his family, and the FBI in its entirety are pious, God-fearing people. A softer, less obvious, and much less frequent allusion to the Hardestys' faith would have worked better than the picture's persistent, heavy-handed and utterly predictable use of God to prove its characters' supposed moral worth. Considering how the film dodges moral issues when it suits its purpose (refusing to name the Klan's true victims, for example), it's in no position to give lectures on morality or faith to anyone.