Ignore the trolls. This is a darn good movie. It is surprisingly sophisticated and engaging, with a dandy story and well staged and filmed. Some people don't like it because an almost trivial portion of it, maybe the last ten minutes or so, is involved with the post-WW2 cold war period, trampling on one of their sacred cow preconceptions that the enemy was somehow "made up". That is not what the bulk of the movie is about.
shareYou know, it is possible to be critical of this movie and not be a "troll". The fact that you put down most critics as people who are somehow upset about the final sequence of the film (hunting the Communist spy in NYC, which incidentally lasts about 25 minutes, not 10) -- implying that the only people who dislike the movie have pro-Red sympathies or are somehow dupes of the Commies -- is patently ridiculous and betrays your own political agenda.
For the record, I've been watching this film since the 60s and have always enjoyed it (obviously)...but this doesn't mean I'm uncritical of it, or that the movie doesn't have serious flaws. And the spy-hunt sequence happens to be my favorite in the film -- exciting and realistic, and filmed on location (vs. the backlots used in most of the movie) in the city where I was born, on locations I remember from 1959, a personal connection that adds interest for me.
Also, this film is anything but "sophisticated". Quite the opposite: it's as "middle-American", uncomplicated and straightforward as it gets...and what's wrong with that?
But I think the issues most people have with the picture are similar to my own: its deification of J. Edgar Hoover and some resultant falsifications (the lie that Hoover personally arrested Alvin Karpas, or his statement to the agents that he "did not seek [the] position" of FBI Director, which he most assuredly did); the relentless switching back and forth between exciting FBI cases and the dull, endlessly repetitive unfolding of the periodic crises afflicting the Hardesty family (Chip, how can you say we'll deal with this tragedy?/Honey, I'm gonna quit the Bureau/Chip Hardesty, you'll do no such thing!/Darling, you're right!); and, allied with that, the two-dimensional characterizations of all the characters, but particularly the Hardesty clan, with mom tiresomely dragging God into every family issue and all of them undergoing mostly predictable problems, each overcome after the exact same sequence of speeches between mom and dad.
There is also the matter of the film's gutless and somewhat white-washed depiction of certain groups or events, notably its KKK sequence. The movie never shows or mentions blacks, the Klan's primary victims, or refers to its lynchings and similar activities; it refuses even to say the word "Jewish" in the shot of Klansmen ransacking a house and overturning a table on which a menorah and a Passover meal have been set (Stewart, narrating, says only that they "defiled ancient devotions"); and none of the Klansmen have southern accents, even though the sequence is set in the South and it was the stronghold of Klan terrorism. Apparently the filmmakers and the FBI didn't want to risk offending any segment of the audience and therefore sanitized matters to make the Klan seem nothing more than a routine gang of thugs.
Plus, there are esthetic problems: the picture is way overlong, its pacing is dreadfully slow during the interminable family sessions, and the star is far too old for the part (except near the end).
All this said, however, there is still much to be enjoyed in this movie: the portions dealing with actual cases are suspenseful, exciting and well-handled (which unfortunately makes the contrast with the interfering family stuff even worse); while flawed and in some cases untruthful, the bulk of the film is reasonably accurate and gives an important overview of the value of the Bureau and of the dedication of the men and women who work for it; and while shaping the fictional family more realistically and with some nuance, complexity and unpredictablity would have vastly improved the film, there is some genuine emotion and real pathos that surmount the routine writing and direction and make portions of the film truly heart-tugging.
In short, The FBI Story is fairly typical of its era, not bad but with serious flaws that only grow more glaring with age. As I said, one can enjoy watching this film without mindlessly buying into all of it as accurate history, and seeing the many weaknesses in its writing, direction and characterizations. And one can be critical of it without having a political agenda, which in any case seems to be far more true of those who attack anyone who finds fault with it.
Oh, I'll add one thing more -- there's a worthy tribute this film fleetingly pays both Hoover and the FBI, but which for some reason is passed over so quickly that it scarcely registers: Hoover's opposition to the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WWII. In narrating this part, Stewart, describing the arrests of enemy aliens, adds, "These were enemy aliens -- not loyal Americans of German or Japanese descent." Including Germans in this statement softens the impact of Hoover's opposition to the government's action regarding the Japanese (no German-Americans were interned), but the fact remains that Hoover was one of the very few government officials who opposed the policy of internment, which was supported by most self-styled liberals as well as most conservatives. This will always be a blot on American history and that Hoover stood apart from it speaks well of him. The fact that the line was even included obviously reflects the importance Hoover himself placed on making sure it was included in the movie (not a word of which went unapproved by the Director). It's something he and the FBI can take pride in, and it's too bad it was slipped in with so little emphasis...again, no doubt a reflection of its times, even in 1959, when most people were busy trying to bury this shameful action in the dustbin of history.
You have amply demonstrated that 'it is possible to be critical of this movie and not be a "troll"'. As I never implied that only trolls are critical of the movie, it's a bit odd you should be so defensive. Nor did I imply that all critics are pro-Red or dupes - only that the topic draws out a naivety and knee-jerk reaction in some.
At any rate I am very pleased to have elicited such a thoughtful post in response.
Thank you for your kind words, fnj. I accept what your intent was, but I think if you re-read your original post it does read as though you think only "trolls", or people who for distorted ideological reasons object to the anti-Communist sequence at the end, dislike this movie.
Of course, I've run across a few people who do take exception to that last part for political reasons, but lots of people of every political persuasion have their blind spots and ideological agendas. As a liberal, I cannot understand how any so-called liberal can be, indeed, soft on Communism, as illiberal a philosophy, and as bloody and inefficient a perversion of "government", as any other form of human suppression devised by man down the ages.
It's often a thin line to walk, but it's especially important to balance ideological beliefs with honest artistic assessments when reviewing films with a political content. Not always easy!
I am a James Stewart fan; I have seen about 15 of his films. Years ago a friend gifted me a James Stewart 5 movie box set consisting mostly of "under the radar" films( Firecreek, The Stratton Story, The Naked Spur) and The FBI Story. I thought the film was slow paced in its narrative of the FBI's involvement and evolution with American crime. Although the film's historical accuracy was flawed, especially the scenes portraying Dillinger, Floyd, Nelson, and Karpis, the script did include criminal activity that pervaded most aspects of American society. Crimes against Native Americans, white collar crimes, bank robbery, the KKK, and treasonous activities are shown in sub-plots. The FBI's infiltration with organized crime and The Mafia would have to wait until films like The Valachi Papers, Donnie Brasco and Goodfellas. You mentioned that the melodramatic dialog and scenes of the Hardesty family detracted from the film's content but I disagree. I thought the tension between Chip and his wife were essential in allowing viewers to empathize with the transient life style, Chip's detachment from his wife and children, and the spousal arguments. For a storyline in a film made in 1959 that included a husband and wife separated for almost a year was I believe, a bold social point to make. Chip's dedication to his career is intermittingly contrasted with the emotional effects it has upon his family- this is what makes The FBI Story a movie removed from a film such as The Street With No Name. The tension is captured in scenes when Chip's daughter can't finish her high school speech, Lucy's miscarriage, Lucy clutching her comb so hard it becomes crushed in her grasp, and the funeral scene of Chip's best friend. I thought the final shot of the son and his sister standing by the casket in the rain at the cemetery was director's Leroy's best take in the film. I enjoyed reading your review.
shareHello gemproof99,
I'm a longtime fan of Stewart too. I've seen well in excess of 50 of his films and even on the few occasions when the movie doesn't grab me Stewart himself is usually excellent. I more or less agree with most of your observations but continue to differ about The FBI Story's portrayal of the Hardestys' domestic life.
Now, you make a good point here:
I thought the tension between Chip and his wife were essential in allowing viewers to empathize with the transient life style, Chip's detachment from his wife and children, and the spousal arguments. For a storyline in a film made in 1959 that included a husband and wife separated for almost a year was I believe, a bold social point to make.
Hello Hobnob53,
Yes, you make a good point about the constant bickering between Stewart's character and his wife. Scenes between the two could have included more than just "career versus family" conflict. As far as Jimmy Stewart films that I have seen my list includes: The Stratton Story, Made For Each Other, It's A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Call Northside 777, Rope, Winchester 73, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Spirit of St. Louis, Anatomy of a Murder, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and my all time Jimmy Stewart film Vertigo. I don't know if the Hitchcock films would have gained such acclaim without Stewart's outstanding performances. I recommend the Jimmy Stewart biography by Marc Elliot as an excellent resource about Stewart's life and film career.
Hi gemproof99 (and happy new year),
That's a great list of Stewart films you've seen. My favorite of his films is one you mentioned, Anatomy of a Murder, which many (myself included) consider his best performance. But I guess I'm in the minority who thinks Vertigo is an overrated, pretentious bore. I do think Stewart's Hitchcock films would have been as good without Stewart, although I think he was best suited to Rope and The Man Who Knew Too Much due to the characters he played. I always thought Cary Grant would have been better than Stewart in Rear Window; I have no complaints about Stewart but Grant would have fitted the image of a globe-trotting Greenwich Village photographer better than the more "countryfied" Stewart. And he was clearly too old for the role in Vertigo. Did you know that Stewart begged Hitch to cast him in North by Northwest, a role he would have been completely unsuitable for -- an urbane Madison Avenue ad man? No way. That was clearly Grant's role.
If I may, let me recommend a few other Stewart films that are excellent and you might like:
Another Thin Man (1936): Maybe the best of the series and notable for a very unusual Stewart performance, and of course a very early role for him.
The Shop Around the Corner (1940): One of Ernst Lubitsch's gentle, sophisticated comedies, the director's favorite of all his films, and everybody in it is wonderful. JS and his two co-stars (Margaret Sullavan and Frank Morgan) made another, very different but excellent picture for MGM that same year:
The Mortal Storm (1940): An anti-Nazi drama, grim but excellent all around.
Harvey (1950): Re-creating his Broadway role, a classic comedy and one of his five Oscar nominations. A Stewart "must".
Broken Arrow (1950): One of his first westerns, based on fact, and a new image for JS.
No Highway in the Sky (1951): JS is a timid engineer who believes metal fatigue will cause a new airliner to crash after 1440 hours of flight...then discovers he's aboard one nearing that deadline. This is one of his best.
Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation (1962): A funny, if dated, family comedy and a cut above his rest of that period.
The Flight of the Phoenix (1965): The original version of survivors of an airplane crash stranded in the Sahara. JS loved playing fliers, having been a pilot during the war, and he plays a surprisingly unsympathetic character here.
Plus, you have to see the 8 films, especially the westerns, he made with director Anthony Mann, all between 1950-1955. He made more films with Mann than with any other director, and the westerns especially are classic. You've seen Winchester '73, which may be their absolute best, but if you haven't yet, also check out Bend of the River, The Naked Spur and particularly The Man From Laramie. (Their other films are Thunder Bay, The Glenn Miller Story and Strategic Air Command.)
Glad to talk with you again!
Hi Hobnob53,
I never made the connection with Cary Grant and Rear Window but your suggestion is right on the mark. Yes Stewart was a bit old to be with a woman like Kim Novak in Vertigo but for me his performance in the film is gripping. I haven't seen westerns Broken Arrow, The Man From Laramie, and Bend of the River so I will look for them on DVD. The film that interests me from your list is No Highway in the Sky, I hope I can purchase the DVD on Amazon. The one JS film that never interested me is Harvey. I don't know if I can take a character talking to an invisible rabbit for 2 hours- what is the plot about ??
Good movie viewing to you
Hi gemproof99, nice to hear from you.
No Highway in the Sky is one of my favorite JS films -- in fact, a favorite film, period. The fact that it deals with transatlantic aviation in the early 50s has a lot of historical interest today. It's out on the Fox Cinema Archives label and retails for $19.99, but obviously look for deals. It was made by Fox's British subsidiary so the rest of the cast (except Marlene Dietrich) is British. I hope you enjoy it, and if you see it I'd be really interested to hear your reactions (presumably over on that film's site).
The plot of Harvey...well, I suppose you'd say it's about the importance of leading a contented life, if you want the "deeper meaning". Stewart's character, Elwood P. Dowd, is a gentle alcoholic who just likes making people feel better, and if this attitude incidentally entails having the companionship of a 6-foot, 2 1/2-inch invisible rabbit, so be it. As he puts it in a line from the movie, "My mother always used to say to me, 'Elwood -- she always called me Elwood -- Elwood, in this world you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for thirty-five years I tried being smart. I recommend pleasant." Harvey is a key character, of course, but he's really not quite at the center of the story. Don't worry -- Stewart doesn't spend two hours talking to an invisible rabbit. (Actually 104 minutes.) The gimmick is used with taste and discretion, not something heavy-handed at all, and always as just another part of the scene. In fact, it's extremely clever how "Harvey" is handled so that he adds to the amusement without becoming a cartoonish prop.
It's a sweet, wistful little film, with Stewart repeating his Broadway success in one of his most popular roles. He received his third Oscar nomination for the film, and Josephine Hull, who played his aunt on stage and in the film, won the Oscar for Supporting Actress. She's simply marvelous. (In her career she made I believe only six films or so, but the only two major ones were those in which she repeated her stage roles -- Harvey and Arsenic and Old Lace.)
Anyway, don't be put off -- I think you'll find it a truly enjoyable film, from a genuinely classic play.
Although the family segments did appear at regular intervals, I never felt they filled equal time - I'd have to watch it timing them to be sure, but never felt it. Perhaps they didn't have the same effect on me because we are a Navy family and throughout our 28 year marriage my husband was gone variously for a year, a few days, a month or six months - mostly before but also after we had children.
The fact is that most families at the time were Christian, so God would be involved or invoked at those times. It wasn't the same old argument - in fact once he came to her to tell her he was quitting and she told him 'no' from the get-go. Sometimes those careers are hard to decide to stay or go... I've known many Sailors fed up with the bureaucracy or administrative personality of the Navy, but who also felt that their career was more of a vocation, a calling... or simply that it was their patriotic duty and just that important to our country. I can see how the FBI, especially in those heady early days would have felt the same.
Your argument reminds me of my Mom. She loves murder mystery or police procedural television shows - but hates when they develop the characters, showing their home lives or giving them girl friends, etc. She just wants the whodunit.
I've never timed the "family" vs. "career" sections of the film either, and it's irrelevant which takes up more of the film -- I'm sure the "official" stuff does. "Equal time" is not the issue.
The issue is that the film switches back and forth with predictable regularity between the two sides of Chip Hardesty's life -- job/home/job/home -- which makes for poor story-telling if nothing else. Worse, the family's tales simply aren't interesting. Dragging God into every proceeding also wears thin really fast. Yes, most families in America were "Christian" when this film was made -- just as most are today. So what? That doesn't mean they all want to have the Lord dragged into every possible situation. (Besides which, you don't have to be a Christian of any stripe in order to believe in God, or like bringing God into the movie over and over again.) I very much doubt God would be invoked by everybody at every occasion the way the Hardestys invoke him. It's certainly not something you can generalize about.
You also misconstrue my feelings about this film's structure. I don't at all object to character development...although I'd dispute how much real "character development" there is in this movie -- the characters are all very two-dimensional caricatures of real people. I like a nicely balanced film and don't mind seeing the personal side of its characters -- quite the contrary. It's the manner in which the film does this that's the problem, not the attempt to do so. In that respect, The FBI Story is a clumsy, repetitive, superficial affair.
I agree this is a good movie. Part Documentary and part Drama. There are some errors of fact as pointed out in the goofs section about the film, but I don't think they detract from the enjoyment of the movie itself any. I saw it several times on TV while growing up and just recently bought a copy over at Amazon so I could see it again. I think it still works as old a movie as it is. Well worth adding to a personal video library (IMO). It seems these days that most movies have to have cursing and as much visible bloodshed as possible in order to tell a good story and tell it well. That just isn't so, "The FBI Story" proves that you can tell a good story without all that. I'm sure there was plenty of both cursing and violence back during the time the movie was made, that there was no golden age where such didn't exist, but it isn't necessary to depict it in every scene of every movie like some seem to think now days. Anyone can enjoy "The FBI Story" no matter what their age. How many big movies made today can say the same thing? Very few I'd imagine.
I agree with your sentiments, scribe1270.
share