Metro Does Good Citizenship With The Magnificent Yankee (1950)
You'll thank us for making it, even if you don't
come see it, was seeming Metro message to a public they wished would support
The Magnificent Yankee, but hang those gum-poppers who wanted comedies and melodramas and westerns. Still, The Magnificent Yankee could go
far arguing that movies had more to offer than empty genre calories. MGM had
punted before for prestige sake. Occasionally that had value even over profit. Let
The Magnificent Yankee lose $465K so long as Leo's patriotism was burnished,
1950 a time when never enough of that could be had. "A credit to the
industry" said Metro marketers to showmen who'd immediately smell fish.
They saw similar dodge before and had suffered for taking the bait. "It is
just about one of the best, and in playing it and promoting it, you will win
for your theatre the gratitude and respect of your community." Such
high-minded talk translated quick to: You'll lose your a--, but feel good doing
it.
Trouble was, no matter how cheaply MGM made
small pictures (Yankee's negative cost $638K), they'd still wind up in the red.
You couldn't blame old timers for saying the company was on fumes. And here
came Dore Schary with a film about a Supreme Court Justice back in 1902. Ads had
to conceal both the content and the period setting, plus total dearth of names
(Louis Calhern the lead). Whole of the campaign would turn on reviews, which
were laudatory to a fault, but where's the good when other aspects of The
Magnificent Yankee had to be hid? Metro did two trailers, both accessible
either at You Tube or as an extra on the Warner Archive DVD. One features
Lionel Barrymore pitching for the film, describing Oliver Wendell Holmes as a
"rough, tough, sort of man," but also a "genial giant."
This came under heading of anything to imply action, which The Magnificent
Yankee did not have, unless verbal arguments could be called action. It's easy
to imagine East Coast merchandising turning up collective noses at what
experience taught them would be a hard sell, and no one drawing checks based on
performance liked hard sells. Failure would only invite blame from Culver, as
in You Didn't Sell Hard Enough. Movies like The Magnificent Yankee were in the
end a no-win game.
Trades reported a May 1950 week that Metro staff and
researchers spent in Washington
getting Supreme Court background, cooperation assured as The Magnificent Yankee
would be a 100% positive depiction of the court and its workings. They'd be
back in June to shoot four days of location footage, virtually on heels of theBorn Yesterdaycrew, which had just finished up in Washington. Historical, said Variety, was a
percentage deal given Emmet Lavery, author of the play on which The Magnificent
Yankee was based, him to also pen a script for the screen adapt. MGM had evidently not
cut scribes in on profits before (as it turned out, of course, Lavery got no
additional coin, as there were no profits). Metro prided itself on historical
clarity and verisimilitude, this tested by exhaustive search for a photo of
Fanny Holmes, wife of the title character and played by Ann Harding. Turned out
there were no photos in existence of the woman, whereas there was plentiful
visual record of her husband. Inquiry revealed that Mrs. Holmes had been sickly
before and during their life in Washington,
and refused to sit before a camera (her hair was cut very short due to the
illness and didn't grow back). I checked Google for possibility of an image
turned up in the sixty-eight years since The Magnificent Yankee was made, but
nothing. Toward speed and economy, there were ten days of rehearsal for The
Magnificent Yankee under direction of John Sturges, to be followed by 22 days
of shooting. MGM under Dore Schary was watching out-flow of dollars.
A timely boost came in August 1950 for The
Magnificent Yankee. Major segment of the film had Justice Holmes ruling against
free speech where it posed a "clear and present danger." The concept
was revisited by the 1949-50 court when a group of Communists appealed a
decision which said they had no right to espouse the Red cause as that was
violation of the Smith Act, which made it a felony to teach and advocate
violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. The Supreme Court upheld the
conviction and declared the Smith Act constitutional. Yankee's emphasis on the
Holmes ruling put Metro foursquare with the Americanism theme pushed hardest by
the film, as well as emphasizing the company's opposition to present-day
Un-American activities, this another means by which Leo and The Magnificent
Yankee could prosper whatever the economic outcome.
Metro began sneak previews of The Magnificent
Yankee in October 1950 and realized they had makings of a critical success and
possible award winner. There were also "academia" screenings and an
unspool for the Supreme Court, to which five Justices showed up. Decision was
made to open The Magnificent Yankee in December to qualify for Academy
consideration. L.A.'s
4 Star Theatre, recognized as a "sure-seater" (art house)
was chosen for the invitational premiere. A special trailer was made for the 4
Star opening, which is still extant and a bonus on the Warner Archive DVD. MGM opted
for a "soft-spoken, homey, and 'sincere' approach" for its
radio campaign, no hard sell or sound effects for "spot blurbs." The
appeal would aim at stations listened to by adults, including classical music outlets. Test of the approach in L.A.
would determine viability of a similar policy for national release. Gotham
booking was at RadioCityMusic
Hall for January 1951, with a stage extravaganza
entitled "Red, White, and Blues," which, said Variety (1-24-51), ran the gamut "from opera to voodoo and swing." Two weeks of
"fair," then less, play, saw The Magnificent Yankee out of the Hall.
The trend tended toward strong initial days or
weeks at urban sites, then steep or steeper drops. Hinterland stops saw The
Magnificent Yankee at tail-end of double bills. Generally,
something with action led the bill, like in Chicago
where Yankee backed up a Ray Milland thriller out of Britain, Circle of Danger. None of this would surprise Metro handlers, who knew from
disappointment over "offbeat" merchandise. Sales veep William F.
Rodgers maintained, however, "that experimentation is necessary, for there
can be no formula in anticipating public taste." Rodgers referred to Stars
In My Crown, The Next Voice You Hear, and Night Into Morning as others of "different" persuasion, each out of Metro in 1950-51 and all to lose money. Sales staff was instructed "to make
any kind of terms ... within reason" once a problem title was recognized. Viewers induced to see The Magnificent Yankee enjoyed it,
but there was the rub --- getting them in. The film was safe and civilized to a
fault, for Justice Holmes did nothing dramatic beyond dissenting often with
other sitting judges, and where was excitement in that, unless you were a legal
scholar? Still, it was the sort of output Metro could point to with pride when sourpusses later hung crepe over things likeRogue Copor Flame and The Flesh that appealed to a
baser audience.
Could never get into this cinematic civics lesson. Mr. Calhern was a great actor - no doubt about it. But his Oscar nomination that year should have come in supporting for astounding work in "The Asphalt Jungle". 1950 offered a bumper crop of superb male supporting performances. I'd have nominated Charles Kemper (Wagon Master), Sam Jaffe (The Asphalt Jungle), Marc Lawrence (The Asphalt Jungle) and Zero Mostel (Panic in the Streets). But even in that heady company Calhern was best in show.
Dan Mercer makes an interesting comparison between THE MAGNIFICENT YANKEE and LIFE WITH FATHER:
Oliver Wendell Holmes was a towering judicial intellect much appreciated by the progressives of his time, which is probably why there was a Broadway play about him and this movie adaptation. The world of jurisprudence, however, is just the context for the real story of a quirky, domineering man, very much of an earlier generation in manner and outlook, and of the genteel wife who understands and loves him. It’s very similar to “Life with Father,” only without the children. Even their absence, however, is compensated for by the thirty law clerks Holmes mentored during his service as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, as typified by Jimmy Lydon, who was also one of the children in “Life with Father.” Had the studio played up this angle, it might have gotten back the modest negative cost of “The Magnificent Yankee” from a public which preferred its jurists to be like Judge Hardy. As it was, Dore Schary was discovering that there was a big difference between saving money and making money.
Interesting that "uplifting" films used to be offered as PR for the entire industry. In the last few decades, moviemakers who sell their work as "uplifting" tend to position themselves against the industry, which is decried as too smutty, too corporate, too political (either direction), too unreligious, etc.
Advertising and interviews often take the line it's your duty to support this picture, lest people you don't like take over the world. Movie critics, for example -- How dare they try to tell you a movie is good or bad! Show up those elitists and come see "Trial of Billy Jack"! For all I know "Benji" was a fine dog movie, but I was turned off by commercials of Just Folks rhapsodizing about how it was the only Decent Family Movie in general release.
There are Amazon reviews of great old flicks that confine their comments to how clean and wholesome they are, compared to everything made after 1960. This bothers me, because I fear unwary young browsers will get the idea that Laurel and Hardy are nothing more than two guys who don't swear.
@Donald Benson; it isn't the comments about cleanness and wholesomeness that will turn off younger viewers as it would/will be whatever racism, sexism, and lack of minorities (or dated depiction of thereof) that's in older movies, IMHO.
6 Comments:
Reminding people to pay taxes doesn't seem to be the right way to promote a movie.
Could never get into this cinematic civics lesson. Mr. Calhern was a great actor - no doubt about it. But his Oscar nomination that year should have come in supporting for astounding work in "The Asphalt Jungle". 1950 offered a bumper crop of superb male supporting performances. I'd have nominated Charles Kemper (Wagon Master), Sam Jaffe (The Asphalt Jungle), Marc Lawrence (The Asphalt Jungle) and Zero Mostel (Panic in the Streets). But even in that heady company Calhern was best in show.
Dan Mercer makes an interesting comparison between THE MAGNIFICENT YANKEE and LIFE WITH FATHER:
Oliver Wendell Holmes was a towering judicial intellect much appreciated by the progressives of his time, which is probably why there was a Broadway play about him and this movie adaptation. The world of jurisprudence, however, is just the context for the real story of a quirky, domineering man, very much of an earlier generation in manner and outlook, and of the genteel wife who understands and loves him. It’s very similar to “Life with Father,” only without the children. Even their absence, however, is compensated for by the thirty law clerks Holmes mentored during his service as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, as typified by Jimmy Lydon, who was also one of the children in “Life with Father.” Had the studio played up this angle, it might have gotten back the modest negative cost of “The Magnificent Yankee” from a public which preferred its jurists to be like Judge Hardy. As it was, Dore Schary was discovering that there was a big difference between saving money and making money.
Stinky agrees with CanadianKen: Louis Calhern is a great actor, and his performance in The Asphalt Jungle is one for the ages.
Interesting that "uplifting" films used to be offered as PR for the entire industry. In the last few decades, moviemakers who sell their work as "uplifting" tend to position themselves against the industry, which is decried as too smutty, too corporate, too political (either direction), too unreligious, etc.
Advertising and interviews often take the line it's your duty to support this picture, lest people you don't like take over the world. Movie critics, for example -- How dare they try to tell you a movie is good or bad! Show up those elitists and come see "Trial of Billy Jack"! For all I know "Benji" was a fine dog movie, but I was turned off by commercials of Just Folks rhapsodizing about how it was the only Decent Family Movie in general release.
There are Amazon reviews of great old flicks that confine their comments to how clean and wholesome they are, compared to everything made after 1960. This bothers me, because I fear unwary young browsers will get the idea that Laurel and Hardy are nothing more than two guys who don't swear.
@Donald Benson; it isn't the comments about cleanness and wholesomeness that will turn off younger viewers as it would/will be whatever racism, sexism, and lack of minorities (or dated depiction of thereof) that's in older movies, IMHO.
Post a Comment
<< Home