Director: Frank Capra
Top Billed Actors: James Stewart, Jean Arthur, Claude Rains
Distributor: Columbia Pictures Corporation
Won 1 Oscar:
Best Story - Lewis R. Foster
Nominated for 10 more:
Outstanding Production - Columbia
Best Director - Frank Capra
Best Actor - James Stewart
Best Supporting Actor - Harry Carey
Best Supporting Actor - Claude Rains
Best Screenplay - Sidney Buchman
Best Scoring - Dimitri Tiomkin
Best Sound Recording - John P. Livadary
Best Art Direction - Lionel Banks
Best Film Editing - Gene Havlick and Al Clark
Plot: Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
Top Billed Actors: James Stewart, Jean Arthur, Claude Rains
Distributor: Columbia Pictures Corporation
Won 1 Oscar:
Best Story - Lewis R. Foster
Nominated for 10 more:
Outstanding Production - Columbia
Best Director - Frank Capra
Best Actor - James Stewart
Best Supporting Actor - Harry Carey
Best Supporting Actor - Claude Rains
Best Screenplay - Sidney Buchman
Best Scoring - Dimitri Tiomkin
Best Sound Recording - John P. Livadary
Best Art Direction - Lionel Banks
Best Film Editing - Gene Havlick and Al Clark
Plot: Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
Another year, another Best Picture nominee directed by Frank Capra. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) is the sixth such film in the past seven years. Although Capra wasn't new to the Academy Awards, this is the first of five nominations for James Stewart and the first of four for Claude Rains. And although it did well at nominations time, it is the first film to lose ten Awards. It was said to be neck and neck with Gone with the Wind (1939) in many categories but the chips fell the other direction. Part of the reason for these chips falling on M-G-M's side might have been the controversy surrounding the picture. The movie premiered in Washington and received some harsh reviews from area critics, particularly because of the portrayal of newsmen in the film as they are seen to be drinking quite a lot. Senators also took offense to the story, which indicates shady happenings behind the scenes with political bosses and grafts. Some wanted it banned outside of the country with the fear of the perception that American government is crooked. However, others saw the story as democracy in action and working. It's this deemed dichotomy of taint and reverence that makes the story compelling and gets the conversation going. To complicate matters, World War II had just begun overseas so anything political had to be handled sensitively,especially with Hollywood still in self-governance mode with the Hays Code. When it was all said and done, the people talked with their wallets and this became the second highest-grossing film of 1939 and third highest of the decade. It was also included in the inaugural class of films inducted into the National Film Registry. Some may have had disdain for it's scrutiny on the political machines but this has since been considered an act of patriotism and rated as one of the greatest films of all time.
Now the only Oscar this did win is for Best Story, an award that hasn't been around since 1957. However, this is the strongest aspect of the film and I wholeheartedly agree with its win here. It's simply genius to not include the names of either political party nor real names of politicians. Although the film is overtly political, it never chastises anybody or anything specifically. Stewart plays an idealistic newcomer to the Senate and eventually challenges the system as a whole. Seeing the behind-the-scenes scheming of the political boss played by Edward Arnold puts the conflict in black-and-white and the entire audience is on Stewart's side, without having to involve the words Democrat or Republican. We can simply root for the system to work against the grafters and checking our political leanings at the door. The film doesn't even mention which state Stewart hails from. I also have to applaud the story for covering all angles of Washington as it explores the involvement of the media as well. They are shown to be just as involved in the political games and they don't get off easy. I enjoyed seeing how the Senate works as well with the scurrying page boys, the motions by the senators, and the commentary from the gallery. That Art Direction nomination is well earned as the Senate Chamber was faithfully reconstructed in Hollywood. The cavernous room and multiple levels made shooting all the more difficult, but that set piece sure does look swell.
Now that I've seen both of the frontrunners for the Best Actor Oscar, I would have to informally go with Stewart on it. Robert Donat is positively delightful in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939), but Stewart evolves from country bumpkin to charismatic idealist who performs the filibuster scenes with both gravitas and levity. I didn't care for Stewart's character at first as he went around and punched newspaper reporters, but I felt the story's arc naturally led me to like him more and more as the film went on. The other aspect that this movie must be remembered for is its supporting cast. Although I don't think Harry Carey should have been nominated for his performance as President of the Senate, his occasional smirks and winks got many a laugh out of me. Claude Rains did earn his nomination, however. He is excellent at portraying antagonist that truly believes in the necessity of compromising and "playing the game." Although I said the major conflict in the narrative is black-and-white, Rains' Senator Paine is anything but. Jean Arthur and Thomas Mitchell are marvelous as always as well. Arthur is down to earth and has great comedic timing; her character is the most crucial to the happenings in the plot as well as she coaches Stewart. Mitchell beat his co-stars for his work in Stagecoach (1939) and he also plays a happy drunk here as well. Even though he may be hiccuping in a drunken state, he just always gives off friendly vibes and I always enjoy his scenes.
Overall, Capra's political masterpiece was a bold move for 1939, but it has paid off tremendously as it has gone down in the annals of American film history as a work of patriotism. Stewart's breakthrough performance, a story that still feels relevant to this day, a stellar supporting cast, and detailed and faithful set designs combine to make the case that this might be the height of Capra.
My Score: 9/10
Guest Reviewer: Andrew Dunfee
With the 1939 Awards, I brought in a guest reviewer to give a second opinion on the highlights of one of the greatest years in cinema history. He watched and reviewed six of these Best Picture nominees and is also making his choice for what should have won Best Picture at the 12th Academy Awards.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington tells a political story that’s as timely and relevant, if not even more so, today as it was at the time of its release in the late 1930s. I’m not sure whether its applicability to today speaks more positively to the quality of the film or negatively to the lack of growth of our American political system, but either way it’s an important and powerful story to tell.
Starting with the death of a U.S. senator in an unnamed Midwestern state and the search for his replacement, the film tells the story of an earnest, yet inexperienced man who is thrust into a world of pressure and corruption. The governor of this state has more politically useful options, but none are accepted by the public. He is eventually persuaded by his numerous and oddly politically passionate children to choose a political novice who is the head of the Boy Rangers.
While It’s a Wonderful Life may be his most famous role, at least in the pre-Hitchcock stage of his career, no part was more perfectly constructed for Jimmy Stewart than that of Jefferson Smith. Looking fresh faced at only 31 years old, Stewart perfectly encapsulates how an honest and naïve man who is genuinely passionate about the US’s political history would act when faced with the truth of how the sausage is made in the U.S. Congress. And if Smith is the perfect actor for this underdog tale, then Frank Capra is the prime director to tell this complex, but ultimately uplifting story. The moral quandaries present opportunities to exceed the typical “Capracorn” associated with the legendary director and he’s successful in creating a world that is believable.
The rest of the cast is superb from top to bottom, including Thomas Mitchell, Claude Rains and Jean Arthur, but Edward Arnold in particular is exceptional as the menacing political manipulator Jim Taylor who pressures senators, including Smith, to influence legislation for his own gain.
Having a lead character who is a complete novice to the workings of the US political system is less appealing after dealing with the likes of Tommy Tubberville and Marjorie Taylor-Green in Washington today, but the purity with which Stewart plays the role makes it impossible not to root for this small fish in a very big pond. And in the world of “fake news” the scene with the political propaganda twisting Smith’s initial encounter with the press hits especially close to home.
The idea of a filibuster may not seem as noble nowadays (nothing can be after being done by Ted Cruz), but the last scene of the film provides a sliver of hope at the end of a largely dark tale. Though we likely have taken many steps back in the subsequent 80 years, there’s still much to be learned.
Now the only Oscar this did win is for Best Story, an award that hasn't been around since 1957. However, this is the strongest aspect of the film and I wholeheartedly agree with its win here. It's simply genius to not include the names of either political party nor real names of politicians. Although the film is overtly political, it never chastises anybody or anything specifically. Stewart plays an idealistic newcomer to the Senate and eventually challenges the system as a whole. Seeing the behind-the-scenes scheming of the political boss played by Edward Arnold puts the conflict in black-and-white and the entire audience is on Stewart's side, without having to involve the words Democrat or Republican. We can simply root for the system to work against the grafters and checking our political leanings at the door. The film doesn't even mention which state Stewart hails from. I also have to applaud the story for covering all angles of Washington as it explores the involvement of the media as well. They are shown to be just as involved in the political games and they don't get off easy. I enjoyed seeing how the Senate works as well with the scurrying page boys, the motions by the senators, and the commentary from the gallery. That Art Direction nomination is well earned as the Senate Chamber was faithfully reconstructed in Hollywood. The cavernous room and multiple levels made shooting all the more difficult, but that set piece sure does look swell.
Now that I've seen both of the frontrunners for the Best Actor Oscar, I would have to informally go with Stewart on it. Robert Donat is positively delightful in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939), but Stewart evolves from country bumpkin to charismatic idealist who performs the filibuster scenes with both gravitas and levity. I didn't care for Stewart's character at first as he went around and punched newspaper reporters, but I felt the story's arc naturally led me to like him more and more as the film went on. The other aspect that this movie must be remembered for is its supporting cast. Although I don't think Harry Carey should have been nominated for his performance as President of the Senate, his occasional smirks and winks got many a laugh out of me. Claude Rains did earn his nomination, however. He is excellent at portraying antagonist that truly believes in the necessity of compromising and "playing the game." Although I said the major conflict in the narrative is black-and-white, Rains' Senator Paine is anything but. Jean Arthur and Thomas Mitchell are marvelous as always as well. Arthur is down to earth and has great comedic timing; her character is the most crucial to the happenings in the plot as well as she coaches Stewart. Mitchell beat his co-stars for his work in Stagecoach (1939) and he also plays a happy drunk here as well. Even though he may be hiccuping in a drunken state, he just always gives off friendly vibes and I always enjoy his scenes.
Overall, Capra's political masterpiece was a bold move for 1939, but it has paid off tremendously as it has gone down in the annals of American film history as a work of patriotism. Stewart's breakthrough performance, a story that still feels relevant to this day, a stellar supporting cast, and detailed and faithful set designs combine to make the case that this might be the height of Capra.
My Score: 9/10
Guest Reviewer: Andrew Dunfee
With the 1939 Awards, I brought in a guest reviewer to give a second opinion on the highlights of one of the greatest years in cinema history. He watched and reviewed six of these Best Picture nominees and is also making his choice for what should have won Best Picture at the 12th Academy Awards.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington tells a political story that’s as timely and relevant, if not even more so, today as it was at the time of its release in the late 1930s. I’m not sure whether its applicability to today speaks more positively to the quality of the film or negatively to the lack of growth of our American political system, but either way it’s an important and powerful story to tell.
Starting with the death of a U.S. senator in an unnamed Midwestern state and the search for his replacement, the film tells the story of an earnest, yet inexperienced man who is thrust into a world of pressure and corruption. The governor of this state has more politically useful options, but none are accepted by the public. He is eventually persuaded by his numerous and oddly politically passionate children to choose a political novice who is the head of the Boy Rangers.
While It’s a Wonderful Life may be his most famous role, at least in the pre-Hitchcock stage of his career, no part was more perfectly constructed for Jimmy Stewart than that of Jefferson Smith. Looking fresh faced at only 31 years old, Stewart perfectly encapsulates how an honest and naïve man who is genuinely passionate about the US’s political history would act when faced with the truth of how the sausage is made in the U.S. Congress. And if Smith is the perfect actor for this underdog tale, then Frank Capra is the prime director to tell this complex, but ultimately uplifting story. The moral quandaries present opportunities to exceed the typical “Capracorn” associated with the legendary director and he’s successful in creating a world that is believable.
The rest of the cast is superb from top to bottom, including Thomas Mitchell, Claude Rains and Jean Arthur, but Edward Arnold in particular is exceptional as the menacing political manipulator Jim Taylor who pressures senators, including Smith, to influence legislation for his own gain.
Having a lead character who is a complete novice to the workings of the US political system is less appealing after dealing with the likes of Tommy Tubberville and Marjorie Taylor-Green in Washington today, but the purity with which Stewart plays the role makes it impossible not to root for this small fish in a very big pond. And in the world of “fake news” the scene with the political propaganda twisting Smith’s initial encounter with the press hits especially close to home.
The idea of a filibuster may not seem as noble nowadays (nothing can be after being done by Ted Cruz), but the last scene of the film provides a sliver of hope at the end of a largely dark tale. Though we likely have taken many steps back in the subsequent 80 years, there’s still much to be learned.