Zwischen heut und morgen

In some way historians can argue that certain figures in our history should have had a chance to become President. Senator Robert Taft deserved an opportunity to show his abilities in that job, as did Senators Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Robert La Follette. Mistakes, political miscalculations, and sheer chance prevented their elections (and in Taft's case even his nomination). But while there is a general feeling of pity for those four gentlemen in failing to reach the White House, most historians agree that William Randolph Hearst did not fully deserve to even approach it. Hearst was extremely good at building up a newspaper empire, and of creating an exciting and stimulating model for the modern newspaper. But his overwhelming desire to reach the White House became such a joke that he became known as "William - Also Ran - dolph Hearst".

Problem with Hearst was that he enjoyed playing with public opinion and guiding it, but he also enjoyed...well enjoyed living the life of a remarkably wealthy man. His father George Hearst was a prospector who found one of the great gold mines in the west and rose to the post of U.S. Senator from California (ironically, a higher national office than his son ever reached). The image of Hearst from CITIZEN KANE of the boy whose father was a drinker, and whose mother signs over to the boy ownership of the mine is not true. In the course of doing business, Hearst Sr. got ownership of the San Francisco Enquirer, and Willy (who'd been tossed out of several colleges) asked to run it. George allowed Willy to do that, and Willy found his true métier.

His bug to become President never left him. He did win a Congressional seat from New York City in 1901, and held it for two terms. But by then his yellow journalism made so many enemies that he was ignored in Congress (when he decided to show up - he really could not apply himself to the job of Congressman). Yet in 1904 he managed to gather over 200 delegates for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Unfortunately he could not get the two thirds majority needed, and the delegates nominated Chief Justice Alton Brooks Parker of New York State's Court of Appeals (who was thrashed by Teddy Roosevelt in the election). Possibly, had Hearst got nominated, it would have enabled him to rid himself of Presidentialitis. That was not to be the case. He would run for Mayor of New York, Governor of New York, and seek a nomination (in the 1920s) for Senator from New York. He never won any of these elections, and he did not get nominated for Senator. His influence in the 1932 Democratic Convention was thrown to FDR, but he subsequently broke with the newly elected 32nd President.

Hearst, in his career, had pushed for better conditions for the poor, and better treatment of Labor. He had been hard on the trusts. He opposed our entry into World War I and Wilson's League of Nations. All of this is familiar from Welles' CITIZEN KANE. But his views turned rightward after 1915. Being German, his anti-war views (however wise they may have been) were colored by a pro-German viewpoint. His pro-labor point of view turned sour as he faced more and more serious financial problems (especially in the Depression). He did, however, think that the government of the day was inept in handling the Depression, and thought stronger measures were needed.

So he financed and produced GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE. His solution was that the President must seize power, despite that antiquated series of checks and balances called the Constitution, and force relief in the form of jobs on the public. This mirrors part of FDR's New Deal (like the CCC, which built public roads), but FDR did try to get this legislation through Congress in the first 100 days. Hearst also was against expensive military build-ups. He has Walter Huston force "THE WASHINGTON COVENANT" on Europe and the World, which will reduce the armed navies. Actually (and somewhat intelligently) he shows that the large battleships are dinosaurs - Gregory La Cava uses film of Billy Mitchell's sinking of old battleships by aircraft from 1921 in the movie to demonstrate this. But it is doubtful that in real life such a treaty could be forced on anyone. They would resent the strong arm lecturing involved.

The film is fascinating despite the ridiculous populist - cum - fascist viewpoint. It helps that Walter Huston is playing the President, as he certainly gives whatever juice he has into such a thankless role (from hack politician to injured car passenger to international savior?). The rest of the cast seems adequate, though C. Henry Gordon does what he can to make his gangster boss seem villainous enough (including a drive by shooting near the White House). I give the film a seven out of 10, as an interesting curiosity, and a quick look into the mind of one of our most fascinating millionaires.

I basically checked out "Gabriel Over the White House" because of Walter Huston, an actor I have always considered one of the greats.

He doesn't disappoint as the President of the United States in this bizarre fantasy, produced by William Randolph Hearst and promoting his ideas of fascism.

I gave this film a high mark (8) not because I loved it but because it is a fascinating film from a historical point of view.

Newly-elected President Hammond (Huston) pays lip service to the needs of the depression-ridden people by uttering platitudes, and meanwhile, is content to do what the party tells him. Meanwhile, he brings his girlfriend on as his personal assistant.

He pays no attention to the head of a group of unemployed men who plan to march on Washington, though it isn't made clear why his party isn't interested in doing anything to stop the depression.

One day, while driving his car at breakneck speed (as if all Presidents are encouraged to do this), he crashes and slips into a coma. When he comes to, he hears a horn playing a passage from Brahms Symphony 1 in C Minor, Opus 68 and has a change of heart.

This supposedly is the angel Gabriel checking in. After that, he becomes a dictator of sorts, usurping the system of checks and balances. He forms a WPA for the unemployed, has executions of gangsters, and forms the Washington covenant to reduce arms buildup from countries around the world.

Supposedly there was an assassination attempt that takes place in the film that was cut after an attempt was made on Roosevelt's life.

This film was shelved by a nervous Louis B. Mayer until after FDR was elected. It's surprising he released it at all.

There isz, rumor has it, an alternate version that acknowledges the dangers of fascism. Whatever version you see, this is a film very much of its time as far as the political climate and the thinking of a powerful man like Hearst, and as such makes for remarkable viewing.

I call this a precode in an unusual sense of the term. "Precode" usually drums up visions of movies like "Baby Face" and "The Divorcée" - films filled with sexually controversial situations and language for that period of time (1928-1934). However, precode was more than this. It also involved political ideas that were over the top and the existential doubts that made the fine horror films of Universal Studios in the early 30's. This film is definitely a political precode. The censors would have never allowed such a film to be released just 18 months later. At this point I quote Wikipedia, which gives some context for the film:

"Filmed during the 1932 presidential election on the orders of media magnate William Randolph Hearst, the film was intended to be an instructional guide for Franklin D. Roosevelt during his presidency. Hammond as he exists prior to his accident is an amalgamation of caricatures of Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt's immediate predecessors. After his accident, he is Hearst's idealized image of the perfect president, the president he wanted Roosevelt to be."

Hearst always had great sway at MGM, with him also directing the career of his mistress, Marion Davies, at that same studio. President Judd Hammond in his "idealized" form is much more of a fascist than a socialist, though, declaring martial law and putting people in charge of trials because they have a grudge against the defendant. It is also interesting that Pres. Hammond after his transformation not only has a new interest in the welfare of the citizens, but he is rendered sexually neutral, addressing his former mistress as Miss rather than by her first name. It is like Judd Hammond has had some supernatural being possess his body more than it seems that Hammond has had some kind of transformation of his own world view.

Definitely recommended. I don't think I've ever seen a film quite like it.

GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE (1933) is a movie that really tests the viewers' ideals about government and democracy. Is it meant to be inspirational? Aspirational? Frightening? A cautionary tale? It's certainly a movie that makes viewers think.

Walter Huston plays Judd Hammond, newly elected President of the United States. The country is in the midst of an economic Depression, with millions out of work and starving, but President Hammond is happy to enjoy the comforts of his position while serving as a pawn of his political party. He has no intentions of fulfilling campaign promises or reforming the country. One character notes, "The right man in the White House can bring us out of despair, into prosperity again." It is clear that Judd Hammond is not the right man.

But after a serious head injury, the President is reborn as a crusader for the greatest good. He takes action to help his suffering people, firing any cabinet members that stand in his way.

The President could be suffering from some sort of brain damage, or perhaps Judd Hammond's body is being possessed by the angel Gabriel, God's messenger to the people. But, as Franchot Tone's character points out, is not Gabriel a messenger of Wrath?

The new President Hammond starts as an idealistic reformer, but ultimately transforms the United States government into a Machiavellian dictatorship, complete with firing squads. Everything the President does is for the good of the people, but the ends cannot always justify the means. He supports the unemployed masses, promising to stimulate the economy and bring back prosperity. But when he meets opposition on Capitol Hill, he dissolves Congress and takes sole control of the government under martial law.

To combat gangsterism, the President repeals Prohibition and establishes government-funded liquor stores. Violent resistance from the gangsters is seen as a declaration of war on the United States and a special police army is created to wipe out the racketeering scum.

It's unclear how director Gregory La Cava wants the audience to feel about President Hammond. On the one hand, he is a champion of the people, fighting for the common man and getting results. But he is destroying the American democratic system in the process. Senators are outraged when the President threatens to dissolve Congress, and rightly so. Yet characters speak in great admiration of the President after he bullies the nations of the world into accepting his vision for international peace.

Coming at a time when Americans looked to their leaders for help, GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE might have been a Depression-era fantasy, giving audiences the strong political leader of their dreams. Or it might have been a caution of the slippery slope of government involvement. The film is fascinating and controversial from a modern vantage point. The economic stimulus idea has gained some relevance in recent years, though the shadows of the fascism and Nazism to come in that decade are unsettling to see (especially portrayed in the United States).

Fascinating and important historical document.

I want to briefly address the historical comments that this was "left wing" propaganda. This is a real misreading of the film and the historical context. This was an earnest, non-ironic celebration of proto-fascist ideals by Wm. Randolph Hearst, including not so veiled references to the "foreigners" who he felt were responsible for all ills in American Society. I am, by the way, a fairly consistent Republican, so I'm not writing on behalf of the left wing.

Let's not give such credit for "prescience" as to misread the film entirely out of its time, as a pre-emotive critique of FDR. Some modern viewers mis-interpret the film as "left wing" because, to modern eyes, it is so obviously "corny" and wrong-headed that they assume it is meant as ironic. Hearst was notoriously sympathetic to fascist ideas --and as this was pre WWII, the ideas of fascism were not yet fully discredited in the US, and enjoyed some widespread support given fairly desperate times and the intellectual movements of the day. This film was produced by Wm Randolph Hearst in 1932, before FDR was elected. It was held over for distribution by Louis B. Mayer (who did not sympathize with its fascistic views) till after the Hoover-FDR election, to avoid influencing the election.

The film does, of course, have relevance to FDR (and others) who would subvert the Constitution for expediency. However, to understand what the film maker meant, you have to view it as a pro-dictatorial document, by an individual who was not afraid to state those views, in the context of his time. Today, we have the luxury to see how obviously wrong those views were. But to miss the endorsement of proto-fascism in the movie is to forget the history of those who, in desperate times, with receptive elements of the population, were once willing to embrace a form of fascism in the USA.

Hearst's views were also, to some degree, responsible for an under-reporting of the ominous nature of Nazi Germany, as it is well documented that he instructed his news gathering organization to be sympathetic to that fledgling regime, and not to focus on abuses of Jews and others under the Nazis. This movie is a fascinating window into a mindset that was real, had an effect on history, and which found resonances in the ideas of Father Coughlin, Huey Long etc.

.