Judge Priest

Will Rogers did three films with director John Ford who probably knew best how to utilize Will Rogers folksy charm and personality on the screen. Judge Priest is the best of the three films Rogers did with Ford. The film is based on a character created by Rogers fellow American humorist Irvin S. Cobb.

Cobb's Judge Priest stories are based on characters created from his childhood in Paducah, Kentucky. Priest is a man very much like Will Rogers in real life, full of homespun wisdom and common sense. The casting is almost perfect, I can't think of anyone else who could have done the role better.

The film is an amalgam of several of those stories the main plot line being the assault of Frank Melton by town misanthrope David Landau. The case would normally come before Will Rogers, but he's forced to recuse himself because it's the first case of Tom Brown who is the nephew of Rogers. Brown is back home now, a newly minted lawyer and he's involved with a girl from the wrong side of the tracks, Anita Louise. There's a connection between his personal and professional life that Brown little suspects.

Cobb's childhood Kentucky is an idyllic place where even the newly freed black people are contented in their second class status. The racist overtone of Judge Priest is unmistakable and why the film is criticized today. However Irvin S. Cobb was painting an accurate picture of the servile blacks, servile because they had to be. But the Stepin Fetchit character goes way over the top.

Judge Priest was later remade by Ford in the Fifties as The Sun Shines Bright and though the more obvious racial stereotyping got cleaned up somewhat, it could never be eliminated from the film.

But the film because of the presence of Will Rogers gets a high rating from me. It's a chance to see one America's wittiest and wisest men at his homespun best and that opportunity should not be passed up.

The movie is not only about the Confederacy, but seems to have been made during the Confederacy. It not only looks like an antique, but also plays like one. From the snail-like pacing to the exaggerated acting to the crude racial stereotypes, it points to a long gone era of film-making and, in the process, shows why that era is long gone. Frankly, I tuned in because I'd never seen humorist Will Rogers in a movie, but I had enjoyed his trenchant iconoclasm, so I guess I had expectations. Now I think he should have stuck to rope twirling and skewering politicians because his Judge Priest is so unrelentingly folksy as to rival the slow-talking Fetchit in knee-deep stereotype. Director Ford was always more comfortable directing caricature than catching nuance, though he could do the latter on occasion. So, it's no surprise that he fairly wallows in the opportunities proffered here. Then too, this romanticized view of the Old South, circa 1890, must have appealed to a director who specialized in romanticizing the past, especially in the so-called winning-of-the-West. In fact, Ford was so enamored with the whitewashed material here, he made it again twenty years later under the title The Sun Shines Bright. In my view, once was more than enough.

There's quite a lot to recommend this one, the John Ford touches mainly. The way the scenes are arranged, the attention to detail are his trademarks. His direction is tight, focused, the actors deliver their lines in a believable, realistic manner. Nothing stagy about this. As for the actors they performed pretty much as expected. Will Rogers was his usual self, not the greatest of thespians but entertaining nonetheless. Anita Louise was simply delicious. I don't think I've ever seen her in better form and I credit Ford for extracting that performance as well as Tom Brown's who managed to keep his earnestness and wide-eyed innocence under check. Even stone-faced David Landau and bombastic Berton Churchill managed to give their stereotypical parts some originality.

My ambivalence is about the overt racism here, even granting the film's time frame and the period in our history it depicts. The least of it is that two of the central characters, Hattie McDaniel and Stepin Fetchit, are listed last in the credits, after Juror No. 12, whose only contribution was hitting the spittoon during the court scenes. Frankly it was difficult to watch despite some genuine tender scenes between the Rogers character and his servants. The one that stands out has him and McDaniel singing an impromptu spiritual and that one alone is worth the price of admission. The judge's relationship with the Fetchit character is much more problematic, even granting the "Coon" persona that Fetchit employed so successfully in his career he became a millionaire. There were just too many instances of the judge ordering him about just for the sake of it. It's painful to consider how humiliating it must have been for these two talented professionals to adopt their screen personae in order to earn a living.

I know I'm judging this film by 21st century standards, seventy-seven years after its release and if nothing else one might say that it exposed our country's shameful past, let the sunlight in on our deep, dark, secret. And in all fairness this is a film about southerners right after they had lost the Civil War. One can't really expect them to feel and express any remorse. People don't work that way. So from that angle I have no qualms. If anything I suspect the presentation of that society was probably mostly accurate. But I wonder at the motivations of the society that felt the need to make a film such as this, about a society that existed seventy years prior. And given Ford's sympathetic, realistic, treatment of American Indians in his later Westerns I wonder if he wasn't making just that point.

Really admire John Ford and have done for some while, Westerns and non-Westerns. The story did sound like it had the makings of an interesting film if done correctly. There is some great talent in the cast, Will Rogers was always watchable and Hattie McDaniel had a knack for scene stealing in everything she was in. Felt rather iffy about hearing that Stepin Fetchit was in 'Judge Priest', who has never done much for me (race has absolutely nothing to do with why) and have always disliked it whenever he was imitated.

'Judge Priest' does nothing to change my mind. A shame, because actually to me it is not a bad film at all. Actually found 'Judge Priest' to be pretty decent and a pleasant diversion to distract one from all the bad times, with much to like while finding things that stuck out like a sore thumb. It is always interesting to see a Ford film from early on in his career, before he hit his stride, and one that didn't go into Western territory so evidence of his versatility as a director.

Plenty of good things here. 'Judge Priest' is a well made film, with handsome scenery and the photography (as always for a Ford film) is beautifully crafted and with the right amount of atmosphere. The music also fits nicely, not going for the sweeping, syrupy approach but instead a lighter touch that gels with the film's tone well. There are plenty of intriguing moments, while there is a nice mix of light-hearted humour and tenderness.

Absolutely loved that duet that has been mentioned by others. Ford's direction shows that he was showing a lot of talent and promise at this stage of his career, even if he was yet to hit his peak. Rogers is likeable and charismatic and McDaniel as expected lights up the screen during her screen time, being both amusing and sincere. Henry B. Walthall is another cast standout.

My negative general feelings of Fetchit did not change at all with 'Judge Priest' sadly. Here he is very annoying and with not much charisma, while his stereotypical behaviour is overdone, he is never funny or affectionate and the way his character is treated here is demeaning and condescending. Even when judging the film for its time, the racial stereotypes here did seem crude, have not dated well and it is easy to see why some would take offense.

Not all the humour and pathos come off brilliantly. Parts of the humour is corny, evident in the rather underwritten script, and makes one cringe and a couple of the more sentimental moments are cloying. The pace could have easily been tightened, as some of the film drags.

In conclusion, decent but not great. 6/10

John Ford adopts and works within the conventions of this homespun genre. As he did with the genre of every film he made. Yes, racial stereotyping -- but Ford knew it was, and let you see it for what it was. Yes, sentimental and corny, but knowing and loving that way, presenting it for what you the viewer want to make of it.

After seventy years, still so funny, so affectionate, so insightful. And topical for 2003: is there any better depiction of populist politics, or expression of faith in the democratic mystery of the common man?

The art that conceals art. Try to see it on a film-projected screen. I'm off to look at THE SUN SHINES BR