Die ganze Wahrheit

This film bears no resemblance to the other Spencer Tracy - Katherine Hepburn films. It is a very serious drama, with no hint of comedy.

And, while it sometimes veers into melodrama, it is a very important film that needs to be seen. It deals with the dangers of third columnists, those who, impatient with democracy, would bring fascism to this country. Meet John Doe hints at this as well, but not as powerfully as this movie.

Yes, it's melodramatic at times. But it tells, very well, a very important tale, one that we dare never forget.

Watch this movie, if you get a chance. And remember its message, which, alas, is for all times. Those with power, especially those who have acquired power through wealth, sometimes lose patience with democracy and want to by-pass it to get what they want. It is the function of a free press to expose them, and to save us from them.

---------------------------------

I just watched this movie again - I've seen it several times since I wrote the above review nine years ago, well before a certain real estate tycoon came to power. But that tycoon is not what I want to talk about here.

Reading over some of the other comments that have accrued since then, I see that for some the highly dramatic, indeed sometimes melodramatic style of the movie has been a problem. It's true: both in the way some of the actors - Hepburn, Wycherly - deliver their lines and in the way Cukor directed this film and had it lit, the movie comes off as a sort of Gothic horror story, like Frankenstein, about a mad man who wants supreme powers. I can see that that style may be off-putting to young people not accustomed to it.

It is also highly theatrical, even through it is adapted from a novel and not a play. In particular the final scene in the cabin between Hepburn and Tracy seems very much like a speech in a stage play. Hepburn's perfect enunciation contrasts with Tracy's equally clear but more natural speech. It's almost - almost - like a serious version of *Midsummer Madness*, the play that the movie *Auntie Mame* makes fun of.

Still, it would be a shame if the theatrical style of the movie put off modern viewers, since the message of this movie - and it very definitely has one - is so very important.

And that message is well told. It would have been easier, but much less effective, to present the newspaper reporter, Tracy, as suspicious of the great man, Robert Forrest, from the beginning. Instead, we get to watch him discover that his idol had feet of clay, even though that is not the truth he wants to find. Tracy does a great job of presenting that in the cabin scene, even while Hepburn is enunciating her long speech as if she were on stage. (Compare this scene with the end of *Amadeus*, where we watch the priest's ideals fall apart as his listens to Salieri recount the life behind his music and Mozart's.)

So I repeat my "must watch" recommendation from nine years ago. Even if the melodramatic style is not to your liking, it's worth paying attention to what this film has to say.

I first saw "Keeper of the Flame" a few years after its original release (1942), probably around age 13, which would make it 1946. At the time of its release, it received mixed reviews at best. I, personally, was quite moved by it. Now, 53 years later, I've seen it again. Although the film is a bit dated and its central theme was better hyped at the time of its release, I believe it holds up fairly well. The film concerns itself with blind hero worship, as a mesmerized nation mourns the sudden accidental death of a national icon. A much respected reporter (Spencer Tracy), just back from Europe where he's witnessed the early horrors of World War II prior to U.S. entry into the conflict, has arrived just after the great man's tragic auto accident. He decides to write the hero's biography, so to immortalize his memory. While he manages to distance himself from the jostling pool of reporters, his biggest challenge is in seeing the great man's reclusive widow (Katharine Hepburn). In short, once the contact is made and the research process undertaken, we see the deceased as through a prism of characters: the eerily effective secretary (Richard Whorf); the down-home philosopher-cab driver (Percy Kilbride); the laconic and somewhat cynical doctor (Frank Craven, who observes of the mass hysteria: "Some of us held out;" a pouting cousin (Forrest Tucker), and an embittered caretaker (Howard Da Silva) who had been the hero's captain in World War I. Now, restricted physically by wounds he suffered, he has served the man he once commanded. He seems resentful of the man who saved his life in combat. The effect of unbridled hero worship on an impressioable young mind is captured in the caretaker's son (Darryl Hickman), convinced he is responsible for the death of his idol. His role becomes tedious, but is critical to the underlying psychology of the film.

Like the peeling of an onion, the film reveals layer after layer of the people in the life of a giant, his relations with them, and the passions stirred by his presence ... and his causes. We see that it is wise to temper emotion with information in selecting our icons. While Tracy and Hepburn are quite good in their roles, it is the supporting cast which drives the film. Whorf, Da Silva and Craven are outstanding in key roles. The Bronislau Kaper score and excellent black and white cinematography preserve the quality of the drama and help it through its dated moments.

I'm sure anyone seeing this film will wonder just what is happening. This great cast made a very serious movie and were lines they could deliver powerfully dramatically and evenly to convey a whole range of emotions.

The plot is easily summarized. A reporter, O'Malley (Spencer Tracy) wants to write -- what? he's not certain -- a piece on an icon who people revere in the same way they might (say) Washington or Lincoln, The first part of the film is documents how to get to see the icon's wife. She's reclusive and her servants are dedicated to preserving her sanctity. What's behind this isolation? That in itself is a bothersome question for O'Malley. Something is not ringing right. She was the wife of a popular public figure. Why wouldn't she cooperate? As he digs, he finds he cannot write the story, at first because he does not know enough, and then because he knows too much of the wrong thing and finally because he suspects he does not know what is hidden from him and it is critical.

And as he untwists the Gordian knot that is presented to him, he finds there is duplicity and mendacity on every level. But nothing is as simple as it seems. Instead of writing about the icon, he picks the wife.

But that is not the depth of the film. The depth is revealed as we learn about the Hepburn character and Tracy's response. He moves from someone who can ignore genuine interest in him by a woman, (Audrey Christie), and seek his goal. What develops is first a genuine friendship followed by an admiration that transcends almost any other kind of relationship.

That is a very complicated situation to convey in the simple straight forward acting method of Tracy's (but he always manages to do what is required of him), and mysterious sophisticated quality that Hepburn always wears like some garment only given once by the gods who give such gifts.

This is not an easy exercise. Don't get caught in the datedness. Watch how the actors, directors and writers put together something that is admirable in its mixture of simplicity and complexity -- what others have called pealing the onionskin off the inion.

"Keeper of the Flame"(1942)was the second film starring the team of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Their first was the delightful George Stevens comedy,"Woman of the Year",which was a smash hit at the Box Office. However,many critics consider their second film to be a not bad, but lesser teaming. This is mainly because the characters Tracy and Hepburn play lack the romantic chemistry that was evident in their other films. Also,because of the dark theme of the plot,there is no room for any comical moments. With that said, "Keeper of the Flame" is a brilliant mystery-drama with a timely theme:the dangers of false hero-worship. Steven O'Malley(Spencer Tracy)is a reporter wanting to write a story on the life of Robert Forrest,a beloved American hero, who has suddenly been killed in a tragic car accident. O'Malley has found it difficult to get an interview with the devastated widow,Christine Forrest(Katharine Hepburn). While waiting for the interview, he encounters peculiar people well-acquainted with the deceased. He meets Forrest's brother-in-law(Forrest Tucker),an embittered man,who seems to despise Forrest, a young boy(Daryll Hickman),who admires Forrest so much,he feels responsible for his death,and Forrest's fussy secretary(Richard Whorf),who isn't what he seems to be. The young boy leads O'Malley to Christine Forrest. O'Malley expects Christine to be well in her middle-age,but he's startled to see she isn't that old. Christine isn't very helpful with the story;she's quite distant when O'Malley asks her certain questions. O'Malley also finds out that Forrest's mother(Margaret Wycherly)is still living. Her identity is near-hidden, so he decides to meet her. Christine claims she's a mentally-disturbed invalid,but O'Malley feels she knows more than she has been given credit for. Meeting these people,O'Malley comes to the startling realization that Robert Forest,a supposed "American hero",isn't such a great human being. The acting is vivid and realistic. Katharine Hepburn is excellent in the challenging role of a woman who knows what her husband was really like,but must be "the keeper of the flame." Spencer Tracy is extremely effective as a reporter,who's beliefs have been shattered. The sparkling supporting cast makes the mystery even more intriguing. George Cukor does a terrific job of directing by never having unnecessary scenes and building up the suspense slowly to make the ending have a lasting impression. Cukor's work here foreshadows his work on the psychological dramas,"Gaslight"(1944) and "A Double Life"(1947). The cinematography is stark and always draws the viewer's attention. The score is appropriately overpowering. The film has some similarities to the overrated,"Citizen Kane."(1941) It's similar in that the main character is a deceased American figure,who's isn't what he seems to be. Also,in both films,the main character lives in a dark,mysterious house. However,the viewer has sympathy for Charles Foster Kane,whereas no one feels sorry for Robert Forrest. I recommend this film and give it a strong 8 1/2 out of 10.

In the early days of the 1940's, America was being inexorably drawn into World War Two. During that time, there was a great national Isolationist movement which sought to keep America out of the global conflict. The strongest and perhaps the most influential figures which arose were America's heroes. Among them was famed aviator, Charles Lindbergh. Having visited Germany prior to the invasion of Poland, was convinced America could not win a war against Germany. This movie called " Keeper of the Flame " represents the views of the late Robert Forest, a rich industrialist, popular and civic leader who although groomed himself as a true American patriot, was in fact a 'sleeper' Fascist. Because he believed Forest was an American hero, Steve O'Malley (Spencer Tracy) a famous war correspondent, returns home. His mission is to write the biography of Forest. Instead, as he begins writing the story, he discovers that Forest's wife Christine (Katharine Hepburn) and her family is hiding a family secret which everyone wants to keep buried with the deceased. With Richard Whorf, Margaret Wycherly and Forrest Tucker in supporting roles, this mysterious film quickly becomes a spy vs spy drama. One which Tracy and Hepburn play to the hilt. Due to her association with her husband, I could not help but see Bogart in this movie. Nevertheless, this is a dark film which easily explains the title. Recommended to anyone wanting to recall why America eventually went to war. ****