Wilson

This 2.5 hour movie won FIVE Oscars and was nominated for FIVE more!! It is the best major presidential biopic that I have seen in that it covered Wilson's entire presidency--not just a portion of it. This is my 2nd viewing of the movie, and I got MUCH more from it this time than I did from only one viewing.

This movie was made during WWII, and I suppose that audiences were more drawn toward experiencing WW II, as in Since You Went Away (1944), The Seventh Cross (1944), or Lifeboat (1944)--or escaping from it, as in Going My Way (1944) or Gaslight (1944) did. My assumption is that movie audiences did not much want to look backwards towards WW I.

Still, there is some good history, here, presented in an entertaining and enlightening fashion. I felt that Alexander Knox gave a convincing— perhaps Oscar-worthy--performance as Wilson. The movie generally presents the legislative accomplishments of his first term and his struggle with WWI and trying to get his 14 points and the League of Nations approved during his second term.

It also inserted some real black-and-white newsreels from period. Also, I am quite sure that Knox gave a couple of Wilson's speeches as they were originally written. e.g. his speech to Congress asking them to declare war on Germany.

I have two main reservations with this movie: 1) It only covered the positive side of Wilson's presidency and did not cover his negatives (but I suppose that is typical of a Hollywood movie). 2) I felt the internal designs of the White House were a bit too ornate.

If you haven't seen this movie, I would recommend it.

I don't know how many modern-day film viewers would sit through this long a biography (154 minutes) of a fairly boring man but it moves pretty well and is generally entertaining account of our 28th U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson.

When I watched this, I was unfamiliar with the lead actor, Alexander Knox, and I still am! However, he did a fine job as Wilson. The supporting cast did have some "names," such as Charles Coburn, Thomas Mitchell, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Cedric Hardwicke, Vincent Price, Ruth Nelson and much more.

When they made Technicolor films of the 1940s, which wasn't often, they were very pretty and this one is, too. They also did a nice job re-creating the early 20th century.

It's a nice film but nothing memorable, to be honest, and certainly biased in favor of Wilson....but still worth seeing. With it's length, one viewing would be enough.

Woodrow Wilson was not considered a very successful President before he was "rehabilitated" by FDR during World War II as part of a campaign to show the mistakes the US had made a generation before. This film's glorification of Wilson was clearly part of that war propaganda effort.

Alexander Knox is perfectly cast in this effort, he physically looks just right, and has all the mannerisms. Of course the character is shifted from the reality (a stunningly racist, intellectually isolated scholar) to a "pre-FDR" who talks of "all races working together" and whose every motive is pure and well thought out. The Wilson of this film is pure hero, and always right, if shown as a touch stubborn.

But I was engaged despite it all. And the 1912 Convention scenes early in the film are brilliantly done. Check out Vincent Price as a campaign lieutenant. And Cedric Hardwicke is great as the villainous Republican Henry Cabot Lodge.

This is a film I've wanted to see for a long time since it was nominated for best picture and won a bunch of Oscars in 1944 (in what may be considered one of the weakest years for the Oscar with "Going My Way" winning best film (over the great "Double Indemnity") and Bing Crosby winning best actor). Worldwide as well this was not a great year, as I could only find "A Canterbury Tale", "Ivan the Terrible" and "Henry the V" as memorable films made that year (you could add "Laura" and a couple of Preston Sturges comedies. Blame it on the war). I was also interested in watching a color film made in 1944 in order to compare it with the great British color films made at that time. All in all, the cinematography was very good but the film was dull as hell, I suppose because Wilson was boring as hell and was interpreted by Alexander Knox who gave a performance boring as hell. I heard Henry Fonda was considered for the part and that would have certainly helped the quality of the film and its box office, which was terrible. Regarding historical accuracy, I leave that to others who have studied the matter.

If you want to dramatize Wilson's life, you can either approach it as either a tragedy or a hagiography, and Fox chose the hagiographic route. Considering the era and that the only biography at the time was the uncritical one by Ray Standard Baker, this is hardly surprising. Thank God, however, they cast the unknown Alexander Knox rather than an established star such as Gary Cooper for the title character; when you see the film you can't imagine anyone else playing the part.

This movie proves that the Hollywood era could do films with some integrity beyond the standard fare from MGM or Warners. Twentieth-Century Fox's Zanuck was the only mogul who had the guts to make a motion picture as expensive as this, with an unknown in the lead, and on a President who, unlike say Teddy Roosevelt, strikes many people as a cold fish. I love this film, despite its simplifying of history and its wartime propaganda because it's very special in many ways. There are plenty of movies like JEFFERSON IN PARIS or YOUNG MR. LINCOLN or ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS or THE PRESIDENT'S LADY etc., but aside from NIXON, Zanuck and King's WILSON seems the only theatrical film that dramatizes a President's life while he served in office. For those of you who find it undramatic, think again: it's a film to cherish