El ojo de la tempestad

In this 1956 film starring Bette Davis who is a head librarian in a small narrow minded town and refuses to withdraw a controversial book during the height of the "McCarthy Era" which unfortunately ends in disastrous results.This great film has never been released on VHS/DVD so far, unless you're fortunate to catch it on TV sometime.

Between the time that Bette Davis finished THE STAR and her appearance in POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES, none of her films was an outstanding box office success. This was not a problem that she alone suffered. Only a handful of the stars of the 1930s and 1940s were able to maintain their starring positions in the 1950s, many being plagued by bad health, aging, or blacklisting. Davis at least still had some films to appear in, including this forgotten one: STORM CENTER. For a woman who was (at the time) washed up, Davis demonstrated she could still deliver a restrained and intelligent performance in a picture with an important message.

THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS

STORM CENTER is about politics and censorship. Davis is a librarian, and is only concerned in running her town library as well as possible, and in encouraging literacy among the children of the town. One of the children is played by Kevin Coughlin, a wonderful child actor who would grow into a capable actor before being killed in a traffic accident when only 30 years old. Kevin is bookish - too bookish according to his "know nothing" blue-collar father (Joe Mantell). There is a struggle or tug of war between Mantell, wanting his son to be more like a typical boy (i.e. a sports oriented kid) and Davis, who wants Kevin's mind to grow.

Adding to her problems is that a book in the library that Davis has put out is controversial. A number of citizens would like it removed. Brian Keith, a new member of the city council, decides to take this up as a political issue (for his own advantage, of course). Soon, all sorts of pressures are put on Davis to get rid of the nasty book, and she refuses to do so. The pressures turn nastier and nastier. Despite the support of an old friend (Paul Kelly), Davis faces dismissal. In the meantime Kevin has been affected by the near hysteria sweeping through the town. His father is pretty happy about that - maybe his son will become normal. The father lets Kevin know that the problem is the library itself. So Kevin, in his own hysterical state, sets fire to the town's library.

I saw this film only once, back in the 1970s. The arson sequence always remained with me, for the director/writer Daniel Taradash, showed the names of the titles of the burning books throughout the building. There is a build-up in the titles, as most are classic or well known works, but the last is a life of Jesus Christ - certainly the last person most right wing American fanatics would think of destroying (at least in their claimed rhetoric) from among all potential targets.

There is a sense of shame at the conclusion from Keith and the townspeople, but Davis shows no triumph over them. She simply starts planning to rebuild the library, and starts planning to help Kevin regain his normal state of mind.

It was a fine piece of film, and it is a pity it is so little known or remembered. More people should have a chance to watch it and decide for themselves about it.

Widowed librarian in a small American town, with some 25 years of experience under her belt, is ousted from her post after refusing to take a book about Communism off the shelves. Despite her sensible pleas to the skittish City Council about censoring any type of material, no matter how abhorrent, the woman is soon branded an outcast among the townspeople when her past affiliations with Communist organizations hits the press. Decent potboiler material wants to hit home with a thought-provoking message, but the dramatic handling of the situations is so stilted--and Bette Davis' lead performance is so mannered--that eventually the film succumbs to a kind of pedantic obtuseness. An exaggerated sub-plot about a book-loving child who turns on Davis is ridiculous, as are the characterizations of his parents (his father wants the kid to play ball, like all the other boys, and considers brainy occupations pinko propaganda!). It's insufferable all right, even with Bette attempting to play it with a stiffer-upper-lip; she's dignified in her little hats and unruffled, low-income outfits, but the high-powered star doesn't seem to connect with this part. The supporting cast (including an open-mouthed Kim Hunter as the assistant librarian) alternate between worried concern and prickly consternation, hardly the combination for a stormy melodrama. **1/2 from ****

This is a very flawed movie but well worth watching. We all live in a world saturated with politically correct nonsense as demonstrated by the reviews of this over-the-top parody of selfrighteousness. Just to set the record a bit straighter, McCarthy was not interested in banning books. Actually that was more in keeping with the mission of HUAC, aka Bobby Kennedy, et al. Tailgunner Joe was interested in communists working within the government to bring the United States down. Anyone remember Alger Hiss? To give this confused and confusing movie its due, we can all agree that book banning is bad and book burning is worse. That said, this movie is right on point that books should be exposed to light and air but never to flames. The best thing about the movie is the fact that the librarian actually loved the children more than the books. Let us enjoy Bette and the movie for what it is and not follow it into the soul deadening and intellectually arid wasteland of political correctness.

Plot-- A town librarian follows her conscience by refusing to remove a communist book from the library. This sets off a chain of events as the town struggles to find its own civic conscience.

Please allow me a moment before turning to the movie itself, which is notable for being the first to take on the purges of what's known as the McCarthy era. Importantly, there's a popular assumption that has arisen about that period and goes with the movie. I want to briefly question that assumption.

Put simply, the main misconception about the McCarthy era (early 1950's) is that it failed. In a sense the movie reflects that misconception in its ending, when the community resolves to rebuild the library. Nonetheless, the right-wing purges of New Deal liberals from positions of influence (Henry Wallace among the most notable) succeeded by leaving a permanent imprint on the nation's political direction. More importantly, the chill that went through liberal ranks led to considerable self-censorship, sinking any hopes that the US might expand New Deal policies into European-type social democracy. Being branded a "com-symp" could not only get a person dismissed from positions of influence, (teaching, engineering, administration, union leadership, etc.), but also risk established relationships, whether personal or professional. Popular history likes to think the period was something our liberal democracy got over quickly once McCarthy was censured. But the senator was only a spokesman of a broader powerplay, the effects of whose chill last to the present day. That's especially evident in the constricted nature of the Democratic Party, which never recovered from the loss of its progressive New Deal Wing. Nor, for that matter, did the vigor of the union movement. In sum, the fact that the Senator himself crashed and burned should not be confused with the success of the program as a whole, which was much greater than popular history likes to admit.

The movie itself is safely centrist, reducing the highly charged Cold War issues to the single one of free speech, a constitutional right that presumably principled liberals and conservatives could both support. Nor does the movie risk political partisanship by caricaturing the opposing factions. After all, the censorship faction has a point: we're in a war, they assert. It may be a cold war, but it's a war, no less. And censorship is accepted in wartime. To that, the movie libertarians reply that freedom of speech must be preserved to distinguish us from our totalitarian enemy, (presumably the unmentioned Soviets), otherwise we loose a key difference.

As to the movie itself, the acting is low-key, though Davis oh-so-perfectly enunciates her lines, while the boy's (Coughlin) melodramatic part appears badly over-done. I assume writer Tarradash was using the boy to symbolize what could happen to the younger generation should the anti-intellectual push get a toe-hold. The photography is rather flat b&w, presumably not to distract from the key message. Overall, it's not a particularly distinguished production apart from its place in film history. But, whatever else, the hopeful message should not be allowed to detract from the lasting ill-effects of that crucial period.