Atajo a la felicidad

As a teacher of fifty years experience in language and cinematic arts,I taught "The Devil and Dan'l Webster" as part of the fictional pantheon of American Literature. Although Alec Baldwin certainly has burned some bridges along the way in his career, this film takes creative risks, many of them worthy of consideration, which exemplify a significant part of Americana. Like its forbear, the 1941 cinematic adaptation starring Walter Huston, this version was attacked, condemned and dismissed when it was released. I believe that every adaptation of any book is an aesthetic fossil caught in cinematic amber.

The movie substantiates the same sort of meretricious value system in its depiction of Jabez Stone that struck Stephen Vincent Benet and the makers of the 1941 gem. In its lampooning of pretentious high society panderers of cheesy albeit popular writing, casting them as best-sellers, "Shortcut to Happiness"dramatizes a contemporary examination of what actually constitutes success in the dizzying world of publications.

Anthony Hopkins was well cast in the role of Daniel Webster. It is instructive to compare and contrast Edward Arnold's portrayal of Webster in the 1941 classic with that of Hopkins, because both actors have earned a lifetime of accolades, portraying both admirable and despicable characters. Hopkins and Arnold remain symbols of financial and thespian success.

Hollywood has a bad record for disapproving of movies solely on the basis of profit. I would love to see "Shortcut to Happiness" go into post-production, be subjected to a diverse array of test audiences after a skillful rewrite. The issues that concerned Stephen Vincent Benet in 1937 are alive and with us all today in almost every area of business, politics, entertainment, and government. Success is whatever you can get away with.

Audiences will go to see bad movies. But Hollywood only seems to take the loving and meticulously-artistic care to produce two or three cinematic gems each year. Whoever had the final say in terms of condemning this movie wasted time, money, and the potential for achieving what its creators had in mind when the idea was but an inspiration culled from reading the classic and wishing to update it.

If one of my students had submitted this movie script to me, I would have said, "Promising rough draft," and suggest various ways to improve it with my reasons for doing so.

One of the reviews says there were three versions of the film. I'd like to see Baldwin's original cut of this movie. The last version was cut badly, there are many unnatural breaks in the film. like it was edited for commercial breaks. The breaks where scenes were cut seem apparent.

Apparently the 1941 movie suffered a similar fate, with many titles and severe editing.

The story runs counter to the traditional American ethic of money equaling happiness.

The film was purchased out of bankruptcy for a fraction of production costs, and renamed and hacked for a fast return on investment.

This movie was fun but Jennifer Love Hewitt was so utterly miscast. She's fine for some light TV but she's not a powerful enough actress to play in an ensemble of this caliber. Everyone in it, Kim Catrall, Hopkins, Rubin, Akroyd, and even Baldwin himself are quite wonderful but Ms. Hewitt throws the balance. She's the thing that spoils the movie; especially her delivery of the last "closing argument" monologue belongs in some kind of first year acting class. The movie is a bit moralistic and sentimental and in my opinion it does not live up to the actual story of The Devil and Daniel Webster which is, in many ways more subtle than how Baldwin had handled it. He's gone for a more commercial treatment of a concept whose sophistication could have been just as entertaining. All in all, it's a fun little piece thought some of the sets, the editing as well as the casting of Hewitt should have been rethought. Baldwin is a decent enough director; keeps the film moving and definitely gives the characters good arcs.

Again, here we have a movie that tries to be a commercial success by trying to serve everyone by trying to be many or most things. It cannot be classed because it is more than one kind of movie: black comedy, moral tale, emotion-driven drama, fantasy, post noir, court drama… And it fails miserably on all accounts.

The cast is perfectly cast: Kim Cattrall as the vain impresario, Anthony Hopkins as the wise old guy, Jennifer Love Hewitt as the femme fatale, Dan Aykroyd as the imposing yobo and Alec Baldwin as the struggling man of a certain age. Hence, a perfectly TYPE-CASTED cast.

What more to say about 'A Shortcut to Happiness'? Not much. It is boring, self-indulgent and over-ambitious. If you like those kind of movies, do not hesitate and watch it immediately.

The story behind this film is much more interesting than the movie itself. It seems that production of the film stopped before the final product could be released. According to Wikipedia, the project ran out of money AND some of the investors were being investigated for bank fraud! I have no idea of the outcome of the legal matters, but the movie sat on the shelf for several years. Ultimately, it was sold through an auction and the buyers edited the film themselves...without the film's director, Alec Baldwin. As a result, Baldwin demanded his name be taken off as director...which seems more than understandable. Then, when the film was ultimately released, it lost money.

The story is a modern interpretation of the old story "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (1941). However, it also goes by the title "Shortcut to Happiness".

The story is about Jabez (Baldwin), a frustrated writer sho has had no success with his work. He's about to give up when he receives a visit from the Devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt). She offers to make him famous if he sells her his soul...which he does. However, despite huge immediate success, the deal doesn't make him happy in any way. In fact, in some ways it makes his life worse. So, in desperation, he gets the book agent, Daniel Webster (Anthony Hopkins) to represent him in a court made up of famous dead authors to argue that the deal is null and void.

The story ISN'T bad. Considering how it was made, it's actually very surprising it's even watchable. But there are a few problems. First, the 1941 film is much better. Second, while I am sure Hewitt is a lovely person, she seemed all wrong for her role. Third, the film is just flat...watchable but flat.