Man on Fire

This is a beautifully written, produced and acted drama about a bitter divorce situation. The subject is sensitive and the presentation direct, to the point, and brutally honest.

This finely crafted drama slowly builds from its foundation to reveal the ugly side of domestic tension. The photography, editing and music all are effective in their simplicity and at times stark execution.

The acting is top notch throughout, particularly Bing Crosby, Inger Stevens, and Anne Seymour as leads, with the always dependable E. G. Marshall in a supporting role.

An interesting footnote: at this writing the film lacks to date a single professional critic review on IMDb, only user reviews. A careful internet search reveals a most thoughtful review by Bosley Crowther of the N. Y. Times and a revealing article on TCM. Rarely has a work with such top notch actors and artistic accomplishment been so lacking in critical commentary.

For myself, I fully appreciate this "Man on Fire" as a thoughtful, deeply felt and often shattering drama of domestic strife.

A subject which is still topical today in 2022. Time has passed,but how many parents are still fighting for the custody of their child(ren)?

Bing Crosby shines in his part of a father whose wife eloped with a government man and after two years wants half of the custody ;from the very start ,the young boy hates his stepfather ,Mister Seward ,he calls "sewer" ;the best moment is the scene with the judge (at the time, there were few women judges ,;today they would not even notice it ) ; the actress,Anne Seymour, although she only has a fleeting part , displays a strong sense of psychology and humanity ,even though her verdict may seem unexpected; queen Solomon indeed :the ending bear this out.

In spite of Inger Stevens ' unquestionable talent (debut) ,her character is cardboard ; you can predict what she will do as soon as she appears; that she can blow the party single-handedly is hardly credible ;she's not a woman ,she's a good fairy with a magic wand. On the other hand ,the part of the mother (Mary Fickett) is too underwritten : she suffers too, because her boy is part of her body -and one learns a sad secret towards the end ;she and her new husband (EG Marshall ) are not the villains. The stepfather ,as the film progresses,finally wins the audience over , when he talks about the famous biblical story of the two women claiming a baby.

A hot topic ,still today.....

Bing Crosby is a "Man on fire" in this 1957 film starring Inger Stevens, Mary Fickett, Richard Eastham, and E.G. Marshall.

Crosby plays Earl Carleton, a successful businessman who has been divorced from his wife and has custody of their son Ted (Malcolm Brodrick). His wife (Fickett) left him for another man (Eastham) and Earl isn't about to forgive or forget. Angry and bitter, when she and her new husband want sole custody of Ted, Carleton fights them hard, at one point resorting to kidnapping.

Inger Stevens plays an associate in attorney E.G. Marshall's office, and she falls for Earle and wants to help him.

This film was meant to show up the problems of divorce, but mostly it demonstrates the need to move on, otherwise, your anger will devour you. It's the lesson Earle, who loves his son, has to learn, and do what's best for the boy.

"Man on Fire" was Inger Stevens' big break. A beautiful young woman, she apparently had a habit of falling for her leading men, and Crosby was no exception. She was devastated when he married Kathryn Crosby. She finally lost her life either to suicide or an overdose in 1970. Since she refused treatment for carbon monoxide poisoning on the set of "Cry Terror," saying she wanted to die, it doesn't appear that, with everything she had going for her, she was ever very happy. A real pity.

It was delightful to see soap opera star Mary Fickett in a non-soap role, and she was very effective.

Bing Crosby had an enormous effect on popular music and was one of the most popular actors in films for years and years. He was much more than a crooner. He plays the role of a difficult man very well.

The denouement was a little abrupt, but the film made its points.

The first time I saw this movie I was a teenager, barely older than the boy in the movie. (By the way, Malcolm was 13 and his voice was changing -- why did they have to say his character was 10?). It made me very angry. I was the son of divorced parents and I didn't even know where my father was. I envied the boy his relationship with his father. I thought the situation in the movie was unfair to men because it undervalued the importance of male bonding between father and son. Now that I've watched it again in my 60s I see I was wrong about it. Of course it's best for a kid to have two parents who love each other and stay married, but when we can't have what's best, we have to decide from the options that are available. I think this movie does a very good job of being fair to everybody.

Spirited performances by Crosby, Stevens, Seymour, and E.G. Marshall notches this one above its clinical routes. William Schallert has a wonderful bit as Judge Seymour's secretary. In many ways, a 20-year predecessor to Kramer vs. Kramer -- and in its own way, no less poignant.