Wilson

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.

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

Let us be certain of one thing: Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924), Academician, Historian, Orator, President of Princeton University, Governor of New Jersey, and 28th President of the United States is a very important political figure in American History. He is usually credited to be one of the top ten great Presidents of our history, but these lists of historians are prone to change when new research shows previous ideas were wrong or too hagiographic towards the former President. In Wilson's case historians of his period are confronted with the problem that he had a great contemporary rival, the 26th President Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. Both men at their best were terrific figures, who accomplished a great deal of positive social legislation (they and Robert LaFollette dominate this period: the Progressive Era), and both (with Roosevelt's predecessor William McKinley) made America a great power. But T.R. and W.W. were both great egotists, and had defects in personality and views that make their achievements questionable. T.R. loved the strenuous life, but he also loved war too much - to the point that his youngest son got sacrificed in France in the First World War. Wilson helped get the Clayton Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Reserve set up, but he was a Southerner who backed Jim Crow Laws. He did try to keep America out of World War I (as a boy he lived in Virginia and South Carolina during the Civil War, and saw Columbia, South Carolina destroyed - probably by Sherman's men). But he was willing to use our troops to "straighten out" Latin American countries: Mexico (twice), Haiti, the Dominican Republic. His creation of the first international peace organization, the League of Nations, was great, but flawed due to the U.S. not becoming a member - a flaw that Wilson's egotistic fight with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge over accepting the Treaty of Versailles guaranteed.

This film was made in 1944 by Zanuck, a Democrat. It emphasized Wilson as the far-sighted peace seeker, the forerunner of FDR (who was planning the United Nations). FDR actually was in Wilson's administration (he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, like his cousin TR had been in 1897 under McKinley). The audience of the time would have been aware of this. As most of the audience would be white, Protestant, and of anglo-saxon background, it would be assumed that the film would be well received. Actually it wasn't. In the midwest, with the heavy connections to Germany or Middle-Europe, and in Irish-American centers (Wilson was cool towards Irish nationalism)the audiences recalled the unpleasant intransigence and pig-headedness of the President. Zanuck had the film opened in his home town in Nebraska, only to find that few were interested in the premier of the film - they told him they had not liked Wilson while he was in office.

As it is the film is excellent in terms of production and cast, starting with Alexander Knox as the President. His is a great performance, which merited his Oscar nomination. But the film is only positive about Wilson (and correspondingly unfair to Lodge, who may have had doubts about the Treaty of Versailles, but was not conspiring to destroy Wilson - he only had to let Wilson do himself in!). As for the racist side of Wilson, to get a glimpse of it see THE GREAT WHITE HOPE, where the Wilson administration is determined to drive the black heavyweight champion (based on Jack Johnson, and played by James Earl Jones) out of the title he deserves to keep.

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.

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.