Slander

A curious period piece not without interest, Slander was made in the heyday of guttersnipe periodicals like "Confidential," that ruined show-biz careers and blackmailed victims into spilling dirt on bigger prey. Steve Cochran portrays the oily gossip publisher, a bachelor with a strangely solicitous relationship with his alcoholic mother (Marjorie Rambeau). In trying to dig up the goods on a beloved Broadway star, he zeros in on Van Johnson as a boyhood pal, a third-rate puppeteer who has finally got his big break in the new medium of television. Alas, the puppeteer once served four years in the hoosegow for armed robbery, despite the fact that he's now a devoted family man with wife (Ann Blyth) and son (Richard Eyer) in tow. Van Johnson refuses to knuckle under to the blackmail demands, and much melodrama ensues. Today, with a no-holds-barred press with almost non-existent restraints when it comes to public figures, Slander looks a bit quaint. But in the 50s, these tactics -- which probably wouldn't have been tolerated except for the parallel phenomenon of McCarthyism -- were seen as a deadly threat to the studios and their stars. Scandal, made at MGM under Dory Schary, is Hollywood's overwrought (and none too good) response. The following year, Alexander Mackendrick's chillingly dark Sweet Smell of Success (with Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis)trod much the same ground in a far more memorable way.

The scenes involving Steve Cochrane (speaking with MGM's exaggeratedly elegant diction) and his mother (Marjorie Rambeau, brilliant, as he is, in her role) are creepy. The atmosphere is fetid. This is indeed an insider's look at what could make someone invent and edit a Hollywood scandal rag along the lines of Confidential.

His office, with a scared secretary, works, too; and the story surrounding his frail mother's being snubbed by head waiters because of her son's sleaziness is shocking.

We're really in Tennessee Williams country with these people.

If only the man he sets out to ruin had been played by someone other than wholesome Van Johnson. Yes, Johnson gives it his best; but he isn't, through no fault of his own, convincing as someone who's spent four years in jail.

Then there is his wife, Ann Blyth. It's not so much that we think of her in her greatest role, Veda in "Mildred Pierce," as that she seemed ideally cast in that and doesn't -- for me, at least -- work in sympathetic roles.

She has a cold, mean look, which is accented by the heavy eye makeup she wears here.

It turns sanctimonious when they and their son are in the spotlight.

Nevertheless, Cochrane paints an indelible picture as the society-hating, mother-loving Park Avenue monster. And Rambeau is poignant, even with the Grand Guignol ending.

Though Van Johnson is the subject of the Slander, the driving force behind this film is Steve Cochran as the cynical publisher of a supermarket tabloid magazine. He's one scary dude who has no feelings and no one can reach him, not even his mother Marjorie Rambeau.

Back in 1957 Confidential Magazine which was the prototype of things like the National Enquirer of today was publishing all kinds of exposes on celebrities. Cochran's rag is also looking to do an expose on Van Johnson who is a newly popular host of a kid's show. Back during the Depression he committed a holdup and did his time and Cochran wants an to expose him. Cochran though will back off if he will give him some dirt on another girl who grew up on his block who became a big movie star.

Cochran is such a rat that he approaches Johnson through his wife Ann Blyth. This raises all kinds of issues in their marriage.

Slander also makes some subtle references to the tactics of the House Un American Activities Committee and how they would 'trade up' with immunity if someone would give them a bigger prize.

Johnson and Blyth turn in some good performances, but it's really Cochran you have to watch. He will thoroughly creep you out.

Plot—Family man Scott is about to hit the TV big time with his engaging puppet show. Trouble is a scandal magazine run by the unscrupulous Manley threatens to publish a damaging article on Scott's past unless he spills the beans about the indiscretion of a celebrity much bigger than he that only he knows about. Thus Scott faces a moral dilemma—should he make the trade-off or not.

Back in the mid-50's, a lot of folks were tired of Photoplay, Screen Stars, and their like. In short, they wanted insider stories, real low downs on the seamy side of the air-brushed celebs of show biz. Thus Confidential magazine hit the stands with a splash that shook up the whole industry. Hollywood, in particular, quaked in fear; after all, they had big money invested in their carefully molded stars, and any hint of scandal could mean ruin for their investment. Rumors circulated that lesser figures could be sacrificed to the scandal sheets to protect bigger ones, e.g. George Nader to protect Rock Hudson. Of course, public morals were much more stringent in those days. Homosexuality and infidelity, for example, were strictly forbidden, and, if exposed, could wreck a career.

Clearly, Slander is a Hollywood attempt to strike back at the scandal purveyors. Just as clearly, the deck has been loaded by casting choices. Cochran's dark good looks usually translated into tough hoods. Here he still carries a dark appearance and a sinister reputation, but executes the oily slick Manley in expert non-thuggish fashion. It's the most tightly controlled turn I've seen from the fine actor. On the other hand, who embodied All-American virtue more solidly than sandy-haired freckle-faced Van Johnson. Add the sweet innocence of actress Blythe and the boyish appeal of moppet Eyer, and the deck is loaded from the outset.

Nonetheless, the movie's first part setting up Scott's (Johnson) moral dilemma is quite well- done, tight and economical. The second half, however, descends into heavy-handed melodrama, contrived and far-fetched. I take the latter as MGM's effort at hyping the price the magazine and Manley (Cochran) must pay for their unscrupulous acts. Too bad that the screenplay over-hyped this second part since the trade-off's sleaze factor is enough to discredit the magazine's shady enterprise. At the same time, the contrivances not only overdo the worthy message, but work to remind us that this is only a movie, after all.

Of course, changes in public morals have dated the movie. Nonetheless, with a less contrived second half, the film might succeed on its own merits, even now.

Saw this on TCM yesterday (thank you TCM for unearthing so many great little unknown movies) and was riveted from beginning to end, all the more so, because it's suddenly so relevant with the whole News o/t World debacle going on at present. I liked the fact that the suspense hinged on an ethical dilemma and was excellently acted by all, even Van Johnson, who is one of my least favorite actors, was convincing. Impressive was Steve Cochran, whom so far I have only seen in "pretty boy" roles and proves to be an actor of a lot more depth and gravitas. I agree with some of the statements that the ending was rather melodramatic and for me rather unsatisfying the way it played out. I wanted to see our villain suffer much more for his misdeeds (or I would have given it a 10 out 10). Particularly noticeable was the very natural acting of the young actor, who played Van Johnson's & Ann Blyth's son, whereas most young actors of the old Hollywood days relied mostly on cute posturing and almost rote delivery of their lines. Catch it when it plays again on TCM