Man on Fire

Definitely a forerunner to "Kramer vs. Kramer" with Bing Crosby starring as a father who has custody of his young son. His wife (Mary Fickett) divorced him years ago for a Washington political person. Crosby is a successful businessman who has a wonderful relationship with his son. Enter mom and her husband who want custody of the child.

Anne Seymour, in a one-scene restrained performance, plays the judge who surprises everyone with her decision to give the boy to his mother since the child has no ties with her. An embittered Crosby goes on a brief binge while being consoled by Inger Stevens, an assistant to his attorney played by the usual movie-lawyer E.G. Marshall.

The film is interesting and well acted by all but my flaw with it is that the child is constantly bounced around as Crosby and Fickett fight it out. In addition, the Solomon-like decision did not apply here. If we remember our bible, the woman who was willing to see Solomon divide the child really didn't love the child at all, if she wanted this to happen. In the film, the mother finally relents as she sees that the child really wants to stay with his father and therefore, in the tradition of Solomon, she loves the child more. This is wrong and the writers of this picture should have read the bible more carefully.

Naturally, everyone comes to his senses in this one by the end as a reasonable solution is obtained. One could question why this solution couldn't be put forth at the beginning of the controversy.

Nevertheless, the film shows insight in its discussing the effects of divorce on children, the anger of one parent in particular and that a child should remain with the female parent. Yet, haven't we come a long way in equality for both parents?

Bing might have been one of the most loved singers of the early 20th century but he was no great actor.

From all I've heard he was no great father either. A complete tyrant. His children must have watched this movie in awe, not even recognizing his behavior towards his son.

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.

A film that is rarely seen today is a must see if you get the chance. The acting is terrific with Bing Crosby giving a performance worthy of another Oscar nomination - in fact all the cast do an excellent job in this well constructed drama about the ugly side of divorce and custody. The film deals very well with these issues and is still relevant even though it was made in 1957. Also this is one of the very few films in which Bing Crosby doesn't sing - except over the titles at the start of the film. Hopefully this will eventually gain a DVD release and a chance to be seen by more people as it only achieved a limited release in 1957 and hasn't been seen a lot since.