The Fearmakers

This film is a condemnation of public relations at its worst. As one character says, "taking public opinion is useful; making public opinion is dangerous". This seems to call forth the idea of "engineering consent", an idea that Edward Bernays first published in 1947.

We also have the concepts of "pre-written law" and "fake front groups with high-sounding titles". With that, we see a strong parallel between Communist infiltration and modern-day political movements. And the groups could be left or right-leaning. There is much talk today (2013) of ALEC writing bills and groups like Americans For Prosperity that are little more than a tool of Charles and David Koch.

The film calls out the danger of misleading polls, and the difference between advertising and politics. What was seen as a danger in this film is now standard practice fifty years later. A candidate is "sold" to the American people and polls rarely get to the heart of any matter. Like the discussion in the film about "Jews" and "labor unions", the lobbyists and advertisers know how to target narrow segments of the population...

Jacques Tourneur biographer Chris Fujiwara says Tourneur's later films, including this one, "fall short of the standard of his prior work." He says Tourneur himself "thought the film was a failure". To say this is a challenge. From the point of view of directing and cinematography, this might not reach the level of "Cat People" or "Night of the Demon". But the message is so powerful that the direction almost becomes secondary.

Could this be a forgotten gem in need of a new release?

Despite the fact that it's a B movie,"The Fearmakers" from 1958 is absolutely fascinating to watch today. Directed by Jacques Tourneur, it stars Dana Andrews, Dick Foran, more well-known for westerns, and -- get ready - Mel Torme! And he was good! Andrews plays Alan Eaton, a public relations firm co-owner who fought in Korea and spent time in the enemy camp being tortured. Now back home, he suffers from headaches and blackouts occasionally. When he arrives at his old company, he finds out that his partner died and that the power of attorney he gave his partner was used to sell the business out from under him to Jim McGinnis (Dick Foran). McGinnis offers Alan a consultant job, and he is encouraged to take it by a Senator friend, who suspects shady business in the firm and wants Alan to check it out.

Here's the shady business. The firm is suspected of using skewed polling data to make certain politicians look good. Alan has plenty to say about the way questions are asked in polls, and to whom, and he also has some things to say about lobbyists. Anyway, he needs to get his hands on the cards that apparently list the people polled or how they were chosen. He's also suspicious of his partner's "accident" and wants to gather information about that.

Of course, today we call these shady people campaign managers, marketing people, Karl Rove -- I sat through the conversation about special interests and polling and thought I had entered the Twilight zone. I had -- it was 1958, and this guy had ethics that don't exist today since the types of things being referred to are acceptable.

This film seems short for the material, and there are too many coincidences in the script to make it not totally believable. Andrews does a good job, but by this point had hit the skids - gone were the big 20th Century Fox films, possibly due to his alcoholism. Though he continued to act, he became a very wealthy real estate man and began speaking for the National Alcoholism Council in the '70s. He also served as President of the Screen Actors Guild. Dick Foran is appropriately slimy, and Mel Torme is excellent as an assistant who knows too much.

Very interesting movie to view given today's political workings.

In the late 1950s, The Fearmakers was a late entry in the Red Scare cycle. By the late 1960s it would have looked like a bizarre and ancient relic. Now in the 21st century, the film looks almost prophetic--if you can overlook the fact that it's basically a pro-nuclear war film. What gives the film resonance for a contemporary audience is its accurate portrayal of 'public relations', polling and advertising, and their ability to sway public opinion. In the 1950s this thesis no doubt took a back seat to the usual Commie-bashing, but now--in the era of push polls, straw polls, and exit polls-- it looks frighteningly accurate. Dana Andrews is excellent as usual. Sadly he is paired up with Marilee Earle as his love interest, and Ms. Earle gives a wooden performance of truly Redwoodian proportions. This was the last film of her brief career.

Just watched this on TCM. A problem I've always had w/Dana Andrews is his self-righteousness, but this 'red scare' film does raise concerns that are far more appropriate today regarding how pollsters & PR firms manipulate/create news & opinion versus measuring it. However in this film, the media (Washington Post reporter) & an 'old school' senator (you know, the ones that used to have a conscience & scruples) are the good guys. Nowadays, that just isn't very realistic as the media, political parties, representatives & lobbiests are all part of the Washington propaganda machine, only interested in retaining & growing on their own power base. But I digress. Look for Mel Torme in ridiculous Coke-bottle glasses. Also, DC-philes will enjoy all of the familiar landmarks with far cooler cars surrounding the city. Overall, not a waste of time. I give it a '6'.

The real irony, when viewing this film, is the way it views those who lobby for special interests in Washington (and the "marketing" of candidates, skewing polling data to achieve the desired results whether the sampling or data is fair or not) has become the norm in our own era. Hence, the villain in this film is pretty much doing the same sort of thing a Karl Rove does now, but we've just changed our perspective on it. The film purports a high tone of moral outrage at political practices which completely dominate our own time.

That to me is the most fascinating thing about this film (which is well-made in a clearly B-picture sort of way: not too many sets, a conspicuously minor set of actors except for Dana Andrews--though I agree with others posting here that Mel Torme's performance is a standout--and a certain unadventurousness in the visuals and pacing, despite Tourneur's presence at the helm). By watching the film, we are made aware just how much we've come to accept certain the vast "untruthfulness" or immorality of the way politicians are marketed and elected. It's as though all of the things deplored in this film have completely become "business as usual" in our time, seemingly because the desire to operate this way in politics has survived tenaciously despite the occasional railing against it the way this film does. These days you might hear objections from alternate news sources or fringe publications to this type of deceptive political lobbying and marketing, but other than that it's clearly our daily contemporary political reality being objected to so strenuously 45 years ago in THE FEARMAKERS. While the film unfolds tightly and economically enough, it does suffer from a certain "pat-ness" concerning the plot coincidences concerning the doctor character Andrews meets on the plane at the beginning of the film. That whole subplot unfolds too easily within the overall story, as though the already claustrophobically tiny world of the characters of this movie couldn't possibly expand enough for some randomness or ambiguity between it's small ensemble of characters. Is there no-one in Washington who isn't in some way related to this plot? If memory serves, I don't believe there is ever a line spoken by anyone in this film who is not in some way part of the web of characters involved somehow for or against the unfolding scam, even though we are in cabs, in hotels, in a boarding house, on a plane, and in the city of Washington, throughout.

Still, it's worth the time invested, and presents a curiously brusque performance by Andrews. His character is supposed to be tired and unstable after his ordeal in Korea, and yet it's difficult to know whether the occasionally zombie-like performance of Andrews in this film is entirely intentional. The actor himself seems fatigued and lethargic at times-- is that all for the sake of the character? But there are enough little twists and surprises in this film to hold our interest, and if the film feels at time like an extended episode of the old Perry Mason TV series, that's not necessarily a bad thing if you like that sort of presentation (as I admittedly do).

I'd also agree with others here that this is a film ripe for a remake, although there is no doubt it would be a COMPLETELY different movie, with a completely different moral sense.