Il giornalista Steve O'Malley vuole scrivere una biografia di un eroe nazionale morto quando la sua macchina è caduta da un ponte. Steve riceve rapporti e storie contrastanti che gli fanno d... Leggi tuttoIl giornalista Steve O'Malley vuole scrivere una biografia di un eroe nazionale morto quando la sua macchina è caduta da un ponte. Steve riceve rapporti e storie contrastanti che gli fanno dubitare di quale sia la verità sull'eroe.Il giornalista Steve O'Malley vuole scrivere una biografia di un eroe nazionale morto quando la sua macchina è caduta da un ponte. Steve riceve rapporti e storie contrastanti che gli fanno dubitare di quale sia la verità sull'eroe.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Freddie Ridges
- (as Horace McNally)
- Jason Rickards
- (as Howard da Silva)
- Mourner
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
- Forward American Boy
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
- William
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
- Reporter
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
- Boy
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
And, while it sometimes veers into melodrama, it is a very important film that needs to be seen. It deals with the dangers of third columnists, those who, impatient with democracy, would bring fascism to this country. Meet John Doe hints at this as well, but not as powerfully as this movie.
Yes, it's melodramatic at times. But it tells, very well, a very important tale, one that we dare never forget.
Watch this movie, if you get a chance. And remember its message, which, alas, is for all times. Those with power, especially those who have acquired power through wealth, sometimes lose patience with democracy and want to by-pass it to get what they want. It is the function of a free press to expose them, and to save us from them.
---------------------------------
I just watched this movie again - I've seen it several times since I wrote the above review nine years ago, well before a certain real estate tycoon came to power. But that tycoon is not what I want to talk about here.
Reading over some of the other comments that have accrued since then, I see that for some the highly dramatic, indeed sometimes melodramatic style of the movie has been a problem. It's true: both in the way some of the actors - Hepburn, Wycherly - deliver their lines and in the way Cukor directed this film and had it lit, the movie comes off as a sort of Gothic horror story, like Frankenstein, about a mad man who wants supreme powers. I can see that that style may be off-putting to young people not accustomed to it.
It is also highly theatrical, even through it is adapted from a novel and not a play. In particular the final scene in the cabin between Hepburn and Tracy seems very much like a speech in a stage play. Hepburn's perfect enunciation contrasts with Tracy's equally clear but more natural speech. It's almost - almost - like a serious version of *Midsummer Madness*, the play that the movie *Auntie Mame* makes fun of.
Still, it would be a shame if the theatrical style of the movie put off modern viewers, since the message of this movie - and it very definitely has one - is so very important.
And that message is well told. It would have been easier, but much less effective, to present the newspaper reporter, Tracy, as suspicious of the great man, Robert Forrest, from the beginning. Instead, we get to watch him discover that his idol had feet of clay, even though that is not the truth he wants to find. Tracy does a great job of presenting that in the cabin scene, even while Hepburn is enunciating her long speech as if she were on stage. (Compare this scene with the end of *Amadeus*, where we watch the priest's ideals fall apart as his listens to Salieri recount the life behind his music and Mozart's.)
So I repeat my "must watch" recommendation from nine years ago. Even if the melodramatic style is not to your liking, it's worth paying attention to what this film has to say.
Like the peeling of an onion, the film reveals layer after layer of the people in the life of a giant, his relations with them, and the passions stirred by his presence ... and his causes. We see that it is wise to temper emotion with information in selecting our icons. While Tracy and Hepburn are quite good in their roles, it is the supporting cast which drives the film. Whorf, Da Silva and Craven are outstanding in key roles. The Bronislau Kaper score and excellent black and white cinematography preserve the quality of the drama and help it through its dated moments.
Great performances from the great team, Tracy and Hepburn. The atmosphere of mystery and gradual revelation of the amazing truth makes the film absorbing and tense. Though the film is not well known, this is definitely a classic.
This was their second teaming and after the comedy of Woman of the Year, they tried a change of pace with a melodrama. Pearl Harbor was still fresh in everyone's minds and so was the discredited isolationist movement.
It's chief spokesperson was Charles Lindbergh on whom the character of Hepburn's husband Robert Forrest was based. Lindbergh's too close association with Germany tarred him for the rest of his life.
Here Robert Forrest is killed right at the beginning of the film as he drives over a bridge that's ready to collapse. The death of Forrest brings out the grief of a nation and reporters flock to his Manderley like estate.
One of those reporters is Spencer Tracy who by some chicanery gains entrance to the place and meets the widow Forrest and her husband's chief aide Richard Whorf. The place reeks of sinister and Tracy's curiosity is aroused. He also meets Margaret Wycherly who is Hepburn's mother-in-law. She's one batty old dame. A far cry from Gary Cooper's mother a year before who Wycherly played in Sergeant York.
Hepburn seeks to preserve her late husband's reputation at the risk of her own in sending Tracy out on a red herring. He discovers the truth and how he does it and the result therein is the crux of the film.
Tracy and Hepburn are at their professional best working for the first time with George Cukor who later guided them through Adam's Rib and Pat and Mike. Richard Whorf is very good as the malevolent aide.
After over 60 years the film still packs a powerful dramatic punch.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizLouis B. Mayer was very unhappy about the film's political content, thinking it noncommercial. Katharine Hepburn too felt that the storyline was too dull and needed to be pepped up with some romance. She complained to producer Victor Saville about this but he ignored her comments, so Hepburn went directly to Mayer who was only too happy to make the film into a more conventional Hollywood romance.
- BlooperIn the denouement scene in the arsenal, while standing near the safe, Christine begins wearing a rain coat which then becomes a fuzzy cloth coat.
- Citazioni
Christine Forrest: But what was really shocking to me, was the complete cynicism of the plan. Each of the groups was simply to be used until its usefulness was exhausted. Hates were to be played against hates. If one group threatened to get too powerful, it would be killed off by another group. And in the end, those poor little people who never knew to what purpose they were lending themselves would be in the same chains, cowed and enslaved.
- ConnessioniEdited into Il mistero del cadavere scomparso (1982)
- Colonne sonoreMarcia Funebre
(uncredited)
from "Symphony No.3 in E Flat Major "Eroica", Op.55" (1806)
Music by Ludwig van Beethoven
played as background music during the funeral
I più visti
- How long is Keeper of the Flame?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 1.172.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 15.392 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 40 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1