Gabriel au-dessus de la Maison Blanche

GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE (1933) is a movie that really tests the viewers' ideals about government and democracy. Is it meant to be inspirational? Aspirational? Frightening? A cautionary tale? It's certainly a movie that makes viewers think.

Walter Huston plays Judd Hammond, newly elected President of the United States. The country is in the midst of an economic Depression, with millions out of work and starving, but President Hammond is happy to enjoy the comforts of his position while serving as a pawn of his political party. He has no intentions of fulfilling campaign promises or reforming the country. One character notes, "The right man in the White House can bring us out of despair, into prosperity again." It is clear that Judd Hammond is not the right man.

But after a serious head injury, the President is reborn as a crusader for the greatest good. He takes action to help his suffering people, firing any cabinet members that stand in his way.

The President could be suffering from some sort of brain damage, or perhaps Judd Hammond's body is being possessed by the angel Gabriel, God's messenger to the people. But, as Franchot Tone's character points out, is not Gabriel a messenger of Wrath?

The new President Hammond starts as an idealistic reformer, but ultimately transforms the United States government into a Machiavellian dictatorship, complete with firing squads. Everything the President does is for the good of the people, but the ends cannot always justify the means. He supports the unemployed masses, promising to stimulate the economy and bring back prosperity. But when he meets opposition on Capitol Hill, he dissolves Congress and takes sole control of the government under martial law.

To combat gangsterism, the President repeals Prohibition and establishes government-funded liquor stores. Violent resistance from the gangsters is seen as a declaration of war on the United States and a special police army is created to wipe out the racketeering scum.

It's unclear how director Gregory La Cava wants the audience to feel about President Hammond. On the one hand, he is a champion of the people, fighting for the common man and getting results. But he is destroying the American democratic system in the process. Senators are outraged when the President threatens to dissolve Congress, and rightly so. Yet characters speak in great admiration of the President after he bullies the nations of the world into accepting his vision for international peace.

Coming at a time when Americans looked to their leaders for help, GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE might have been a Depression-era fantasy, giving audiences the strong political leader of their dreams. Or it might have been a caution of the slippery slope of government involvement. The film is fascinating and controversial from a modern vantage point. The economic stimulus idea has gained some relevance in recent years, though the shadows of the fascism and Nazism to come in that decade are unsettling to see (especially portrayed in the United States).

In some way historians can argue that certain figures in our history should have had a chance to become President. Senator Robert Taft deserved an opportunity to show his abilities in that job, as did Senators Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Robert La Follette. Mistakes, political miscalculations, and sheer chance prevented their elections (and in Taft's case even his nomination). But while there is a general feeling of pity for those four gentlemen in failing to reach the White House, most historians agree that William Randolph Hearst did not fully deserve to even approach it. Hearst was extremely good at building up a newspaper empire, and of creating an exciting and stimulating model for the modern newspaper. But his overwhelming desire to reach the White House became such a joke that he became known as "William - Also Ran - dolph Hearst".

Problem with Hearst was that he enjoyed playing with public opinion and guiding it, but he also enjoyed...well enjoyed living the life of a remarkably wealthy man. His father George Hearst was a prospector who found one of the great gold mines in the west and rose to the post of U.S. Senator from California (ironically, a higher national office than his son ever reached). The image of Hearst from CITIZEN KANE of the boy whose father was a drinker, and whose mother signs over to the boy ownership of the mine is not true. In the course of doing business, Hearst Sr. got ownership of the San Francisco Enquirer, and Willy (who'd been tossed out of several colleges) asked to run it. George allowed Willy to do that, and Willy found his true métier.

His bug to become President never left him. He did win a Congressional seat from New York City in 1901, and held it for two terms. But by then his yellow journalism made so many enemies that he was ignored in Congress (when he decided to show up - he really could not apply himself to the job of Congressman). Yet in 1904 he managed to gather over 200 delegates for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Unfortunately he could not get the two thirds majority needed, and the delegates nominated Chief Justice Alton Brooks Parker of New York State's Court of Appeals (who was thrashed by Teddy Roosevelt in the election). Possibly, had Hearst got nominated, it would have enabled him to rid himself of Presidentialitis. That was not to be the case. He would run for Mayor of New York, Governor of New York, and seek a nomination (in the 1920s) for Senator from New York. He never won any of these elections, and he did not get nominated for Senator. His influence in the 1932 Democratic Convention was thrown to FDR, but he subsequently broke with the newly elected 32nd President.

Hearst, in his career, had pushed for better conditions for the poor, and better treatment of Labor. He had been hard on the trusts. He opposed our entry into World War I and Wilson's League of Nations. All of this is familiar from Welles' CITIZEN KANE. But his views turned rightward after 1915. Being German, his anti-war views (however wise they may have been) were colored by a pro-German viewpoint. His pro-labor point of view turned sour as he faced more and more serious financial problems (especially in the Depression). He did, however, think that the government of the day was inept in handling the Depression, and thought stronger measures were needed.

So he financed and produced GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE. His solution was that the President must seize power, despite that antiquated series of checks and balances called the Constitution, and force relief in the form of jobs on the public. This mirrors part of FDR's New Deal (like the CCC, which built public roads), but FDR did try to get this legislation through Congress in the first 100 days. Hearst also was against expensive military build-ups. He has Walter Huston force "THE WASHINGTON COVENANT" on Europe and the World, which will reduce the armed navies. Actually (and somewhat intelligently) he shows that the large battleships are dinosaurs - Gregory La Cava uses film of Billy Mitchell's sinking of old battleships by aircraft from 1921 in the movie to demonstrate this. But it is doubtful that in real life such a treaty could be forced on anyone. They would resent the strong arm lecturing involved.

The film is fascinating despite the ridiculous populist - cum - fascist viewpoint. It helps that Walter Huston is playing the President, as he certainly gives whatever juice he has into such a thankless role (from hack politician to injured car passenger to international savior?). The rest of the cast seems adequate, though C. Henry Gordon does what he can to make his gangster boss seem villainous enough (including a drive by shooting near the White House). I give the film a seven out of 10, as an interesting curiosity, and a quick look into the mind of one of our most fascinating millionaires.

I remember having seen this movie when I was very young, and it impressed me then as propaganda for President Roosevelt's New Deal. Now I know better, and have read something about its real history. William Randolph Hearst had become an FDR fan, and had this picture made by his Cosmopolitan productions, affiliated with MGM, in order to express what he hoped the new President would do. MGM's boss, Louis B. Mayer, a staunch Republican, shelved the picture until after the Roosevelt inauguration. Now we can see that what Hearst expected FDR to do by dictatorial means, the President achieved as a real believer in Democracy. The picture is intelligent; Walter Huston's performance, brilliant, as well as the supporting work by Karen Morley and Franchot Tone (was this his movie debut?). The direction by Gregory LaCava, exceptional, as he managed to make the audience believe in such far-fetched and unbelievable sequences as the "war" against racketeers with courts martial included, but he could not avoid the allusions to the Archangel Gabriel sounding ridiculous. Anyhow this a curious motion picture, and probably the most politically inclined ever made by a major Hollywood studio. But the fascistic leanings of Hearst could not be hidden, not even by a producer as liberal in politics as Walter Wanger.

Fascinating and important historical document.

I want to briefly address the historical comments that this was "left wing" propaganda. This is a real misreading of the film and the historical context. This was an earnest, non-ironic celebration of proto-fascist ideals by Wm. Randolph Hearst, including not so veiled references to the "foreigners" who he felt were responsible for all ills in American Society. I am, by the way, a fairly consistent Republican, so I'm not writing on behalf of the left wing.

Let's not give such credit for "prescience" as to misread the film entirely out of its time, as a pre-emotive critique of FDR. Some modern viewers mis-interpret the film as "left wing" because, to modern eyes, it is so obviously "corny" and wrong-headed that they assume it is meant as ironic. Hearst was notoriously sympathetic to fascist ideas --and as this was pre WWII, the ideas of fascism were not yet fully discredited in the US, and enjoyed some widespread support given fairly desperate times and the intellectual movements of the day. This film was produced by Wm Randolph Hearst in 1932, before FDR was elected. It was held over for distribution by Louis B. Mayer (who did not sympathize with its fascistic views) till after the Hoover-FDR election, to avoid influencing the election.

The film does, of course, have relevance to FDR (and others) who would subvert the Constitution for expediency. However, to understand what the film maker meant, you have to view it as a pro-dictatorial document, by an individual who was not afraid to state those views, in the context of his time. Today, we have the luxury to see how obviously wrong those views were. But to miss the endorsement of proto-fascism in the movie is to forget the history of those who, in desperate times, with receptive elements of the population, were once willing to embrace a form of fascism in the USA.

Hearst's views were also, to some degree, responsible for an under-reporting of the ominous nature of Nazi Germany, as it is well documented that he instructed his news gathering organization to be sympathetic to that fledgling regime, and not to focus on abuses of Jews and others under the Nazis. This movie is a fascinating window into a mindset that was real, had an effect on history, and which found resonances in the ideas of Father Coughlin, Huey Long etc.

.

No need to repeat points already made about the film's interesting origin or plot line. For once, MGM's lavish production machinery is put to excellent use. The crowd scenes are quite convincing both in size and in tone. Catch that early scene where the silken Karen Morley makes an unexpected call on the newly sworn-in president. It's a minor masterpiece of adult-level innuendo, beautifully performed and directed. We know why she's there even if Franchot Tone's accommodating chief-of-staff takes a few moments to sink in. Yes, indeed, this is the White House and 30 years before the meandering young JFK. In fact, the script plays things revealingly cagey, never once disclosing Hammond's marital status-- a possible dictator, yes; but a possible philanderer, now that's just too touchy to reveal!

In fact, the subject matter is, on the whole, intelligently handled, even if it has to include moments of occult intervention-- a reference that usually puts a strain on my digestive tract. Director La Cava knew how to keep results under control, which is key to the movie's success. Sure, it's primarily a document of its time, but when I read in today's news about a "unitary presidency", and "presidential signings exemptions" from the laws Congress passes, I'm not so sure that the past remains the past. Anyway, this wacky excursion into the realm of political fantasy stands as a one-of-a-kind and should not be missed.