Gabriel au-dessus de la Maison Blanche

I call this a precode in an unusual sense of the term. "Precode" usually drums up visions of movies like "Baby Face" and "The Divorcée" - films filled with sexually controversial situations and language for that period of time (1928-1934). However, precode was more than this. It also involved political ideas that were over the top and the existential doubts that made the fine horror films of Universal Studios in the early 30's. This film is definitely a political precode. The censors would have never allowed such a film to be released just 18 months later. At this point I quote Wikipedia, which gives some context for the film:

"Filmed during the 1932 presidential election on the orders of media magnate William Randolph Hearst, the film was intended to be an instructional guide for Franklin D. Roosevelt during his presidency. Hammond as he exists prior to his accident is an amalgamation of caricatures of Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt's immediate predecessors. After his accident, he is Hearst's idealized image of the perfect president, the president he wanted Roosevelt to be."

Hearst always had great sway at MGM, with him also directing the career of his mistress, Marion Davies, at that same studio. President Judd Hammond in his "idealized" form is much more of a fascist than a socialist, though, declaring martial law and putting people in charge of trials because they have a grudge against the defendant. It is also interesting that Pres. Hammond after his transformation not only has a new interest in the welfare of the citizens, but he is rendered sexually neutral, addressing his former mistress as Miss rather than by her first name. It is like Judd Hammond has had some supernatural being possess his body more than it seems that Hammond has had some kind of transformation of his own world view.

Definitely recommended. I don't think I've ever seen a film quite like it.

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.

.

Anyone with an interest in American history or politics should see this--if you can find it! It's a fantasy about a political hack who is elected president during the Depression, who is transformed by an angel after an auto accident into a national savior--the perfect president, from a 1933 point of view. The result is just a bit scary. The fact that this movie came out during FDR's first few months in office makes it particularly interesting. It reveals a lot about what America was looking for then--and what it may be looking for today.

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.