Wilson

Woodrow Wilson was not considered a very successful President before he was "rehabilitated" by FDR during World War II as part of a campaign to show the mistakes the US had made a generation before. This film's glorification of Wilson was clearly part of that war propaganda effort.

Alexander Knox is perfectly cast in this effort, he physically looks just right, and has all the mannerisms. Of course the character is shifted from the reality (a stunningly racist, intellectually isolated scholar) to a "pre-FDR" who talks of "all races working together" and whose every motive is pure and well thought out. The Wilson of this film is pure hero, and always right, if shown as a touch stubborn.

But I was engaged despite it all. And the 1912 Convention scenes early in the film are brilliantly done. Check out Vincent Price as a campaign lieutenant. And Cedric Hardwicke is great as the villainous Republican Henry Cabot Lodge.

I don't know how many modern-day film viewers would sit through this long a biography (154 minutes) of a fairly boring man but it moves pretty well and is generally entertaining account of our 28th U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson.

When I watched this, I was unfamiliar with the lead actor, Alexander Knox, and I still am! However, he did a fine job as Wilson. The supporting cast did have some "names," such as Charles Coburn, Thomas Mitchell, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Cedric Hardwicke, Vincent Price, Ruth Nelson and much more.

When they made Technicolor films of the 1940s, which wasn't often, they were very pretty and this one is, too. They also did a nice job re-creating the early 20th century.

It's a nice film but nothing memorable, to be honest, and certainly biased in favor of Wilson....but still worth seeing. With it's length, one viewing would be enough.

If you want to dramatize Wilson's life, you can either approach it as either a tragedy or a hagiography, and Fox chose the hagiographic route. Considering the era and that the only biography at the time was the uncritical one by Ray Standard Baker, this is hardly surprising. Thank God, however, they cast the unknown Alexander Knox rather than an established star such as Gary Cooper for the title character; when you see the film you can't imagine anyone else playing the part.

This movie proves that the Hollywood era could do films with some integrity beyond the standard fare from MGM or Warners. Twentieth-Century Fox's Zanuck was the only mogul who had the guts to make a motion picture as expensive as this, with an unknown in the lead, and on a President who, unlike say Teddy Roosevelt, strikes many people as a cold fish. I love this film, despite its simplifying of history and its wartime propaganda because it's very special in many ways. There are plenty of movies like JEFFERSON IN PARIS or YOUNG MR. LINCOLN or ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS or THE PRESIDENT'S LADY etc., but aside from NIXON, Zanuck and King's WILSON seems the only theatrical film that dramatizes a President's life while he served in office. For those of you who find it undramatic, think again: it's a film to cherish

This is a film I've wanted to see for a long time since it was nominated for best picture and won a bunch of Oscars in 1944 (in what may be considered one of the weakest years for the Oscar with "Going My Way" winning best film (over the great "Double Indemnity") and Bing Crosby winning best actor). Worldwide as well this was not a great year, as I could only find "A Canterbury Tale", "Ivan the Terrible" and "Henry the V" as memorable films made that year (you could add "Laura" and a couple of Preston Sturges comedies. Blame it on the war). I was also interested in watching a color film made in 1944 in order to compare it with the great British color films made at that time. All in all, the cinematography was very good but the film was dull as hell, I suppose because Wilson was boring as hell and was interpreted by Alexander Knox who gave a performance boring as hell. I heard Henry Fonda was considered for the part and that would have certainly helped the quality of the film and its box office, which was terrible. Regarding historical accuracy, I leave that to others who have studied the matter.

"Wilson" is in the grand tradition of biopics of great men in which the subject has no significant faults and only a few foibles, and those serve mainly to humanize him. This is an extremely well-made movie on just about every level. It largely gets the history right, except where things have to be fudged to maintain the great man's image. One fact that's never mentioned, for example, is Wilson's reimposition of Jim Crow laws in the District of Columbia.

Perhaps most interesting is how the film handles Wilson's remarriage. His first wife died in 1914, and Wilson remarried in less than two years. His new wife was younger and more glamorous than the first Mrs. Wilson. The filmmakers include a scene in which the dying Mrs. Wilson tells her daughters that their father is a strong and good man, but that he needs the love of a woman. She thus exculpates Wilson from the unseemliness attendant with remarrying so quickly (though this haste was the subject of considerable gossip at the time).

"Wilson" is a well-made, entertaining and interesting period piece that provides some accurate history. Compare its treatment of President Wilson with the way in which presidents are depicted in film today -- Oliver Stone's "Nixon," for example. And can you imagine a widower president carrying on a romance in the White House in today's intolerant political and moral climate?