La Vie de Thomas Edison

I have probably seen more bio-pics than anyone you'll ever meet and so I obviously like this style film. BUT, at the same time, I am a retired history teacher and love to know the true stories behind the films--and often these movies and reality have little in common! In some other cases, there stories are close overall to the true characters and events BUT key elements have been changed or omitted--and such is the case with "Edison the Man". While generally sticking to the truth better than most bio-pics of the era, some parts of Edison's life were changed for a variety of reasons. In some cases, I understand, the movie COULD have been 6-8 hours long if it dealt in detail with all of Edison's most important inventions. Plus, in doing this, what about his private life? You just can't do it all in a two hour film! However, one odd omission occurred in the film that I think they should have addressed. Edison's young wife portrayed in the film didn't live that long--dying before age 30. Here, they appear to have been married a long time and no mention is made of his second wife nor the children from this marriage. It's odd, as the dying young wife could have infused the movie with a bit more pathos and drama. A few other incidents were compressed because of time and to heighten the drama--such as how the phonograph developed (it actually took some time and inventions by other folks following Edison's invention to prefect the device). But, despite these errors and omissions that crazed ex-history teachers might notice, the film IS very good. It achieves the goal of lionizing this important inventor (and ignores his foibles to do so) and is always interesting. Well worth seeing but I strongly recommend you read up on the man--he was much more complex and incredible than the character you see in the movie.

By the way, despite what was said in the film, ostriches DON'T stick their heads in the ground--whether they are afraid or not. It's an old myth.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. We hear current scandals and corporate ruthlessness now and in past history. This picture paints the "Hollywood" side of Edison, but he too has a ruthless side.

Edison certainly deserves much credit, but he had his vices. He invested heavily in Direct Current (DC) technology; good for many applications, but not for the needed power and lighting applications Edison envisioned. No mention is made in the movie of Nikola Tesla. Edison invited him to the USA from Croatia to work in Edison's labs. Edison made him work from 10:30 am to 5:00 the next morning, seven days per week. Even though Tesla did not believe in Edison's direct current motors he worked hard to improve them. Edison told him if he could do that he would give him a bonus of $50,000. He came up with twenty-four new designs to replace the old ones of Edison's. Edison was delighted with the results but did not pay Tesla the $50,000 he had promised. When Tesla finally asked him about it, it is said that Edison told him, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor." That is when Tesla left the Edison Co. and eventually worked for Edison's rival George Westinghouse. Westinghouse was ruthless as well, but he and Tesla got along, and secured the contract to supply generators at Niagara Falls.

Films such as these are great to bring initial awareness. My hope would be they prompt more investigation. That in mind, I'll take these "Hollywood biographies" over what often comes from the current film industry: recycled garbage.

Spencer Tracy stars as the famous inventor Thomas Edison. This movie deals primarily with his struggles to invent the electric light. Beautiful Rita Johnson plays Edison's wife. Excellent supporting cast includes Henry Travers, Charles Coburn, Grant Mitchell, Felix Bressart, and Gene Lockhart -- solid character actors all. Grand MGM polish and production values make for a great-looking picture.

This is the second MGM biopic of Edison released in 1940. The first, Young Tom Edison, starred Mickey Rooney and covered the inventor's early years. Edison, the Man is sort of a sequel to that film. Both are excellent. These old biopics were usually solid, uplifting character-driven stories. Yes they take liberties with the details but the more cynical defamatory biopics we get these days do the same. I'll take an inspirational biography that builds people up and leaves you with the warm fuzzies over some deconstructionist tabloid trash any day.

Edison in this version comes across as a kindly soul, sort of "Santa the inventor" -- kind to one and all.

Don't look for historical accuracy of any kind in this film. Although the acting is nicely done. Spencer Tracy is a constant delight. He even gets to play the organ in one scene! Tracy and Co.'s contributions rate it a six, but it certainly doesn't deserve anything more.

I especially loved the one-handed Morse-code tapping Edison. One doesn't need to know much about Edison to realize pretty quickly that this is sheer hagiography.

There is even a court room scene between gas and electrical lighting. Pretty fun.

Motion Picture biographical representations of famous people usually remove the warts in their life history. It was not until February of 2003 did I learn that using carbon filaments, was the brainchild of African-American inventor Lewis Latimer and his partner, Joseph V. Nichols. The movie focuses around Edison's discovery of the carbon filament which lights the world, when actually Edison's filaments were made from bamboo and only lasted 30 hours.

The story as told is very pleasant and the performances of Spencer Tracey, Gene Lockhart and Charles Coburn hold the viewers interest. With the warts, this is still an inspiring motion picture. I think seeing Mickey Rooney as YOUNG TOM EDISON should be viewed first.