Un homme dans la foule

The fictional story of a vagabond who is discovered and becomes a mega entertainment star who not only aquires fame and fortune but also political power. I came away from this film with the thinking that in 1957 when the picture came out in a strange way it must have terrified viewers. The film was clearly ahead of its time. By todays standards the egotistical, cynical and power hungry Lonesome Rhodes actually is quite tame but in 57 he must have been viewed as a cross between Hitler and Arthur Godfrey. Andy Griffith is nothing less than brilliant as Rhodes. Superb support from Patricia Neal, Walter Matthau, Anthony Franciosa and Lee Remick in her first motion picture. The movie never lags as it grips the viewer from the opening right to the final scene.

One of the best pictures I've seen to date. Griffith had the part of the womanizing, opinionated, lazy, loud mouthed bum down pat. In fact, the entire cast was superb in this dynamic, gripping, and in the first half, uproariously funny drama which clearly shows how ego can not only destroy the egotist but those close to him. This film is an equal to Griffith's fine performances as Horton Maddock in "Savages" and Howard Pike in "Hearts of the West". 4 stars.

Like a lot of people who've commented on this film, I didn't get around to seeing it until late in life, and it seems as relevant today as ever, maybe even more so. I find it interesting that different people, depending on their own viewpoint, project different contemporary personalities into the mold of the film's detestable hero, Lonesome Rhodes. The list of various people Rhodes is compared to includes Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, or George W. Bush, suggesting that there's enough BS from all sides to go around. I did a double-take on watching this film when the reactionary right-wing presidential candidate that Rhodes promotes begins to pontificate about how un-American the notion of social security is, and how it's high time it was dismantled. That was 1957, and that cause is being worked harder than ever today. I was not aware, until reading some of the other comments here, how central a target Arthur Godfrey was in this story. In fact, I believe Godfrey is actually mentioned by name in the film when Rhodes says something like "Have Arthur Godfrey fill in for me, and tell him I'll return the favor some time."

Anyway, while this film hardly needs yet another accolade, I'll add mine to the list and say that it's one of the great under-appreciated films of its time, and only grows with stature as the years go on. And hallelujah – there's now a well-made DVD of this film that includes an interesting documentary in which we hear from Schulberg, Griffeth, Neal, Franciosa, and some film scholars. About time, too.

I just saw this movie very late the other night, and I must say WOW! Like the rest of you, I saw "A Face In the Crowd" on a regular VHS edition, but it wouldn't matter which edition I saw it in because this was one of the few movies recently that made the jaw of this movie snob literally DROP with amazement over how daring, how edgy, and how much mastery this movie had over the film-making craft.

I'm beginning to realize that in the 1950's there was a short period of time (1955-1960, say) where the world of Broadway and the theater, Television, and Hollywood came together, and the careers of people like Rod Serling, Sidney Lumet, and "A Face In the Crowd"'s own Budd Schulberg were started. The best screenwriters in the movie business became innately aware of the increasing importance and influence of the new media form Television, while the best directors (like Elia Kazan), many of whom had directed numerous plays, knew how to cull the talents of Broadways hottest and most gifted performers, and at least for a couple of years, managed to get some awesome performances out of them. That's why I view this movie in the same sort of category as "The Sweet Smell of Success", that ever so sour and bitingly satiric parable on the corruption of American glamour and fame, and how publicity is just as much of a curse as a blessing. The performances in that film are like few others in the same era, and I think its no coincidence that "A Face In the Crowd" came out the same year as the other film. The main scribes of both those films, Clifford Odets and Budd Schulberg, were experienced with TV work by the time they penned their masterpieces (though Schulberg could also claim as his masterpiece 'On the Waterfront').

So anyway, I suggest to all who can hear me and have a love enough for this film to want to see it given the presentation it deserves, that we all write to the Criterion Collection and other DVD distributing companies and ask, no DEMAND that a restored, cleaned up version of "A Face In the Crowd", with as many special features as can be rustled up, be released as soon as possible. It's like writing your congressman, except instead of asking for a new factory of national park, we're asking for the wider availability of a piece of art that has gone with far too little acclaim for far too long. Who's with me?!?

It is surprising that 'A Face in the Crowd' only got a mixed critical reception when it first came out, though can actually understand why some were not so taken with it. It is great though that 'A Face in the Crowd' has gotten the acclaim it deserves over-time and is so highly regarded here. Anybody that wants to see every film directed by Elia Kazan, see a different side to star Andy Griffith and see a very interesting subject being addressed should absolutely watch this film.

As far as Kazan's films go (all of which are woth watching, even if for a couple of them just the once though to me he never made a "bad" film), 'A Face in the Crowd' is not as iconic as 'On the Waterfront', 'A Streetcar Named Desire' or 'East of Eden' or as emotionally powerful as 'A Tree Grows in Brooklyn', 'Pinky' and 'Man on a Tightrope'. It is still up there as one of his better films in my view, but he is not the only reason to see it. It was really interesting to see Griffith in such a different role and do it so well and in terms of subject matter it is one of the bravest ones of Kazan's films along with 'Pinky'.

With the exception of 'The Visitors', one of the few films from Kazan that didn't feel like it came from him, Kazan's films were very well made visually. That is the case with 'A Face in the Crowd', it is shot intimately without being static and opened up enough without being heavy or trying to do too much. While having the right amount of audacious style and grit. The editing is sharp and fluid and the locations are made good use of. The music is effective enough, isn't overused and at least fits the mood, wouldn't have said no to Alfred Newman or Alex North scoring though.

Kazan's direction is typically on the money, apart from the rare occasions where a film of his doesn't feel like it was directed by him (i.e. 'The Visitors'). He has great visual style, gives so much dramatic impact to scenes and his famously peerless direction of actors and how he got such great performances from actors against type or inexperienced is all on display here in 'A Face in the Crowd'. The script is razor sharp and has scathing bite as ought for a film with a satirical edge, and provokes a lot of though. Although it is very scathing to the extent that it's almost scary, it is done in good taste too.

The story is a compelling and brave one, really admire it when any film or anything take on this subject and represent the media in this way (a truthful one by the way and should be portrayed a lot more) and it has aged incredibly well. Namely because, sadly, the subject is still very relevant today (just like when 'Pinky' tackled racism). Anybody who has read any of my previous reviews will notice my admiration for films handling difficult but worth addressing topics and exploring them in an uncompromising way, which 'A Face in the Crowd' does and brilliantly, and if anybody feels uncomfortable after watching that is a good thing.

Furthermore, the characters are interesting. Can understand where some critics are coming from when they feel that with Rhodes being such a juicy and larger than life character with an incredibly powerful presence in a quite scary way that he dominates everything else too much, but personally don't agree so much. Although it is Rhodes that everybody remembers, one shouldn't overlook the other characters as Marcia brings a lot of heart to the film. He also doesn't feel too much of a cartoon at all and is quite accurate too. Griffith is absolutely brilliant and was never better, while there is also a fine performance from an emotive Patricia Neal. All the performances are very good.

My only complaint is the slightly too drawn out ending.

Otherwise, this is absolutely great in almost every way. 9/10