A wealthy businessman whose wife has divorced him, is bitter about the divorce, and prevents his ex-wife from seeing their child. She takes him to court, and a judge tries to determine what ... Read allA wealthy businessman whose wife has divorced him, is bitter about the divorce, and prevents his ex-wife from seeing their child. She takes him to court, and a judge tries to determine what will be best for the child.A wealthy businessman whose wife has divorced him, is bitter about the divorce, and prevents his ex-wife from seeing their child. She takes him to court, and a judge tries to determine what will be best for the child.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Loud Member
- (uncredited)
- Mrs. Delaney
- (uncredited)
- Party Guest
- (uncredited)
- Minor Role
- (uncredited)
- Lab Assistant
- (uncredited)
- Bartender
- (uncredited)
- Roberts
- (uncredited)
- Bailiff
- (uncredited)
- Parking Attendant
- (uncredited)
- Passerby
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Anne Seymour, in a one-scene restrained performance, plays the judge who surprises everyone with her decision to give the boy to his mother since the child has no ties with her. An embittered Crosby goes on a brief binge while being consoled by Inger Stevens, an assistant to his attorney played by the usual movie-lawyer E.G. Marshall.
The film is interesting and well acted by all but my flaw with it is that the child is constantly bounced around as Crosby and Fickett fight it out. In addition, the Solomon-like decision did not apply here. If we remember our bible, the woman who was willing to see Solomon divide the child really didn't love the child at all, if she wanted this to happen. In the film, the mother finally relents as she sees that the child really wants to stay with his father and therefore, in the tradition of Solomon, she loves the child more. This is wrong and the writers of this picture should have read the bible more carefully.
Naturally, everyone comes to his senses in this one by the end as a reasonable solution is obtained. One could question why this solution couldn't be put forth at the beginning of the controversy.
Nevertheless, the film shows insight in its discussing the effects of divorce on children, the anger of one parent in particular and that a child should remain with the female parent. Yet, haven't we come a long way in equality for both parents?
The story involves a pair of divorced parents who have fallen out of love and are contesting the custody of their son. Crosby the father has the kid and wife Mary Fickett and her new husband Richard Eastham want him.
It's a well acted film and Crosby proves he doesn't need to sing to carry a film. His Earl Carleton is a troubled man, a loving father wounded terribly by the divorce. Mary Fickett is a loving mother who's been denied custody of her son by a hastily signed agreement at the time of her's and Bing's divorce. Her new husband Richard Eastham wants a share of custody for his wife's sake.
The point is that this is a film without villains. These are just good people caught in a bad situation trying to do the right thing as they conceive it. And in probably the best performance of her long career, Judge Anne Seymour has to decide it. The custody hearing scene in her chambers is the best acted scene in the film.
This situation may have inspired some of the situations portrayed in the current series Judging Amy. The film has an honored place in the films of Bing Crosby. A must see.
Bing Crosby shines in his part of a father whose wife eloped with a government man and after two years wants half of the custody ;from the very start ,the young boy hates his stepfather ,Mister Seward ,he calls "sewer" ;the best moment is the scene with the judge (at the time, there were few women judges ,;today they would not even notice it ) ; the actress,Anne Seymour, although she only has a fleeting part , displays a strong sense of psychology and humanity ,even though her verdict may seem unexpected; queen Solomon indeed :the ending bear this out.
In spite of Inger Stevens ' unquestionable talent (debut) ,her character is cardboard ; you can predict what she will do as soon as she appears; that she can blow the party single-handedly is hardly credible ;she's not a woman ,she's a good fairy with a magic wand. On the other hand ,the part of the mother (Mary Fickett) is too underwritten : she suffers too, because her boy is part of her body -and one learns a sad secret towards the end ;she and her new husband (EG Marshall ) are not the villains. The stepfather ,as the film progresses,finally wins the audience over , when he talks about the famous biblical story of the two women claiming a baby.
A hot topic ,still today.....
This finely crafted drama slowly builds from its foundation to reveal the ugly side of domestic tension. The photography, editing and music all are effective in their simplicity and at times stark execution.
The acting is top notch throughout, particularly Bing Crosby, Inger Stevens, and Anne Seymour as leads, with the always dependable E. G. Marshall in a supporting role.
An interesting footnote: at this writing the film lacks to date a single professional critic review on IMDb, only user reviews. A careful internet search reveals a most thoughtful review by Bosley Crowther of the N. Y. Times and a revealing article on TCM. Rarely has a work with such top notch actors and artistic accomplishment been so lacking in critical commentary.
For myself, I fully appreciate this "Man on Fire" as a thoughtful, deeply felt and often shattering drama of domestic strife.
Did you know
- TriviaBing Crosby wanted to marry Inger Stevens after making this film, but she refused to convert to Catholicism.
- GoofsAt about the 24 minute mark, when Earl and Nina are sitting at the bar talking, Earl having ordered coffee and ginger ale for her, their beverages are suddenly there, along with cream and a sugar bowl, without any appearance of the bartender bringing them.
- Quotes
Theodore 'Ted' Carleton: King Solomon who was going to cut the baby in half. Why did Solomon smile?
Earl Carleton: Because he knew who the real mother was.
Theodore 'Ted' Carleton: The one who gave up the baby.
- How long is Man on Fire?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Man on Fire
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,180,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 35m(95 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1