Advise and Consent (1962)

I saw Otto Preminger's Advise and Consent in 1981 or 1982 on, I think, KSTW or WTBS, and I have loved this movie for 35 years. It's a complex story of politics, and the thuggery that walks hand in hand with it.

The review on IMDb by "Snow Leopard" on 22 November 2005 is excellent, so I won't belabor this review with a synopsis. Ten years after I saw the film--and I read the series of books in the '80s--Advise and Consent became all too real. President George H. W. Bush nominated the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, assured the President that the nominee would work out well. Thomas was being nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall, and Bush was interested in putting another African-American on the SCOTUS bench.

Only one problem. Clarence Thomas was a conservative, and a black Republican must be destroyed at all costs.

So, raw interview information by the FBI (what everyone who has an important job to do in the Executive Branch has to go through; all information, true or false, is collected) got dumped into the public trough. A former aide or secretary--I can't remember--had accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Anita Hill's private interview with the FBI had gone public.

It appeared the nominee's chances had been mortally wounded.

Everyone took sides. Feminists said that it didn't matter if it was true, that the mere accusation was proof enough. Conservatives huffed and flustered and wished Bush had picked somebody different. Liberals, smelling blood began, in Thomas' words, "a high-tech lynching."

When the anger and the nastiness and the general behavior that makes Americans hate politics cleared, Thomas was confirmed by a majority of 4 votes.

It was like watching Advise and Consent in real life. The good guys, the bad guys, the thugs, cretins, and other media were all there. Talk about life imitating art! Sheesh!

Besides the excellent performances, the realistic settings, and the general feeling that Preminger got it right, Advise and Consent is the sort of movie you can watch if you want to know how Washington really works.

Fmovies: The complex story, numerous characters, and sensitive themes would seem to make Allen Drury's "Advise & Consent" a challenging story to film. This is a good adaptation that succeeds in most respects, and it gets about as much out of the material as you could hope for in a couple of hours or so worth of screen time. Otto Preminger seems to have had a good appreciation for the dramatic possibilities, and the fine cast brings the main characters to life believably.

The movie version (more so than the novel) is as much or more about the practicalities of politics than it is about ideology. Some of the political issues themselves were hotly debated topics in the movie's own era, and a couple of them are still topical now, but even they are often secondary to the harsh and often unseemly realities of political power. All of the major characters have their flaws and make mistakes, yet all but a couple of them have some worthwhile characteristics. On its best level, the story is not about winning and losing so much as it is about the ways that political battles affect individual lives and personal character.

There are numerous good performances and some fine casting. Charles Laughton personifies the old-time Senator Cooley, Walter Pigeon (the spell-checker refuses to accept it spelled properly) could not have been better chosen as the Majority Leader, and Henry Fonda is perfect in a challenging role that calls for him to maintain a difficult balance. Even most of the supporting roles are filled well by fine actors like Lew Ayres, Franchot Tone, and Burgess Meredith (who uses his brief screen time very effectively, in a role that must have been quite ironic for him personally).

Naturally, some of the characters and events from the novel had to be omitted or streamlined, but there is still plenty of meat left, even once you discount the Cold War era ideological issues. The personal lives and personal agendas of the characters, the tension between their lives as individuals and their responsibilities as public servants, and the contrast between what they do and what the public sees, all give the movie some extra depth that makes it worthwhile and that gives it meaning that goes well beyond the political issues on the surface.

I've been told that Otto Preminger believed in discipline through voltage. He was a shouter. He was good with actors but had a reputation as a mean, cruel director of actresses. In his films there is a hidden streak of sadistic paranoia disguised in a costume of courage and all American social consciousness. With the passing of time the coat of courage appears fake and induced rather than deserved. The social consciousness seems mere opportunism. The only thing that survives with flying colors is the sadistic paranoia. Not in a fun, witty and cinematic way but as a plodding, old pastiche with the one redeeming feature: the quality of his actors and actresses. Dorothy Dandridge, Jean Simmons, Patricia Neal, Gene Tirney, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, Charles Laughton, Paul Newman, Brandon de Wilde. In "Advise and Consent" the spectacular cast makes this confused political thriller slash soap opera slash full of sadistic paranoia disguised as social consciousness, almost bearable. Every scene with Charles Laughton is enormously fun to watch. Henry Fonda, of course, totally believable. I suggest to watch it with your thumb ready on the fast forward button. Stay with Laughton and Fonda, look at Don Murray and say hello to Gene Tirney. All in all you could see the best of the film in about 15 minutes. Goodness I can hear Otto ranting and raving. I say, let him.

Advise and Consent fmovies. With the election of John F. Kennedy, in 1960, Hollywood took a heightened interest in politics, and the behind-the-scenes drama of lawmaking. Allen Drury's massive novel of wheeling and dealing, "Advise and Consent", was a natural choice for the big screen, and under the sure direction of legendary Otto Preminger, a classic 'political thriller' was born.

The premise, the nomination of a controversial new Secretary of State, and the actions of the President and Congress to help or hinder his approval, is still a remarkably timely issue, over forty years later, and it is surprising how little things have actually changed. With Henry Fonda as the nominee, you'd expect that he'd be the 'good guy' of the tale, but when he lies under oath (even for the best of reasons), Preminger makes it clear that in politics, as in life, there is little that can easily be divided into 'black' and 'white'.

Certainly, there are recognizable historic figures in the cast, under different names. The most obvious is skirt-chasing Sen. Lafe Smith, a thinly-disguised JFK, himself, who cut quite a social path prior to marrying Jackie (and afterward, too, as the years have revealed). That his real-life brother-in-law, Peter Lawford, plays the role, is a grand piece of 'tongue-in-cheek' casting (as is Gene Tierney, one of Kennedy's early 'conquests', as a Washington social maven). One character has become even more fascinating, since the film's release; wily South Carolina Sen. Seabright Cooley (a brilliant Charles Laughton, in his final role), was said to have been based on Illinois' legendary Everett Dirksen, but in a real-life parallel, South Carolina produced a 'real' Sea Cooley, in the amazing Strom Thurmond! The 'Who-Is-Who?' aspect aside, the film is populated with many fascinating characters, from wise and sympathetic Senate Majority Leader Robert Munson (Walter Pigeon, in one of his finest later roles), and his 'right-hand man', Senate Majority Whip Stanley Danta (Paul Ford, also wonderful), to the Minority opposition, headed by the perfectly-cast Will Geer. Women, who were finally achieving greater political status, aren't as well-conceived in the film, but are present, with Betty White(!) in a small but visible role.

The key 'players' of the drama, however, are the wily, dying President (screen veteran Franchot Tone, in a terrific 'comeback' role), the enigmatic Vice President (Lew Ayres, another screen legend making a 'comeback'), young, idealistic Sen. Brigham Anderson (Don Murray, who nearly steals the film in his tragic portrayal), and opportunistic Sen. Fred Van Ackerman (George Grizzard, as easily the film's most hiss-able villain!) As with all Preminger films, there is an element of controversy in the story, with homosexuality as the issue addressed. While later film historians have complained that the director fell back into an almost caricatured approach to the gay lifestyle, considering the era the film was produced, and the censorship restrictions of the time, to even mention it was a courageous move, and that Preminger kept this key plot element in the story should be applauded.

"Advise and Consent" may not be the kind of film that will appeal to everyone, but each time I hear Jerry Fielding's stirring opening theme, I find myself drawn back into this ever-fascinating world of Politics and Power, and I think, if you give it a chance, you'll be hooked by

So condescending, to everyone. Washington socialite Gene Tirney comes into the public gallery of Congress escorting two diplomat's wives, the British and the French. She gives the French wife a lesson into the workings of Congress, the French lady doesn't seem to know anything about the American executive branch or understand it. Why didn't the French sue? Or women for that matter. Behind the camera there is a man with a tyrannic brain a misogynistic eye and a very old sensibility, if any. What's fun about this politically incorrect tired tale is precisely the incorrectness, the melodramatic turn and Charles Laughton. Betrayal and conspiracy in the corridors of power has always been a favorite subject from Shakespeare and beyond but here there is a massive problem and I can't decide whether it takes itself too seriously or not seriously enough. See it by yourself and enjoy a terrific Laughton.

Preminger's masterpiece and one of the greatest of all American films and yet critical opinion is strongly divided on this one. Some people believe that the melodramatic elements of the plot, (homosexuality, blackmail, suicide), denigrates the film's authenticity and takes away from it as drama but the characters are so beautifully drawn, (and the performances of such a uniformly high standard), that the mechanics of the plot seem startlingly real. By being overt about homosexuality in 1962 the film broke new ground, though the gay characters, briefly seen, are cringe-worthy stereotypes.

What makes the film a masterpiece is Preminger's extraordinary mise-en-scene and possibly the best use of the widescreen for dramatic effect in any American movie. By keeping some characters on the periphery of the screen while the main characters in the scene interact in the foreground Preminger creates tensions and psychological relationships between them that cutting would only dissipate.

The plot centres on a dying President's controversial nomination of a left-wing Secretary of State. On the one hand, there are consequential melodramas inherent in pushing the plot forward, (the President's nomination is opposed; the politicians play dirty), while on the other is the almost documentary-like approach Preminger applies to the political machinations that take place on the floor of the senate and in the offices, houses and hotel-rooms where the characters live and work.

It is also the most entertaining of all political movies. (filmed luminously in black-and-white by Sam Leavitt it feels like a cracking film noir). The cast are matchless and many of them did their finest work here. This is particularly true of Walter Pigeon as the Majority Leader, (he's as decent and as noble as Ghandi), Franchot Tone as the President, Don Murray as the senator who is being blackmailed, (he was never to get a better part), Lew Ayres as the invisible Vice-President and Burgess Meredith as the mentally unstable witness, (it's a great cameo). Charles Laughton, too, gave a career-defining performance as the wily old senator whose opposition is the source of everyone's troubles, (it was his last film).

George Grizzard's character and performance is a mistake. He's the villain of the piece and he's demonic; he goes around spitting fire but he's a necessary evil. And the ending doesn't ring true; it's too convenient, a cop-out even if we are on the edge of our seat. But these are minor quibbles when everything else is so extraordinarily good. The script, by Wendell Mayes, is one of the great adaptations of a book, (even if it does reduce the roles of some characters and leaves out the back-fill). Amazingly, this great film wasn't nominated for a single Oscar. It rose above the brouhaha of the Academy.