Advise & Consent (1962)

8/10

For The Good of the Country: The Political Shocker of 1962

gftbiloxi3 February 2008

As a Congressional correspondent for the New York Times during the 1950s, author Allen Drury had ample opportunity to witness Washington politicians in their natural habit---and drew upon numerous factual sources, including the controversial Alger Hiss case and the scandalous suicide of Senator Lester Hunt, to create the story of a controversial nominee for Secretary of State. The novel was not only a best seller, it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

It was also a book that Hollywood could not film under the film industry's notorious Production Code. As it happened, the book fell into the hands of director Otto Preminger, long-time foe of Hollywood's rules for self-censorship. He not only made the film, he flagrantly broke the code; as such, ADVISE AND CONSENT presents our nation's leaders embroiled in a blackmail plot, finds actress Gene Tierney using the word 'bitch,' and became the first Hollywood film to show a gay bar. It was shocking stuff for 1962.

The story is extremely convoluted. An aging and extremely ill President makes a highly controversial nomination for Secretary of State---which is opposed by a member of his own party, who bears the nominee a personal grudge and who attempts to derail the nomination by accusing the nominee of former membership in the Communist Party. This in turn touches off a vicious battle between those in the party who support the nominee and those who don't, a battle that will ultimately result in the suicide of the only character who has the integrity we would like to see in our political leaders.

The cast is indeed remarkable and, from Lew Ayres to Betty White, plays with considerable conviction and tremendous restraint. Henry Fonda is often cited as the star of the film, but in truth he appears in the small but pivotal role of Robert Leffingwell, nominee for Secretary of State. Screen time is divided between Walter Pigeon as the Majority Leader, Charles Laughton as the senator who opposes the nomination, and Don Murray, an idealist who finds himself chairing the nomination committee. All three play extremely well, but it is really Laughton---in his final screen role---who walks off with the film as the devious and openly vicious Senator from South Carolina. The trio is ably supported by a dream cast that includes Franchot Tone as the President, Lew Ayres as the Vice President, George Grizzard as a growling ideologue, Gene Tierney as a society hostess---and yes, Betty White, who offers a brief turn as the Senator from Kansas.

It has become fashionable to dismiss Otto Preminger films of the 1950s and 1960s as ponderous, all-star, and pseudo-intellectual trash, and indeed it is difficult to find much positive to say about films like EXODUS and HURRY SUNDOWN these days. But Preminger is in many ways under-rated; his films have not always dated well in terms of subject, but they hold up extremely well in the way in which they are put together, with ADVISE AND CONSENT a case in point---and it is worth pointing out that accusations of leftism, adultery, and homosexuality are still enough to prompt everything from impeachment to congressional hearings to resignations. Nor has the process of the political dance itself changed greatly between then and now.

The great flaw of the film is its conclusion, which seems facile to the point of being hokey---but this is also the great flaw of the novel, which ends in much the same way--and at times ADVISE AND CONSENT seems more than a little dry. All the same, it remains a movie worth watching, particularly notable for its performances, fluid camera work, and meticulous recreation of party politics. The DVD offers a near-pristine widescreen transfer with good sound quality and an interesting, if occasionally too academic, commentary by film historian Drew Casper. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

69 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Effective infighting in an all-star Congress

marcslope4 January 2010

Allen Drury's sprawling novel of Washington intrigue gets a bit over-condensed in Wendell Mayes' screenplay--the exposition comes fast and furious and unconvincing, and some important subplots in the book, such as the space race, are altogether missing. But what's left is pretty juicy and compelling, as Secretary of State nominee Henry Fonda (top-billed, but with surprisingly little screen time) sets off a destructive round of politicking that ends in death, destruction, and satisfying upholding of the Constitution. Preminger handles the gay subplot with as little subtlety as you'd expect, and while he was clearly trying to show some sympathy to an oppressed minority, he comes off as a square homophobe. Don Murray is oversold as an Ideal Husband and Father to artificially ratchet up the poignancy, and as his wife, Inga Swenson just cries and cries, and seems a shrew and a scold. But the dialog is sharp, even with all the overexposition, and the cast is wonderful: Peter Lawford as a Kennedy-esque Rhode Island senator, Burgess Meredith as a weak witness, George Grizzard as a Roy Cohn-like meddler, Gene Tierney as Pamela Harriman more or less, Charles Laughton as a tasty-ham Southern senator, Lew Ayres as a Vice President with hidden strength, Franchot Tone as the horse-trading President, and Walter Pidgeon as the sort of Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid should aspire to be. Even such solid character actors as Paul Ford, Russ Brown, and Betty White turn up in tiny parts. The cinematography's clean and uncluttered, and while this congressional bunch is far more articulate and epigrammatic than our own, the theme of backstage double-dealing feels more relevant than ever. Very fast-moving, and dated as it is, it still packs a wallop.

29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

A stately, dry, involving film--with some edgy social issues for the day

secondtake19 May 2010

Advise and Consent (1962)

A moving look at a fictional moment in American politics. We see the dirty deals behind the scenes, but also that dignity and wisdom is preserved by some of the men (and one woman, shown). And we see the power of the system, the value of begrudging respect for those with opposite views, and plain old simplicity of being on the Senate floor and making points, orally, in front of a bunch of others, some of them actually listening.

Reminds me of my classrooms, and that brings government down to a level of believability. That's the secret to the movie, overall, it's ability to make the people real, including a host of really great actors like Charles Laughton and Walter Pidgeon, and of course Henry Fonda, who has a smaller role. Franchot Tone makes a believable ailing president, and it's great to see Gene Tierney in 1962, perfectly cast as a cool, smiley Senator's wife.

Otto Preminger is one of those revered directors who was always tweaking the moral edges of Hollywood, and therefore of America, and the spectacular thread that rises as the movie goes along, of a homosexual subculture existing at all in 1962, and arising from the activity of soldiers, and penetrating the Senate directly, was weirdly controversial stuff. Of course, it's almost ridiculous now, but it wasn't then, and to hear the central senator refer to another senator's gay military experience as a "tired old sin" is hard stuff for those of use who have grown up thinking "each to their own," or even "don't ask don't tell."

Preminger also irked a few anti-Communists by using a couple of left-wing actors, including Burgess Meredith, who has a small but memorable role. And the whole notion of a potential Secretary of State once having been superficially involved in a "Communist cell block" is interesting here partly because it shows how silly accusations can be, attacking things you do when you're twenty and have fully rejected or outgrown. Fonda is that figure of utter respectability for the good reason that he represents utter morality and patriotism, without become a cardboard flag-waver.

Though released to a public well into the Kennedy era, it feels like an Eisenhower world, with a couple younger senators easily looking like the Kennedy type, but still not President. The belligerent Old South conservative is, tellingly, a Democrat, back in the days when the South was pretty much conservative democratic. There are no parties mentioned, actually, but the leading voices seem to be liberal in their foreign policy, more like the Kennedy tone (or from the 50s, the tone of Adlai Stevenson, who lost the nomination bid to Kennedy in 1960). The book that led to the movie, by Allen Drury, was finished in 1959, and Drury was a bit of a right-winger, critical of the media he was part of, and openly anti-Communist. The events in the story (book and movie both) take one notable liberty: the Senator with a "homosexual scandal" in his past was Lester Hunt of Wyoming, whose son was a homosexual. That was enough to make the father a blackmail target, leading to Hunt's suicide.

That none of this matters is tribute to the movie, which really captures 1950s style American politics in a bright, Hollywood way. I mean that positively. It's not a gritty documentary, and it doesn't make scandal out of everything. But the air is familiar, the tone, the looks, the clothes. And it is supremely well done, from the dignified camera-work (nothing film noir here) to the solid editing and storytelling, to of course the acting itself. Not exciting, but very involving and interesting.

16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Even more relevant today than in 1962

extratempore225 May 2005

Although I had seen it when it first came out (I was 18) and again about about 6 months ago (Winter, 2004), this screening (May, 2005) was even more insightful.

It really has aged very well, and is, obviously, at least as relevant today as it was in 1962 --"realistic" in its depiction of the congressional situation in its own day, positively prescient in its relation to our own.

Fonda is good, but curiously second fiddle to the other, more subtle characters.

It's Walter Pigeon's best flick (by far), well cast as the Senate Majority Leader and he carries the role off with an almost Shakespearean aplomb.

Almost Charles Laughton's best (only because that's a very hard call), with his hopelessly crumpled white suit and hat, shufflin' gait, positively Irvinesque homespun witticisms and wonderful, drawling, contemptuous "Mis-ter Rob-ert A. Leff-in-well".

Might be Franchot Tone's best, as well, as the ailing, frail, chain-smoking president, a little bit too close to Life (filmed 6 years before he died of lung cancer).

Gene Tierney is very good as the D.C. socialite hostess "Dolly Harrison" --a character clearly based on Averill Harriman's wife Pamela or, as a type, a later Katherine Graham.

Definitely Peter Lawford's best film --which, admittedly, is not saying much, but he's very well cast as a rather dissolute, philandering Kennedyesque senator who is, nonetheless, not without his Qualities.

Lew Ayres' Casper Milquetoast "Vice President Harley M. Hudson" is an excellently wrought character, from his "bucket of warm spit" role as the impotent President of the Senate to the wonderful twist he gives it at the end, which expounds quite beautifully the subtleties and definitiveness of the Reality of Power.

The scenes of D.C. are positively nostalgic --imagine anyone being able to catch a cab to the capital and then walk right up the steps and go inside ; or an aged night-watchman making his rounds as *the* Security for the inside of the Senate building.

As are the various aspects of the underground "Gay Scene" in NYC with the wonderfully cast Larry Tucker, Jerry Fielding's fine music and "the voice of Frank Sinatra" (as credited). (Some might object to the "clichés" in these scenes, but, to me, those clichés are part and parcel of the ambiance of the period of the film and the culture it portrays and should be seen as such --rather like appreciating the overt racism in "Birth of a Nation" for what it is. I am glad that Preminger didn't "sanitize" his presentation of this matter, especially given the crucial nature of it to the plot of the film.)

But the contrast between the civility --albeit occasionally a rather raw one-- of the senate of circa 1960 and that of the present day is not nostalgic quite so much as it is just heart-rending ("The World We Have Lost"), and the roots of our present grotesque, take-no-prisoners congressional savagery are fully exposed in the intertwined plot lines of McCarthyesque ideological rigidity and homosexual blackmail.

All in all, a "Roman à Clef" to the political world of 1960's Washington, vividly relevant to our own time.

102 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

One of the great political films of all time

blanche-211 September 2008

An ill President wants his nominee for Secretary of State confirmed in "Advise and Consent," a 1962 film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Alan Drury and directed by Otto Preminger. It was the first film in seven years for Gene Tierney and the last for Charles Laughton. Tierney couldn't have chosen a better comeback and Laughton a more fitting farewell.

It's up to the majority leader, Bob Munson (Walter Pidgeon) to get the President's (Franchot Tone) nominee for Secretary of State (Henry Fonda) confirmed, but it's not going to be easy. Senator Cooley from South Carolina (Laughton) believes that Robert Leffingwell once had Communist ties and doesn't want him confirmed, even if it means digging up marginal people (Burgess Meredith) who claim to have known Comrade Leffingwell. An ambitious, aggressive young senator (George Grizzard) loudly wants Leffingwell approved, and he will do anything to make it happen - even if it means blackmailing the chairman of the hearing, Brig Anderson (Don Murray). There is pressure on the President to withdraw Leffingwell, and he refuses; the President puts pressure on Anderson to get him confirmed, and, sticking to his own principles, Brig, despite a tremendous threat to his home and political position, refuses to reconvene the hearing. Meanwhile, if Leffingwell stays in and there's a tie, it will be up to the Vice President (Lew Ayres) as the President of the Senate, to break it.

This is a brilliantly done film that has you glued from the first moment to the last. It not only gives a vivid portrait of politics and how the Senate works but keeps the viewer in suspense for the entire movie. The acting is magnificent. Franchot Tone gives a sturdy performance as a President running out of time; Lew Ayres underplays and makes sympathetic the role of the compromise Vice President; Walter Pidgeon is elegant and authoritative as the majority leader; Henry Fonda gives a straightforward, honest portrayal of a man who wants to serve his country but has to go against some of his own beliefs in order to do it. There isn't a wrong note throughout, even down to a very young and pretty Betty White who has a tiny role as a Senator and Peter Lawford as a Jack Kennedy type. Inga Swenson is the insecure Mrs. Anderson and gives a heartbreaking performance as a loving wife who feels she has failed her husband in some fundamental way. Laughton is great, but he is given some very florid dialogue, and he rises to the occasion by hamming it up. It was an appropriate choice given the script. Gene Tierney, as a wealthy widow/hostess who sees Pidgeon on the side, looks beautiful and gives a charming performance.

The end of this movie is incredibly powerful, and the scene with the President, Vice President and Senate Majority leader Munson is one of my favorites for a special reason. In the book, the Vice President, who is terribly worried about the President's health, has an encounter with the President and then goes back to his office and expresses some emotion about the meeting. Though the scene isn't in the film, Lew Ayres obviously read the book and has the same emotional reaction, but unspoken, on the Destroyer. Unless you've read the book, you won't pick it up, but it's an even greater scene if you have.

IMDb members have posted that nothing has changed today. In politics, I'm sure that is true. In films, unfortunately, things have changed. A character-driven film rich in dialogue like "Advise and Consent" is hard to come by. See it and revel in the film-making past and shake your head at the timeliness of the story.

49 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Timely, Fascinating Inside View of Politics...

cariart5 June 2005

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 it, too! This one is a keeper!

48 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

The greatest of all American political movies

MOscarbradley6 May 2006

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.

67 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Overlong but splendid political drama that populates the vision of the American Senate

ma-cortes5 November 2012

A brilliant adaptation of a known bestseller dealing with politic intrigues and plenty of familiar faces formed by an all-star-cast who gives extraordinary acting . Senate investigation into the President's newly nominated Secretary of State , gives light to a secret from the past , which may not only ruin the candidate , but the President's character as well. Then the USA senate presided by the Vice President (Lew Ayres) at is called upon to confirm the controversial nominee by President (Franchot Tone) for Secretary of State (Henry Fonda) . But the nominee is accused as communist by Herbert Gelman (Burguess Meredith ,in real life, he was himself named an "unfriendly witness" by the House Un-American Activities Committee, which nearly ruined his career and Will Geer, who plays the Senate minority leader, was also blacklisted for refusing to name names before the same Committee) , he testifies against Leffingwell at the latter's confirmation hearing, claiming that the two of them were members of a Communist cell . A Southern Senator (flamboyant acting by Charles Laughton) strongly opposes himself the appointment . Meantime , a senator (Don Murray) is blackmailed (the blackmail attempt is based on the case of Wyoming Senator Lester C. Hunt, who was blackmailed by members of the Republican Party).

Gripping and long movie that contains over-the-top performances, engrossing drama , intrigue , corruption , political events and a special vision of US Senate and its behind-the-scenes Washington . Thought-provoking and stimulating film in which abounds top-drawer acting among the popular stars ; interesting screenplay from Allen Drury bestselling novel wheeling with a suspenseful intrigue about a controversial senator promoted to Secretary of State . When Allen Drury was writing the novel , John F. Kennedy, upon whom the character Senator Lafe Smith was based, was a young Senator with ambitions to be President. When the movie came out Kennedy was President, and Lafe Smith was played by Peter Lawford who was, at that time, married to Kennedy's sister Patricia . Main and support cast are very fine , there abounds magnificent performances as Don Murray , Paul Ford , Walter Pidgeon , Peter Lawford , Gene Tierney , Edward Andrews , Malcolm Atterbury and Franchot Tone , among others . Fascinating interpretation by Charles Laughton at his final movie , easily the most stimulating acting . Furthermore , stands out Henry Fonda who gives an adequate underplaying and the scene-stealing best , George Grizzard . Good production design by Lyle Wheeler , for the scenes taking place inside the US Senate, Columbia dusted off its senate set built for Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Appropriate cinematography in Panavision by Sam Leavitt , though also there is a horrible version being shown in computer-colored . Atmospheric and appropriate musical score by Jerry Fielding .

This engrossing , riveting picture was effective and compellingly directed by Otto Preminger . At the beginning he became a stage director and subsequently a notorious secondary actor . Otto directed several films , nowadays many of them are considered as classic movies . He made ¨Laura¨ that was released in 1944 and Preminger ranked as one of the top directors in the world . He realized all kind of genres as Court drama such as the great success ¨Anatomy of a murder¨, ¨Court martial of Billy Mitchell¨ , Noir film as ¨Laura¨ which made him an A-list director in Hollwyood , ¨Angel Face¨ , ¨Man with a golden arm¨, Religious drama as ¨The Cardinal¨ , Musical as ¨Porgy and Bess¨, ¨Carmen Jones¨ , Western as ¨River with no return¨ and historical as ¨Saint Joan¨, ¨Exodus¨ though also had some flop as ¨Rosebud¨ getting scathing reviews , though with ¨The human factor¨ won him respectful notices . However , his powers began to wane after and by the end of the decade of the 60s he was considered washed-up . ¨Advise and Consent¨ resulted to be one of the his best films . Rating : Better than average , Worthwhile watching .

7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Good Job With Some Challenging Material

Snow Leopard22 November 2005

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.

30 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

I Advise You to SeeThis Amazing Film

pfogertyca7 July 2007

Warning: Spoilers

"Advise and Consent" offers a glimpse into the dirty deeds and misguided ideals that keep the Washington political machine running, and it's as powerful and relevant today as it was 45 years ago.

The story revolves around the nomination of a controversial candidate for Secretary of State. Henry Fonda plays Robert Leffingwell, the man whom the U.S. President (Franchot Tone) is determined to add to his administration. Leffingwell is a reluctant nominee, a man whose past dalliance with the Communist party could come back to haunt him. Walter Pidgeon, as the Senate's Majority Leader, embarks on a strategic campaign to approve Leffingwell's nomination, but he is opposed by the conservative and curmudgeonly Senator Cooley from South Carolina. As Cooley, Charles Laughton delivers one of the best performances of his career (and sadly, his last) as the politician you love to hate.

To add balance to Leffingwell's confirmation proceedings, the Majority Leader brings in the young and energetic Senator from Utah, Brig Anderson, played by Don Murray, to chair the confirmation subcommittee. When it appears that Anderson may hold up Leffingwell's confirmation, power hungry Senator Ackerman (wonderfully realized by George Grizzard) digs up a secret from Anderson's past in a blackmail attempt.

Murray has the film's most challenging role as the gay and closeted Brig Anderson, so full of guilt and self loathing that he goes to extreme measures to preserve his secret. "Advise and Consent" supposedly is the first American film to actually depict the inside of a gay bar. We see it from Anderson's perspective, a dark and foreboding location full of shadowed figures, while Frank Sinatra's "Secret Place" plays in the background. Anderson's reaction to what he sees is reflective of 1962 societal views of homosexuality; it's an uncomfortable and degrading scene to watch, and the film's weakest point. Still, it brings a visual and physical perspective to Anderson's utter desperation to keep this side of his life hidden.

Inga Swenson (probably best known as the bitter Swedish housekeeper Kraus on TV's "Benson"), turns in a touching performance as Anderson's wife, who preserves her husband's secret in order to maintain his dignity.

Otto Preminger, known for his perfectionism and dictatorial style, gets the best out his actors. There isn't a single flawed performance in the film, but Laughton and Murray certainly shine brightest. Look for some smaller, but effective performances by Peter Lawford as, ironically, a suave and womanizing JFK type, and by Betty White as the senator from Kansas. Gene Tierney also appears as Dolly Harrison, a rich Washington widow who throws lavish parties, but there's far too little of her in the movie.

"Advise and Consent" offers no happy and tidy ending, but a realistic one nonetheless. The theme of the movie can be best summed up when Pidgeon's Majority Leader responds to Ackerman's justification of Anderson's blackmail as having been done for the good of the country. Pidgeon's pointed retort, "Fortunately, our country always manages to survive patriots like you," is a pessimistic statement about the state of the U.S. political process.

15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A Fun Didactic Old Thing

primodanielelori8 January 2008

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.

38 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Preminger and Allen Drury's political masterpiece.

theowinthrop1 August 2009

Warning: Spoilers

Allen Drury is recalled for one single novel he wrote in the 1950s that became a bestseller and Pulitzer Prize Winner. It is ADVISE AND CONSENT. There had been many political novels before Drury. Ignatius Donelly's populist novel, CAESAR'S COLUMN was a best seller in the 1890s, and Jack London would write the first American anti-Utopian novel THE IRON HEEL in the early 20th Century. In the 1930s Sinclair Lewis would satirize Huey Long with with IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE (about a Fascist America). Long cast a long shadow (his career influenced two novels turned films: A LION IS IN THE STREETS and Robert Penn Warren's ALL THE KING'S MEN). But Drury's novel picked up on a single procedure of government: the way the appointments of the U.S. President are reviewed by the Senate through subcommittees who decide whether or not to support the choice. Taking a seemingly dull process, Drury showed the machinations and maneuvers of the President, the Senate Majority Leader and Majority Whip, the Subcommittee chairman, and the candidate himself to demonstrate it was really great drama here.

As was pointed out in another review here, the characters are based on real parties in the Washington of the late 1940s and 1950s. The President, who enjoys cruises on the Presidential yacht and is a chain smoker, is based on F.D.R. The Vice President (frist name Harley) is Harry Truman - kept out of the loop by the President who isn't interested in preparing him for office. THe Majority Leader is based on Vice President Alben Berkeley, a wise politico type. Seabright Cooley is a combination of South Carolina's Senator Strom Thurmond and Mississippi's Senator Eastman. The Washington Hostess who has a side affair with the Majority Leader is a combination of Pearl Mesta and Alica Roosevelt (who had an affair with William Borah, Senator of Idaho in the 1920s and 1930s). Leffingwell's confirmation as Secretary of State is based on many hearings up to 1962 where there were serious questions, here tied to Communist leanings due to the date of the story (post-McCarthy, but the effect of the Wisconsin Senator was still there). The fate of one of the Senators is based on the tragedy of Wyoming Senator Lester Hunt.

Preminger reduced the plot line of the novel, making Senator Orrin Knox (Edward Andrews) a minor figure. That can't be done if there was a remake today - I'll get back to that. He concentrates on how Robert Leffingwell's confirmation is a political football because Leffingwell may be too soft on the Communists. Since Preminger casts Henry Fonda as Leffingwell, the audience tends to support him. But during the confirmation hearings Leffingwell is confronted by a former acquaintance played by Burgess Meredith who claims Leffingwell was a communist. Meredith is based, of course, on Whittaker Chambers, confronting Alger Hiss. But here he is briefly discredited by Leffingwell. Then it comes out that Leffingwell covered up the truth and lied to the subcommittee. Cooley (who hates Leffingwell) finds out, and decides to bring this to the attention of Senator Brigham Anderson (Don Murray) who wants Leffingwell to withdraw his candidacy.

The tragedy of the story is the pressures brought on Anderson by the President (Franchot Tone) and by the party leaders led by the Majority leader (Walter Pidgeon). Then he and his wife (Inger Swenson) get mysterious and threatening phone calls that Anderson understands the import of. They deal with a sexual incident that Anderson hoped would never be revealed, and he tries to find the person who is the key to destroying him. He fails to do so in time. He kills himself as a result. But his death leads to complications too. It ends with the disgrace of a fellow senator, and the last minute change of mind of a young New England Senator (based on John Kennedy and played by Peter Lawford) changing his vote. It all hinges on the Vice President at the end.

The novel shows how the Senate protects it's dignity by an inner circle that (at least until the 1980s) was inclusive of the leaders of both parties. It also shows how it treats obnoxious outsiders (George Grizzard as Senator Van Ackerman). But it gives a good look at the process - a process that we are more aware of now after the Bork, Thomas, and Sotomayer Supreme Court appointment hearings.

In the original novel Senator Knox was to have been more important. Today that would have to be shown in a remake. And that is the odd sequel to this fine movie. Drury continued a whole series of novels about his Washington scene, in which he gradually showed his super-conservatism (Knox eventually becomes a President in several of the novels). But Drury really could not see how our country would get out of the polarizing mess in Congress: the Liberals were too willing to give into the enemies and the Conservatives too reactionary. Ironically in later novels like COME NINEVEH, COME TYRE he concluded that the Communsts were doomed too - because he foresaw China and Russian going to war over Asia. The later books were not as well received as the first one. But the film version of ADVISE AND CONSENT does show Drury at his best, when he told a story well and to an understandable conclusion.

14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill

inspectors7114 April 2016

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, a reptile named 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.

11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Otto's Washington

arichmondfwc24 January 2005

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.

70 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Among Preminger's Most Accomplished Masterworks

Kalaman6 November 2003

Peter Bogdanovich once said that "Advise and Consent" is the greatest political film made in America and he could be correct. Preminger's 1962 masterwork is a gripping opus with a outstanding cast, masterly use of widescreen, and beautiful, almost hallucinatory black-and-white photography. Adapted from a novel by Allen Drury by Wendell Mayes, it recounts a US Senate committee's ongoing hearing on a controversial appointment by the President (Franchot Tone) for Secretary of State (Henry Fonda) which leads to a blackmailing of a senator from Utah (Don Murray). While I enjoyed all the performances by the top-notch cast, the stand-out performance, I think, is Charles Laughton's final turn as Senator Cooley from South Carolina, a pudgy, delightfully creepy politician who is resolutely opposed to the nomination and does what he can to stop it. The ending really surprised me, but it is not that injurious to the perceptive & emotional drama at the heart of this immensely satisfying film. Together with "Bunny Lake is Missing" & "Exodus", this is arguably Preminger's best film of 1960s.

20 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Taken From Some Real Political Characters

bkoganbing28 October 2006

Warning: Spoilers

The film Advise and Consent is an abridged edition of Allen Drury's best selling novel about political Washington, DC. The novel is a bit more complex. One major element of it that is removed is that the character of Orrin Knox who is played by Edward Andrews is the one who takes the lead in opposition to the nomination of the Henry Fonda character, Robert Leffingwell after Don Murray as Brigham Anderson commits suicide. Here he's a minor character.

Allen Drury was the New York Times Washington correspondent and in fact was assigned specifically to the Senate for 1943-1945. Before turning to fiction, Drury kept a daily journal of what he saw and later that was published. Readers of that will recognize Franchot Tone as the president who was named Roosevelt back in the day, Harley Hudson played by Lew Ayres as Harry Truman, and Walter Pidgeon's Majority Leader Robert Munson is Alben Barkley.

What the film is about is that the president has nominated Henry Fonda as Secretary of State and a certain southern Senator played by Charles Laughton has a personal vendetta against him. He uses the Senate hearings on the nomination to launch a charge of Communism against Fonda. The result of all of Laughton's machinations is the suicide of one of his colleagues.

This was Charles Laughton's farewell performance and he went out in a grand bravura style. His Seabright Cooley is an amalgam of a whole lot of southern characters who represented the south back in the day before the Voting Rights Act. There's a story that Laughton spent some time visiting with Robert Mitchum who had a farm in the rural Maryland area near Washington and Laughton confessed to Mitchum he was having trouble getting the proper accent down. Mitchum who had an uncanny ear for accents demonstrated it for him right on the spot. He might have even helped Laughton with it because Laughton had it and the character spot on.

The hearing where witness Burgess Meredith accuses Fonda of being a Communist is taken of course from the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers drama. And the suicide of Don Murray's character because of an expose of a homosexual affair is taken from the suicide in 1955 of Senator Lester Hunt of Wyoming. Hunt was not being pressured for himself, but for his son. That's a story that could rate a film treatment.

Advise and Consent was one of the first films to have a gay subplot in the proceedings, handled ever so gingerly back in 1962. It's a milestone in gay cinematic history. I'm not sure that Don Murray's character wasn't just a guy who had a gay fling back in his youth and was probably essentially straight. Still back in the day such exposure would have been ruinous. Just look at Brokeback Mountain if you don't agree.

One thing I will never understand though is why Otto Preminger had Frank Sinatra record a half a song specifically for the gay bar scene. Sinatra fans will search in vain for that record, there's no such song, it's only a few lines of some sappy lyrics made better by Sinatra singing them. Why he didn't just use one of Sinatra's records is a mystery.

Advise and Consent is one of the best ensemble dramas ever done on screen. Even those who are not really political will appreciate the array of talent Otto Preminger assembled and directed to perfection.

21 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Dated but still a Great Movie

gene-072026 November 2019

Great performances from a large cast. From actors like Inger Svenson, George Grizzard right up to the stars like Laughton who was terminally ill. I remember watching it as a child in the 60's, and I saw something that I thought I must have imagined. Edward Andrews is Senator Knox and is giving a speech. Walter Pigeon as Senator Munson asks a question and tries to trap the Senator in a "Time Limit". Senator Knox does not fall for it. Edward Andrews then adjusts his glasses and quickly scratches his nose with his MIDDLE Finger. When this came out in VHS, I was able to confirm what I saw as a child in the 60's. There were many sensitive topics covered in this film. But this was the first time I ever saw one actor playing a U.S. Senator and giving the finger to another one. Most people never catch it and deny that it happened.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Well made and enduring

patroklosmech17 October 2017

I have watched the movie in full length only once, but it was very impressive and has persisted in my mind till today. It passes as typical for its era political drama at a first glance, but it is quite advanced and provocative for the political and social environment of the age it was shot. A first surprising element its the nature of political cooperation, ideological lines and bipartisanship which the movie presents. In today's heated, insulting political feuds political parties in the US have been crystallised into almost monolithic and compact organisations with few ideological deviations among their members and elected magistrates. So, the central idea of the political turmoil in the movie is not a juxtaposition between parties but between ideologies and regional and social differences which penetrate in both major parties. The story tones down a lot but does not erase the names and bordering lines of Democrats and Republicans; featuring instead on behaviours and acts of specific people from the whole ideological spectrum. Traditional conservatism, political manipulation by party bosses, and old-fashioned honesty and dignity are all featured in the process of hearing the candidate for Secretary of State, played by Henry Fonda, each fighting for or against the candidacy with its own means and for its own reasons. An innovative aspect is the addition of a sexually-oriented scandal, a very very advanced aspect for the era of the early '60s, when the Code was still present though waning for many years before. This plot thread could be relevant today very easily. The much screen time devoted to the Senate chamber helps unite the excellent cast to common scenes and a lot of interaction. Charles Laughton, Henry Fonda, Franchot Tone and others shine with their talent on the screen.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Dry formal politics turned into a breathtaking thriller

clanciai31 May 2020

The issue here is the President's wish to turn Henry Fonda into his secretary of state. Naturally such an important nomination must be investigated carefully, so Henry Fonda is investigated with some unpleasantness turning up in the form of old ghosts and sins, that anyone would rather forget, but old sins have a ghoulish habit of never leaving you quite alone in peace. During the course of the inverstigations and battles pro and contra the nomination, even worse ghosts turn up from the war, and Don Murray as the leader of the opposition against the nomination ends up in bad trouble, which he can't handle, and that triggers the tragedy with very unexpected turnouts. Charles Laughton as the main conservative leader against the nomination has a key role here but keeps well in charge of the labyrinth of unexpected events as an old untouchable curmudgeon of the senate, while Walter Pidgeon as the majority leader tries his best to manoeuvre the threatened ship of the senate through the shallows like a qualified pilot. What really wakes up the film is Burgess Meredith as he is called to give testimony and happens to jeopardize the whole thing by opening Pandora's box of old sins and lies. Lew Ayres as the Vice President also plays one of the most important roles, although his main job is to be strictly formal the whole way, but even he is called out on unexpected byways. In brief, the adventure of this almost documentary of senate proceedings amounts to a towering can of worms that constantly gets more heated, while eventually Walter Pidgeon gets the last word to soothe over the general uproar while Charles Laughton gets more established than ever. The most fascinating quality of this film is the insight you get into the work of the senate, which is invaluable and which must place this film as one of Otto Preminger's most prominent and important ones, as well as one of the most major films of American inside politics.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Exploration of procedures in the US Senate (not as boring as that sounds)

blott2319-11 July 2020

Advise & Consent is a fascinating look at the inner workings of the United States Senate. I like the exploration of both the formality of proceedings when they are in session and the informality of what can go on behind the scenes. All the back-stabbing and secret deals that we see in the film kept me on my toes. I never knew which way this story was headed, and that's always refreshing. I also find it fascinating that almost 60 years ago they were also dealing with some of the difficulties that come with our two-party system, and had to confront the fact that personal vendettas and pettiness can get in the way of Senators doing what their constituents might actually desire. It's more than a little depressing because it doesn't fill me with much hope for our nation when we are stuck in these troubling times, but at least seeing it played out in a film this way feels informative.

Advise & Consent is a real ensemble piece. There are times when we will follow one character for a few minutes to see the part they would play in this vote, but it never locks in on one person long enough to have a true protagonist. This added to the element of surprise, making it even harder to predict which way the story might go. There were a number of powerful scenes that I loved, and those made up for some of the slower scenes where it felt like we were getting stuck in the tedium of Senate procedures. I did find that the end of the film was a bit too convenient, which made it seem contrived. It's certainly the appropriate Hollywood ending, but in real life it is rare that things would time out as perfectly as we see here. That being said, the story of Advise & Consent is still a good one, and this film feels entertaining and maybe just a little educational at the same time.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Checks and balances.

brogmiller8 May 2022

Never one to shy away from the controversial, director Otto Preminger early on bought the rights to Allen Drury's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel 'Advise and Consent' and engaged writer Wendell Mayes and cinematographer Sam Leavitt, both of whom were obvious choices, having collaborated on his masterpiece 'Anatomy of a Murder.' His regular editor Louis Loeffler provides a stately, unhurried pace whilst Jerry Fielding supplies a marvellously jagged debut score. Critic David Thomson has pointed out that the decision to shoot it in black and white Panavision has meant that it is not shown much today but on the positive side the monochrome look has neutralised what could have been 'starry' performances and Preminger has ensured ensemble playing of the highest quality.

True to the Hollywood tradition, none of the original Broadway cast has made it to the screen but we are treated here to actors of substance and quality, the likes of whom we are unlikely ever to see again, notably Henry Fonda, Walter Pidgeon, Franchot Tone, Charles Laughton and a scene stealing cameo from Burgess Meredith which deservedly won him recognition from the National Board of Review. Mr. Laughton's masterly portrayal of a wily Senator was to be his swansong and earned him a BAFTA nomination as Best Foreign(!) Actor. Nice to see the return of the enchanting but troubled Gene Tierney who had previously shone for this director and as a self-effacing, idealistic vice-President Lew Ayres proves perfect casting. Don Murray gives arguably his best performance as a senator whose refusal to compromise has such tragic consequences. Peter Lawford, at the time John F. Kennedy's brother-in-law, is ideally cast as a ladies' man but was apparently treated pretty shoddily by Preminger after his crew was shooed out of the Oval Office by Jackie! Messrs. Fonda, Pidgeon and Tone represent sheer class, suffice to say.

By the time the film was released it had acquired topical relevance due to the Paranoia resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis whilst already echoing the all too recent HUAC witch hunts which had demonised both communism and homosexuality. Novelist Drury had been a political reporter in Washington for fifteen years and was at great pains to point out that the events and people depicted were merely AKIN to and did not reflect real events and people. There is little doubt however that Robert Leffingwell is inspired by Alger Hiss and a senator's suicide is far from fictional.

Otto Preminger, although not exactly a jackpot of admirable character traits, was an indisputed master of his craft and his sense of the spatial is never more apparent than in the scenes shot in the Upper House.

This film is all about Democracy at work, with its quid pro quo philosophy, constant compromises and backroom bargainings. No system is perfect of course but as we all know, there are far worse alternatives.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

a little long, a little slow but an excellent civics lesson

planktonrules18 April 2006

Warning: Spoilers

What you think about this movie will strongly depend on you. I think the average person would probably score it a 6 or 7, the average teen a 3 or 4 and the average Government teacher a 9. I have taught Government in the past and am also a history teacher, so I was fascinated by the movie's plot PLUS saw it as a good civics lesson on how the Senate REALLY works--complete with all the sleaze and back room dealing. But, I would strongly hesitate using it with my high school students because they would probably be bored by the slow pacing and occasional lapses in tempo. However, for college students or advanced high schoolers this would be great. What I particularly liked was how brave the movie was in tackling blackmail and homosexuality--topics RARELY talked about--especially in 1962 when this film debuted. In addition, the ending was excellent and the movie picked up steam at the end. The only negative was HOW DID THEY KNOW WHICH SENATOR WAS THE BLACKMAILER? The answer to this just seemed like too easy a solution to be very believable.

16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

American Politics

screenman21 August 2010

Warning: Spoilers

Otto Preminger brings to the screen this wonderful story of political intrigue in the USA.

Filmed in good ol' black & white, the work looks a decade older than its 1962 vintage. It's long, too; running time is well over 2 hours.

There are some fine turns from heavyweights like Henry Fonda, Charles Laughton and Walter Pidgeon. Henry Fonda always excels as the honourable but vulnerable man, which made his sadistic killer in 'Once Upon A Time In The West' such a shocking volte-face. Laughton is equally good as an ageing Machiavelli, as he further demonstrated in 'Spartacus'.

Once again, there are no special effects, blood-n-guts or pyrotechnics. The only fireworks derive from the drama and an excellent script to push it along. This movie reminds me very much of 'Seven Days In May'. The latter, I think, is superior, with more tension and a slightly better script, but this does well enough.

There are not enough of this kind of movie being made today, which must be a judgement of our times. How the honourable aspirations depicted here have been been laid waste by 'no whitewash in the White House' tricky Dicky, or 'I did not have sex with that woman' (just a bit of fellatio) Billy C. and 'weapons of mass distraction' Dubya. Integrity has been largely replaced by conniving cynicism, and respect by a growing contempt.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A powerful movie, when it finally gets going

richard-178726 October 2012

Warning: Spoilers

This movie is too long, but once it finally gets going - once we find out what Brig Anderson is being blackmailed for, and then the political maneuvering that goes on in the Senate - it moves to a conclusion with real dramatic power, in part because of good direction, in part because of fine acting all the way around.

Others have weighed in on the various virtues - and defects - of the movie. I thought I'd address a point that doesn't seem to have been discussed: the portrayal of Brig Anderson as a man who had a homosexual relationship.

Late in the movie we learn that the handsome young senator Brigham Anderson had a homosexual relationship during WW II while stationed in Hawaii. This is not presented as an anonymous encounter in an airport men's room or something like that, but rather as an emotional, and therefore we must assume romantic, relationship between two men. We see Anderson's "Dean John" letter to his war-time companion, Ray, in which he declares the relationship a mistake and tells Ray he is now going to lead the life of a straight man. We also see a picture of the two of them as a lay-bedecked, smiling couple.

Earlier in the movie, before we have reason to suspect why, Anderson's wife says something about their marriage not having been very "exciting," which suggests that there was something wrong with their sex life.

If we put that together in retrospect, we conclude that Anderson did not "leave behind" his homosexuality when he returned to the mainland after the war, but rather "settled for" a heterosexual marriage that was not fulfilling for him sexually.

Given that, the portrayal of Anderson, which is uniformly positive if, in the end, very sad, is interesting. He is a man of principle who fights for what he believes to be right. (Granted, that included a hatred of Communism, but the movie was made in 1962, the era of the Cuban missile crisis.) The only other glimpse we get of gay men in the movie is very short: a brief scene inside a gay bar. It really doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Too long-winded

lists-98 September 2010

I came to this film as a fan of Charles Laughton's performances and through an interest in courtroom dramas. While it had its moments, I found it too slow-moving (it's nearly an hour before the first plot "twist") and insufficiently dramatic. The performances are fine - Laughton is as watchable as ever, although his accent fluctuated and disappeared at times, to the extent that I couldn't believe him as a southern senator. In the circumstances (he must already have been suffering from his final illness) it's still a remarkable performance.

People have talked of the film's "brave" treatment of homosexuality (in one of its sub-plots). On the contrary, to me this story came across as clichéd, predictable, and dated: showing attitudes probably typical of those of the time, today it's at best patronising to gay people, at worst offensive. For a film that had something new to say on the topic and genuinely tried to challenge attitudes, look at the British release "Victim" (1961).

Finally, the ending of this film seems arbitrary, even a cop-out, given the buildup. Advise and Consent is ultimately a disappointment.

5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed