First of all, I love this movie. I has been a favorite since I was a youngster. Sure it's unrealistic but it's the America that true Americans wish we lived in where truth and honesty wins over greed and corrupt power.
Ok... Once they made a public spectacle of the land being in Smith's name the Taylor machine can't win. Whether the government buys it for the dam project or the boy's camp Smith gets rich not Taylor. Or did I miss something?
That's not what Taylor intended. Wha they mean to do with the hearing on his ''corruption'' was to discredit him for enough time so that they can continue the senate without him and rope in as many voters as possible for the bill to get passed. The object was to take him out of the equation.
People dissapear ever day...sometimes when you leave the room - The Passenger
--- Spoilers below ---
B, while I agree with artihcus022, I think that's only part of the answer. It's important to look at this 1939 film in terms of when it was made, where it was produced and the incredible social and political turbulence shaking the world at that time.
This film portrays the U.S. Senate as siding almost completely, and most naively, with the Paine/Taylor lies, throwing in three bought-out U.S. Congressmen as well. Early in the film, Taylor's man was roundly attacked by the governor's constituents: "No! He's Taylor's man. He's Taylor's stooge!" The choice of Smith, a hero of the governor's children, was completely by chance, the slimmest of chances – the edge of a coin.
Later, Smith was about to be voted from the Senate; Saunders' risky "Let him speak!" and the Senate President's response, "This chair recognizes ... Senator Smith," allowed him to filibuster. Otherwise, it's probably a prison term for Jeff Smith, accused of stealing "the nickels and dimes of boys."
By painting Smith as a thief, Paine/Taylor hoped to ensure the junior senator's removal, the installation of Miller as the stooge senator, passage of the relief bill, and graft ever after. Instead, Smith's moving speech leaves the disgraced Paine trying to kill himself, missing, and ultimately admitting to the misdeeds.
Capra, in fact, closes the film with an image of Paine's fellow senators still stubbornly refusing to accept The Silver Knight's wrongdoing. Their unbelieving shouts of "No! No!" are the proof. Capra then drowns their cries with a raucous celebration in the gallery, witnessed by, as we're told earlier, dictators who've "come to see what they can't see at home, democracy in action."
This was also the last English/American film shown in France prior to the German occupation in 1942 – a beacon, thought some patriotic theater-owners, of democracy. In the United States, it was denounced by Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley, a Democrat from Kentucky. Others among the nearly 300 U.S. Congressmen and Senators in attendance at an October 1939 screening were, to be fair, far more generous. Many weren't.
I think Capra and his cast pitched a film that's anything but "Capracorn," one of the tags used to peg the Oscar-winning director's films as schmaltz. They're not.
This one, like the terrific near-miss "Meet John Doe," depicts great political and social struggle. To this day, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" really is quite a radical film – complete with use of force, but only when necessary, of course, on peaceful marchers, dissenting children, and, from the fist of Smith himself, members of the press – that demands another look as a still-accurate, useful mirror for the early 21st century.
Jerry Liptak
I'm with you. I wondered about this from the time they made up the bogus charges. I kept waiting for Smith to figure this out and use it as his defense. If he owned the land, he'd stand to profit a lot more from a dam funded by the government than a campground funded by children. So if you missed something, Bubbarian, I missed it too, because it is not logical that this was never addressed, and it really bugged me. This is why I came straight to the message board after I watched it; to see if this point had been addressed already.
He made me sit in front of a plateful of yams for a good thirty, thirty-five minutes.
love the movie, but i thought the same thing.
[deleted]
Y'all are missing the point. Talor forged documents to show Smith owned the land he proposed should be bought by the government (to be paid back by boys' nickels and dimes). That was the crime of graft that Taylor was using Paine for-slipping the Wellets Creek Dam in so the government would buy the land that was owned by Taylor and his cronies. They turned the tables on Smith so it looked he would profit, not the real owners.
Of course, the above opens a plot hole in that, once Smith was found guilty and expelled (if Smith hadn't filibustered), the Senate would have removed the Willets dam provision from the appropriations bill, thus ruining the Taylor Machine's venture; I think since the main purpose of showing this maneuver was the expulsion of Smith, Capra didn't think that far.
I agree with those that think it's a big plot hole; Taylor and Paine should've accused Smith of something else.
The land for Smith's Camp and the land for the Dam is the same land.
So if Smith is as crooked as they're alleging, why would Smith EVER stand up in Congress and denounce the dam project? If he really did own they land as they say, he'd make a fortune if the Dam OR the Camp went through! Obviously we know he'd make a fortune on the dam as well since it's exactly what Taylor was planning to do. This is a logic problem that would not have escaped people if this were a real situation.
The plot hole is compounded when they have Paine testify that he advised Smith that a dam was going up where his boy's camp is to be, and Smith tells him to "move the dam!" Why would Smith care how he makes his money? Dam or Camp, same difference.
Though it's still not perfectly logical, they should've removed the device that the land for both projects was the same, and simply have Paine denounce Smith's land deal separately. It would've raised the question as to how they could gain control of Smith's land in order to forge papers, but since they had the dam land sewed up with the crooked Ken Allen, they could've added that by luck Allen happened to own the Camp land too and worked a deal with them. The script would have to be re-worked as to then why exactly Smith was rising in the Senate to expose them, that's all.
It had to be the same land, otherwise, Taylor never would have been upset with Smith's camp proposal and there would have been no conflict.
sharehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
The government could appropriate his land for such a project without paying Smith a cent. However, they were planning on buying it anyway.
But, Smith gets the children who would benefit from the camp to support it with donations of nickels and dimes. If Smith owns the land, he'd basically be pocketing donations made by children, which would look just as bad as it sounds.
Our government cannot take land without compensating the owner(s). They can take it through the process of eminent domain for public use and pay the landowner(s) for what the land is worth. This is the same procedure that has been used to obtain the land for our interstate highway system and other projects like dams.
shareHmmmm. . .
Okay, so they faked a deed wherein Jeff Smith is shown to have bought that land. Meaning that Mr. Smith is the owner of the land.
The fake deed is accepted by the Senate as real, Mr. Smith is kicked out. . .and then the dam is built either on land now apparently owned by Mr. Smith (meaning that the corrupt politicians don't get the money from the sale), or else the dam is built elsewhere (in which case the corrupt politicians don't get the money from the sale).
The only way to change that would be to show that the deed was false. . .in which case the corrupt politicians are shown to be corrupt.
How, then, do the corrupt politicians expect to win?
At that point, I think Taylor is prepared to sacrifice the profits from the deal just so as to discredit Smith and not have the bigger issue of his political influence brought to light. If Smith had been expelled and the dam bill passed, I'm not sure what the legal situation regarding compensating Smith for 'his' land would be.
It is a mistake to assume that the only land involved in this project was the land that Smith wanted for the boys camp. If I remember the movie it was only a few hundred acres, and a project like this would take thousands of acres. There would still be plenty of dough for the Taylor crowd.
share