Finally got to watch it after TCM played it last night. What a great film! Although it whitewashes some of his failures (ie no mention of the Palmer raids or his horrifically racist views), it's a compelling portrait of one of our better Presidents. Alexander Knox shines in the lead role, and his ably backed up by a terrific supporting cast.
Definitely recommended.
Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com
BTW, if anyone is interested in reading up on Wilson, I can heartily recommend John Milton Cooper Jr.'s excellent "Woodrow Wilson: A Biography," and I'm also in the middle of A. Scott Berg's "Wilson," which I'm also loving.
Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com
Try Tennessee Johnson on President Johnson another good movie.
shareTennessee Johnson is entertaining in a narrow way and has a great cast, but when it comes to blatant whitewashing and historical distortions, it's pretty unforgivable. Wilson was at least basically accurate. Its sins were more of omission than commission, in contrast with TJ.
Anyway, I agree whole-heartedly with the OP's assessment of Wilson.
A film I've always wanted to see, and I'm glad I finally did. It was interesting and colorful, though I felt it was much too one-sided in its lauding of Wilson and his works. Also, for the average movie-goer and one not just fascinated by the subject matter, it does go on too long. Still, it was most competently done. The Oscar for art direction was well deserved, considering the magnificent job rendering the White House and the political conventions, but perhaps not the Oscar for Best Screenplay (that one-sided thing again). Also, Wilson's first wife was very Southern, which Ruth Nelson doesn't give any indication of in her accent, and although a point is made of Wilson's second wife being a Virginian, Irish-born Geraldine Fitzgerald makes no effort to sound so either. Just a point I felt could have been dealt with better. I have to say I didn't even recognize Vincent Price in his first few scenes playing William McAdoo, with his slicked-down hair!
shareThe script was one-sided but remember that the movie was made in the middle of World War II (1944), so its patriotic tone is understandable. Its point of course was to show that Wilson had been right about the need for America to stay involved in world affairs, and that after failing to do so following WWI we had to learn our lesson and not make the same mistake after WWII.
Although substantially accurate as far as it goes, the film does take some dramatic license, small and large. On the minor side, for instance, the name of the Senator Wilson refused to reappoint wasn't Jones (I think it was Smith). The prophetic final speech Wilson is shown delivering at Pueblo was actually delivered much earlier on his tour (in the Midwest, I believe in Omaha). Accents aside, Geraldine Fitzgerald didn't remotely resemble the second Mrs. Wilson in face or body shape, but since Edith was still very much alive in 1944 I assume Daryl Zanuck wanted to be complimentary. At 33, Vincent Price was way too young to play McAdoo, who was almost 51 when he married Wilson's daughter in 1914. And there were one or two imaginary characters in the film, notably the Princeton student Felton.
But in general I thought they did a good job of making most of the actors look like the characters they were playing, at least the more historic ones, and in remaining true to the essential historical facts. And while Wilson's defects were mostly overlooked or downplayed, as I wrote earlier such things tended to be omitted rather than falsified.
Also, you hit the nail on the head when you said, "for the average movie-goer and one not just fascinated by the subject matter, it does go on too long." That's one reason the movie was such a major flop in 1944. At well over $5,000,000 it was the most expensive film ever made up to that time, but at least you can see where the money went.
This film is also available to stream on Amazon Instant.
shareActually, the timing had nothing to do with this movie being a flop. People stayed away purely because they assumed it wouldn't be entertaining. And they didn't care that it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Frankly, I think that was one of the most dunderheaded movie related decisions ever. I saw it two years ago and thought it was little, if anything, short of excellent. I do see why those who aren't into this topic would grow restless at the timing. But I myself am into it. I've been interested in our presidents since I was in first grade. I really enjoyed "Wilson". I thought it was very nicely done with excellent performances and wonderful visuals. Although, since you guys have been pointing out inaccurate details in screenplay, I'd like to remark on one I noticed. Right towards the end, Wilson states that he won't be going to his successor's inauguration. The way he presented the news was memorable enough for me to want to add it to the quotes section, but it isn't true. Wilson DID go to Harding's inauguration. There were three presidents who didn't go to their successor's swearing in, but he wasn't one of them. In fact, I've read details about how it went. When the two of them were riding to the White House in the automobile, Wilson was so weak he couldn't wave to bystanders, so Harding generously held off from doing so himself. But of course, this isn't the only biographical movie to be slightly inaccurate. I still think it's terrific. It was nominated for Best Picture and possibly deserved the award more than the winner, "Going My Way".
share