MovieChat Forums > Edward, My Son Discussion > Interesting, but ultimately a failure.

Interesting, but ultimately a failure.

posted 18 years ago by twm-2
10 replies | jump to latest

It was great to see Tracy playing the "bad guy" for a change, and he delivers a fine performance. The cast is generally strong, and I liked the idea of the principles essentially fighting over "Edward" (the son of Debrorah Kerr and Tracy's characters) throughout the film, yet we never see him. But this was, after all, only a gimmick, and this gimmick and the fine acting wasn’t able to hide the weaknesses in the script. The biggest problem was that we see all of these happenings--disasters, staid romances, strained friendships, betrayals, suicides, criminal investigations, prison, and other deaths--and none of them really fully impact Tracy’s character. He strides through it all virtually unchanged, a shady cipher narrating, and occupying the center of the film. Having a nearly an unchanging presence as narrator and main character worked in Forrest Gump--but that film was decidedly more sunny, and we at least witnessed small changes in Hanks’ Gump. For Tracy’s Arnold, even the death of his wife and son failed to have any permanent effect. What kind of dramatic arc is this? And then the ending only served to highlight this emptiness at the movie’s core, with Tracy off-handedly telling us about his being tried and sent to prison (not even dramatized), shrugging this off, and walking off stage. The End. An unsatisfying end to a frustrating film.

Cheers!

"Nothing in this world is more surprising than the attack without mercy!"--Little Big Man

[–] tlburns1 17 years ago

>And then the ending only served to highlight this emptiness at the movie’s core, with Tracy off-handedly telling us about his being tried and sent to prison (not even dramatized), shrugging this off, and walking off stage. The End. An unsatisfying end to a frustrating film.

Exactly. In fact, the screenwriting/ directing error here is that the original play is translated too literally to thre screen. The strength of the play is the direct, first-person confrontation with Lord Boult's initial ininquity and final, painful deperation. However, what is a strength on the stage is a liability on the screen. On the screen, the final narration violates the "show -- don't tell" rule. We expect a different kind of narrative in a movie. The movie is a perfect illustration of how NOT to translate a play into a film.

[–] twm-2 17 years ago

I agree. Time and again we've seen plays unsuccessfully transferred to the screen with too little translation into the language of film. I just got a hefty dose of that with my recent viewing of Richard Burton's Hamlet which was nothing but the literal filmization of an on stage play (at least with Edward, My Son they tried to turn it [mostly unsuccessfully] into cinema.) I had been looking forward to that for years, blissfully unaware of the circumstances of its production. The theatricality of it was even further enhanced by having no backdrops, no banners, no costumes--essentially just a bare stage with some chairs, the actors saying their lines in casual modern garb. Burton was born to play Hamlet--it's too bad the only filmed record we have of it is this terribly flawed, miscalculation.

Of course, I'd recommend Burton's Hamlet over the present film any day as we still have the wonderful poetry of Shakespeare delivered by some fine actors (however poorly their performances were captured on film). If nothing else, there is some considerable historical value to the extant film made of the performance. In Edward . . . we have some fine actors trapped into saying unmemorable lines in the service of a misfire. There are far too many good to great Tracy films to bother with this one.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

I agree. Only more hate filled screaming would have made it better.

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

[–] angelofvic 12 years ago

Yeah, it's obvious from fairly early on that this is a stage play not very adeptedly placed on film.

Plus Tracy starts to get annoying, like he's only playing Tracy. This film made me lose respect for him as an actor somewhat.

Plus the ending make the whole play into some sort of preachy chruch lesson 9as if it wasn't enough while the action was going on.)

All in all, a bit heavy handed and dull. Kerr was a bit ludicrous trying to play drunk, and that secretary had no convincing motivation to love the Tracy character -- I don't know if that was bad writing or bad acting. Plus she invites the detective up to the flat? Yeah, right. Dead give-away that this was a mediocre play plopped unchanged onto the screen -- each act forcibly takes place in only one, indoor setting.
.

[–] ducdebrabant 11 years ago

The fact that Boult doesn't change isn't a flaw, it's the entire point of the film. Even at the end, he justifies everything by his love for Edward. What more powerful statement about obsessive parental love could you have? The movie certainly has flaws, but I don't agree with your assessment. The movie is not "empty at its core" just because its main character doesn't reform. The film's attitude is extremely moral.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja-0NWXrRGA

[–] twm-2 11 years ago

Unfortunately, my memory of the film has gone stale so I can't really intelligently debate its merits or lack of same. I CAN comment on my original remarks and say that they were far from the most compelling of my IMBD scribblings. I wonder why I even bothered and happily concede the weakness of my argument. Even with my fuzzy memory it now seems to me the greater problem with the film was its staginess. Was it originally a play? I could look that up, but feeling too lazy at the moment. No matter, it certainly FELT as if it was something adapted from the stage--and not so successfully.

Cheers!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

[–] ducdebrabant 11 years ago

Yes, it was a play. It starred Robert Morley, who co-wrote it. And yes, it is stagey, but I don't think that's avoidable. I do think Boult needs his asides to the audience, and I don't think it's a bad movie, for all that. There are good movies that are stagey (Asquith's The Importance of Being Earnest, for example). I do think that what it has to offer justifies it being filmed, even if it feels stagey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja-0NWXrRGA

[–] twm-2 11 years ago

I gave it a six out of 10, so I would certainly agree it wasn't horrible. It has its moments and was worth watching. Just the cast alone made it a must see in my estimation. But as I said, I don't remember it very cleraly.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

[–] twhiteson 10 years ago

The part of his "off-handedly telling us about being tried and sent to prison" was undoubtedly a product of Hollywood's Production Code which required that ALL explicit crimes be shown as being punished in some way.

During the film, Tracy's character very explicitly commits insurance fraud. We know his character starts his financial empire on the proceeds of that illegal transaction which enables the entire plot to fall into line. Without that insurance fraud, there is no story.

Still, the Production Code required that Boult be punished for it at some time during the film. Thus, the ridiculous throw-away lines about his being sent to prison at film's end as a sop to the censors. (His character clearly wasn't affected financially by his being a convict because when we meet him at film's start he's still an extremely wealthy tycoon.)

[–] twm-2 9 years ago

Yes, that "code" might very well have been reason! :-)

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way. 