MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Finally saw Harvey (1950)

OT: Finally saw Harvey (1950)

posted 3 years ago by AndrewHNPX2 (119)
19 replies | jump to latest

So I'd been hearing about this film since I was a little kid but had never gotten around to seeing until now. I knew very little about it, other than it involved Jimmy Stewart and an invisible rabbit he was friends with and that it had supposedly inspired Donnie Darko (a MUCH more sinister take on the basic premise).

I really enjoyed it a lot, far more than I was expecting to. Jimmy Stewart was amazing here. His character reminded me a bit of Chance from Being There; a sort of childlike free-spirit who affects the people around him in almost mystical ways. I'm not really sure what the message here was, if any. It seems to me, that the film had a liberal sort of message of tolerance, almost a precursor to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which if it's true, makes the movie way ahead of its time.

I also see that it was redone a couple of times for television, in the 70s with Stewart reprising his role and in the 90s with the late Harry Anderson (Judge Stone from Night Court) taking over the role. Apparently there's also been a big-budget theatrical remake in development hell for a long time with various people like Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks involved. I doubt any remake could compare though, regardless of the talent involved.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

"Harvey" is a fine little classic...oddball and humane...which shares a few things with Psycho.

It was made on the Universal backlot (as Psycho was albeit for Paramount release) and released in 1950, a pure 10 years ahead of Psycho. If you look at Harvey a certain way...it is as if you can see what Psycho would have looked like if it were MADE in 1950. Similar sets and locales, a similar small town feel (in black and white).

The famous Psycho house was PARTIALLY built from part of the Harvey house. And certain "downtown" scenes in Harvey are filmed where Hitchcock placed his "Fairvale" in Psycho -- except Harvey shows a lot more of the streets of this Universal backlot town; Psycho kept itself to a "background process plate" as Lila entered the hardware store.

--

But there is also this: Harvey is a dry run for Psycho in that both films are about a gentle, mild-mannered man, who is...insane. And who has created an "imaginary friend" to talk to. Elwood P. Dowd(Stewart) has Harvey(invisible to us); Norman Bates has Mrs. Bates(never REALLY seen alive alongside Norman.)

But wait: at the very, very very end of Harvey...we see evidence that Harvey the Invisible Rabbit is...REAL. He opens a gate and follows Stewart out. Hmmm...does that ruin the Harvey/Psycho analogy? I don't think so. Because up until that point, we are seeing Harvey as the manifestation of a man's mental illness..which proves to be the case in Norman's case.

Note in passing: Anthony Perkins before Psycho was sometimes sold as "a young Jimmy Stewart" -- the thinness, the boyishness, the stammer...and its certainly there(better looking though, I'd say.) So try this: Young Jimmy Stewart HIMSELF as Norman Bates. Had Stewart been 28 in 1960, perhaps he'd be Hitchcock's casting choice for Norman. (To which Marlon Brando once said, "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle." Which means something a LOT different today.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I really enjoyed it a lot, far more than I was expecting to. Jimmy Stewart was amazing here.

---

Odd thing for me. Jimmy as a romantic lead opposite Grace Kelly and Kim Novak for Hitchocck remains...problematic.

But here is a man who is so crazy(in a very gentle way) that romance DOESN'T MATTER to him. Nor any of the other joys and pains of life. One critic put it well: "Elwood P. Dowd has a complete absence of desire." So he doesn't get mad, or envious, or sad. He's very content to have a drink(or a lot of them) with his good friend Harvey.

With the romance removed(as it will be in Anatomy of a Murder), James Stewart suddenly "functions" : a nice loner, a man content with himself.

--

His character reminded me a bit of Chance from Being There; a sort of childlike free-spirit who affects the people around him in almost mystical ways.

---

He has some great lines(paraphrased from memory):

"I've found in this life you have to be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. After some years, I've decided its better to be pleasant. You can quote me on that."

"I've been wrestling with reality for years and I'm pleased to say...I won." (or is it wrestling with fantasy and fantasy won?)

--

I'm not really sure what the message here was, if any. It seems to me, that the film had a liberal sort of message of tolerance, almost a precursor to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which if it's true, makes the movie way ahead of its time.

--
Well, both films spend a lot of time in an asylum -- though neither film is set in a place for the criminally insane, where killers like Norman would go. A message of sorts is: "who is really crazy?" and "what is really crazy?" In Harvey, the authorities (and Elwood's own sister) are prepared to medicate Elwood out of his humanity..to "cure him." A dark prospect. Harvey helps talk him out of it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I also see that it was redone a couple of times for television, in the 70s with Stewart reprising his role

--

He was too old for it by then...Elwood seemed more like a doddering old man.

This sort of happened to Anthony Perkins when he played Norman Bates as a rather wizened and creepy looking older man(thin though he may have remained.)

---

and in the 90s with the late Harry Anderson (Judge Stone from Night Court) taking over the role.

---

Didn't see that one -- sounds like good casting.

---

Apparently there's also been a big-budget theatrical remake in development hell for a long time with various people like Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks involved. I doubt any remake could compare though, regardless of the talent involved.
--
I think that a movie of Harvey today wouldn't be much cared about. Its very 1950..even in revival.

Jim Carrey(of all people) imitated Stewart's Harvey speeches in an interview one time and I was impressed by how deep Carrey got with it -- the imitation was so good, it almost brought tears.

Which reminds me: Stewart gets a helluva long speech(in a back alley, talking to a beautiful young nurse and a handsome young doctor) about how he met Harvey and its one of the greatest things Stewart ever did -- you can sense every emotion that Elwood P. Dowd has put away, popping out just a little in his great happiness over "finding" Harvey. A great scene. Everybody should watch it. And that nurse was GORGEOUS -- Peggy Dow. I read that she soon married a very rich oil man and quit movies. Good for her.

[–] AndrewHNPX2 (119) 3 years ago

"It was made on the Universal backlot (as Psycho was albeit for Paramount release) and released in 1950, a pure 10 years ahead of Psycho. If you look at Harvey a certain way...it is as if you can see what Psycho would have looked like if it were MADE in 1950. Similar sets and locales, a similar small town feel (in black and white).

The famous Psycho house was PARTIALLY built from part of the Harvey house. And certain "downtown" scenes in Harvey are filmed where Hitchcock placed his "Fairvale" in Psycho -- except Harvey shows a lot more of the streets of this Universal backlot town; Psycho kept itself to a "background process plate" as Lila entered the hardware store."

I can definitely see that now actually. Similar small time Americana vibe from the towns in both films. Both men also reside in mansions.

Of course everyone in Elwood's town knew that he was an oddball, condemning his family to pariah status in the process, while Norman's facade of normalcy was more or less successful.

"Which reminds me: Stewart gets a helluva long speech(in a back alley, talking to a beautiful young nurse and a handsome young doctor) about how he met Harvey and its one of the greatest things Stewart ever did -- you can sense every emotion that Elwood P. Dowd has put away, popping out just a little in his great happiness over "finding" Harvey. A great scene. Everybody should watch it. And that nurse was GORGEOUS -- Peggy Dow. I read that she soon mailed a very rich oil man and quit movies. Good for her."

I absolutely loved that scene, I had to rewind it even. And Peggy Dow was stunningly beautiful, to the point where I found her a bit distracting throughout the movie. Also, weren't the young doctor and the nurse kind of like Sam and Lila?

[–] AndrewHNPX2 (119) 3 years ago

Something else occurred to me after seeing the film. Much is made of the fact that we (wisely) don't see Harvey ourselves...but what if we actually do, albeit not in rabbit form? The cab driver at the end, listen to the things he says and how he says them. Could he have simply been another form that Harvey takes? In this case, the form of an ordinary cab driver as a means to dissuade Dowd's family from demolishing his personality? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but still. The cab driver's dialogue sounded suspiciously on-the-nose to me.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I can definitely see that now actually. Similar small time Americana vibe from the towns in both films.

---

I think that key to the greatness of Psycho is its "small town backwater America" setting. When Brian DePalma informally remade Psycho as "Dressed to Kill" in New York City, he lost all of that atmosphere and "vibe." The idea that in these isolated pockets of America(Northern California in Psycho's case), you cold find BOTH "salt of the earth middle American small town types" AND almost bottomless horrors but 15 miles out of town...it had impact.

And influence. William Castle's Psycho homage/ripoffs Homicidal and Strait-Jacket also took place in and near rural towns, both real(unlike Fairvale) and both in California: Solvang and San Bernardino, respectively. You could look them up.

Then things went further. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. A backwoods SO isolated that there is NOTHING around. Just the house of horrors and some inbred hillbilly type killers(THAT template became its own thing, and actually left Psycho behind, and badly.)

---

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Both men also reside in mansions.

---

Yes, they do. And isn't it interesting that part of the front of those mansions is -- the SAME mansion? -- I believe that what was cannibalized for the Psycho mansion was the cupola of the Harvey mansion.

Your post was inspirational. I dusted off my copy of Harvey and "skimmed it"(fast forwarding and stopping along the way) and it is notable that the Harvey mansion seems to be a "light gray" façade almost to the pont of whiteness. It must have been painted in some way to contribute to the Psycho mansion.

(I will use my viewing of Harvey to remark on a few more things.)

--

Of course everyone in Elwood's town knew that he was an oddball, condemning his family to pariah status in the process, while Norman's facade of normalcy was more or less successful.

---

Good point. As usual in making comparisons -- and I have here -- things don't match up exactly. Though I suppose, in the wake of the "murder-suicide" of his mother and her lover; and his hermit-like status, Norman was seen as a bit of an oddball by Fairvalians whenever he came to town for provisions.

---
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

"Which reminds me: Stewart gets a helluva long speech(in a back alley, talking to a beautiful young nurse and a handsome young doctor) about how he met Harvey and its one of the greatest things Stewart ever did --

---
I absolutely loved that scene, I had to rewind it even.

---

I watched it again, all the way through. So wonderful in setting and tone, and the presence of the young couple give it poignancy -- they are in love, and Elwood P. Dowd evidently never has been and never will be. But he doesn't care.

I didn't really describe properly how James Stewart acts here, and how Elwood expresses himself, but it is "magical." Like when he talks about meeting Harvey and saying "You have the advantage of knowing MY name...but I don't know YOUR name...and he replied , well what name do you like?"

A hilarious dig at psychiatry follows as Charles Drake tries to dig out that Harvey was the name of Elwood's father(nope) or imaginary friend(nope). So much for psychological analysis (paging Dr. Richman!)

----

And Peggy Dow was stunningly beautiful, to the point where I found her a bit distracting throughout the movie.

---

Yes. Seeing her again, her beauty is a bit on the "odd side," a bit of an overbite, etc but -- really compelling. As is her acting. She is a nurse in love with a young doctor and in fear of an old doctor. She has a great line about the two: "Dr. Sanderson(the young one) meets with everyone. Dr. Chumley(the old one) doesn't meet with anyone."

---

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Also, weren't the young doctor and the nurse kind of like Sam and Lila?

---
That's a great call! Its probably a "structural movie star" thing. In Psycho, John Gavin and Vera Miles were not really top stars, though attempts were made. And their characters were thus "placed" in our minds: support. Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh(even gone) were the big stars. In Harvey, Charles Drake and Peggy Dow are not really top stars -- James Stewart is the big one here, with Josephine Hull(Oscar winning here) in second position. Charles Drake never became an A-list leading man. Peggy Dow might have had a shot at full stardom, but she quit.

Some Hitchcock trivia here:

Some years later, Charles Drake would play Uncle Charlie in a remake of Shadow of a Doubt, done as a "Universal B." (Drake was a contract player, I think.) Co-starring in that 1959 film, called Step Down to Terror, was Rod Taylor, soon to be in The Birds.

Early on in Harvey, Stewart walks through Fairvale(oops -- whatever it is called here) and has a funny barroom chat with a visibly nervous old man/bum type who declines Elwood's and Harvey's invitation to dinner at the mansion(always made, usually turned down.) The old man has no teeth so his mouth curls inward above a prominent jaw. He's a good actor but..."funny looking" and...

..one year later he would be the old guy who crawls under the berserk spinning carousel to save the day(and kill people?) in Strangers on a Train.

Finally: the cab driver is Wallace Ford, one of the two cops in the REAL Shadow of a Doubt.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Something else occurred to me after seeing the film. Much is made of the fact that we (wisely) don't see Harvey ourselves...

---

Except in that hilarious painting...and...I believe it was the DP on the movie who recommended that space always be put on the screen "where Harvey would be." Stewart got his Oscar nomination for his great speeches and gentle characterization but..also for always "herding" Harvey around, switching sides with him, looking for him...a lot of imagination on Jimmy's part!

---

but what if we actually do, albeit not in rabbit form? The cab driver at the end, listen to the things he says and how he says them. Could he have simply been another form that Harvey takes? In this case, the form of an ordinary cab driver as a means to dissuade Dowd's family from demolishing his personality? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but still. The cab driver's dialogue sounded suspiciously on-the-nose to me.

---

Well, he was either a real character backing up Harvey's intentions or...maybe you are right. This is a fantasy of sorts.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Two more points to make:

ONE: You nicely put what the docs want to do to Elwood as "demolishing his personality." Now, Elwood is already missing some parts of "personality" -- the desire for love, the stirrings of lust, the angst of envy, a capacity for rage -- but he has a GREAT personality instead: nice, kind, considerate, seeking friends. But the docs want to take even THAT all away. A scary treatise on psychiatric drugs.

TWO: I had posted earlier that at the end -- Harvey is revealed to be REAL (which turns this into a fantasy, not a study of madness.)

Now, I'm not so sure. The gate opens and Harvey comes out, but Stewart moves to an area before that happens where -- possibly, his suit and body are obscuring it -- there MIGHT be a button that STEWART pushes to open the gate. Which would mean that it is Stewart who "conjures Harvey" to leave the asylum(where the docs thought they had convinced Stewart that Harvey was going to stay.)

I can't tell. On my "skim," I did find a scene where the gate watchman shows Elwood how he opens and closes the gate with a lever -- and this was probably to set up how Harvey lets himself out. But Stewart's move to the side of the gate where a button MIGHT be....I dunno.

One of those ambiguous Hollywood endings? In 1950?

And a great final shot with some matte work to show the sunrise as our four principals head out over the hill to a new day. Nice music for "The End," too. Moving.

[–] AndrewHNPX2 (119) 3 years ago

I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but Elwood apparently had a bit of mother fixation as well as we can discern from some of the dialogue, his mother even died in his arms we find out. Of course that being said, Elwood does replace the portrait of his mother with the painting of him and the rabbit, leading to a hilarious mix-up with the sister.

One thing I didn't quite like about Harvey too much was Josephine Hull. I'm sure she was a fine actress, but her performance just seemed wrong here. It seemed too broad, too cartoonish for this type of subtle film. She seemed to me more like she would have been at home in a Three Stooges short than as a major character in a light comedy/fantasy such as this. Perhaps what they could have done was make the sister character a younger, more modern (well modern at that time) woman. As a matter of fact, Victoria Horne who plays Hull's daughter (Elwood's niece) might have been better suited to play the sister and her daughter could have instead been a little girl. This in turn would also have eliminated the rather unnecessary romantic subplot between Horne and Jesse White (playing an oafish hospital orderly). The romantic storyline between Drake and Dow, I think was sufficient for the film. Of course, the film was based on the play, so altering it to that extent simply might not have been an option.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I can't believe I didn't think of this before, but Elwood apparently had a bit of mother fixation as well as we can discern from some of the dialogue, his mother even died in his arms we find out.

--

I went through "Harvey" again, slowing down and stopping for more scenes and -- boy, it DOES help if you watch a movie all the way through. Which I still haven't done with Harvey, but this go-round told me a lot of things I didn't see the first time.

Like about the fact that evidently Harvey appeared in Elwood's life almost simultaneously upon his mother's death in his arms. A trauma. Not as big a trauma as KILLING one's own mother but....enough.

---

Of course that being said, Elwood does replace the portrait of his mother with the painting of him and the rabbit, leading to a hilarious mix-up with the sister.

--

Exactly HOW Harvey looks in that painting is interesting to me. A bit weirder and more strange in the face than a cutesey Disney character. And he poses shirtless in trousers..a compromise between "real" rabbit and man.

CONT

\

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

One thing I didn't quite like about Harvey too much was Josephine Hull. I'm sure she was a fine actress, but her performance just seemed wrong here. It seemed too broad, too cartoonish for this type of subtle film. She seemed to me more like she would have been at home in a Three Stooges short than as a major character in a light comedy/fantasy such as this.

---

On my "re-watch" of Harvey, I was surprised at how much screen time Hull gets versus Stewart. They are almost co-stars, and Hull alone is the lead in too many scenes -- caterwauling and panicking and playing things way over the top, while Stewart isn't even in the scene. They gave her an Oscar for it.

I guess my feeling is this. There is a fair amount that a movie from 1950 can still offer us today -- Stewart's low key and oh-so-nice performance; his comic interactions at the bar. And Peggy Dow's timeless beauty.

But Hull's caterwauling comedy strikes me as "you had to be there" -- the comedy timing and type of 1950, given too full a reign over the rest of the movie.

I was amused by that early scene in which Hull reacts all freaked out by a heavyset woman, during a "ladies' gathering," singing a "bunny" like song with the refrain "hippity hop, hippity hop," and the heavy woman's breasts bob up and down on each "hippity hop." I suppose this sufficed for being sorta "acceptably risqué" in 1950. As long as the woman was older, unattractive, and overweight, comedy could be had from showing her breasts bouncing up and down, up and down ...with a young, pretty woman , the scene would be "dirty."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Perhaps what they could have done was make the sister character a younger, more modern (well modern at that time) woman. As a matter of fact, Victoria Horne who plays Hull's daughter (Elwood's niece) might have been better suited to play the sister and her daughter could have instead been a little girl.

--

A possible approach. Hull's age (or the characters age) seemed to require the "Sam and Lila" of Charles Drake and Peggy Dow for counterbalance. (Hmmm...1960..Charles Drake for Sam and Peggy Dow for Lila? Dow was gone from movies by then; I don't see Drake with his shirt off -- too old by then.)

Victoria Horne was one of those actresses who gets "one chance to shine" in screen history, and Harvey is it. She's paired for comedy with Hull as her mother; she has a somewhat homely face with bugged out, nervous eyes(her "comedy feature") and yet...attractive enough. To get...Jesse White.

---

This in turn would also have eliminated the rather unnecessary romantic subplot between Horne and Jesse White (playing an oafish hospital orderly). The romantic storyline between Drake and Dow, I think was sufficient for the film.

--

Well..happy endings for everybody. Horne gets White. Dow gets Drake(boy though -- he's written like a bullying prig who doesn't deserve this beauty who pines for him.) Stewart gets Harvey. Hull gets...peace of mind.

---

Of course, the film was based on the play, so altering it to that extent simply might not have been an option.

---

Probably not. Playwrights usually wrote clauses to lock in the play for the screen.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

TWO: I had posted earlier that at the end -- Harvey is revealed to be REAL (which turns this into a fantasy, not a study of madness.)

Now, I'm not so sure. The gate opens and Harvey comes out, but Stewart moves to an area before that happens where -- possibly, his suit and body are obscuring it -- there MIGHT be a button that STEWART pushes to open the gate. Which would mean that it is Stewart who "conjures Harvey" to leave the asylum(where the docs thought they had convinced Stewart that Harvey was going to stay.)

I can't tell. On my "skim," I did find a scene where the gate watchman shows Elwood how he opens and closes the gate with a lever -- and this was probably to set up how Harvey lets himself out. But Stewart's move to the side of the gate where a button MIGHT be....I dunno.

One of those ambiguous Hollywood endings? In 1950?

---

I left all of that in because on a re-watch almost all the way through -- I'm just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Earlier scenes show that there IS a button there...but it is pressed to buzz and alert the watchman that a guest is here, please open the gate.

And Harvey "manifests" to Dr. Chumley(Cecil Kellaway) several times -- a door opens, a window opens.

And Harvey "manifests" to Jesse White in a written page in an encyclopedia that addresses him by name.

So I'd say that Harvey is meant to be REAL for much of the film, not Elwood's delusion(which makes the attempt to medicate him with a terrifying looking shot all the more horrible.)

That said, I went over to the Harvey page here at moviechat and there's a whole thread debating if Harvey's real, as if all the characters might be delusional. I'm not so sure.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

The Harvey/Psycho connection, continued.

On my re-watch of Harvey, I found that the psychiatrist characters at the sanitorium say things like :

"You've let a psychopath escape the sanitarium" or

"I'm going to miss the psychos, the schizos...." or

(Jesse White) "I've been wrestling with these psychos for years"...

So Harvey is certainly a movie where the words "psycho" and "Psychopath" are bandied about quite a bit. Someone even worries that with Stewart "escaped" -- "we'll find Dr. Chumley lying in a pool of blood."

Robert Bloch's novel was 9 years away and Hitchcock's film 10 years away when Harvey came out, but its rather constant discussion of psychos and psychopaths -- along with a person who seem to have an imaginary friend -- might well have influenced Robert Bloch and Alfred Hitchcock. It was a movie that "set the stage" for Psycho. In some ways, the sanltorium in which so much of Harvey takes place also reminds of us Norman's plaint, "Have you ever seen the inside of one of those places?" There's no laughter and tears(or other patients), but there IS a sense of this being a place of doom to human beings. (And THAT backs up to Hitchcock and Spellbound and the sanitorium in THJAT movie.)

[–] swanstep (2619) 3 years ago

TWO: I had posted earlier that at the end -- Harvey is revealed to be REAL (which turns this into a fantasy, not a study of madness.)

And surely the force of casting Jmmy Stewart in the role is that we (the audience) *want* Stewart's character to be sane and so for the fantasy to be true all along.

It does occur to me that fantasy with its sweetness and comedy and direct connection to our wish-fulfillment *dates* more and 'doesn't travel' as well as other genres do. In effect every time and place, has its own sickly sweet needs for comfort, its own Adam Sandler-has magic-powers/is the king of England/inherits a billion or Bill-Murray-is stuck-in-time or John Travolta-is-an-angel movies basically. It's bad enough dealing with one's own era's neediness up on screen; nobody really wants to deal with any other era's as well. For this reason, then, such films keep being remade and if they're not remade (because cultural conditions have changed too much for the premise to work) they're usually largely forgotten and unwatched.

[–] swanstep (2619) 3 years ago

(cont.) Who remembers or watches The Next Voice You Hear (1950), the 'God talks through the radio to all Americans for 7 days' movie? or Gabriel Over The White House (1935), the 'reprobate President emerges from a car accident touched by God and charged with purpose to kill off crime bosses and agents of corruption, becoming God's benevolent dictator' movie? Harvey (1950) only survives and is watched at all because of Stewart. Maybe only Bill Murray's fantasy pictures are going to survive from our era, because of Murray.