Tennessee Johnson (1942) User Reviews

It certainly didn't aim for accuracy

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 27 January 2023]

This highly fictionalized biopic from MGM and director William Dieterle charts the life of Andrew Johnson (Van Heflin) from his days as a near-illiterate tailor in Tennessee to his unlikely education at the hands of Eliza McCardle (Ruth Hussey) who would become his wife, to his entry into politics, eventually becoming Vice President under Abraham Lincoln, succeeding him after his assassination, only to become the first US President to face impeachment. Also featuring Morris Ankrum as Jefferson Davis.

The liberties taken by the screenwriters to make Johnson into a shining patriotic hero were so egregious to some that a protest movement formed against this movie, leading to picket lines and angry print editorials. Strangely enough, the most vocal opponents to the movie were Vincent Price and Zero Mostel! The movie is mostly malarkey, but so were so many "history lessons" coming out of Hollywood, so this one doesn't offend me that much. The purpose was to inspire and celebrate rather than inform or educate. If only it succeeded more at the former the lack of the latter wouldn't be so noticeable. The movie is clunky in its pacing, and can't decide what it really wants to say about its protagonists. Heflin and Hussey do as good a job as they were able given the material, but many of the supporting cast are wasted in nothing roles. The production design is nice, with detailed settings and nice costume work. Running about 105 minutes long, the movie really needed another 30 or so to add more depth and nuance to the players.

Andrew Johnson is Chained in History

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 17 June 2012]

"The Senate of the United States, in 1868, sat as a High Court in judgment upon Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln as President. In the only great State trial in our history, President Johnson was charged with violation of a law which forbade him to dismiss a member of his Cabinet. In 1926, the Supreme Court pronounced this law unconstitutional - as Johnson had contended it was. The form of our medium compels certain dramatic liberties, but the principal facts of Johnson's own life are based on history. In the Spring of 1830 - in a Tennessee valley - our story begins," states the disclaiming prologue...

There, we meet film subject Van Heflin (as Andrew "Andy" Johnson), in a leg iron. The future President is a runaway apprentice (between free-man and slave, but significantly closer to free). Bound to a tailor, Mr. Heflin has learned the profession and goes about mending figurative fences with local townsfolk. He learns to read and write from attractive Ruth Hussey (as Eliza McCardle), who becomes Heflin's first lady. Reading "The Bill of Rights" gets Heflin interested in expanding US Constitutional rights to include non-property owning "white trash" like himself...

Becoming successful in politics, Heflin's Johnson goes against the Southern grain by supporting some of Abraham Lincoln's platform; they both want to keep the Union whole. After the Civil War, President Lincoln selects Johnson as his Vice-President to help heal war wounds and assist in Reconstruction. Johnson has problems after succession to the top office. Yes, there are "dramatic liberties" (lies, even) taken, as the opening states. Heflin is fine, and makes Johnson a sympathetic character. Lionel Barrymore (as Thaddeus "Tadd" Stevens) and popular "silent" film star William Farnum (as Senator Huyler) have pivotal roles.

****** Tennessee Johnson (12/42) William Dieterle ~ Van Heflin, Lionel Barrymore, Ruth Hussey, William Farnum

Van Heflin's performance is the strong point of the film...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 13 December 2006]

VAN HEFLIN as Andrew Johnson and RUTH HUSSEY as his wife both give earnest performances and the screenplay, while fictionalizing certain points for dramatic license, is a good one. But, as usual, history buffs are going to nitpick the inaccuracies to the point of dismissing the film as fiction. Not true. What it does do is make anyone who watches it want to consult the history books--and that's a good thing if you want to know the whole story behind Johnson being the first president in history against whom impeachment charges were made.

As his adversary in the impeachment process, LIONEL BARRYMORE delivers another one of his more restrained performances without overdoing the ham. He and Heflin share some pretty dramatically effective moments, both of them in fine form. Heflin takes the character of Johnson from his humble beginnings as a tailor to his marriage to Hussey and his gradual emergence as a spokesmen for the people of Tennessee. For the sake of running time, it skips most of the years leading up to the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination, compressing all of those events and managing to keep the screenplay a tightly knit focus on the impeachment process itself. Only quibble is it fails to make clear the strongest point of the impeachment.

VAN HEFLIN plays most of his role in appropriate age make-up (as does Hussey) and they're both terrific. In lesser roles, MARJORIE MAIN, REGIS TOOMEY and CHARLES DINGLE provide colorful support.

Summing up: May not be a complete history lesson, but it will certainly cause viewers to probe more deeply into the detailed background of historical interest. And it does serve to remind us what a fine actor Van Heflin was in a demanding role.

Typical MGM historical melodrama.....well-acted, yet inaccurate

[Ripshin · 3 October 2004]

Unfortunately, I almost didn't make it through the first thirty minutes set in Tennessee, complete with a Marjorie Main variation of her "Ma Kettle" schtick. The town of Greeneville actually has some beautiful colonial architecture, is NOT near Nashville, and was not a backwoods mud pit in the mid-1800s - it is the second oldest town in the state, and was the capital of the former State of Franklin. (Johnson's home and tailor shop are standing today, as museums, and part of the National Park Service. A web site provides a history, and photos.) 30s/40s Hollywood would always "whitewash" history, except apparently, when it came to small towns in the South....then they'd falsely exaggerate the yahoo image for "atmosphere."

The final impeachment proceeding scenario is indeed rousing, but loses it's punch when one knows it is a fabrication. I usually prefer my history lessons to come from books or documentaries, although the latter can obviously be as biased as a narrative film.

"Senator" Johnson's final scene in the film occurred a mere six months before his death in East Tennessee. (Interestingly, the guest home in Carter County where he took ill, later became part of a roadside tourist trap in the 50s, but has recently been sold for relocation, and one hopes, restoration.)

Regardless, Heflin is great, as is the always reliable Barrymore. Worth a viewing, IF you learn the actual facts beforehand.

" We hold these truths to be self evident and applies to all men "

[thinker1691 · 7/10 · 28 April 2011]

The name of this film is called " Tennesse Johnson " and relates the story of the 17th president of the U.S. Van Heflin stars as Andrew Johnson and Lionel Barrymore plays his chief adversary, Thaddeus Stevens. Having studied the life of Andrew Johnson and then watching this Black and White film, I found it to be a shoddy and haphazard biography of Lincoln's successor when the great man was assassinated in 1865. Still Van Heflin's performance produced a superior piece allowing the audience to glean a more sympathetic view of the often fiery and very vocal V.P. Ruth Hussey and Marjorie Main as well as Noah Berry Sr. add to this historical and memorable film. Although a bit flawed, the movie is worth viewing by anyone interested in studying the 17th President of the U.S. ****

Good drama, bad history!

[michaeldouglas1 · 6/10 · 11 May 2011]

"Tennessee Johnson" is a perfect example of how a largely fictional account of history can still succeed as an excellent dramatic motion picture (much in the way "J.F.K." would, decades later). Please don't watch this piece of WWII flag-waving drama with the idea that it's going to give you the "real story" on our 17th President. Still, as a piece of cinema, "Tennessee Johnson" is quite satisfying.

Many reviewers seem very willing to toss off the historical inaccuracies of this film with comments about "the Hollywood treatment" and "dramatic license", and up to a point, this might be true. I won't go thru the list of historic inaccuracies of this movie -- others have done that thoroughly. No, what really sinks "Tennessee Johnson" as history is the completely distorted view it gives us of President Johnson, trying to make him a hero, instead of the real man who deservedly stands as one of the worst (and most out-of-step) Chief Executives in history.

This is not to say that the real Andrew Johnson didn't have some good qualities (or that the real Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans were lily-pure, themselves). But unfortunately Andrew Johnson was a Southerner and a Democrat, who happened to remain loyal to the Union during the Civil War, and was definitely the wrong person to be in the White House during the critical years of Reconstruction. It is well documented that Johnson was quite racist towards blacks, and showed himself to be completely indifferent to their plight as "Freedmen" who were still virtual slaves in the post-War South. He had no aversion to setting up Southern state governments dominated by former Confederates, leading most Northerners to wonder just who DID win the Civil War. Johnson particularly turned a blind eye to the incredible violence, brutality, and murder of blacks in the southern states. In this he earned the scorn of such Union war heroes as U.S. Grant, William Sherman, and Phil Sheridan, who saw that it was a simple necessity for the national government & army to protect them. The real Johnson could also be very petty and vindictive, obstinate and unreasonable... and by all accounts (and quite contrary to this film's depiction) was considered a heavy drinker, and that in an era when many men imbibed to excess!

While this forum isn't the place for political discussions, I would challenge readers to get a good book on the subject and judge for themselves who the real heroes & villains were in that time period (I might suggest David O. Stewart's 2009 volume "Impeached"). Some of the comments in this forum seem to indicate that only recently has it become fashionable to find fault in Andrew Johnson; like the anti-Johnson view is now "trendy". Actually, Johnson and his presidency have been almost universally held in low regard from the late 1860's onward, and it is really THIS film that attempted to buck the tide and show Johnson as a hero. Very odd, especially for a WWII patriotic biopic, at a time when studios were lionizing those who fought to free people, not keep them in bondage. I certainly question MGM's decision in 1942 to make this film, attempting to reverse what was, by then, 75 years of deservedly "bad press" for our 17th President.

Still, warts and all, MGM did succeed in making a compelling drama, especially the (highly fictionalized) Impeachment Trial itself. It's undeniable that Van Heflin and Lionel Barrymore both give particularly excellent performances. "Tennessee Johnson" is definitely worth seeing -- just take it with a large "grain of salt"!

Fine biopic and performance by Heflin

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 28 April 2011]

I've never been a fan of Van Heflin. But I must admit that he was excellent in this film portraying President Andrew Johnson. I believe this film to be underrated. Yes, it is a biopic, with all its inaccuracies, but unlike some biopics of the time, it is extremely well done.

The opening of a shackled Johnson escapee from bondage as a tailor apprentice is dramatic, and gives Marjorie Main some good scenes. It goes on to show the prejudice of of how landowners attempted to control the American population. Then, suddenly, there's a big gap in the film of about 20 years.

The depiction of the bitter tensions boiling over in the U.S. Senate as the Civil War approaches is dramatic, and the set itself is impressive.

Lionel Barrymore plays his role -- of Thaddeus Stevens -- to the hilt...very much like his role in "It's A Wonderful Life". And the Barrymore part really comes to life as the film enters the phase of the story regarding Johnson's impeachment, which is handled quite well.

This is an interesting biopic, well done, with a fine performance by Van Heflin.

Standard Hollywood biopic - a bit soapy, clichéd, and inaccurate but still moderately interesting

[jamesrupert2014 · 6/10 · 25 August 2021]

Vice-president Andrew Johnson (Van Heflin) assumes the helm after Lincoln is assassinated and faces impeachment as a result of his reconciliation policies towards the vanquished Confederacy. Typical of Hollywood 'biographies', the story deviates from the truth when convenient for the plot (or the messaging - this film was made early in WW2 and emphasises the need for American unity in times of crisis). Having scant knowledge of the post-bellum American politics of the late 1860s I found the film interesting but otherwise slow and underwhelming. Lionel Barrymore is quite good as Johnson's nemesis Thaddeus Stevens and Ruth Hussey does a creditable job portraying wife and first lady Eliza McCardle Johnson as she ages across the story arc. Johnson is considered one of the worst presidents but in 1942 there was little inclination in Hollywood to highlight the flaws and weaknesses of former Commanders-in-Chief.

Another Excellent Movie..lost in shuffle...

[olddiscs · 9/10 · 16 July 2003]

Never heard of this film until yesterday 7/15/03..and I am a film buff Thanks agaim to TCM... not sure of the historical 100 % accuracy but the main story is history: re: Andrew Johnsons Impeachment /came up during the Clinton impeachment trial... never knew this was filmed.. Van Heflin is brilliant..as the maligned president... as is the rest of the cast...Lionel Barrymore is especially excellent as he hams up the screen. Missed the first few minutes..cant wait till TCM schedules again!! Lost in the shuffle of great films released in late 30s early 40s ! Not to be missed

Fair, nuanced film about a controversial time

[marcusman48 · 6/10 · 24 September 2008]

The post-Civil War period of Reconstruction (1865-1877) has always been one of the most controversial periods of American history; to some extent, it remains so today. At its core was the question of whether federal or state authority was to be paramount; variations on this basic argument continue to ring out in modern-day America. Yet this question has come to be overshadowed by an even more vexing problem: the lack of consensus on Reconstruction's basic morality as well as its constitutionality. Whenever Reconstruction is discussed today, a very prickly quandary must be raised: were the Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives really sympathetic to the civil rights of the freed slaves, or did they only desire to wreak vengeance upon the ex-Confederates in the South? Up until about the mid-1950s, most historians proposed the latter view. It is therefore something of a credit to William Dieterle, the director of this 1942 movie, that he broke somewhat with what was then conventional wisdom. Whereas the contemporary custom would have been to paint the Radical Republicans (and Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in particular) as deranged and villainous, this film shows some restraint in condemning their actions and acknowledges the noble motives behind them. At the same time, Dieterle clearly rejects the late-20th/early-21st century portrait of President Andrew Johnson as bitter, raging white supremacist.

True, both Johnson's and Stevens's less positive traits are played up: Johnson's alcoholism and violent temper, Stevens's smug pomposity. Yet both men come across ultimately as admirable, if only for the iron force of their wills in trying to achieve what each of them believed to be just - goals that happened to be mutually exclusive. They both allow their stubbornness and self-righteousness to drive them at each other's throats.

Van Heflin is commanding as the President, while Lionel Barrymore manages to mine some humanity from the crusty Stevens. Best of all, perhaps, is the utterly convincing makeup used to "age" Andrew Johnson and his wife Eliza.

Not Your Current View of Andy Johnson

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 13 December 2006]

Though Tennessee Johnson boasts fine performances by Van Heflin, Ruth Hussey, and Lionel Barrymore as Andrew Johnson, Eliza McCardle Johnson, and Thaddeus Stevens respectively, the wrong story about Johnson was told here.

The accepted historical view of Andrew Johnson's presidency now is that had he been a bit more of a politician and also had been able to rise above the prejudices of his poor white class, the whole impeachment would never have happened. His actions through the use of the presidential veto in stalling the Reconstruction set racial equality in the USA aside for a century. Men of good will on both sides had they been willing to give a little might have settled on a compromise Reconstruction policy without all the rancor that characterized it and U.S. politics for decades.

The real story is Andy Johnson's rise to the presidency. As is showed here young Johnson arrives in Tennessee escaping a kind of slavery of his own. He was an indentured servant to a tailor and learned the trade, but after differences with his employer in his native North Carolina, Johnson escapes to Tennessee.

Andrew Johnson is the only United States president who never spent one day inside a school classroom. He was taught to read and write by the woman who later became Mrs. Johnson. There's was a real love story, one of the most romantic in our history.

Johnson's real moment of courage was after a slow rise up the political ladder that saw him elected as Mayor of Greenville, Tennessee, the state legislature, the House of Representatives, governor and then senator from Tennessee. In 1861 he was the only southern Senator to not walk out of the Senate when the south seceded. He became military governor of Tennessee when the Union Army captured enough of it to set up a government. Johnson's very life was in peril every minute from the firing on Fort Sumter to Lee's surrender at Appomattox. That's a story worth telling.

Unfortunately Johnson represented the poor white class in Tennessee and saw freed slaves as a rival labor force. He had all the prejudices of his class and wasn't hesitant to voice them. That part of the story is not told in Tennessee Johnson.

I did like Charles Dingle's performance as Senator Waters, why he wasn't given his real name in history of that of Ben Wade of Ohio is beyond me. As President Pro Tempore of the Senate with no sitting Vice President, he was first in line of succession had Johnson been impeached. From what I know of Ben Wade, Dingle fitted the role well.

Though it made good cinema, Andrew Johnson never addressed the Senate personally during his impeachment trial. There was an ill Senator who cast a deciding vote that saved Johnson's presidency. But unlike William Farnum's character of Senator Valley, James Grimes of Iowa had been felled by a stroke and no one expected him to be in the Senate that day. But he was carried in and voted not guilty.

The real story of Andrew Johnson is one of the most dramatic about one who turned out to be one of our worst presidents. Too bad it wasn't told in Tennessee Johnson.

Still-relevant Americana well told

[capitan_movie · 10/10 · 4 August 2000]

The story of the first US president to be impeached gets the Hollywood treatment. It is superbly acted although glossed up quite a bit. Some of Johnson's flaws are exposed, but not nearly as many as are excused. Barrymore's Stevens is terrifyingly brilliant. This is an art that Hollywood used to excel at -- telling history in an interesting and mostly factual matter without the need to flaunt the director's abject cynicism.

Biopic of America's 17th President

[kijii · 7/10 · 7 November 2016]

This is a film biography of Andrew Johnson (who was Abraham Lincoln's Vice-President at the time Lincoln was assassinated). President Johnson's story is usually glossed over in history classes as the first President to be impeached. The hows-and-whys of this impeachment are worth while understanding, and this film is the only one I know that takes on this task—although after reading a review of this movie in IMDb, I realize that there may have been many historical liberties taken. The film's director, William Dieterle, made some of the best film biographies of the 30s and 40s (Juarez, The Life of Emile Zola, Dr Ehrlich's Magic Bullet, and The Story of Louis Pasteur).

As the movie starts, Johnson (Van Heflin) is shown as an uneducated runaway apprentice tailor. He is freed in Tennessee and meets a girl (Ruth Hussey) who teaches him to read, write, and speak properly. He is a Jacksonian Democrat that has a passion to enfranchise people who don't own land. His public speaking popularity projects him into politics-- finally into the U.S. Senate.

During the Civil War, he was the only Southern Senator to remain in office and support the Union. After Lincoln's assassination, he becomes President and attempts to carry out Lincoln's reconstruction plan—total inclusion (without punishment) of the defeated South and amnesty to all Southerners.

His attempts are continually thwarted by Congressional Republicans, led by Thaddeus Stevens (Lionel Barrymore). Finally, the impasse between Johnson and the Republican Congress leads to a radical bill-- called the Tenure of Office Act—which was finally found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1927. The Act was designed to limit Johnson's (executive) powers with regard to removing any of Lincoln's cabinet members.

Although Congress overrides Johnson's veto of the bill, Johnson still attempts to remove one of his cabinet members (really a disloyal "spy" working for Thaddeus Stevens). THIS was the excuse for his impeachment and attempted removal from office. The movie builds to an exciting climax as Johnson is tried in by the Congress. As with all good courtroom dramas, this movie "hits the mark" for me!!

Lincoln's Letter to Johnson

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 29 September 2002]

That letter Lincoln was supposed to have sent Johnson has kind of puzzled me. After all, it is read out loud twice. It SOUNDS like Lincoln's prose style, but I'd never heard of any other reference to it. So I posted the question on a Civil War news groups. Here's one of the exchanges.

"Robert Maxwell" wrote> It's generally agreed that at the second inauguration, Andrew Johnson was skunk drunk when he took the oath and tried to make his speech. I just watched the movie, "Tennessee Johnson," and it appears that Johnson was ill during the inauguration and that Lincoln later sent him a letter saying something like, "If you took a drink more often, you would know better than to take brandy on an empty stomach because you are ill. I know you only were there because I asked you to be."

Does anyone know if this letter ever existed?

Reply. "Having worked for three years as an assistant editor with The Papers of Andrew Johnson and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Abraham Lincoln Association, which is engaged in supporting projects to edit the papers of the sixteenth president, I can safely say that no one I know has ever claimed such a letter to exist."

Anyone interested in the impeachment of Johnson might watch the first 20 minutes of Blight's lecture on the subject, on open courses from Yale. Don't be intimidated by "college" or "Yale". (I went there and it's not that demanding.) Blight gives an informative, objective, and lively presentation of the material -- interrupted briefly by somebody yelling "Let my people go," to which Blight replies, "You're free to leave...I hope that guy doesn't have a gun."

http://academic earth.org/lectures/black-reconstruction-economics-of-land-and-labor

Please eliminate the space between "academic" and "earth". It's only there because IMDb.com doesn't allow words that are too long, like floccinaucinihilipilification.

Good Film - Mixed reality and history

[theowinthrop · 12 April 2004]

I doubt if a film made in 2004 or after about Andrew Johnson would be as kind as this 1943 film. Johnson did support the North in the Civil War (he was the only Southern Senator to remain in the U.S. Government during the war, and would be appointed Governor of that portion of Tennessee from 1863 - 64). Lincoln, in order to have a strong National ticket in her 1864 election chose Johnson (a Democrat)as his running mate. So Johnson became Vice President. And then John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, and Johnson became President.

Johnson was illiterate, until his wife taught him to read and write. He educated himself, and rose in the legal and political world of Tennessee (and then the nation). But he was a piece of "po' white trash", and remained so with all it's cultural baggage. He supported the North because he (rightly) distrusted the Southern plantation aristocracy (epitomized by Jefferson Davis). However - he hated slaves and free Black people. Hence his willingness to be soft on the South. Lincoln would have been soft too, but Lincoln had great gifts at managing his adversaries and probably could have arranged a compromise. Johnson was pig-headed. He antagonized the Radical Republicans controlling Congress. They waited for him to make a mistake, and he did (technically he violated the Tenure of Office Act, by firing Secretary of War Stanton without getting Congressional permission - this act was declared unconstitutional in the 1880s). Then followed his impeachment and the saving of his skin by seven Republican Senators who voted not to remove him. And those men all lost their Senatorial seats.

In 1943 Johnson was considered a hero, for saving the Executive Branch from becoming a rubber stamp for Congress. Actually, there was nothing to show that some Radical Republican President could not have restored power to the Executive Branch if Johnson had been removed. He gets high grades for his grit and courage, but his pig-headed stupidity and racism sink his historical rating.

Still Van Heflin, Lionel Barrymore, and the other actors (like Charles Dingle) make the film interesting and enjoyable enough. Good film making but mixed history. Two final points: Edmond Ross was in good health when he voted, but James W. Grimes of Iowa also voted for acquittal, and he had a paralytic stroke a few weeks earlier (he died within a year). Second: Andrew Johnson is the second Vice President of the name Johnson (and Lyndon Johnson the third Veep). The first was Martin Van Buren's Vice President, Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky, whose career as a politician might make a diverting comedy.

A surprisingly good, if little known, history lesson.

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 13 March 2022]

In the UK this was called "The Man on America's Conscience", a title guaranteed to put off the Saturday night crowd but then would the Brits really be interested in the biography of the first American President to be impeached? Andrew Johnson was the President who succeeded Lincoln but despite his impeachment he's not really one of the 'famous' presidents. In "Tennessee Johnson", to give the film its US title, he's played by a young Van Heflin, fresh from his Oscar-winning success in "Johnny Eager", and he's actually very good, heading a cast that includes Ruth Hussey, Lionel Barrymore, (outstanding), Marjorie Main and Regis Toomey.

The director was William Dieterle, a dab hand at this kind of folksy Americana, and if this isn't one of his great films it's certainly one of his most entertaining and certainly one of his most underrated even if Heflin is a tad miscast, (he ages from young buck to grandfather overnight). It's certainly a handsome looking history lesson and a surprisingly intelligent one even if the Lincoln movies were always the ones to get the better press.

Tennessee Johnson- A President By Accident ***1/2

[edwagreen · 9/10 · 2 May 2011]

The film is rich in history and certainly boasts outstanding performances by Van Heflin as the maligned president and Lionel Barrymore, in top form, as the crusty Sen. Thaddeus Stephens,a Radical Republican, intent upon punishing the south forever for its efforts in the Civil War.

The major problem that I had with this very good film was that it should have been longer. The period of 1830 is quickly fast forwarded to 1860. The Civil War is dealt with quickly. The real story here is the Johnson impeachment proceedings.

Barrymore reminded me somewhat of the crusty old character he would play once more, four years later in the memorable "It's A Wonderful Life." He was an expert in getting people to loathe him. Even being confined to a wheelchair did not impair his acting ability. In fact, it made it stronger.

Heflin is terrific, especially in scenes where he defends himself against the charges brought up against him, as well at the end when he returns to the senate as a former president and now Senator-elect.

The picture just proved the hate of some people by using excuses of going against The Office of Tenure Act to drive out a sitting president from office in order to fulfill their agenda of hate and vindictive behavior.

This movie is historical fiction.

[intj1973 · 3/10 · 30 January 2004]

When I showed this movie to a Civil War specialist, he said it was almost comedic because of the many historical errors. For example, Johnson actually stayed away from the Senate Trial. In the movie, however, he gave a wonderful speech in his own defense. Also, the Senate President Pro Tempore, next in line to be President, was Benjamin Wade. In the film, however, he was James Waters. In reality, Senator Edmond Ross, who was healthy, cast the acquitting vote. In the movie, however, a dying senator named Huyler did this.

"Tennessee Johnson" canonizes Andrew Johnson and demonizes Thaddeus Stevens. I prefer a more nuanced interpretation of history, for I find good and bad in both men. Ambiguity was not the order of the day (1943), however. Instead, the film reflects the dominant historical interpretation of the day--the Dunning Thesis.

FYI, I hold a M.A. in American History.

The Last President of the American Republic

[ericrachut · 10/10 · 8 January 2018]

The subject of this biopic is Andrew Johnson, the President who succeeded Abraham Lincoln, the only American President who had no formal education whatsoever (and yet was a voracious reader), the only southern member of Congress who did not walk out when Secession arrived, the man who attempted to implement "presidential reconstruction" as outlined by Lincoln at the cabinet meeting on the last day of his life, and the first President to be impeached (the pretext being the ability of the President to dismiss a Cabinet appointee, a question later resolved by the Supreme Court in Johnson's favor). What dramatic material! But try to find a DVD of this movie! Johnson is condemned for his bluntness and, above all, for his racial views, which happened to be fairly similar to those of Lincoln. His great sin, however, was in considering the Constitution to be indeed the governing law of the land. In our current time he is condemned. The censors are determining what we can see.

Andrew Johnson, the Comedy

[Mg6 · 1/10 · 15 July 2014]

One gets an indication as to what fiction is being perpetrated very early in this film. It comes upon the death of Lincoln, when Andrew Johnson and his wife both state that he was chosen as Vice President by Lincoln because he wanted Johnson to be the man that replaced him if something happened to Lincoln. Say what!? Johnson was chosen by Lincoln for one purpose, to steal Democratic votes that Lincoln worried he might need in what was shaping up as a tight race in 1864. As it turns out, that ridiculous scene is one of the more believable scenes in this ridiculous farce of a movie. Johnson was a semi-illiterate, deeply racist, hotheaded, buffoon. However, this film paints him as one of the greatest human beings ever to grace this country. Would have loved to see how they handled his "Round the Circle" speeches, where a drunken Johnson cursed out anybody that raised a voice to him. This film was just plain silly.

VAN HEFLIN IS GREAT!

[georgigems · 16 July 2003]

OK, so it's not that accurate a portrait of the era and the writers may have fabricated "history" but that's Hollywood. Let's not under estimate Van Heflin. The guy was one of my favorites and terribly underrated. You can see all kinds of emotion in his eyes. He was not a very energetic actor like Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power nor did he have the matinee idol looks of a Robert Taylor but the guy was cerebral. He was brilliant in "Johnny Eager" and all but stole every scene he was in in "Santa Fe Trail". He excelled at complex characters.

I wonder what kind of career he would have had if he had lived longer.

Watch this movie with an open mind and really enjoy Heflin's acting.

Fine Biopic About One Of Our Lesser Known; But Highly Underrated Presidents.

[redryan64 · 9/10 · 8 May 2011]

AMONG THE VARIOUS categories of motion picture, the biography or biopic is certainly one of the most interesting, popular and even educational; at least to a certain extent. While we certainly can learn a lot about a historical figure via the movie route, we must always remember that any dramatization is just that; being an artificial recreation of occurrences that had taken place, any or all of which are influenced by the beliefs and attitudes of the films producers, writers and director. In short, there is at least some degree of "slanting" or, as they say on THE O'REILLY FACTOR, "spin."

CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH WE may enjoy Errol Flynn's portrayal of the quite flamboyant George Armstrong Custer in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1942); we mustn't let the story end with "THE END" of the picture. Consulting some historical sources would help to sort out just what is History and what's strictly Hollywood; would certainly seem to be a good suggestion at the very least.

SO, WE KNOW that there was at least some degree of fictionalizing and abridgment of actual occurrences. This shouldn't detract from our enjoyment and appreciation of the movies; for that is truly their main function, to entertain and provide a little escapism from the trials and tribulations of everyday life.

HOWEVER, WITHOUT LOSING sight of the story unfolding in front of the audience. We at once are obliged to take in all of the unfolding scenario and at the same time sort out what is obvious flight of fanciful fluff. (How's that for use of Alliteration, Schultz?)

IN COMPARISON TO many other historical figures, this is probably the only treatment of the life of Andrew Johnson, the man who was Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Vice President and the man who succeeded Abe; following his assassination in April of 1865. In contrast, how many actors have portrayed George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and even Jefferson Davis?

THERE ARE SEVERAL facts that we definitely came away with after viewing the film. That is that Mr. Andrew Johnson, like Abe Lincoln himself, came from the most humble of environs. Through his hard work and persistence, he managed to climb the economic ladder working as a tailor in his adopted Tennessee town.

WE ALSO LEARN that he was a fugitive from justice in South Carplina. He was, you see, as an 'apprentice' tailor, he was an Indentured Servant to some established master tailor. What is an "Indentured Servant", you may well be asking; for it seems that the term has been assigned to etymological obscurity in today's Politically Correct America.

INDENTURED SERVITUDE WAS a form of slavery, in which the worker is bound to a master for a certain period of years; during which he will work for no compensation, other than room and board. Although we hear very little about it today, it was a common practice in those antebellum years; in both slave and free states and territories. In short, it was a sort of "Slavery with term limits."

WE ALSO LEARN that Andrew Johnson was a true democrat (small D)in the mold of an Andrew Jackson; being a firm believer in the right to vote for all. This during a time in the 1830's when one had to be a property owner, white and a male to exercise his franchise.

FROM THE NARRATIVE on screen, we also learn that was a Southerner, he was most definitely anti-slavery, a Union Loyalist and a fiercely loyal man to his constituents and benefactors, such as Mr. Lincoln. His was such a disposition as to lead to his resignation from the United States Senate and enlistment in the Union Army; leading to his a distinguishing record of service in the War Between the States.

DUE TO ALL of these fine qualities, President Lincoln chose Johnson as his running mate on the "National Union" (reallyRepublican) ticket in the Presidential Election in the Year of Our Lord, 1864. Johnson's complete and undivided loyalty to the Union, his championing of the "little guy" and his quite understandable hatred for the institution of slavery, in whatever form.

PERHAPS IN FOLLOWING in the trail blazed by Frank Capra in MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (Columbia, 1939), the production team designed a most impressive and realistic replica of the Senate Chamber. They followed up that with a the staging of a most impressive Impeachment and Trial of President Andrew Johnson before the House of Representatives and the Senate; in which Johnson Prevailed by the slimmest of margins in one (1) vote.

ALTHOUGH THERE WERE certain liberties taken (such as the President's appearing before the Senate during the trial, which he did not do), the dialog contained some of the very best crafted exchanges; which were very much in keeping with Historical Fact. The production featured a huge number of actors; which also helped in recreating a the teaming minions of the Nation's Capital in that time immediately following the end of hostilities in the Civil War.

THE FILM ALSO gives Mr. Johnson's reputation as a drunkard with the offering the reason for his inebriation as being his medicinal use of brandy for a cold or flu on an empty stomach. Well, maybe so, maybe not.

THE STORY ALSO gives credit to Andrew Johnson as being the right guy to implement Abraham Lincoln's plan for universal amnesty toward all who participated in the war on the side of the secessionist states. But alas, Johnson wasn't in the strong enough political position th see all of this through to a satisfactory conclusion. The "Radical Republicans, headed up by Congressman Stevens (Lionel Barrymore), prevailed; making the approximately 20 years of Reconstruction a time of exacting a punishment toward the formed Southern Aristocracy.

A historical mess.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 24 January 2014]

It is very interesting how history actually changes over time. In other words, the same people and incidents can be seen VERY differently depending on when they are discussed in history books or portrayed on film. During the 1910s-40s, the Confederacy and Andrew Johnson were seen in a much more favorable light than they are today. Back in 1942, he was seen, generally, as an able president who was persecuted by Congress. In 1866 and today, he was seen mostly as a tactless obstructionist who did everything he could to prevent blacks from receiving their rights as citizens. Because of this, I doubt if you'll seen any sort of favorable film about the man for the foreseeable future.

So on to the film. The production values are very nice--with fine acting and direction--just as you'd expect from MGM. Much of the film was NOT about Johnson's presidency--and this portion it generally got right. His wife did teach his to read and write and his path from local office to the Presidency was generally on target. However, when it came to his presidency, it only once made a comment about Johnson's ill-temper. For the most part, he's shown as a reasonable man who is besieged by an evil Congress. This is far from the case--as I mentioned above. And, Thaddeus Stevens and his friends were mostly caricatures of evil--which is also incorrect. Likewise, Johnson never actually addressed the Senate during his impeachment proceedings--this is pure fiction. Bkoganbing from Buffalo hit it on the head with his review as to the many inaccuracies of the film.

What you're left with is a film that is entertainment but just wrong in too many cases to be taken seriously.

Brilliant

[theognis-80821 · 9/10 · 21 February 2023]

Historical accuracy and interpretations aside, "Tennessee Johnson," thanks to superb screenwriter John L. Balderston, is the most suspenseful, involving and well-structured Washington DC melodrama this side of Gore Vidal's "The Best Man" (1964). At 103 minutes, it's a marvel of the kind of concision rarely seen today, ranging through the course of a man's life from illiterate runaway slave to President of the United States to US Senator. Under the skillful direction of William Dieterle, Van Heflin stars in the title role, ably supported by Ruth Hussey as his teacher and wife and an outstanding studio cast. Dieterle's staging and pacing are wonderful. It should inspire research into the history of the period in the same way Vidal's film casts light on some of the prime issues of the 1950s and the inner workings of our constitutional republic.

Great Acting, Revised History

[rpkpkp · 5/10 · 20 August 2021]

The cast is spectacular- Heflin , Hussey, Barrymore , Main and Regis Toomey.

The movie tries to lionize Andrew Johnson, 17th President as carrying on Lincoln's legacy and policies.

In fact, Lincoln made a monumental mistake by letting this Democrat near the White House.

Johnson repeatedly vetoed Republican efforts to bring former slaves into true freedom and equality.

He allowed southern Democrats to install segregation and institute discrimination, setting race relations back 100 years.

Johnson didn't speak at his Senate impeachment trial.

So much dramatic license was taken in this film, it's tough to trust anything.

Not sure why the filmmakers wanted to rehabilitate Andrew Johnson but I did appreciate the actor's efforts.