The 1940s saw the appearance of four major American directors: Orson Welles, John Huston, Billy Wilder, and Preston Sturgis. They had careers of varying degrees of success. Welles is usually seen as the great talent done to death by the jackals of the Hollywood system and his own personality quirks. Wilder and Huston were both more successful, although both met with serious problems as well - Huston with the threat of the blacklist in the last 1940s, and Wilder with increasing feelings of irrelevance in the industry after 1969. Sturgis actually had a far longer career in Hollywood, as he was a highly successful screenplay writer in the 1930s. But his heyday as a great comedy director lasted only from 1940 - 1948, and even then with two projects (THE SIN OF HAROLD DIDDLEBOCK and UNFAITHFULLY YOURS) failures at the box office. His last two films (THE BEAUTIFUL BLOND OF BASHFUL BEND and THE FRENCH THEY ARE A FUNNY FACE were not as good as the films that preceded them. He was finished as a filmmaker by 1955. Even Welles lasted longer.
His first film comedy (that he wrote and directed) is THE GREAT MCGINTY (1940) starring Brian Donleavy as the title character. It remains the best study of the weaknesses of the democracy our country prides itself on every 4th of July or other patriotic occasion. For the whole joke of the rise and fall of Dan McGinty is that he only succeeds when he fully works alongside the corrupt Boss (Akim Tamiroff) and the latter's underlings (William Demerest, Harry Rosenthal), and when he actually tries to personally reform and be the good statesman, he is brought down by the Boss in disgrace. Said this way the joke sounds flat, but Sturgis' witty and perceptive script is not flat at all.
Basically the problem comes down to this - how seriously do Americans take their system? As I said before we give a lip service to it, and we follow the forms, but do we really understand the nature of the public trust imposed on our elected officials (and the electorate)? It is doubtful.
The reason is that everyone is more concerned with earning a living for themselves and their families. At one point Muriel Angelus tells William Demerest she has just read a book in which the writer points out that the money spread around by political corruption actually does help everyone by stimulating business and prosperity. Demerest shoots back that he wishes that book was read by everyone in the country.
Of course Demerest's self interest would push this theory. But is he far from totally wrong? When Donleavy runs for Governor he is Mayor of the state's largest city. There is a series of inter-cut scenes of Demerest giving a speech for Donleavy while Robert Warwick gives a speech for the "reform" candidate. Warwick keeps harping on the useless public roads and public works that Donleavy and his cronies have foisted on the public to line their pockets. But Demerest reminds the public that as a result of these acts of public construction hundreds of families were fed during what was the depression, and the result gave the people "the most beautiful city in the world." For all of Warwick's high toned attack, the actually results of the corruption seem rather sensible.
Akim Tamiroff's boss seems like a typical political hood, but if you listen carefully his comments culminating in "America is land of great opportunity" merely mirrors comments like those of the Tammany Hall sage George Washington Plunkitt in the early 20th Century, who said he "saw his opportunities and took 'em." Plunkitt differentiated between "honest graft" (i.e. inflating the prices of public works projects which do benefit the city), and "dishonest graft" (stealing the iron roof of an almshouse to sell it to a scrap iron dealer). But there are examples of dishonest graft in Tamiroff's world - examples that Plunkitt would have known of. When Donleavy starts his way up the political power tree, he is an "enforcer" collecting bribes from bordello operators and bar owners. This is not as gray an area of corruption as the public works issue - how do you defend shake-downs of small fry?
Sturgis, in the end, destroys the machine and the would-be reformer by showing the impossibility of reform. Donleavy tries to make a stand, but his principled attempt is ignored as the public learns he took bribes. He is swept out of power as rapidly (in it's way) as his rise from bum to governor had been. Yet even Sturgis must have realized that in the real world such sudden altruism would not have occurred to rock the boat. In his later film, THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK, we find both Donleavy and Tamiroff back in power together, running the state - and (in the end of that film) solving the problems of the hero and heroine.
His first film comedy (that he wrote and directed) is THE GREAT MCGINTY (1940) starring Brian Donleavy as the title character. It remains the best study of the weaknesses of the democracy our country prides itself on every 4th of July or other patriotic occasion. For the whole joke of the rise and fall of Dan McGinty is that he only succeeds when he fully works alongside the corrupt Boss (Akim Tamiroff) and the latter's underlings (William Demerest, Harry Rosenthal), and when he actually tries to personally reform and be the good statesman, he is brought down by the Boss in disgrace. Said this way the joke sounds flat, but Sturgis' witty and perceptive script is not flat at all.
Basically the problem comes down to this - how seriously do Americans take their system? As I said before we give a lip service to it, and we follow the forms, but do we really understand the nature of the public trust imposed on our elected officials (and the electorate)? It is doubtful.
The reason is that everyone is more concerned with earning a living for themselves and their families. At one point Muriel Angelus tells William Demerest she has just read a book in which the writer points out that the money spread around by political corruption actually does help everyone by stimulating business and prosperity. Demerest shoots back that he wishes that book was read by everyone in the country.
Of course Demerest's self interest would push this theory. But is he far from totally wrong? When Donleavy runs for Governor he is Mayor of the state's largest city. There is a series of inter-cut scenes of Demerest giving a speech for Donleavy while Robert Warwick gives a speech for the "reform" candidate. Warwick keeps harping on the useless public roads and public works that Donleavy and his cronies have foisted on the public to line their pockets. But Demerest reminds the public that as a result of these acts of public construction hundreds of families were fed during what was the depression, and the result gave the people "the most beautiful city in the world." For all of Warwick's high toned attack, the actually results of the corruption seem rather sensible.
Akim Tamiroff's boss seems like a typical political hood, but if you listen carefully his comments culminating in "America is land of great opportunity" merely mirrors comments like those of the Tammany Hall sage George Washington Plunkitt in the early 20th Century, who said he "saw his opportunities and took 'em." Plunkitt differentiated between "honest graft" (i.e. inflating the prices of public works projects which do benefit the city), and "dishonest graft" (stealing the iron roof of an almshouse to sell it to a scrap iron dealer). But there are examples of dishonest graft in Tamiroff's world - examples that Plunkitt would have known of. When Donleavy starts his way up the political power tree, he is an "enforcer" collecting bribes from bordello operators and bar owners. This is not as gray an area of corruption as the public works issue - how do you defend shake-downs of small fry?
Sturgis, in the end, destroys the machine and the would-be reformer by showing the impossibility of reform. Donleavy tries to make a stand, but his principled attempt is ignored as the public learns he took bribes. He is swept out of power as rapidly (in it's way) as his rise from bum to governor had been. Yet even Sturgis must have realized that in the real world such sudden altruism would not have occurred to rock the boat. In his later film, THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK, we find both Donleavy and Tamiroff back in power together, running the state - and (in the end of that film) solving the problems of the hero and heroine.