Mr Deeds goes to Town (1936)

 

Deeds held high by his many supporters

Watching this film struck a note of horror in my brain. I’ve always been wary of Hollywood populism, but this film, which seemed almost to replicate scenes of the storming of Congress following the Trump defeat, made me feel very uneasy indeed.

I have complaints about the film as film, and about the story. Let’s begin with the story:

• We are expected to believe that a small-town poet can outsmart the best legal brains in America simply by the conviction that he is right. Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper) embodies the American values most praised by Hollywood: simple, unsophisticated, uncultured, belief in instinct rather than reason, belief in fists rather than argument. In other words, “right” overcomes “might”.
• At the same time, the simpleton Deeds has to demonstrate to that he can size people up w
• A lawyer claiming to represent the common-law wife of the deceased is literally sent kicking; yet Deeds accepts at face value hundreds of people waiting at his front door in the expectation that he will give them a hand-out. There is no suggestion that Deeds might want to take advice before he gives his fortune away. There is no suggestion that those requesting funds might not really be in need. No, under the film’s populist ethos, if Deeds thinks they are honest, they are honest.

·       There is a revealing scene where Deeds is elected chair of the opera company. When he learns they have a deficit, he says they should trade so as to make a profit. He doesn’t have any time for the argument that opera is the kind of cultural activity that requires some kind of financial support to survive. Funny that small-town Deeds nevertheless has a very clear attachment to American capitalism, as if there were no subsidies in the United States. The Metropolitan Opera, by the way, has more than half its funding via private donations. No doubt if Deeds were running the Met he would increase ticket prices further.  

And now for my comments on the film:

·       Gary Cooper looked far too intelligent to be playing this role James Stewart could have done it better.

·       A film that is supposed to be screamingly funny had some surprisingly dull moments. The courtroom scene at the end dragged, unsurprisingly, since the leading actor said nothing for almost the entire duration of the scene.

·       We are expected to believe, for the resolution of the plot, that Longfellow Deeds overcomes his abhorrence for the reporter Babe Bennett (Jean Arthur) who has shamelessly exploited him and made money from his behaviour. A few days later, he marries the very same reporter.

·       The story of Babe Bennett is so full of holes it is impossible to believe. She appears as a homeless down-and-out in front of Longfellow Deeds, who looks after her. 24 hours later she is revealed to be a stenographer in a steady job, and a few hours after that Deeds visits her house and her ‘sister’. None of this tallies with her purported background as related to Deeds.

·       It’s never clear how Deeds got his money in the first place. He doesn’t appear to do much other than write poor poems and play tuba in the local town band. Perhaps, like Trump, he inherited money, which enabled him not to have to worry about earning a living.

·       The film is full of inconsistencies. Deeds is adamant that nobody should bend down to help him put on his trousers – a very egalitarian idea. But Deeds subsequently has no problems being waited on by not one but two servants. Not so egalitarian, then.

Overall, Mr Deeds goes to Town demonstrated the truth of Gramsci’s idea of hegemony: that the United States produces more powerful propaganda in defence of its system than repressive states where any dissent is punished. To think, people paid to watch this film! To be honest, I watched the film for free on YouTube, via an excellent copy that had been restored thanks to some funding, something we all benefitted from.