This is my first foray into the wonderful world of blog-a-thons, and as the subject so neatly coincides with the 2008 presidential election (by design, methinks), I've taken time out of my not-so-busy schedule to contribute to The Cooler's Politics & Movies blog-a-thon by analyzing the real-life politics in The Great McGinty.You can check out other contributions here.
THE GREAT SULZER, POLITICS IN STURGES' DEBUT
Richard Corliss observes in his invaluable tome of screenwriting analysis, Talking Pictures, that Preston Sturges as an artist is nearly “schizophrenic”, one half of him “the Pride of Paramount, laughgetter and moneymaker”, the other being “Sturges the artist, adapter of Tolstoy”. The issue of reconciling these polar opposites has always been a conflict within Sturges' work, and nowhere did he succeed more completely than in his first directorial venture, The Great McGinty.
For those uninitiated, The Great McGinty concerns itself with one Daniel McGinty (Brian Donlevy), a tough-talking, no nonsense bartender revealing his past glories one drink at a time. His glories are of a truly American nature, pulling himself up by his bootstraps, beginning the flashback as a homeless vagrant, stripped of all possessions and dignity, left with no one's respect but his own, then turning his life around and becoming a henchman for an equally strong-willed and independent boss, the delightful Akim Tamiroff. Gaining political influence due to his loyalty to his own standards of conduct, McGinty soon finds himself beset on all sides by people wanting him to bend to their wills, something Daniel isn't particular suited to doing. His wife implores him to do The Right Thing, and as he succumbs to the weakness of all blue-blooded self-made men, he is soon influenced to the point of no return. McGinty begrudgingly turns on his morally repugnant boss and is quickly reprimanded, losing his office.
This brings us, in a roundabout way, to the real life thirty-ninth Governor of New York (January 1st, 1913 through October 17th, 1913) and to date, the only one ever to be impeached. The man is William Sulzer, and his is a story which would prove to be quite influential to Sturges' 1940 film. Well known to New York residents, Sulzer's political career is one wrought with controversy, a confident and long-standing congressman, he was impeached only several months into his term. Catapulted to popularity on the shoulders of the Democratic political machine of Tammany Hall, Sulzer soon broke with the party and refused to participate in partisan tactics and 'suggested' political appointments. After his move for independence he was quickly impeached, an event set in motion by Charles Francis Murphy (the basis for Boss Jim Gettys in 1941's Citizen Kane), leader at the time of Tammany Hall.
On the night William Sulzer left Albany, a crowd of 10,000 gathered on the street outside of the Executive Mansion, and engaged in a dialogue with the man himself. Among the sympathetic comments
made by both the crowd and the Governor, Sulzer went on to say "Posterity will do me justice. Time sets all things right. I shall be patient." While it would take 27 years before The Great McGinty would attempt to 'set things right', there have been several pieces of legislation introduced to repair his record, to no avail. Sulzer's story diverges from McGinty here in that he went on to a fairly successful political career despite his questionable history, even going so far as to being asked to be the presidential nominee for the American party. McGinty, on the other hand, ends up back where the film starts, in a lowlife bar surrounded by his friends and political allies tending bar and getting into screwball fights with the Boss.The Great McGinty has achieved a type of peculiar transcendence, especially in the current tempestuous political climate. With all the recent talk about vote blocking, mistakenly lost votes and intentionally mistaken tallies, there is a particular relevance in the film's first act in which McGinty earns his keep by voting a total of 37 times. And while his moxie and charisma may now have a bitter-sweet aftertaste thanks to the 2000 and 2004 elections, it's a testament to Sturges' brilliance as a writer and director that we identify with the big lug, even when we know he's fallen from the path. And in that suit, no less.
———————————————————————————————-
The Boss or the Governor







3 comments:
Excellent write-up.
Maybe I missed this in my reading of your post, but is this film strictly drama or more of a comedy-drama? I've only seen "Sullivan's Travels" by Sturges (and that was nearly ten years ago), but it's always been my understanding that he infuses light comedic touches into dramatic situations. Was that the case here?
Thanks, I cover the comedic elements a little more in my actual review of the film, but figured on focusing more on the relationship to Sulzer and current politics in this.
It definitely is more comedic than dramatic, although switching pretty adeptly between screwball comedy and dialogue-heavy comedy. The only movie of his I can think of that's got sincerely dramatic moments sans the comedy is The Great Moment, which is actually one of his worst.
Joshua: I'm not familiar with the film, so I enjoyed reading the connections to real life. Nice job.
I also enjoyed the photo above. Their positions in the back of the car are flip-flopped, and there are no Venetian blinds, but I felt like I could hear the conversation ...
"I coulda been a contender!"
"Not in that outfit."
Thanks for contributing to the blog-a-thon!
Post a Comment