Review of A Face in the Crowd (1957) by Steve G — 02 Mar 2010

A standard tragic Hollywood tale of someone obscure obtaining great popularity and power and it corrupting him, leaving him with nothing. A slightly simplistic story about the "dangerous manipulative power" of the popular media and of television.

I doubt that the small government conservative-type was the elitist media-abuser even at the time. It's somehow doubtful, as the political sympathies of this movie certainly demonstrate that not to be the case. But even if so, it most certainly reminds one of the role of media in today's political climate & in the manipulating & advancing of ideology by pop culture. One can't help but think of Oprah peddling Obama as "The One". The wooing effect of sweetly portrayed narratives & the pressure to not think outside a vaunted establishment mindset.

Griffith gave a great performance as the Oprah of the 1950s.

Matthau played the condescending envious cynical arrogant journalist to perfection. His constantly trying to hit it with Patricia Neal got to be tiresome. I also hated the idea of him as moral authority watching either approvingly or disapprovingly on the actions of everyone else to make sure they met his moral requirements, after which he would express his pleasure or displeasure. If anyone thought we were to feel sympathy for him as he constantly lectured (especially Lonesome) & talked about his own strength in "getting wise", they were wrong. Lonesome, even at his worst, was much more sympathetic. His childish jealousy of Lonesome & endless pontificating was far more grating to me than Lonesome's ego.

Lonesome's real first wife was also among the more annoying movie characters I have ever encountered.

Also, the theme of media hypocrisy is explored. He says one thing to the audience while doing & thinking another, to their total obliviousness. Not an uncommon practice today. A slightly patronistic portrayal of the gullibility & mindlessness of middle-America & the TV watching public, but what can you say? Sometimes these things are unfortunately truer than they should be.

A bit steamy for a 50s movie, which I thought was distracting from the story. I have to say though, the movie lost a little steam with the affair scene toward the end with Franciosa & Remmick, though it did include the great line about owning 51% of Lonesome Rhodes Enterprises.

It's interesting that while these films were pretty tame by today's standards, I was shocked to hear Griffith refer to his black servants as "black monkeys". Movies will allow almost anything today, but you could scarcely get away with something like this due to political correctness (the modern form of the film code).

The ending was rather predictable.

(Not the first time a Kazan film featured a man & a balconey while hollering the name of a departing woman).

The major problem with the film was that even in the depths of his vileness & even at his most egotistical, Griffith couldn't be anything but likeable.

This made it difficult to be sympathetic of Neal's actions in the end.

Though the final scenes did contain some great pathos, the last scenes with Griffith were over-the-top. But not due to his performance, which was on pitch. Rather because of the exaggerated writing.

I still like him better as Sheriff of Mayberry though.