For part one, go here.
Glenn Kenny: I have to admit two things about Keeper of the Flame: first, that I’d never seen it, and honestly had barely even heard of it before encountering it in this collection. And that given the descriptions of it I looked at almost directly before viewing it, I kind of dreaded it, George Cukor behind the camera or not. Come to think of it I’m not sure why I dreaded it, since theme-wise, it bears a certain resemblance to a couple of pieces of political-sociological pulp of which I’m kind of fond, for instance, Gabriel Over The White House. Before I get ahead of myself, lemme describe the picture. The followup to the popular and Oscar-winning (for Best Original Screenplay, of all things; Hepburn got a Best Actress nom) Woman of the Year is not romantic comedy, not even vaguely. You’d think maybe it would, what with Cukor directing and a script by Donald Ogden Stewart (who adapted both Holiday and The Philadelphia Story for the screen). But no. This is a Great-Man-With-Feet-Of-Not-Clay-But-Potential-Fascist-Steel melodrama, with an intriguing twist: the Great Man is never seen. True, as it were, to the film’s title. The flame is the heroism and ideals of the never-seen Robert Forrest, a national hero for we-never-learn-what-exactly. Forrest meets his death in a spectacular auto crash, and the vultures of the press descend on the town wherein his compound is situated, but only one, Spencer Tracy’s former war correspondent Stephen O’Malley, is crafty enough to make it into the manse, where he meet’s Forrest’s widow Christine (Hepburn, of course), the titular keeper of the flame—or is she? Soon O’Malley finds all manner of creepiness under all manner of rocks, including a surly groundskeeper (Howard DaSilva), a worshipful uptight amenuensis (Richard Whorf, in a sinister variation, coincidentally, of Dan Tobin’s character in Woman of the Year, or so it seems when you watch the two pictures in close temporal proximity) and Forrest’s loony mom (Margaret Wycherly). We learn that at the time of his death Forrest was working on a project to…Make America Fascist. And the truth about him has to come out! But there are powerful forces working to suppress that truth!
The material, as you see, has a lot of contextually fascinating resonances to it. Some consider the film to be a pronounced critique of the isolationist politics and suspicious fellow-travelling of Charles Lindbergh, a theory bolstered somewhat by the film’s stubbornness in withholding just what it was besides wartime valor that made Robert Forrest such a renowned national hero. I’ve read a latter-day consideration of the film that posits the scenario could conceivably have provided some inspiration for Philip Roth’s alternative-history novel The Plot Against America. This is the sort of thing I should be all over, but in fact I was kind of scared that the film it would resemble most would be another Tracy-starrer, 1933’s The Power And The Glory, a Great-Man-With-Feet-Of-Clay picture with an excellent pedigree; its writer Preston Sturges pointed out that its narrative innovations, more or less ignored at the time, were similar ones to what Citizen Kane would be praised to the skies for less than a decade later. That may be true, but it’s also a demonstration that if your innovations don’t resonate on the screen, they don’t resonate period, and The Power and the Glory is so thoroughly pedestrian in its mise-en-scene and overall direction that one recalls it as a real slog. And for some reason I was worried that Keeper of the Flame would be that as well.
Claire Kenny: You and I are on just the same page here, in terms of the film both confounding our expectations of content, and exceeding our expectations of quality. I know that we both relished the viewing, and found this satisfying, and satisfyingly ridiculous (in the way only a really juicy melodrama can be), for probably much the same reasons. The main difference in the way we approached the film is that you were a far better student than I–the only “advance reading” I did was the copy on the DVD box, which left me with the same dread you mention, which I likewise shortly found myself unable to justify. You mention the pervasive creepiness, but what I felt more was suspense. We know as soon as Tracy shows up that there is Something to Investigate, but the big bad truth about Robert Forrest is a long time emerging–is he a wronged man who was killed by his wife’s lover? was he involved in shady business dealings? is Hepburn protecting him or herself?–and the buildup is entirely delicious. It’s then jarring in the best kind of way (although giant clues pop up throughout) when his secret turns out to be the Big F. In the context of the time especially, a threat of fascism surely couldn’t have been much scarier, but it’s such a high-minded plan to make fascism the villain of a popular entertainment–and since Forrest himself is never seen, fascism really is pretty much literally the villain. As dated as this feels (I’m entirely conditioned by the movies I’ve grown up with to expect the shameful secret to be something sordid and very physical, like incest or serial murder or a gimp with a ball gag in the basement), it’s more a delightful relic of its time than a wilted old bouquet in the manner of, say, Woman of the Year.
Glenn Kenny: Yes, exactly. A lot of the delight has to do with the pacing. The themes and characterizations and their treatment are a, true, a bit creaky and antiquated and all, but the picture itself really moves right along. Tracy as always gives great Man-of-Integrity value, and Tragic Heroine was never really a problem for Hepburn, so they’re both very enjoyable here. (The supporting cast is also impeccable; DaSilve always gave good sinister grump, and could turn that into fundamentally warm decent guy on a dime; I didn’t mention some good early Forrest Tucker action, he plays a menacing relative of a character). What’s odd, or maybe admirable, is that there are not even subtextual sparks between them in their interplay (their characters do not become romantically entangled in this picture, making this unique in their canon); he’s all do-the-right- thing, she’s all torn-between-love-and-disillusionment-and-duty-but- duty-to-what, and they don’t have any opportunity to connect in any other way. Claire, did you find this alienating/off-putting, or did the anomaly add to the fun?
Claire Kenny: Well, I’ll tell you, GK, I actually don’t agree with the premise that there were no sparks between them—though now I’m starting to doubt myself and wondering if I saw things just because I was expecting to find them there? Definitely, there was not the overt romantic involvement of their other films, but I nonetheless thought that an undercurrent of sexual tension was inherent in the way their characters were set against each other: as an investigator bound on uncovering the secret Hepburn felt compelled to keep, Stephen was her antagonist; at the same time, as the one person in the world of the film with the wherewithal to reveal the truth that Christine didn’t really want to hide, he was her rescuer. As archaic as that whole damsel-in-distress/white-knight setup is, Christine’s conflict about her own role creates the classic push-pull at the heart of all romantic friction. I’d say the anomaly here—other than the fact that a real romance never comes to fruition—is that the classic Tracy-Hepburn battle is one of words, while Keeper of the Flame trades more in wordless stares and meaningful pauses. I was happy if unsurprised to find that they could handle this form of interaction just as skillfully as they manage pages of banter.
Up next: 1945’s Without Love, the DVD of which happens to include one of Glenn’s all-time favorite Tex Avery cartoons, Swing Shift Cinderella. Not sure if that will also be subject to discussion. “Um, pardon me miss, I’m lookin’ for the dame they call…”
I really liked this film. It’s screwy.
It’s been a few years since I saw this film, but I’m afraid I thought it was too pat, despite the good performances by Tracy and Hepburn, and, as you say, Da Silva’s creepy turn. Maybe, like WOMAN OF THE YEAR, this is one I need to revisit.
On a side note, while I certainly wouldn’t put THE POWER AND THE GLORY among Sturges’ best, I didn’t find it “pedestrian”. I found it to have some interesting ideas, narratively speaking at any rate, they just weren’t very well executed. It is sort of ironic, though, that the man who’d make a film that was essentially a hymn to making people laugh during the tough times and a poke at those who tried to take it too seriously would start off his career with a “serious” film.
Haven’t seen this for several years, but thought it was pretty good. Among cast members you don’t mention, I particularly liked Audrey Christie. This was her first film, and I don’t really recall her anything else until SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS, in which she played Natalie Wood’s mother.
Wow, that plot summary alone makes this sound awesome. Aaaaand… it’s not on Netflix. Dammit!
Glenn, more background: My trusty Hollywood Goes to War (the story of the Office of War Information) says that OWI “supplied the thinking” for this meditation on the threat of internal fascism. OWI loved it, of course, saying “native fascism, ‘one of our most powerful enemies within,’ would stalk the country ‘in a guise of Americanism.” And I was also interested in this:
“[Journalist and Roosevelt aide] Lowell Mellett did not share [OWI’s] enthusiasm for the picture and even pointed out that Robert Forrest had the demagogic qualities that Franklin Roosevelt’s detractors attributed to the president. And Louis B. Mayer, who others thought had Forrest’s traits, was shocked at the film’s identification of the rich with fascism and stormed out of the screening.”
Mayer did a lot of storming out of screenings, didn’t he? This one, Sunset Boulevard… But I love that theory, that Cukor and Stewart had Mayer in mind. Plausible, doncha think?
Anyway, while it does not rank with Cukor’s best, I quite like Keeper of the Flame. I’m with Claire, I think there is romantic tension there, albeit of a very high-minded, non-physical variety; and the last moments before the fadeout are the essence of romance. And can Adrian get some love here? Those gowns were fabulous; Hepburn was so gorgeous in this period.
Without Love; oh man. I am gonna want some serious screencaps from that one, and you’ll know exactly which ones, too. I’ll reserve the rest of my thoughts.
“Keeper of the Flame” is an odd film. I remember how surprised I was when I saw it on television many years ago knowing only that it was a Cukor film with Hepburn and Tracy. I’ve seen a couple of other American “home grown fascism” movies like “Meet John Doe” and “A Face in the Crowd” (both very good, I think), but they are more about the danger of “men of the people” populist demagogues, and I can’t think of any other U.S. movie with a fascist from the élite of society. I sometimes got the feeling that Henry Ford or W R Hearst was the model, but I don’t think it was more than possibly hinted at. “Keeper of the Flame” is also a lot more toned down than “Meet John Doe” and “A Face in the Crowd”.
I just looked up I. A. R. Wylie, the writer of the novel the film is based on, and saw that she’s also written the source material of two very good John Ford movies with political/humanist themes: “Four Sons” and “Pilgrimage”.
You’re quite right, Siren, I should have given Adrian his due. Thus far in this viewing project, I’ve been most diverted by Walter Plunkett’s costumes for THE SEA OF GRASS (which should be coming up here in a couple weeks), mostly I think because all the Westward-ho period stuff is so completely non-Hepburnesque. But the gowns here are, as you say, flawless.
I love the idea of you and Glenn discussing Without Love and Sea of Grass. Not exactly a huge number of in-depth pieces around on those two films. Hell, even I never bothered to write them up. No Spencer Tracy, but would you guys consider swerving to include Undercurrent as a coda? That’s a really good movie and I know Kim Morgan digs it too.
“I can’t think of any other U.S. movie with a fascist from the élite of society”
Johan, you may want to check out the 1933 film “Gabriel Over the White House” for an example. Louis B. Mayer was reportedly appalled by it too, even though MGM released it.
Oh, I hope you write up “Swing Shift Cinderella”– love that cartoon!
“I can’t think of any other U.S. movie with a fascist from the élite of society”
Hitchcock’s “Saboteur” (1942) is another. Not a masterpiece, but underrated. The blind blacksmith oddly evoking (for me, at least) “Frankenstein.” The circus troupe sequence was also well done. Worth another view, I think.
James R: Thanks for the tip! A La Cava film with Walter Huston sounds like something I should really see.
John Svatek: Ah yes, ”Saboteur” – kind of the forgotten sibling to ”The 39 Steps” and ”North By Northwest”. I’ve seen it, and remember enjoying it, but I had forgotten the upper class fascists.
Johan, yes! You must see “Gabriel.” It is truly bizarre.
Johan, the fascists in SABOTEUR are interesting. Hitchcock wanted Harry Carey for the leader, but I think Otto Kruger is very, very good, like a genteel businessman, never without a smile. I also like Alan Baxter as the nervous, soft-spoken, slightly fussy underling, and – I forget the actor) the man who darns his socks, gets Priscilla Lane (his captive) to pay him for her ice cream soda, and complains that he has to get off early so he can take his kid sister to Carnegie Hall.
So is this a new thing the spammers do? Crib from a previous post and pretend it’s a fresh contribution to the discussion, then hope we’ll all see the name “cheap custom jerseys” and be sufficiently overcome with curiosity to click the name? And is there one person on earth who falls for this nonsense?
jbryant, the spammers don’t really care about humans seeing their message, only Googlebot. They want more links on the Web back to their site, so that Google will rank them higher in their index. Mind you, this blog adds the “NOFOLLOW” HTML attribute to those links, so Google won’t take any of them into account; all the spammer is achieving is to annoy the rest of us.
I don’t mind you guys talking about my spam, but just bear in mind it looks funny after I clean the spam out, which I do every morning! And sometimes more frequently than that. Having a blog: it’s work!
Kent: It’s coming back to me now. Otto Kruger’s character is a bit like James Mason’s in “North By North West”, very polite and cultured, and of course quite nasty, but also funny. I seem to remember reading in a Hitchcock biography that the phrase “The Moron Masses”, used by Kruger in “Saboteur”, was picked up by the writer of the movie from how Hitchcock would refer in conversation to his audience. Hitchcock, with an anti-fascist record going back to his British films, and continuing in the U.S. with “Foreign Correspondent”, “Saboteur”, “Shadow of a Doubt” and “Life Boat” was apparently not letting his politically astute analysis getting in the way of his sense of humor, and this I think speaks well of him.
Johan, he’s a fascinating character: a gentleman rancher, maybe less cultured than old-style American patrician. “Moron masses” seems like an odd sentiment to come from a guy who thought so long and hard about his audience – sounds to me like it came straight from Dorothy Parker. Nonetheless, the speech itself is chilling. Kruger delivers it with a relaxed bonhomie that is chilling under the circumstances. He’s sitting on a couch, I think, smoking a cigar, and Hitchcock holds him in a wide shot that sharply emphasizes his relaxation and comfort amidst the Fifth Avenue opulence – well-protected in a closed world.
It’s a film that I’ve watched a more than once in the last few years, and I’ve really come to love it. Last year, my son and I saw Norman Lloyd going into great detail about the shooting of the Statue of Liberty sequence.
Kent: Can’t find the book I was thinking about, but I found this on the TCM site, which may have been what I was thinking about: ”Hitchcock hated the previews imposed on him by the studios and considered audience response cards to be idiotic methods for shaping a film. After one such screening, the director muttered one of the lines from the picture, delivered by the fascist leader character: “The great masses, the moron millions.””
On Dorothy Parker’s contribution they had this: ”Hitchcock loved Dorothy Parker’s script touches for “Saboteur”, particularly the scene with the circus freaks, but thought they were too subtle and mostly overlooked by the audience.”
The annoying thing with Hitchcock is that the not so famous films are always better than you remember them.
Anyway, I’ve ordered “Gabriel Over the White House” and someone I know is bound to have “Saboteur” on DVD, so I’ll make this a double feature.
Kent: Wow, and last year Norman Lloyd was 95 or 96 years old!
A few years ago, I sat next to Lloyd at a Samuel Goldwyn theater screening of 8 1/2. I couldn’t bring myself to bother him before the film started, but afterward I thought maybe I’d at least tell him how much I admired his work. Unfortunately, as soon as the credits came up, the then-octogenarian zipped past me and beat the crowd out the door. That dude must have really taken care of himself over the years.
Mr. Lloyd is in tip-top physical and mental shape and still plays tennis every day.
Even this summary alone, it sound awesome!
It’s a deeply strange movie. Cukor made other pitch-dark dramas of note – “Edward My Son” and “A Double Life” spring immediately to mind. But “Keeper of the Flame” has mysterious almost Jacques Rivette-like quality to it. It isn’t completely successful but more than worth anyone’s attention.
If memory serves, The President Vanishes (1934) also features élite American would-be fascists (like Gabriel Over the White House, this was a Walter Wanger production).
Donald Ogden Stewart, Keeper of the Flame’s screenwriter, was very active in the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League and was later blacklisted. I think he plays a big role in Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund’s The Inquisition in Hollywood.