tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post8056416365768155278..comments2023-11-05T02:01:53.847-06:00Comments on Antagony & Ecstasy: 1939: CHAMPIONS OF LOST CAUSESTimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09491952893581644049noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-55408572645677137342015-12-16T09:49:50.371-06:002015-12-16T09:49:50.371-06:00Sorry for posting on an old review, but I want to ...Sorry for posting on an old review, but I want to know what you think about the scene where Smith goes around punching journalists. It's so strange and out-of-place that I thought for sure it was a dream sequence the first time I watched it, but the movie just moves on like it actually happened.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074701285426107451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-69028461294373590232009-11-16T17:49:08.310-06:002009-11-16T17:49:08.310-06:00Smith jumps the shark when Taylor's goons star...<i>Smith</i> jumps the shark when Taylor's goons start waging war on newsboys. Once word of that got around his state, I doubt anything happening in the Senate chamber would have made a difference: Taylor and his machine would be finished. But the climax in the Senate seems keyed in to the period's need for public confessions of crimes, a yearning expressed everywhere from superhero comics to the Moscow show trials. <br /><br />This film strikes me as a do-over of <i>Deeds</i> in a different setting with higher stakes, while <i>Meet John Dow</i> has a real element of self-criticism in it, since the Doe movement is nothing if not a Capracorn coup d'etat in the making and a pure product of media manipulation. I also prefer <i>Doe's</i> more ambivalent ending, which promises only that a struggle will continue, but Capra's well-known troubles with that ending have hurt that film's reputation undeservedly. I may be in the minority in thinking so, but it's a better film than <i>Smith</i>.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-1532081118322860212009-11-16T10:41:39.465-06:002009-11-16T10:41:39.465-06:00I agree, it's painfully naive, but also entert...I agree, it's painfully naive, but also entertainning. On the other hand, "You can't take it with you" and "Mr Deeds..." I can't stand for five minutes.<br />My particular crazy theory about Capra is that he was a very ambitious guy, he wanted success and name recognition (I believe in his autobiography he admits he directed "...General Yen" as Oscar-bait.). He probably also truly believed in the American dream. So in his early years he was experimenting and finding his style. He found Robert Riskin too.<br />I think the box office successes of "Lady for a day" and "It happened one night" explain his next movies. The first one was corny but had no big romantic angle. The second one was all romantic banter and the social context was more subdued. <br />His next comedies are a combination of the two. You have the corny social issues and "the little guy", and you also have romantic screwball comedy. As you say, it probably works best in "Mr Smith" (ironically his almost only non-Riskin movie).<br />"John Doe" I see as a re-working of "The miracle woman". Well, the guy was consistent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com