Accomplished, honest and heartfelt, this will reinspire you to believe in the goodness of people even though the messages conveyed by those in power these days suggest anything but. James Stewart plays the innocence and naivety required for the role to perfection while you can genuinely believe that Jean Arthur has actually fallen for him for real. The great Claude Reins fills the boots of the corrupt senator with aplomb while Edward Arnold reminds us of a few of his type that are still around today. Probably the best film you'll ever see with the most mundane of titles.
351 Reviews
Shining a light on corruption
gbill-7487730 June 2019
Frank Capra was an idealist for sure, but he certainly was clear-eyed in seeing some of the darkest problems with humanity and its institutions. At the beginning of this film, he shows us politicians who are firmly in the pocket of special interests, the degree to which is startling. A state governor (Guy Kibbee) is in charge of picking a new senator after one of the two serving for his state has passed away, but it's immediately clear that he operates as a puppet for a big businessman (Edward Arnold), a guy whose clout got the governor his position, and now who expects to call the shots as payback. We see it as one of the fundamental problems of representative government in 1939, just as it is today, so the film is highly, highly relevant.
Now it's laughable that the governor would go rogue and put the head of the Boy Rangers, Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart), in there instead, based on the pleading of his children and a coin flip that lands on its edge, but that's the premise of the film. It's an obvious call to clean up Washington, and get decent, upright people in there as representatives, and in delivering this message, Capra does not attempt subtlety or realism. And I may as well say it now before I blab on, it's laughable how the kids play the role they do later in the film too, and how the other senator (Claude Rains) behaves in the end. Maybe the film is pointing out that progress will always depend more on the next generation, and that ultimately it will require those in power to summon their sense of decency and stand up for what's right.
One thing I love is just how reverentially Smith treats the job he's about to undertake. First of all, he knows it's not about him. He's also not sure how well he'll do, but says "I can promise you one thing: I'll do nothing to disgrace the office of United States Senator." After dropping off his crateful of pigeons (lol), we then see him wide-eyed as he tours the landmarks of Washington DC. The shot Capra gets of him beneath the giant statue of Lincoln perfectly captures his humility, and others the deep respect he has for the institution he's going to serve. We get a heavy dose of the ideals the country aspires to, with shots of Lincoln's second inaugural address ("With malice toward none, with charity for all") and a recitation of a part of the Gettysburg address by a young boy, while his grandfather and an African-American man look on. It's quite flowery and may have the lip curling of every cynic who sees the film, thinking of all of the times America has done evil in the world, but just about to head into WWII was not one of those times, and regardless, I can't help but admire this scene. If only all of America's representatives went with a reverence for these ideals, respected the institutions from their hearts, and felt real humility and a need to not let down his or her constituents, or the leaders who came before them.
Everyone else is aware of how the system in Washington actually works though, including the other senator (Rains), his handler (Eugene Pallette), and his secretary (Jean Arthur). Heck, even the young page who shows him to his seat is savvier. Smith says to the boy, "I'm just going to sit around and listen," meaning that he feels he has a lot to learn and shouldn't go in with guns blazing. The kid answers "That's the way to get re-elected," reflecting how deep the cynicism of the process runs. Later it's parenthetically said that "You can't count on people voting. Half the time they don't vote." These little bits are pointing out the same thing, that while we may decry the state of government, at the same time, to make it better we need to be active participants in it.
Stewart is fantastic in the film, with lots of memorable moments, such as when he nervously reads his proposal for a boys camp on the senate floor, and then later when his eyes are opened to deep corruption, which includes his father's friend and mentor, Rains's character. When he takes the Senate floor to filibuster and angrily yells "No, sir, I will not yield!" it's a fine, fiery moment, with palpable tension between the two men. I also love the softer scene with Arthur where he channels Walt Whitman in quoting his father, a man who died fighting for the little guy and the free press: "My dad had the right idea. He had it all worked out. He said: 'Son, don't miss the wonders that surround you. Every tree, every rock, every anthill, every star is filled with the wonders of nature.' He said, 'Have you ever noticed how grateful you are to see daylight after coming through a long dark tunnel? Well,' he said, 'always try to see life as if you'd just come out of a tunnel.'"
Arthur turns in a solid performance with her character, who is also inspiring. She knows how congress operates, giving Stewart (and the viewer) a little tutorial, and then coaching him from the balcony. We see that her character is jaded, but that there is still a glimmer of idealism in her, and also a healthy amount of disgust for politics. "You're half-way decent, you don't belong here," she tells Stewart. We see both of these characters go through the inevitable response to the ugliness of politics - considering leaving the aggravation and frustration of it all, because it's the fight of an underdog to try to change it, or to stay and fight, because that's the only way anything will ever change, and what great leaders have had to do too as well. As this is a Capra film, you can guess which one of these paths they take.
It's certainly an arduous path, as the political boss is incredibly powerful. There is real evil, greed, and corruption here, and Arnold plays his part perfectly. The scene where he tries to get Smith to play ball is reminiscent of Potter calling George Bailey into his office in 'It's a Wonderful Life,' and has a similar outcome. When Smith stands up in revulsion, the boss immediately turns to Plan B, which is crush him. He does what corrupt and deceitful people in politics have always done - he drums up charges of the very same things he is guilty of against those who oppose them. He also uses his power over the press to wage a misinformation and propaganda war. Maybe you'll recognize these patterns from the present day.
The ending is a little messy, and I would have liked it more had Smith somehow been shown swaying the other senators with arguments and reason. How does one reach across the aisle and bridge such a gap of disagreement and entrenched special interests? However, I have to give the film credit for shining a light on corruption in politics, and I loved how its truthful message was so powerful that many offended politicians branded the film as communist propaganda. As Smith says, what's needed in politics is "plain, ordinary, everyday kindness. And a little looking out for the other fellow too." Indeed.
Now it's laughable that the governor would go rogue and put the head of the Boy Rangers, Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart), in there instead, based on the pleading of his children and a coin flip that lands on its edge, but that's the premise of the film. It's an obvious call to clean up Washington, and get decent, upright people in there as representatives, and in delivering this message, Capra does not attempt subtlety or realism. And I may as well say it now before I blab on, it's laughable how the kids play the role they do later in the film too, and how the other senator (Claude Rains) behaves in the end. Maybe the film is pointing out that progress will always depend more on the next generation, and that ultimately it will require those in power to summon their sense of decency and stand up for what's right.
One thing I love is just how reverentially Smith treats the job he's about to undertake. First of all, he knows it's not about him. He's also not sure how well he'll do, but says "I can promise you one thing: I'll do nothing to disgrace the office of United States Senator." After dropping off his crateful of pigeons (lol), we then see him wide-eyed as he tours the landmarks of Washington DC. The shot Capra gets of him beneath the giant statue of Lincoln perfectly captures his humility, and others the deep respect he has for the institution he's going to serve. We get a heavy dose of the ideals the country aspires to, with shots of Lincoln's second inaugural address ("With malice toward none, with charity for all") and a recitation of a part of the Gettysburg address by a young boy, while his grandfather and an African-American man look on. It's quite flowery and may have the lip curling of every cynic who sees the film, thinking of all of the times America has done evil in the world, but just about to head into WWII was not one of those times, and regardless, I can't help but admire this scene. If only all of America's representatives went with a reverence for these ideals, respected the institutions from their hearts, and felt real humility and a need to not let down his or her constituents, or the leaders who came before them.
Everyone else is aware of how the system in Washington actually works though, including the other senator (Rains), his handler (Eugene Pallette), and his secretary (Jean Arthur). Heck, even the young page who shows him to his seat is savvier. Smith says to the boy, "I'm just going to sit around and listen," meaning that he feels he has a lot to learn and shouldn't go in with guns blazing. The kid answers "That's the way to get re-elected," reflecting how deep the cynicism of the process runs. Later it's parenthetically said that "You can't count on people voting. Half the time they don't vote." These little bits are pointing out the same thing, that while we may decry the state of government, at the same time, to make it better we need to be active participants in it.
Stewart is fantastic in the film, with lots of memorable moments, such as when he nervously reads his proposal for a boys camp on the senate floor, and then later when his eyes are opened to deep corruption, which includes his father's friend and mentor, Rains's character. When he takes the Senate floor to filibuster and angrily yells "No, sir, I will not yield!" it's a fine, fiery moment, with palpable tension between the two men. I also love the softer scene with Arthur where he channels Walt Whitman in quoting his father, a man who died fighting for the little guy and the free press: "My dad had the right idea. He had it all worked out. He said: 'Son, don't miss the wonders that surround you. Every tree, every rock, every anthill, every star is filled with the wonders of nature.' He said, 'Have you ever noticed how grateful you are to see daylight after coming through a long dark tunnel? Well,' he said, 'always try to see life as if you'd just come out of a tunnel.'"
Arthur turns in a solid performance with her character, who is also inspiring. She knows how congress operates, giving Stewart (and the viewer) a little tutorial, and then coaching him from the balcony. We see that her character is jaded, but that there is still a glimmer of idealism in her, and also a healthy amount of disgust for politics. "You're half-way decent, you don't belong here," she tells Stewart. We see both of these characters go through the inevitable response to the ugliness of politics - considering leaving the aggravation and frustration of it all, because it's the fight of an underdog to try to change it, or to stay and fight, because that's the only way anything will ever change, and what great leaders have had to do too as well. As this is a Capra film, you can guess which one of these paths they take.
It's certainly an arduous path, as the political boss is incredibly powerful. There is real evil, greed, and corruption here, and Arnold plays his part perfectly. The scene where he tries to get Smith to play ball is reminiscent of Potter calling George Bailey into his office in 'It's a Wonderful Life,' and has a similar outcome. When Smith stands up in revulsion, the boss immediately turns to Plan B, which is crush him. He does what corrupt and deceitful people in politics have always done - he drums up charges of the very same things he is guilty of against those who oppose them. He also uses his power over the press to wage a misinformation and propaganda war. Maybe you'll recognize these patterns from the present day.
The ending is a little messy, and I would have liked it more had Smith somehow been shown swaying the other senators with arguments and reason. How does one reach across the aisle and bridge such a gap of disagreement and entrenched special interests? However, I have to give the film credit for shining a light on corruption in politics, and I loved how its truthful message was so powerful that many offended politicians branded the film as communist propaganda. As Smith says, what's needed in politics is "plain, ordinary, everyday kindness. And a little looking out for the other fellow too." Indeed.
Politics, the politics never change
Vartiainen23 September 2017
A senator suddenly dies and a replacement needs to be named. The other senator for the state, Joseph Paine (Claude Rains), along with Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold), his corrupt businessman backer, decide to name a truly surprising candidate, one Jefferson Smith (James Stewart). He's meant to be nothing more than a seat warmer so that Paine and Taylor can push through a new piece of legislation concerning a dam, meant to make them filthy rich. Unfortunately Mr. Smith is something they've rarely seen and are utterly incapable of understanding: a good and honest man. And a boy scout to boot.
The film is corny and filled with pathos. Phrases like "the American dream", "truth and honesty", "reliability", and so many like those, get thrown around all the time. Politicians are nothing more than hungry jackal fat cats, aiming to filch the hard-earned pennies of the good American people. True way of life is to be found outside, on the prairies where grass leans on the wind. On the mountains reflected against the noon sun. I could feel my spleen turning red, white and blue as I watched this film.
And yet, despite all that, the film is magnificent. Perhaps it's because 'It's a Wonderful Life', another film from director Frank Capra, also stars Stewart, but for some reason or other this film reminds me of Christmas. Because Christmas is also corny and filled with pathos. It is. But it's also the best time of the year. When it's okay to be a bit sentimental. Or a lot sentimental. When it's okay to remind ourselves of the values we all hold dear, but which we usually don't talk about because it's seen as embarrassing.
Hopefully people still watch this film. Because even though it's old, and corny, and sentimental, and even a bit silly, it's values, themes and lessons are as relevant today as they were back then. Perhaps even more so.
The film is corny and filled with pathos. Phrases like "the American dream", "truth and honesty", "reliability", and so many like those, get thrown around all the time. Politicians are nothing more than hungry jackal fat cats, aiming to filch the hard-earned pennies of the good American people. True way of life is to be found outside, on the prairies where grass leans on the wind. On the mountains reflected against the noon sun. I could feel my spleen turning red, white and blue as I watched this film.
And yet, despite all that, the film is magnificent. Perhaps it's because 'It's a Wonderful Life', another film from director Frank Capra, also stars Stewart, but for some reason or other this film reminds me of Christmas. Because Christmas is also corny and filled with pathos. It is. But it's also the best time of the year. When it's okay to be a bit sentimental. Or a lot sentimental. When it's okay to remind ourselves of the values we all hold dear, but which we usually don't talk about because it's seen as embarrassing.
Hopefully people still watch this film. Because even though it's old, and corny, and sentimental, and even a bit silly, it's values, themes and lessons are as relevant today as they were back then. Perhaps even more so.
A National Treasure
FlickJunkie-26 June 2000
James Stewart and Frank Capra. One needn't know much more going in to be assured that this will be an enjoyable film. Together they take on the Washington elite with this dramatic comedy about a naïve Washington outsider who gets appointed to the Senate and stands alone against corruption and graft. Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) is appointed from an unnamed state after one of its Senators dies. He is appointed because the political fat cats need someone who will not seem like a crony, but who will not stand in the way of a graft scheme for a pork barrel dam that will make bigwig Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold) millions. When the wide eyed Smith gets to Washington, he discovers the corrupt bill because the dam will stand in the way of his own proposed bill for a children's camp. When he tries to stop the project, Taylor's political machine frames him to make it seem like he is the one taking graft. This leads to the dramatic confrontation in the Senate, where Smith filibusters in an attempt to get the truth out.
This film is wonderful in so many ways. The story is a classic struggle between good and evil. In typical Capra style, the protagonist and antagonists are exaggerated so there is no confusion as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. If there is one clear message in Capra's films it is that those with strong moral fiber never give up hope. He likes to create utterly hopeless situations for characters to test their integrity, and rewards unswerving adherence to basic values and principles by triumph against the odds.
I was dismayed to see a comment, obviously from a young viewer of this film, that said that the characters weren't realistic because no one used profanity. This is a sad testimonial to our culture, when it inconceivable to young people that there was once a time when profanity was the exception and not the rule.
Stewart is brilliant as the idealistic and awe struck kid from the backwoods who is overwhelmed by the glory of Washington, with its monuments and history. The story brings us a confrontation between political expediency and idealistic principles with the message that the truly great men are the ones that don't compromise their principles to hold on to power. Stewart also brings a whole treasure chest of bumbling comedic sight gags that make him all the more lovable in the part.
Jean Arthur is fabulous as the tough and savvy assistant who is jaded by Washington politics, but gets a fresh injection of fervor as she listens to Smith's noble homespun philosophies. Claude Rains is also masterful as the adulterated Senator, who sold his soul to corruption for a chance at the presidency. He plays the simultaneous sense of guilt and ambition with a torment that is clearly ripping his heart out, and the power of both emotions portrayed in his performance makes his character both repugnant and pitiable.
This film is a national treasure. It is in my top 50 list of all time. The story of corruption in politics and the greatness of the men who resist it is timeless and would not be lost on the politicians in Washington today. A 10/10.
This film is wonderful in so many ways. The story is a classic struggle between good and evil. In typical Capra style, the protagonist and antagonists are exaggerated so there is no confusion as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. If there is one clear message in Capra's films it is that those with strong moral fiber never give up hope. He likes to create utterly hopeless situations for characters to test their integrity, and rewards unswerving adherence to basic values and principles by triumph against the odds.
I was dismayed to see a comment, obviously from a young viewer of this film, that said that the characters weren't realistic because no one used profanity. This is a sad testimonial to our culture, when it inconceivable to young people that there was once a time when profanity was the exception and not the rule.
Stewart is brilliant as the idealistic and awe struck kid from the backwoods who is overwhelmed by the glory of Washington, with its monuments and history. The story brings us a confrontation between political expediency and idealistic principles with the message that the truly great men are the ones that don't compromise their principles to hold on to power. Stewart also brings a whole treasure chest of bumbling comedic sight gags that make him all the more lovable in the part.
Jean Arthur is fabulous as the tough and savvy assistant who is jaded by Washington politics, but gets a fresh injection of fervor as she listens to Smith's noble homespun philosophies. Claude Rains is also masterful as the adulterated Senator, who sold his soul to corruption for a chance at the presidency. He plays the simultaneous sense of guilt and ambition with a torment that is clearly ripping his heart out, and the power of both emotions portrayed in his performance makes his character both repugnant and pitiable.
This film is a national treasure. It is in my top 50 list of all time. The story of corruption in politics and the greatness of the men who resist it is timeless and would not be lost on the politicians in Washington today. A 10/10.
It works in a way no other movie could, THERE IS PROOF
stuartpiles1 May 2006
Now, I must admit that this is one of my top five favorite films. There is a warmth, idealism, and kinda simple feeling of hope, that makes one believe that things will work out in the end. Capra knew exactly what he wanted, and it shines. Jimmy Stewart, in the role of his life, makes us believe, what we know is almost impossible in todays crass world.
Claude Rains is incredible as Senator Smith's evil mentor. Jean Arthur, as his confidant, plays the part so well,that we just want her to save the day.
The final scene, where the filibuster is taking place, is among the greatest ever made.
BUT THE PROOF, YOU ASK?
In the early 80s, I showed this film, over three days, to a group of 15 year old inner city teenagers. I taught Political Science in a very difficult school in Chicago. It was a new class, and not all of the "best" students took it.
I decided to show this film at the end of the year, just to see how long I could keep the students attention. I didn't expect much. Fifteen is a very tough age to keep any kind of attention span, and it was at the end of the day, 2:30 -3:15 pm. which made things worse. As the film began, there was rustling in the seats, boredom, that famous oh what a waste of time look...Mind you, this is 43 year old film, about a white Senator, in those "old" days, and being shown to a totally Afro-American crowd of 15 year olds, late in the day, (over a three day period, which meant the students would have to wait till the next day to see what was going on. ..By the end of the third day, Capra had worked his magic, and the entire class was spellbound by this film. They were there till the very end, and you could see how much they enjoyed seeing a film, that they wouldn't have looked at in a thousand years..Comments were wonderful. Any film that could accomplish this, more than 40 years after its conception, to a crowd that no one would believe would have any interest in, deserves to be truly called a "great film."
Claude Rains is incredible as Senator Smith's evil mentor. Jean Arthur, as his confidant, plays the part so well,that we just want her to save the day.
The final scene, where the filibuster is taking place, is among the greatest ever made.
BUT THE PROOF, YOU ASK?
In the early 80s, I showed this film, over three days, to a group of 15 year old inner city teenagers. I taught Political Science in a very difficult school in Chicago. It was a new class, and not all of the "best" students took it.
I decided to show this film at the end of the year, just to see how long I could keep the students attention. I didn't expect much. Fifteen is a very tough age to keep any kind of attention span, and it was at the end of the day, 2:30 -3:15 pm. which made things worse. As the film began, there was rustling in the seats, boredom, that famous oh what a waste of time look...Mind you, this is 43 year old film, about a white Senator, in those "old" days, and being shown to a totally Afro-American crowd of 15 year olds, late in the day, (over a three day period, which meant the students would have to wait till the next day to see what was going on. ..By the end of the third day, Capra had worked his magic, and the entire class was spellbound by this film. They were there till the very end, and you could see how much they enjoyed seeing a film, that they wouldn't have looked at in a thousand years..Comments were wonderful. Any film that could accomplish this, more than 40 years after its conception, to a crowd that no one would believe would have any interest in, deserves to be truly called a "great film."
Required viewing for anyone elected or appointed for public office.
lenndogg2 June 1999
Since the beginning of the art form, movies have generally fallen into two categories: the realistic, and the fantastic (fantasy-based). There are some that point out that the films of Frank Capra unduly fall into the latter, that they are completely far-fetched and fastened in their own time, and even invented a pejorative term "Capra-esque" to describe any non-cynical, heartwarming picture that has a message. His great films, like It Happened One Night, It's a Wonderful Life, and of course, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, however, are not fixed in a single era, but all eras, the truest definition of a classic. And considering it was released among true powerhouses in 1939, a year as important to movies as 1998 was to baseball, its ideals, story, and general excellence shine as bright today as it did over 60 years ago.
A Senator from an unnamed, middle America state dies and a new one must be appointed by Governor Hubert Hopper, a puppet whose strings are held by newspaper magnate Jim Taylor. They need to find one that would be easily controlled by the now-senior Senator Joseph Paine (played brilliantly by Claude Rains), so a bill allowing a building of a dam near land by the Willett Creek owned by Taylor can pass in the Senate. After his initial choice is rejected by Taylor, and Taylor's handpicked man is shot down by the public, the governor chooses Jefferson Smith, played to perfection by James Stewart, a boy scout leader and local hero who is both wholly idealistic in his patriotism for America but naive and blind to the actual process. After he gets embarrassed by the local print media, Mr. Smith begins to learn the harsh realities of DC. Paine, Smith's boyhood hero, takes him under his wing and suggests that Smith try to create a bill. Smith agrees, and with his assistant, Clarissa Saunders (played by Jean Arthur), they create a bill to create a campground for boys from all over the country to learn about each other and the civic process, much to the initial dissuasion by Saunders. Smith then wants to choose a site near the Willett Creek, the same site where the dam is to be built and when his superiors and true string-pullers find that out, major complications ensue.
Although the basic premise is David vs. Goliath, the story is wholly originally and was probably one of the earliest pictures to suggest the government as corrupt. The characters are played excellently by all principal actors, with Mr. Smith you root for whole-heartedly, Mr. Taylor you root against for his sheer arrogance and greed, and Mr. Paine, who you pity as you see a man who lost his initial zest to serve the public and is now a jaded shell of his former self. A great performance was given by Harry Carey, Sr., who plays the Vice President/President of the Senate for comic relief. The lines where completely believable and the parts of Smith's final filibuster that were shown give the most impact. There is a beautifully shot scene with images of the monuments and sights of Washington with several national anthems synchronized as the score. The climax is as tension-packed as drama can get, and while the ending may seem rather sudden, and everything isn't completely or neatly resolved, it works perfectly and ends the movie on a happy note.
Obviously, few if any people elected to public office has the moral character, conviction, and general good heartedness of Jefferson Smith, and I doubt whether the government would be better if it was. The movie showed an ideal, a supposed "lost cause" of truth in government. And although it is next to impossible for Capra and the eternal good guy Jimmy Stewart to ever fully change the world of politics with just a motion picture, at least it shows that maybe once in a great while, being the good guy has its definite rewards. If (using the same analogy of the 1998 baseball season) The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind were the Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa of 1939 moviemaking, then this would be like Cal Ripken voluntarily ending his Iron Man Streak, something done with full class and the highest respect in mind, and that elevates an ideal of being the good guy and sticking to your dedication brings the greatest of riches. This picture is flawless in all respects and a true classic, with thought-provoking ideas, wit, a little bit of platonic romance, and an excellent cinematography and score, and deserves the rank as a 10 out of 10. And in giving this rating, either I'm damn right or I'm crazy.
A Senator from an unnamed, middle America state dies and a new one must be appointed by Governor Hubert Hopper, a puppet whose strings are held by newspaper magnate Jim Taylor. They need to find one that would be easily controlled by the now-senior Senator Joseph Paine (played brilliantly by Claude Rains), so a bill allowing a building of a dam near land by the Willett Creek owned by Taylor can pass in the Senate. After his initial choice is rejected by Taylor, and Taylor's handpicked man is shot down by the public, the governor chooses Jefferson Smith, played to perfection by James Stewart, a boy scout leader and local hero who is both wholly idealistic in his patriotism for America but naive and blind to the actual process. After he gets embarrassed by the local print media, Mr. Smith begins to learn the harsh realities of DC. Paine, Smith's boyhood hero, takes him under his wing and suggests that Smith try to create a bill. Smith agrees, and with his assistant, Clarissa Saunders (played by Jean Arthur), they create a bill to create a campground for boys from all over the country to learn about each other and the civic process, much to the initial dissuasion by Saunders. Smith then wants to choose a site near the Willett Creek, the same site where the dam is to be built and when his superiors and true string-pullers find that out, major complications ensue.
Although the basic premise is David vs. Goliath, the story is wholly originally and was probably one of the earliest pictures to suggest the government as corrupt. The characters are played excellently by all principal actors, with Mr. Smith you root for whole-heartedly, Mr. Taylor you root against for his sheer arrogance and greed, and Mr. Paine, who you pity as you see a man who lost his initial zest to serve the public and is now a jaded shell of his former self. A great performance was given by Harry Carey, Sr., who plays the Vice President/President of the Senate for comic relief. The lines where completely believable and the parts of Smith's final filibuster that were shown give the most impact. There is a beautifully shot scene with images of the monuments and sights of Washington with several national anthems synchronized as the score. The climax is as tension-packed as drama can get, and while the ending may seem rather sudden, and everything isn't completely or neatly resolved, it works perfectly and ends the movie on a happy note.
Obviously, few if any people elected to public office has the moral character, conviction, and general good heartedness of Jefferson Smith, and I doubt whether the government would be better if it was. The movie showed an ideal, a supposed "lost cause" of truth in government. And although it is next to impossible for Capra and the eternal good guy Jimmy Stewart to ever fully change the world of politics with just a motion picture, at least it shows that maybe once in a great while, being the good guy has its definite rewards. If (using the same analogy of the 1998 baseball season) The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind were the Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa of 1939 moviemaking, then this would be like Cal Ripken voluntarily ending his Iron Man Streak, something done with full class and the highest respect in mind, and that elevates an ideal of being the good guy and sticking to your dedication brings the greatest of riches. This picture is flawless in all respects and a true classic, with thought-provoking ideas, wit, a little bit of platonic romance, and an excellent cinematography and score, and deserves the rank as a 10 out of 10. And in giving this rating, either I'm damn right or I'm crazy.
Want to Get Your View Across? Why Not Filibuster?
tfrizzell30 April 2004
The media and those in Washington, D.C. cringed in 1939 when Frank Capra (Oscar-nominated for directing) come out with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Capra, fresh off amazing successes like "Lady for a Day", "It Happened One Night", "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", "Lost Horizon" and "You Can't Take It With You", used his power to slap some bigwigs in the face with a powerful medium---the motion picture. The result was an immediate backlash by publications and politicians, but cheers from critics and the audience. As with society, the critics and the masses won out as the movie is a masterpiece in every way. A U.S. Senate vacancy leads to a dilemma. Who should be put in office? Everyone believes the apparently naive and gullible James Stewart (Oscar-nominated) is the logical choice because he will be easy to manipulate and he won't rock the boat. Stewart, the leader of the Boy Rangers (a local camp association for youngsters), gets blind-sided by many high-ranking officials who have alterior motives (Oscar nominees Harry Carey and Claude Rains in particular) when his idea for a national boys' camp goes by the wayside. Thus the only thing left for Stewart is to beat those in charge by beating them at their own game---creating a filibuster (a never-ending governmental argument for his cause). Stewart is solid as always here and the supporters (love interest/reporter Jean Arthur and drunk newspaper man Thomas Mitchell included with the aforementioned players) are all terrific throughout. The Oscar-winning screenplay is deceptively intelligent and Capra just had the uncanny ability to mix comedy, drama and interpersonal characterizations together to make consistently wonderful American film experiences. 5 stars out of 5.
Probably what won James Stewart his Best Actor Oscar in 1941...
AlsExGal2 September 2023
... since James Stewart is really not a lead in "Philadelphia Story". Instead he was more of a supporting actor there. But the Academy probably felt they should have given Stewart the Best Actor trophy for this film and were just correcting a bit of history, which they have often done over the years. But I digress.
In an unnamed state - because if Capra had named it they would have sued - a sitting senator dies. The corrupt state political machine ends up appointing babe-in-the-woods Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) to fill the seat because they see him as so naive that they can control him. His dad, a newspaper editor, was murdered when he was fighting for a lost cause. Smith's dad's lifelong friend happens to be his state's senior senator, Joseph Paine (Claude Rains).
It so happens that Paine is in on the plan to put forth a bill that will build an unneeded damn on land that has been bought up by state machine puppet master Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold) so that he can get a big payout from the federal government. Paine has justified this and a hundred other corrupt acts over the years by the thousand ways he has served his state honestly. Selling oneself to the devil is seldom done in a single transaction. The problem is that Smith wants to use the same land to build a summer camp for boys, and in the process he learns of the corrupt land deal he was never supposed to know about. Complications that involve famous cinematic history ensue.
Today, post Watergate, it's hard to believe that somebody such as Jefferson Smith could exist as an adult who knows so much about American history but nothing about corruption in government to the point he is flabbergasted by it. Lots has been said about Stewart's performance, with him rising from playing in all kinds of inane and minor MGM films to a leading man in an American classic in just a couple of years. But consider Claude Rains's performance. Rains portrays a complex character who struggles with his conscience and past choices and it is killing him that he has to betray the son of his best friend the way that he does. He is an essential gray character in a bunch of black and white ones.
Apparently this received lots of backlash during its release for portraying US Senators as folks capable of being corrupted through money. Maybe that was unrealistic for the 1930's, but in 2023, this film is practically a documentary.
In an unnamed state - because if Capra had named it they would have sued - a sitting senator dies. The corrupt state political machine ends up appointing babe-in-the-woods Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) to fill the seat because they see him as so naive that they can control him. His dad, a newspaper editor, was murdered when he was fighting for a lost cause. Smith's dad's lifelong friend happens to be his state's senior senator, Joseph Paine (Claude Rains).
It so happens that Paine is in on the plan to put forth a bill that will build an unneeded damn on land that has been bought up by state machine puppet master Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold) so that he can get a big payout from the federal government. Paine has justified this and a hundred other corrupt acts over the years by the thousand ways he has served his state honestly. Selling oneself to the devil is seldom done in a single transaction. The problem is that Smith wants to use the same land to build a summer camp for boys, and in the process he learns of the corrupt land deal he was never supposed to know about. Complications that involve famous cinematic history ensue.
Today, post Watergate, it's hard to believe that somebody such as Jefferson Smith could exist as an adult who knows so much about American history but nothing about corruption in government to the point he is flabbergasted by it. Lots has been said about Stewart's performance, with him rising from playing in all kinds of inane and minor MGM films to a leading man in an American classic in just a couple of years. But consider Claude Rains's performance. Rains portrays a complex character who struggles with his conscience and past choices and it is killing him that he has to betray the son of his best friend the way that he does. He is an essential gray character in a bunch of black and white ones.
Apparently this received lots of backlash during its release for portraying US Senators as folks capable of being corrupted through money. Maybe that was unrealistic for the 1930's, but in 2023, this film is practically a documentary.
Brilliant
grantss11 January 2018
Through a series of fortunate, and unfortunate, events, an unsophisticated local hero, Jefferson Smith, is appointed a US Senator. The people pulling the strings in his party and State figure that he will be compliant and malleable and basically stay out of the way of their plans, some of which aren't entirely ethical, or legal. However, a well-intentioned deed sets off a dramatic chain of events, a series of events that will see him at odds with his colleagues, with the shadowy, bullying powerbrokers and with the entire Senate.
Brilliant movie from Frank Capra. While Capra also gave us such great movies as It's A Wonderful Life, Meet John Doe and It Happened One Night, this is his greatest work. A superb indictment of politics and how democracy has been undermined and corrupted, told with the trademark Capra brand of wholesomeness and practical idealism. Considering how politics has even further degenerated since 1939, even more relevant today than when it was released in 1939.
Clever, engaging plot that doesn't waiver for a second. Not an ounce of deadwood in the movie - every scene is perfect and important. Some great twists and turns and some great tension towards the end as Smith struggles to preserve his name and ideals. Wonderful themes and morals too, as you would expect from Frank Capra.
Add in some excellent performances, especially from James Stewart in the lead role and Jean Arthur as Ms Saunders. Both received Oscar nominations, as did Harry Carey for playing the President of the Senate.
In all, Mr Smith Goes To Washington was nominated for 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, but won only one, for best original screenplay. Unfortunately for it, the 1940 Oscars belonged to a juggernaut known as Gone With The Wind...
Brilliant movie from Frank Capra. While Capra also gave us such great movies as It's A Wonderful Life, Meet John Doe and It Happened One Night, this is his greatest work. A superb indictment of politics and how democracy has been undermined and corrupted, told with the trademark Capra brand of wholesomeness and practical idealism. Considering how politics has even further degenerated since 1939, even more relevant today than when it was released in 1939.
Clever, engaging plot that doesn't waiver for a second. Not an ounce of deadwood in the movie - every scene is perfect and important. Some great twists and turns and some great tension towards the end as Smith struggles to preserve his name and ideals. Wonderful themes and morals too, as you would expect from Frank Capra.
Add in some excellent performances, especially from James Stewart in the lead role and Jean Arthur as Ms Saunders. Both received Oscar nominations, as did Harry Carey for playing the President of the Senate.
In all, Mr Smith Goes To Washington was nominated for 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, but won only one, for best original screenplay. Unfortunately for it, the 1940 Oscars belonged to a juggernaut known as Gone With The Wind...
an honest film
Jennydavis13118 May 2004
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a wonderful film about a man Jeff Smith (James Stewart) who believes that children are the future and should be able to enjoy the outdoors, while taking in knowledge of their great Country. When a senator dies in Smith's state, the governor is forced into an awkward position of electing the new senator. While the governor is sitting down to dinner, his young children propose the idea of Jeff Smith who is head of the Boy Rangers and prints a weekly newspaper for the local children. Mr. Smith is elected into office in the funniest way, a coin toss.
When Mr. Smith arrives in Washington with his colleague Mr. Pain, (Claude Rains) he is amazed by all the greatness that Washington possesses. After being sworn into the Senate Mr. Smith comes up with idea to propose a Bill that would let boys come together and enjoy the wilderness, and the perfect spot would be in his home town next to a creek. What he doesn't know is that his colleague Mr. Pain has his own plans with that same land. The film then releases the full fury of what corrupt politicians can do to a truthful man.
The plot of the film will grab the viewer within the first five minutes and will not let go until the astonishing end. Even though this type of thing is implausible it's still very funny and unique in its own way.
The acting was superb! James Stewart will always represent the good guy trying to make his way through life in an honorable way. Claude Rains character was perfect for him, a good man gone bad by the power of politics. Jean Arthur's character was something that isn't normally seen in the movies. She played an ambitious woman trying to get to the top without anyone's help, but is still the great old fashioned woman she was born to be. James Stewart and Jean Arthur were very charismatic together. There could not have been a better pair.
The lighting in the film was great in two scenes when Mr. Smith is at the Washington memorial the light shines on sentences of the constitution that added a lot to the emotion of the character and helped set the tone for the scene.
This is a classic film that should be recognized and cherished forever. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a great film for the whole family, the film is not only captivating and genuine but there is also a moral in the story. Definitely a ten out of ten, and should be part of your home video library.
When Mr. Smith arrives in Washington with his colleague Mr. Pain, (Claude Rains) he is amazed by all the greatness that Washington possesses. After being sworn into the Senate Mr. Smith comes up with idea to propose a Bill that would let boys come together and enjoy the wilderness, and the perfect spot would be in his home town next to a creek. What he doesn't know is that his colleague Mr. Pain has his own plans with that same land. The film then releases the full fury of what corrupt politicians can do to a truthful man.
The plot of the film will grab the viewer within the first five minutes and will not let go until the astonishing end. Even though this type of thing is implausible it's still very funny and unique in its own way.
The acting was superb! James Stewart will always represent the good guy trying to make his way through life in an honorable way. Claude Rains character was perfect for him, a good man gone bad by the power of politics. Jean Arthur's character was something that isn't normally seen in the movies. She played an ambitious woman trying to get to the top without anyone's help, but is still the great old fashioned woman she was born to be. James Stewart and Jean Arthur were very charismatic together. There could not have been a better pair.
The lighting in the film was great in two scenes when Mr. Smith is at the Washington memorial the light shines on sentences of the constitution that added a lot to the emotion of the character and helped set the tone for the scene.
This is a classic film that should be recognized and cherished forever. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a great film for the whole family, the film is not only captivating and genuine but there is also a moral in the story. Definitely a ten out of ten, and should be part of your home video library.
Enjoyable, but unrealistic
Etan32130 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Frank Capra is great at making heart-warming films. The audience sympathizes with Jefferson Smith(James Stewart), because he is a red-blooded American who is turned into a puppet for a political machine, and feel bad for him when he is made to look like a fool in the press and almost gets expelled from the senate. Although the story line is great, some small details i the movie are too unrealistic to ignore. Obviously the actors over-dramatized most of the film to go along with the Capra-esque style(most notably the governor's children at the dinner table), but the main problem is during Smith's filibuster. Why were the boy rangers working in a sweat shop to make Smith's newspaper? How did so many rallies and parades get started in less than 23 hours? How did Jim Taylor get away with sending men to hurt little boys and take their newspapers? Why did everyone just stand there and watch as a man slapped a kid in the face and walked out with their newspapers? Why were little kids driving a car in the first place? How come there was no one watching the parade that got fire hosed? How did Taylor get away with sending people to shoot the parade with a fire hose? These are all questions that pertain to a small part in the movie, but they bothered me to a point where I could not ignore them.
Sure It's Cheesy, But Also Oh So Aspirational
zkonedog4 March 2017
Critics of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" will call it cheesy, saccharine, and over-the-top in its character portrayals. Truth be told, I really can't call those critiques "wrong". But the thing is, this is such an endearing, aspirational film that I'm always able to look past the cheese-factor and enjoy the performances and overall message.
For a very basic overview, 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" tells the story of Jefferson Smith (James Stewart), a wide-eyed, aww-shucks, country boy rube who gets nominated for a U. S. Senate seat in large part to be a straight-ticket voter for the political machine of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). Once in Washington, however, both get a rude awakening: Smith discovers the graft in politics, while Paine begins to realize--to his horror--that Smith isn't just going to "tow the party line".
This movie remains an all-time classic for me because of the earnestness of its message. It isn't quite as perfect as Capra's more famous "It's A Wonderful Life", but I do see similarities between the two pictures. Here, the story strikes such a simple--yet highly emotional--chord. Though deep down I think we all realize that corruption and compromise are likely unavoidable aspects of politics, we like to cling to ideals of honesty and supreme integrity. That is precisely the journey that Smith takes viewers on. This isn't "politics as it is", but rather "politics as we want it to be", and I think there is equal room for both in politically-minded films.
Of course, casting Stewart is the cherry on top of all this. I'm not sure there has been a better individual born to play the Jefferson Smith role. His stuttering, stammering, "golly gee whiz" routine is perfect, yet when the chips are down he delivers a filibuster monologue almost guaranteed to have you in tears. Rains is fine as the corrupt Senator and Jean Arthur has a nice sidekick supporting role, but "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is memorable because of Stewart. I very much liken his performance here to that of Henry Fonda's in "12 Angry Men". It's what we all wish we could be like--but know we'll probably never quite get there.
The only reason I can't give this a full 10 stars? It was made in 1939--or back when Hollywood didn't really know how to properly end movies other than an emotional flourish and a fade to black. With a less-rushed, more nuanced endgame, this one could have ascended even higher.
Overall, though, I consider this to be one of my favorite political films of all time. Make all the gritty, tough governmental thrillers you want (I love some of those too!), but I hold steady that a more aspirational, positive-minded effort like this isn't out-of-date or irrelevant simply because of that nature.
For a very basic overview, 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" tells the story of Jefferson Smith (James Stewart), a wide-eyed, aww-shucks, country boy rube who gets nominated for a U. S. Senate seat in large part to be a straight-ticket voter for the political machine of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). Once in Washington, however, both get a rude awakening: Smith discovers the graft in politics, while Paine begins to realize--to his horror--that Smith isn't just going to "tow the party line".
This movie remains an all-time classic for me because of the earnestness of its message. It isn't quite as perfect as Capra's more famous "It's A Wonderful Life", but I do see similarities between the two pictures. Here, the story strikes such a simple--yet highly emotional--chord. Though deep down I think we all realize that corruption and compromise are likely unavoidable aspects of politics, we like to cling to ideals of honesty and supreme integrity. That is precisely the journey that Smith takes viewers on. This isn't "politics as it is", but rather "politics as we want it to be", and I think there is equal room for both in politically-minded films.
Of course, casting Stewart is the cherry on top of all this. I'm not sure there has been a better individual born to play the Jefferson Smith role. His stuttering, stammering, "golly gee whiz" routine is perfect, yet when the chips are down he delivers a filibuster monologue almost guaranteed to have you in tears. Rains is fine as the corrupt Senator and Jean Arthur has a nice sidekick supporting role, but "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is memorable because of Stewart. I very much liken his performance here to that of Henry Fonda's in "12 Angry Men". It's what we all wish we could be like--but know we'll probably never quite get there.
The only reason I can't give this a full 10 stars? It was made in 1939--or back when Hollywood didn't really know how to properly end movies other than an emotional flourish and a fade to black. With a less-rushed, more nuanced endgame, this one could have ascended even higher.
Overall, though, I consider this to be one of my favorite political films of all time. Make all the gritty, tough governmental thrillers you want (I love some of those too!), but I hold steady that a more aspirational, positive-minded effort like this isn't out-of-date or irrelevant simply because of that nature.
A bit absurd, but still enjoyable and relevant today
Gambitt5 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," a U.S. senator suddenly passes away, and Mr. Smith is tapped to fill the position. Unbeknownst to the honest, decent Smith, he is intended merely to be a puppet of the powerful forces that already control the state's governor and its other Congressmen. Smith collides head-on with these forces and must fight to save himself and his values from destruction in the public arena.
"Mr. Smith," directed by Frank Capra, is not meant to be very realistic. The basic plot and characters of Mr. Smith are borderline ridiculous. Smith goes beyond naive, to the point of appearing ignorant and lacking in common sense at times. He seems to have the civics education of a 2nd-grader. Everything in the movie is exaggerated to the extremes.
Capra's D.C. is likewise a caricature. The U.S. Senate is a united front of entrenched cronyism. They move as one nonpartisan mass, always supporting each other in their mutual corruption. The media is easily herded into line, an interpretation that probably strikes closer to truth, although that system today has been undermined by the Internet.
Still, if the true Washington is not quite as fraudulent as Copra's version, there's no doubt that it is probably perceived that way by many Americans today. The film touches upon real issues that affect modern politics. It's amazing how relevant certain lines and scenes remain after all these years, perhaps more so today.
What did bug me about the film was its shamelessly idealistic view of small-town American heroes like Mr. Smith. Like a Bruckenheimer movie where Billy boy and Jim Bob from the ranch save the planet, "Mr. Smith" sometimes comes off as a self-congratulatory pat on the back to the common man. It rails against the elitism and special interest of Washington, a popular sentiment today.
This might not bother me so much except that this country is just coming off an extended experiment of putting a "commoner" in a government seat of critical importance and things didn't turn out so hot. As nasty, cold, and dirty as it may seem to place a compromising politician into DC, that may be preferable to putting an "oh shucks, well, golly gee, I dunno" kinda guy into a position of major responsibility.
This country has a low tolerance for corruption. It has an even lower tolerance of incompetence.
"Mr. Smith," directed by Frank Capra, is not meant to be very realistic. The basic plot and characters of Mr. Smith are borderline ridiculous. Smith goes beyond naive, to the point of appearing ignorant and lacking in common sense at times. He seems to have the civics education of a 2nd-grader. Everything in the movie is exaggerated to the extremes.
Capra's D.C. is likewise a caricature. The U.S. Senate is a united front of entrenched cronyism. They move as one nonpartisan mass, always supporting each other in their mutual corruption. The media is easily herded into line, an interpretation that probably strikes closer to truth, although that system today has been undermined by the Internet.
Still, if the true Washington is not quite as fraudulent as Copra's version, there's no doubt that it is probably perceived that way by many Americans today. The film touches upon real issues that affect modern politics. It's amazing how relevant certain lines and scenes remain after all these years, perhaps more so today.
What did bug me about the film was its shamelessly idealistic view of small-town American heroes like Mr. Smith. Like a Bruckenheimer movie where Billy boy and Jim Bob from the ranch save the planet, "Mr. Smith" sometimes comes off as a self-congratulatory pat on the back to the common man. It rails against the elitism and special interest of Washington, a popular sentiment today.
This might not bother me so much except that this country is just coming off an extended experiment of putting a "commoner" in a government seat of critical importance and things didn't turn out so hot. As nasty, cold, and dirty as it may seem to place a compromising politician into DC, that may be preferable to putting an "oh shucks, well, golly gee, I dunno" kinda guy into a position of major responsibility.
This country has a low tolerance for corruption. It has an even lower tolerance of incompetence.
Tedious
lutheranchick6 October 2012
This film is a study of a Good Guy, who wants funding to start a national boys' camp for the "Boy Rangers", going against the Bad Guys, who want to build a dam on the same land only for their own selfish interests (not hydro-electricity or anything, you fool). You may ask why taxpayers would want to pay for a camp only a few of the nation's boys could live near; you may ask why the camp couldn't be built on a different piece of land; you may ask why a private organization should get federal funds; you may ask if there were any issues that constituents would have found more pressing. Well, apparently that's because you're one of the Bad Guys too.
Capra & Stewart Make It Work Very Well
Snow Leopard27 September 2004
Frank Capra and James Stewart were nearly unsurpassed at the task of taking the kind of story that is optimistic but that borders on being trite, and making it into a satisfying, worthwhile movie. In "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", they accomplish this with a little help from Jean Arthur, Claude Rains, and Edward Arnold. It's not quite on the level of "It's a Wonderful Life", but it is as good as almost anything else of its kind.
Stewart's performance is important right from the beginning - hardly anyone else could have been believable as the earnest unknown who suddenly becomes an important political figure. Even his wide-eyed appreciation for what he sees in Washington comes across believably. As the story gets more complicated and his character is developed further, Stewart is even better.
The secondary characters are also important, because the story itself is a rather stylized, though still worthwhile, statement about politics. The characters are more believable than are many of the plot developments. Rains contributes a lot as Stewart's troubled colleague, and Jean Arthur is a natural for this kind of role. Arnold plays his devious character well. Capra holds it all together with his craftsmanship, keeping the story on track and getting the most out of the situation.
Stewart's performance is important right from the beginning - hardly anyone else could have been believable as the earnest unknown who suddenly becomes an important political figure. Even his wide-eyed appreciation for what he sees in Washington comes across believably. As the story gets more complicated and his character is developed further, Stewart is even better.
The secondary characters are also important, because the story itself is a rather stylized, though still worthwhile, statement about politics. The characters are more believable than are many of the plot developments. Rains contributes a lot as Stewart's troubled colleague, and Jean Arthur is a natural for this kind of role. Arnold plays his devious character well. Capra holds it all together with his craftsmanship, keeping the story on track and getting the most out of the situation.
drifts in and out of comedy and sincerity with the greatest of ease
Quinoa198420 May 2006
It was a lot of fun watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in a class where the professor noted how this was the sort of film that was of historical importance while not taking itself too seriously. And I think that's the way Frank Capra wanted it, in a sense. Perhaps in the time of 1939 America this film was seen as being of merit to the American Government's due (though according to the trivia, it was denounced at showing corruption and even banned for showing how democracy "works"). But the director is also wanting to make an entertaining movie, of the kind of Hollywood appeal that brings 8-to-80 years olds in attendance. What had me interested throughout, particularly in that climactic, rousing twenty-minute sequence in the Senate with Jimmy Stewart's constant, un-faltering filibuster, is how it really is a patriotic kind of bravura to be shown on the screen. Here is how it SHOULD be done, to an extreme perhaps, in getting things done in government. But at the same time, Capra keeps it entirely watchable with that group of kids up on the balcony, keeping the audience laughing and smiling all the way through the great lines that Stewart says. "Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!" This is a kind of talent that I'm sure few other filmmakers at the time, or even after, could have pulled off.
The rest of the film isn't just Stewart's struggle to be heard as a young, new-in-town senator. It's also a witty, more often than not true look of how government tends to really work as opposed to how it should. Basically, the core of the story is the fish-out-of-water type, where Stewart's Jefferson Smith (one of his better Hollywood performances), leader of the Boy Rangers is called to be the senator of his state. He has a childhood hero in town in the form of a senior senator (Claude Rains, terrific as always). And there's even a woman (Jean Arthur) in the mix that's growing an interest in him, at first dubious. But despite the corruption that is almost thrust upon smith by Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold, as skilled a character actor as could be asked for), Smith fights it all the way to his final filibuster, which includes a reading from the Constitution, in-and-out cheers from the Boy Rangers, and general guffaws from the other senators. In other words, it's really much in that pure spirit of Frank Capra that 'Mr. Smith' is working in, and even at its cheesiest and sometimes most-dated moments, it's a very successful picture for what it wants to do. It's really an equal-opportunity kind of film about people in politics that should be able decades later to appeal to both the hopeful and the cynical, and it works as good as it does a comedy as it does a piece to show in history of film or American government course.
The rest of the film isn't just Stewart's struggle to be heard as a young, new-in-town senator. It's also a witty, more often than not true look of how government tends to really work as opposed to how it should. Basically, the core of the story is the fish-out-of-water type, where Stewart's Jefferson Smith (one of his better Hollywood performances), leader of the Boy Rangers is called to be the senator of his state. He has a childhood hero in town in the form of a senior senator (Claude Rains, terrific as always). And there's even a woman (Jean Arthur) in the mix that's growing an interest in him, at first dubious. But despite the corruption that is almost thrust upon smith by Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold, as skilled a character actor as could be asked for), Smith fights it all the way to his final filibuster, which includes a reading from the Constitution, in-and-out cheers from the Boy Rangers, and general guffaws from the other senators. In other words, it's really much in that pure spirit of Frank Capra that 'Mr. Smith' is working in, and even at its cheesiest and sometimes most-dated moments, it's a very successful picture for what it wants to do. It's really an equal-opportunity kind of film about people in politics that should be able decades later to appeal to both the hopeful and the cynical, and it works as good as it does a comedy as it does a piece to show in history of film or American government course.
Sadly Still Super Relevant Today...
iquine28 July 2020
(Flash Review)
...from both sides of the isle. Smith, a young small town, morally honest, gentleman is given a senate seat due to a unique situation. Upon his arrival to the nation's capital, he is amazed and in awe of the history upon which the United States has been formed as he wanders the national monuments. Quickly he becomes angered by the misleading press articles after he dips his toe into political waters. He also learns of the lack of expertise of congressmen and the process it takes to actually pass a law. Getting his feet wet with his first harmless bill proposal comes in direct conflict with a plan a few corrupt congressmen have been planning. Looks like this is shaping up for an honest man up against established and scheming congressmen who are heavily influenced from outsiders. Stewart carries the picture as his emotions range from frustration, pleading, anger to exhaustion of trying to prove an honest point. I imagine the inner workings of congress today as even more frustrating and bewildering.
...from both sides of the isle. Smith, a young small town, morally honest, gentleman is given a senate seat due to a unique situation. Upon his arrival to the nation's capital, he is amazed and in awe of the history upon which the United States has been formed as he wanders the national monuments. Quickly he becomes angered by the misleading press articles after he dips his toe into political waters. He also learns of the lack of expertise of congressmen and the process it takes to actually pass a law. Getting his feet wet with his first harmless bill proposal comes in direct conflict with a plan a few corrupt congressmen have been planning. Looks like this is shaping up for an honest man up against established and scheming congressmen who are heavily influenced from outsiders. Stewart carries the picture as his emotions range from frustration, pleading, anger to exhaustion of trying to prove an honest point. I imagine the inner workings of congress today as even more frustrating and bewildering.
Still packs an emotional punch almost 80 years later
cricketbat23 November 2018
It's interesting how Mr. Smith Goes to Washington feels so dated and yet so relevant at the same time. This movie itself feels like Jefferson Smith, naively striding into the homes of the cynical and skeptical modern public, only to prove that it does, indeed have something important to offer. This movie still packs an emotional punch almost 80 years after it was made and it's easy to see why it's a classic.
Frank Capra + James Stewart = Pure Gold !!!
chanishaj-2637717 June 2018
Frank Capra + James Stewart = Pure Gold !!!
(Jimmy my boy, you always have been my favorite..)
Brilliant performance, dialogues, scenes and pacing.. But the story.. Damn, what a story !! What a great story !!!
One man's battle against corporate corrupted politics for the truth justice and liberty.
One of the quintessential whistleblower films in American history. One of the most engaging political comedy drama thrillers of all time. That last 1/3 is a blast.
Just became one of my all time favorites.
10/10
Brilliant performance, dialogues, scenes and pacing.. But the story.. Damn, what a story !! What a great story !!!
One man's battle against corporate corrupted politics for the truth justice and liberty.
One of the quintessential whistleblower films in American history. One of the most engaging political comedy drama thrillers of all time. That last 1/3 is a blast.
Just became one of my all time favorites.
10/10
A true classic that lives up to it's reputation
perfectbond16 May 2003
Mr. Smith is as good as it's legend. Sometimes I'm disappointed when a universally acclaimed movie isn't as enjoyable as I thought it would be. But here, that is not the case. James Stewart is deservedly remembered most for this role. That's saying a lot given his impressive body of work. This is also Frank Capra's signature film along with Mr. Deeds. The idealism of Jefferson Smith might feel a bit anachronisitc today but, and I know this is a cliché, the world could use more people with his values. The supporting cast is also spot on. Jean Arthur plays the same type as she did in Mr. Deeds and Claude Rains is terrific as the mentor who betrays Smith. Strongly recommended, 9/10.
The best film of 1939, about a love of honor that's gone with the wind.
mark.waltz7 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For a film 88 years old and 14 presidents later, this film represents what is best about the United States and also a reminder what is wrong with it. I do find it difficult to pick out the best film out of the dozens of classics released in 1939, but of those 50 or 60, "Mr. Smith" remains the most prestigious with a message that resonates today. Like the dozens of classics in 1939, this has dozens of moments that are considered among the great scenes in film history.
As good as best actor winner Robert Donat was as "Mr. Chips", James Stewart is simply far better, going from naive country bumpkin handed a senate seat, his slow education to the corruption, his determination to accomplish something, the crooked obstacles he faces, and the explosion that opens his eyes to the evils standing in his way. Stewart displays many different sides to his character, but one thing is clear: he isn't going to fall down and go boom without fighting.
This features an ensemble that rivals 1939's best picture winner, "Gone With the Wind", starting with Jean Arthur as his initially cynical assistant, Claude Rains as his long time mentor, Edward Arnold as the power hungry money man (identical to his powerful Nazi like autocrat in "Meet John Doe", Guy Kibbee as the governor of Stewart's home state, and Beulah Bondi (in a role she would play many times) as Stewart's mother. Ruth Donnelly as Kibbee's no nonsense wife, Charles Lane as a nosy reporter and Thomas Mitchell as Arthur's confidante are also quite good. The surprise for me is Harry Carey as the speaker of the house who says more with a bang of his gavel and all knowing grin than the rest of the cast does with Robert Riskin's brilliant words.
Director Frank Capra has been nicknamed the inventor of "Capra Corn", a description of the stories of Cinderella men who rose above their naivete to fight injustice. Rains is described as a villain in this, but he's a villain with a soul, one who forgot why he got into public service in the first place, allowing himself to be manipulated and controlled at the expense of his soul. Stewart's desire to have a boy's camp funded blocks pending bills of Rains and several others, and this results in some violently shocking actions, culminating in the famous filibuster sequence.
I believe in fighting for lost causes, so this film means a lot for me. This film means more to me now than it did upon my first viewing of it some 30 years ago. Memories of a family trip to Washington D.C. when I was a boy and a return for a march for a supposed lost cause make the big eyed grins of the young pages and visiting boy scouts all the more emotional. Seeing this film in a chaotic time makes it all the more memorable, and even with simple, supposedly dated, American values, shows that modern values are as corrupt as the most sinister of political bigwigs that control the government behind the scenes.
As good as best actor winner Robert Donat was as "Mr. Chips", James Stewart is simply far better, going from naive country bumpkin handed a senate seat, his slow education to the corruption, his determination to accomplish something, the crooked obstacles he faces, and the explosion that opens his eyes to the evils standing in his way. Stewart displays many different sides to his character, but one thing is clear: he isn't going to fall down and go boom without fighting.
This features an ensemble that rivals 1939's best picture winner, "Gone With the Wind", starting with Jean Arthur as his initially cynical assistant, Claude Rains as his long time mentor, Edward Arnold as the power hungry money man (identical to his powerful Nazi like autocrat in "Meet John Doe", Guy Kibbee as the governor of Stewart's home state, and Beulah Bondi (in a role she would play many times) as Stewart's mother. Ruth Donnelly as Kibbee's no nonsense wife, Charles Lane as a nosy reporter and Thomas Mitchell as Arthur's confidante are also quite good. The surprise for me is Harry Carey as the speaker of the house who says more with a bang of his gavel and all knowing grin than the rest of the cast does with Robert Riskin's brilliant words.
Director Frank Capra has been nicknamed the inventor of "Capra Corn", a description of the stories of Cinderella men who rose above their naivete to fight injustice. Rains is described as a villain in this, but he's a villain with a soul, one who forgot why he got into public service in the first place, allowing himself to be manipulated and controlled at the expense of his soul. Stewart's desire to have a boy's camp funded blocks pending bills of Rains and several others, and this results in some violently shocking actions, culminating in the famous filibuster sequence.
I believe in fighting for lost causes, so this film means a lot for me. This film means more to me now than it did upon my first viewing of it some 30 years ago. Memories of a family trip to Washington D.C. when I was a boy and a return for a march for a supposed lost cause make the big eyed grins of the young pages and visiting boy scouts all the more emotional. Seeing this film in a chaotic time makes it all the more memorable, and even with simple, supposedly dated, American values, shows that modern values are as corrupt as the most sinister of political bigwigs that control the government behind the scenes.
A Different Political Film
ASuiGeneris30 September 2017
Well, this is like any other political film oozing patriotism, where the small guy gets the big guy. The underdog wins. All American. Better yet, it is Frank Capra, with James Stewart. Can we get any more cliché? Oh, wait. The main character is a Jefferson Smith.
Bribery, corruption, conspiracy, lies and deceit. It is all here. Shady deals, ulterior motives. In other words, politics.
In case it was not already obvious, I am not very political. But guess what? In all the above ways, yes, this is like all those other films. But it the most important ways, it is not.
What makes it different? In one word, Stewart. Sure, the clever writing, the directing, the supporting cast are all assets to the film. But he makes this film. His character's name is in the title, after all. Through his heartfelt performance as Jefferson Smith, the audience is inspired; even the most cynical of us might find ourselves beginning to really like this country, appreciate what we have today that our ancestors did not, and maybe even believe that we can make a difference by getting involved in politics. His naiveté is practically excruciating at times. His first glance at the White House can be compared to a little kid in a candy store. His first evening exploring all the monuments along and around the National Mall is shown in montage form with patriotic backgrounds music. Cheesy, yes. But somehow it was not as bad as it sounds. As he, an everyday man, tries to acclimate himself in the world of politics, each blunder brings new laughs. His awkwardness in palpable and his character lovable. Eventually, of course, he must learn the truth- that it does not really exist in the government. We all cheer for this everyday Smith as he tries to pave the way for all the little guys. As far as high school or even grade school education goes, this should be on a list of required viewings. Along with School House Rock's classic "How a Bill Becomes a Law", of course. I would have loved to learn about government, the Senate, bills, and filibusters this way.
**** Spoilers ****
Sadly, it was the ending that brought the greatest disappointment. It was extremely sudden and cheap. After all that determination and rallying from Smith; after how far Paine was willing to go to condemn the man he supposedly felt was "like a son" to him, after all his stubbornness to do the right thing, he gives up and confesses everything on the Senate floor? Highly unlikely. Even worse, it cheapens all that Smith has done.
Bribery, corruption, conspiracy, lies and deceit. It is all here. Shady deals, ulterior motives. In other words, politics.
In case it was not already obvious, I am not very political. But guess what? In all the above ways, yes, this is like all those other films. But it the most important ways, it is not.
What makes it different? In one word, Stewart. Sure, the clever writing, the directing, the supporting cast are all assets to the film. But he makes this film. His character's name is in the title, after all. Through his heartfelt performance as Jefferson Smith, the audience is inspired; even the most cynical of us might find ourselves beginning to really like this country, appreciate what we have today that our ancestors did not, and maybe even believe that we can make a difference by getting involved in politics. His naiveté is practically excruciating at times. His first glance at the White House can be compared to a little kid in a candy store. His first evening exploring all the monuments along and around the National Mall is shown in montage form with patriotic backgrounds music. Cheesy, yes. But somehow it was not as bad as it sounds. As he, an everyday man, tries to acclimate himself in the world of politics, each blunder brings new laughs. His awkwardness in palpable and his character lovable. Eventually, of course, he must learn the truth- that it does not really exist in the government. We all cheer for this everyday Smith as he tries to pave the way for all the little guys. As far as high school or even grade school education goes, this should be on a list of required viewings. Along with School House Rock's classic "How a Bill Becomes a Law", of course. I would have loved to learn about government, the Senate, bills, and filibusters this way.
**** Spoilers ****
Sadly, it was the ending that brought the greatest disappointment. It was extremely sudden and cheap. After all that determination and rallying from Smith; after how far Paine was willing to go to condemn the man he supposedly felt was "like a son" to him, after all his stubbornness to do the right thing, he gives up and confesses everything on the Senate floor? Highly unlikely. Even worse, it cheapens all that Smith has done.
Mr. Smith-Where are You? Do We Need You Today? ****
edwagreen7 March 2006
James Stewart was simply magnificent in this memorable classic of a dedicated young politician who is appointed to the senate following the death of his state's senator.. He wants to do what is best for his constituents. He soon learns that in Washington this is not to be the case. Corruption, patronage et al are alive and well and functioning.
Edward Arnold, in a supporting role, is fabulous as the old style political boss. The Stewart character represents what we need as leaders to run this great nation of ours. Some real scene stealing is done by Claude Rains as the other state's senator who has become corrupt. His temperament is perfect for the part. His seething by guilt and his denunciation of his fellow senator shows depth in acting. His outburst at the end of the film is totally memorable. He claims that he has compromised to get what he wants. How far from the truth this really is! Jean Arthur, as the secretary in the know, is truly fabulous as well. Newspapers can learn from this film. They should. Censorship still exists in 2006.
Remember that great filibuster scene? Stewart acted his heart out. Though he lost the coveted Oscar here, the Academy rewarded him the following year for the comedy "The Philadelphia Story."
This film should be a definite pre-requisite for students in political science classes.
Edward Arnold, in a supporting role, is fabulous as the old style political boss. The Stewart character represents what we need as leaders to run this great nation of ours. Some real scene stealing is done by Claude Rains as the other state's senator who has become corrupt. His temperament is perfect for the part. His seething by guilt and his denunciation of his fellow senator shows depth in acting. His outburst at the end of the film is totally memorable. He claims that he has compromised to get what he wants. How far from the truth this really is! Jean Arthur, as the secretary in the know, is truly fabulous as well. Newspapers can learn from this film. They should. Censorship still exists in 2006.
Remember that great filibuster scene? Stewart acted his heart out. Though he lost the coveted Oscar here, the Academy rewarded him the following year for the comedy "The Philadelphia Story."
This film should be a definite pre-requisite for students in political science classes.
Simple, yet truthful.
Kdosda_Hegen19 December 2020
Critics and box office success. Why do I have a problem?
denscul2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Frank Capra's fans give Capra high marks for his film making. He was a great Director. But Capra's detractors said he was known for his "corn" rather than art. If truth is art, then Capra fails, not to entertain, but as a truth teller. Capra is one of the first "message" directors. In this movie, he goes against the Washington establishment, political hacks and powers behind the throne. The sad fact is that nothing has changed because human nature has not changed.
Capra creates the Character of Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart in an great performance. The supporting cast performs as well under the direction of Capra. Whether Capra or the writers are to blame is not known, but the Smith character is a caricature of a real person. And because he is not real and the story is not reality. If this movie was considered a comedy, so be it, but critics have had 60 plus years to consider this movie as a significant comment on good versus evil.
Stewart's character is chosen by a shallow Governor to fill a US Senate seat and his choice is not "the best candidate" for the job. Nothing unbelievable in that, , but Smith's character is stretched beyond belief. To become a US Senator, you must be at least 30 years old. Smith is introduced as someone with the maturity of a 15 year old. With no wife, no girl friend; he acts like a 15 year old when introduced to mature women. Taking a tour of Washington leaving his homing pigeons to the care of others, is also the behavior of an adolescent. Capra wants us to believe that adolescence is synonymous with honesty. It is not. Nor was his striking journalists who portrayed him as a dope.
Somehow this idealistic character takes on the corruption of the world in the form of a junior Senator and conquers all. And discovers love and gets the girl in the end. If you like vintage syrup, this movie is right for you. Just remember, its just a movie, and in real life, the bad guys usually win.
Capra creates the Character of Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart in an great performance. The supporting cast performs as well under the direction of Capra. Whether Capra or the writers are to blame is not known, but the Smith character is a caricature of a real person. And because he is not real and the story is not reality. If this movie was considered a comedy, so be it, but critics have had 60 plus years to consider this movie as a significant comment on good versus evil.
Stewart's character is chosen by a shallow Governor to fill a US Senate seat and his choice is not "the best candidate" for the job. Nothing unbelievable in that, , but Smith's character is stretched beyond belief. To become a US Senator, you must be at least 30 years old. Smith is introduced as someone with the maturity of a 15 year old. With no wife, no girl friend; he acts like a 15 year old when introduced to mature women. Taking a tour of Washington leaving his homing pigeons to the care of others, is also the behavior of an adolescent. Capra wants us to believe that adolescence is synonymous with honesty. It is not. Nor was his striking journalists who portrayed him as a dope.
Somehow this idealistic character takes on the corruption of the world in the form of a junior Senator and conquers all. And discovers love and gets the girl in the end. If you like vintage syrup, this movie is right for you. Just remember, its just a movie, and in real life, the bad guys usually win.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
