Capra’s Jab at Democracy

The popularity of films in the 1930s, 40s and 50s not only depended on the reviews of critics and regular movie watchers, but the government as well. As said in class movie companies created censorship boards to review scripts, and films in order to keep the American viewers wholesome and pure. The censorship boards also wanted to portray good American ideologies and values for foreign audiences as well. In 1939, the film association was under pressure from the United States Senate for the rights over governing the censorship boards. The Senate wanted to create a government group, something like the FBI or CIA, which would operate and govern the censorship of all American films.
During the late 1930s, the Senate was voting over the Neely-Pettengill Bill. It would ban the selling of movies in blocks, two or movies at a time for a discount, instead of individually (Aberdeen). By doing this movie companies could throw in extra movies that were not worth much or were not blockbuster hist. The article : “Block Booking Battle in Congress: The Neely Anti-Block Booking Bill” explained, that not only were the big movie production companies and major actors for it, but independent film companies and even some actors, like Bing Crosby, were against it. It was said that Crosby was opposed to block booking because it made the film industry like a factory: movies could be quickly shot and edited and thrown into the blocks for a quick cheap sale (Aberdeen). In1939 the Senate passed the Neely Bill to ban Hollywood’s practice of distributing films to theaters in blocks rather than individually (Wolfe, 193). “The bill was still being voted on in 1940 when Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was released” (Wolfe, 193).
By the late 1030s, Capra was an established film producer whose heroes when extending their range into a wider experience of American life, began to encounter possessors of wealth and power with greater ambitions than to make the right match for the bored and restless daughters (Sklar 123). Capra found it harder to make movies about happy go-lucky people who had miniscule problems that were easily solved. Capra believed that Americans “were enough by themselves to present a convincing picture of order and stability” (Sklar, 134). Capra started taking real situations and problems and turning them into great movies.
Being that the Neely Bill was going to change how quickly Capra and other producers could make films and get them out to the public he decided to take a jab at the Senate by turning a true story, “The Gentleman from Montana” into Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. “The popular and critical success of his (Capra’s) films had given him a platform from which openly to criticize industry practices, including censorship and block booking, and to contemplate independent production” (Wolfe, 195). “Before World War II, Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington openly opposed wealth and power for the first time” (Sklar 123).
In the May 14, 1939 New York Times article, “Mr. Capra Girds (mildly) at the Government”, it was noted how physically correct the setting in the Senate House was. The article tells how Capra used James B. Preston, former superintendent of the Senate press gallery, to make sure the every detail, from the desk and chairs to the Presidential busts, to the layout of the room were as correct as possible. “It was said that the reproduction of the setting and actions were so true that the distortion in the Senate was so mind opening and dangerous “(Wolfe, 197).
When the film came out Capra held a special viewing, “An estimated four thousand congressmen, press correspondents, and invited guests crowed into the hall, while Capra and his wife shared a special box with the family of Burton Wheeler (the real Mr. Smith)…ended up an unhappy affair for all concerned” (Wolfe, 196). In his 1971 autobiography Capra told of the cool reception by the audience that evening and all the personal attacks by Washington press corps. He remembered, “Several congressmen let it be known that the Neely Bill hearings might be rushed through the House in retaliation” (Wolfe, 196).
To further push the idea that the Senate and some political friendly people were not happy with the portrayal of characters and actions many eastern papers’ documented and added to the dissatisfaction. In The Washington Post’s October 22, 1939 article, “’Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ Misses the Spirit of the Capital” Nelson Bell comments, “after a magnificent beginning in this vitally important subject, Mr. Capra not only stubbed his toe with sudden violence, but fell flat on his face.” Later on in November of that year, another article in The Washington Post, “Capra Hit is continuing at Metropolitan”, criticized the “film’s mealy mouthed tribute to democracy is thought by some to betray an insidious influence”. The article goes on to say that Capra sends Jimmy Stewart’s, “likeable young Senator into such a den of iniquity…newspapermen so weak-kneed…Senators so shallow, that it is the duty of us who know something of our neighbors’ integrity to shout, ‘Taint so’”.
The criticism went a little deeper than just the feelings of the Senators, to the worldwide effect on American politics. Many political figures were worried that the portrayal of their fellow government officials would taint the minds of people to believe that Washington and its correspondents were, “cynical but loveable drunkards” who “winked their eyes at political corruption” (Wolfe, 197).
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, let’s say the more westward the viewers were, the better reception the movie received. “Most critics in Los Angeles, who had previewed the film two weeks before, were on record as strong supporters…[and] accused the Washington insiders of being exceptionally thin-skinned” (Wolfe, 197). As well as, the more scandalous and extreme dislike written about the movie the more popular it became. “Protests against the film had stimulated box-office receipts during its opening run in Washington” (Wolfe, 197).
If Capra was trying to stir a political pot and widen the eyes to corruption in the government he met his mark. Viewers from the first opening until the end of time will forever remember the gangsters beating the scouts passing out papers, the police hosing down marchers and all the violence directed towards the believer of Mr. Smith, who fought for equality and true decisions. Some of the articles say that this movie was not so great, sure, it wasn’t a fanatical movie with all the themes and love like The Philadelphia Story, instead Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a didactic storm ready for any political party to take and learn what could happen. It’s a lesson book, or film, for a new democracy.

Works Consulted
Aberdeen, J. A.,. ”Block Booking Battle in Congress: The Neely Anti-Block Booking Bill” Hollywood Renegades Archive 2005. 5/24/2011 .
Bell, Nelson B. “’Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ Misses the Spirit of the Capital”. The Washington Post 22 Oct. 1939.
Churchill, Douglas W. “Mr. Capra Girds (Mildly) at the Government”. The New York Times 14 May, 1939.
Greene, Graham. “A Director of Genius: Four Reviews”. Frank Capra: Authorship and the Studio System. Ed Robert Sklar and Vito Zagarrio. Temple University Press. Philadelphia, 1998.
Glazter, Richard and John Raeburn, eds. Frank Capra. The University of Michigan Press 1975.
“The Screen in Review; Frank Capra’s ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ at the Music Hall Sets a Seasonal High in Comedy—‘Babes in Arms’ Opens at the Capitol”. The New York Times 20 Oct. 1939.
Wolfe, Charles. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Frank Capra: Authorship and the Studio System. Ed Robert Sklar and Vito Zagarrio. Temple University Press. Philadelphia, 1998.
Willis, Donald C. “The Films of Frank Capra”. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Metuchan NJ. 1974.