MovieChat Forums > Harvey (1950) Discussion > Good but not great... (for those who hav...

Good but not great... (for those who have seen the film)


This is a discussion piece for those who have seen this film- there are mild spoilers in here, so don't read this if you were looking forward to watching the film for the first time "dry".

Right, well, I'm not here to rubbish this film, because I think it is very good. However, I wondered if anyone else felt that it simply wasn't a masterpiece, in the same way Mr Smith, Wonderful Life, and Vertigo were masterpieces? It felt like there was something lacking; Dowd's character was explored fully, and it was easily the best thing about this film, but I couldn't escape feeling that everyone and everything else was a bit... Undeveloped.

For example, I thought the script had dug itself into a hole concerning Dowd's (lack of) romantic interest. Throughout he was kind to Miss Kelly, and she was responsive, and she kissed him towards the end... Only for Dowd to turn around and say how good she was with the Doctor. It felt a bit of a cop-out, and it made out that Dowd had tried to get them together beforehand when only one scene had really spelled that out (the scene where they danced in Charlie's). That was one scene measured against the flower giving, the kiss, the looks and the chemistry between Dowd and Kelly.

Also, Veta. Was she a poor widow, struggling with sanity issues herself? A malicious mother simply sick of her son, and selfishly getting rid of him to improve her social life? Or a woman wracked with guilt at sending her son to the sanatorium? It seemed to change every scene. Also, why did she mysteriously stop suing the sanatorium, after she did have a form of sexual assault committed against her?

Also, and this was probably my biggest gripe- the relationship between the guard and Myrtle Mae! Where did it come from? Why was it there? Why, when she had just heard that he had forced her mother into a bath, make him a sandwich? And on what basis did she fall in love with him? Was there a line I missed?

Also, the whole "comedy of errors" motif got on my nerves in one scene, where the painting of Harvey and Dowd was placed on the mantelpiece- by this point, it was ascertained that Veta was not insane (or at least, everyone knew this). So why did the script call for a scene where Dr Chumley is led to believe she might be crackers; why does it call for her to not turn around, stretching this joke even further than it already should have gone? A minor gripe, but a gripe all the same.

Finally, more of an observation, but the film's stance on mental institutions of the day. Was this meant to be some kind of scathing indictment of what they do to insane people? Could this be seen as a liberal precursor to the 70's free will movies such as Easy Rider and One Flew Over? I may be the only one to have spotted this, but the way the first half hour was so committed to showing the ineptitude of the workers at the sanatorium felt like a point being laboured to me. I wondered if anyone else spotted this.

Maybe I am simply reading too much into it. But it was a good film, and I enjoyed it very much, and it seemed to me to invite this level of inspection. I gave it an eight on my personal rating system, where a nine is for an excellent, intellectual film that couldn't be bettered in many ways, and ten is for personal favourites; it was charming, it had a wonderful message, it didn't outstay it's welcome, and Stewart's performance was frankly incredible, a masterful spot of acting. It is a film I wouldn't mind watching again sometime. But to me it felt riddled with too many flaws for it to be a true masterpiece, and... Well I wondered if anyone else felt this way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A man who does not spend time with his family can never be a real man."

reply

Well, this is my favorite Jimmy Stewart film, so clearly I don't agree with your opinion of the film. I'll touch on some of what you said with my own takes . . .

"For example, I thought the script had dug itself into a hole concerning Dowd's (lack of) romantic interest. Throughout he was kind to Miss Kelly, and she was responsive, and she kissed him towards the end... Only for Dowd to turn around and say how good she was with the Doctor. It felt a bit of a cop-out, and it made out that Dowd had tried to get them together beforehand when only one scene had really spelled that out (the scene where they danced in Charlie's). That was one scene measured against the flower giving, the kiss, the looks and the chemistry between Dowd and Kelly."

You seem to miss the fact that he was kind to everyone, including Mr. Wilson, the unnamed gentleman at the end of the bar, Mrs. Chumley and the various cab drivers that he met. His being nice to Miss Kelly had nothing to do with him being interested in her in any kind of romantic way. If you'll recall, when he gave her the flowers he said to Dr. Sanderson, "After what happened this afternoon, doctor, these flowers really should be from you." I think he suspected something was happening between them from the beginning, and he thought that Dr. Sanderson taking the blame/responsibility for what had gone wrong because it was the gentlemanly thing to do for the woman he (the doctor) liked.

"Also, Veta. Was she a poor widow, struggling with sanity issues herself? A malicious mother simply sick of her son, and selfishly getting rid of him to improve her social life? Or a woman wracked with guilt at sending her son to the sanatorium? It seemed to change every scene. Also, why did she mysteriously stop suing the sanatorium, after she did have a form of sexual assault committed against her?"

Wow. It doesn't seem like you were paying close attention to the film here, friend - maybe if you watched it again you'd like it more? Where in the world did you get the idea that Veta Louise is Elwood's mother??? She's his sister - Myrtle Mae is his neice. I think that she was having Elwood put away because he was making it impossible for her daughter to meet a nice man AND she was feeling guilty about doing it. Why would those two things be exclusive?

"And, and this was probably my biggest gripe- the relationship between the guard and Myrtle Mae! Where did it come from? Why was it there? Why, when she had just heard that he had forced her mother into a bath, make him a sandwich? And on what basis did she fall in love with him? Was there a line I missed?"

This is a comedy. We had been hearing how desperate Myrtle Mae was to find someone, and how her mother was also worried about it. Now a man comes along who seems to like her, so she reciprocates. Before she even met him, in fact, when the mother was talking about him and how he mistreated her, Myrtle asked if he was a young man. Realistic in real life? No. Totally acceptable in a good-natured comedy? Yes.

"Also, the whole "comedy of errors" motif got on my nerves in one scene, where the painting of Harvey and Dowd was placed on the mantelpiece- by this point, it was ascertained that Veta was not insane (or at least, everyone knew this). So why did the script call for a scene where Dr Chumley is led to believe she might be crackers; why does it call for her to not turn around, stretching this joke even further than it already should have gone? A minor gripe, but a gripe all the same."

I thought that scene was hilarious, her describing the painting without looking at it while the doctor was getting worried that perhaps she was crazy as well. Plus, the part about "The photograph shows only the reality. The painting shows not only the reality, but the dream behind it. It's our dreams, doctor, that carry us on" is important to the spirit of the film

You say it's a film you wouldn't mind watching again. If you haven't already, I hope you do. It's in my top ten of all time.




You think you’re smart, but you’re not. You’re dumb. Very dumb. But you’ve met your match in me!

reply

I agree with the OP. It was a really well made film, but some of the gags involving the sister went on for too long, and I couldn't help feeling this was one of the strangest films I've ever seen.

So I gave it an 8.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

reply

Also, and this was probably my biggest gripe- the relationship between the guard and Myrtle Mae! Where did it come from? Why was it there? Why, when she had just heard that he had forced her mother into a bath, make him a sandwich? And on what basis did she fall in love with him? Was there a line I missed?


On the basis of him being a man who rips women's clothes off. It's something she badly needs.

reply

I agree that this film is good, but not great. However, I was surprised how good the film was. I know that the film is whimsy or fantasy, but if the viewer suspends disbelief, then he or she will see that the film has things to say about conformity.

James Stewart is good in this role. I liked the way he underplayed the role, whilst the other actors and actresses were slightly over-the-top, although I enjoyed their playing of it. I really liked Josephine Hull's performance, all faces and twitches, etc.

The reason I think that the film has something to say about conformity is because the James Stewart character does his own thing, which is seen as non-conformist (e.g. drinking - but never drunk; talking to "Harvey"). However, he is not harmful or hurts anyone in the film. He is just a social embarrassment. Therefore, should he be put into an institution for being an embarrassment? The film thinks "No".

1950 seems to have been a good year for films. To name four good films in that year: "All About Eve"; Sunset Boulevard"; "Father of the Bride"; and "Harvey". And all these films had good performances in them.

Yes, "Harvey" is a good film.

reply