MovieChat Forums > Mister Roberts (1955) Discussion > BETTER OR WORSE IF JOHN FORD HAD DIRECTE...

BETTER OR WORSE IF JOHN FORD HAD DIRECTED IT ALONE?

posted 14 years ago by cattard-1
15 replies | jump to latest

.

According to the biography "Searching for John Ford" by Joseph McBride, Ford had huge clashes with Fonda and Joshua Logan over liberties Ford was taking with the film, liberties which Fonda and Logan felt were damaging the movie. The biggest problems were the bits of comic business which Ford was adding, Fonda felt this was destroying the dramatic aspect of the story. After having successfully staged "Mister Roberts" on Broadway, Fonda and Logan probably expected a simple filmed version of the play. Not being used to being contradicted on his sets, Ford got depressed and started drinking heavily during filming (although always a heavy drinker, he used to stay away from alcohol while filming).

One argument ended quite ugly when Ford punched Fonda (according to Jack Lemmon, interviewed by McBride in the aforementioned book, Ford tried to punch Fonda but missed because he was too drunk, Fonda had to hold Ford to keep him from falling down while Ford repeatedly tried to punch him in vain). Although Ford apologized, things were never comfortable for all parties concerned. This lead to more drinking by Ford who lost interest in the film (there were moments when Ward Bond ended up directing while Ford was too out of it). Finally, his stomach ended up terribly swollen and Ford was hospitalized with a ruptured gallbladder. It was then that he was replaced by the less talented Mervyn LeRoy. When filming was completed, Joshua Logan (who was still not satisfied with the final result) reshot certain scenes though he didn't take credit for it.

This all leaves one to wonder what kind of film this would have been had Ford been allowed to direct it all alone. Would it have been a better or worse movie?

What are your thoughts?

.

[–] sawyertom 14 years ago

Worse.

[–] kennethri 14 years ago

Fonda didn't like the "liberties" Ford was taking with the film? Does anyone know how absurd this sounds? It's like saying Tom Hanks didn't like the liberties Steven Speilberg was taking with Saving Private Ryan.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, just take a look at John Ford's biography. One of the top 5 (at worst) Directors of all time.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Worse -- though by the time Ford left the film, the damage had largely been done.

What Fonda (and Logan) objected to was Ford's insistence on drowning the film with what Fonda termed Ford's "boys will be boys" slapstick intervals, along with having most of the crewmen speak like imbeciles, with moronic accents. All the horseplay was totally at odds with what the play was really about, its very conception. This film required a lighter, more restrained, deft touch, which Ford was completely unable to bring to bear.

Mervyn Leroy may not have been as "talented" a director but he was a solid professional who had worked in many genres and made some excellent films. It would have been better had he been hired to direct the whole thing. It might have been uninspired but it would have been closer to the play. But any thoughtful, able, experienced film director would have handled this better than Ford.

Remember that by this time Ford was too often falling lazily back on formula situations, as his innovativeness dried up and his alcoholism and personal abuse grew worse. In my view, this ritual reliance on heavy-handed, inapt "comic relief" soured many Ford films of this period, most definitely including The Searchers, which has way too much of such nonsense. Unfortunately the gentle humor of the play Mister Roberts was butchered by the inane knockabout "comedy" (and stupid voices and characterizations) the unsubtle Ford liked so much.

PS: It's been said that the film is seamless between Ford's and Leroy's portions of the movie, but I disagree. I think it's clear that Leroy came in at approximately the point where the ship leaves the liberty port in disgrace, after the crew's rambunctious behavior of the night before. Notice the marked difference in tone after that. But as I said, too little, too late.

[–] wlandolfi-1 13 years ago

I am well aware of the fact the John Ford became ill during the shooting of MISTER ROBERTS and that Mervyn LeRoy took over as well as the fact that Henry Fonda did not like the filmed rendition. Would MISTER ROBERTS have been a better movie had just one or the other director did it alone? I don't know. However, the film may have been a little different. As for hobnob53's comment, I don't know if "marked difference in tone" after the scene where the crew gets kicked out of port had to do with the fact of the change in directors. I attributed it to the story. The crew got kicked out of port because of their rowdy behavior. The Captain was furious and Mr. Roberts had to take flack for it. Mr. Roberts was the go-between. I.E. He had to address the concerns of the sailors who felt they were mistreated by the Captain and yet, he had to deal with the Captain at the same time.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

The plot point about Roberts having to be the go-between between the Captain and the crew runs throughout the movie. It doesn't just appear after the ship is kicked out of port. It's one of the key elements of the story.

Clearly the tone of the film changes after that scene, because all the rowdy, clownish behavior from the crew abruptly stops. While there's still a lot of comedic business from the men, they're suddenly also depicted as more rounded, less one-dimensional individuals in most of the scenes in the last half. Granted that the story supports such behavior, it also supported this more restrained behavior in the first half. But after the "liberty" scene, never do the men return to the loud, moronic characterizations that marked (and marred) the first half, under Ford's direction, which degraded the tenor of the original play.

I'm kind of tired of the attitude of some posters (not the person immediately preceding this one) who, because a director was one of those they consider the best (Ford, Kubrick, Hitchcock, whomever), insist that therefore anything they did was a flawless work of genius that bears no criticism. Nonsense. John Ford was a great director, but he had his lapses, misfires and misjudgments as has every director in movie history. If he didn't quite "ruin" Mister Roberts -- as Fonda and Josh Logan thought, with hyperbole but much justification -- he certainly failed it. The film looks worse with the passage of time precisely because Ford insisted on layering his brand of half-witted "humor" on top of a thoughtful and sensitive play.

It's also surprising that Ford, a Navy man himself who had so beautifully, richly and humanely characterized Naval servicemen in They Were Expendable (with welcome but restrained and touching bits of humor too), would resort to portraying them here, not as weary, bored men looking for whatever relief they could find amid the tedium of their "war", but as little more than Bowery-Boys simpletons garbling their speech with funny accents and exhibiting a collective I.Q. of around 80, which is decidedly not how they were depicted in the play. Shame on him.

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

hobnob53^

Agree with all your comments and your wonderful, informed analysis.

I love this movie (watched it today for Memorial Day), but the depiction of the crew and the 'slapstick' moments are my least favorite parts of the film.

My father was an Army officer and he literally commanded hundreds and hundreds of men -- he liked this movie (another reason I watched it today as my father has since passed), but he, too, did not like the caricature depictions of the servicemen and quite frankly found these depictions rather disrespectful and unnecessary.

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Hi denise1234 -- Thank you for your very kind remarks.

I'm sure you have every reason to be proud of your dad's service to the country, and it's good to know that he and you and others aren't happy with the way the servicemen were depicted in this film. It's especially nice that your father, as an Army man, felt this so strongly even when the subjects were "swab-jockies"!

Belated Happy Memorial Day, and our thanks to your late father for his dedication to the United States. Take care.

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

hobnob53^

You are welcome, and thank YOU so much for your thoughtful remarks -- brought tears to my eyes.

I love my father -- he was a very honorable man.

Belated Happy Memorial Day to you and yours, too!

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Hope to see you around the boards again!

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

hobnob53^

Ditto :)

I am all over the place on IMDB, so you probably *will* see me pop up again somewhere on some message board here.

It's been a pleasure :)

Ciao for now!

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] stagebandman 11 years ago

I have to disagree with that, because Tom Hanks didn't play Captain Miller for over a thousand performances on Broadway and win a Tony award for his portrayal before tackling the film. Fonda knew the role inside and out, and although I'm not a fan of the finished product (especially Fonda, in his least believable role), I take Henry's side on this one. But the awkward readings and movement could be a byproduct of the problems behind the scenes. The funny thing is, according to the trivia section, William Powell had so much trouble remembering his lines that he retired after this, and he comes off (along with Lemmon) as one of the better portrayals in the movie.

I did the play way back in 1978 and just watching the movie again tonight, feel like I just saw it live. The script was pretty much exactly the same. Just more nurses (the play has only one).

If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie!

[–] ZevII 12 years ago

John Ford was a magnificent director, especially when it came to telling a story visually. But his attempts at humor usually left me cringing.

He seemed to think that getting drunk in itself was funny, and after seeing the same joke over and over again in his movies (Stagecoach, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Fort Apache, The Quiet Man, etc.), it got really tiresome to me.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

As he got older, Ford resorted more and more to instances of his heavy-handed, boys-will-be-boys "humor", even in many of his better films. I've always thought The Searchers was much overrated -- not bad, but not as good as some people claim -- and the primary flaw in it is all the lame, loud and dumb horseplay Ford insisted on larding throughout the movie. It really marred what could otherwise have been the truly great film some persist in claiming it is.

Others among his films also have this fatal flaw -- most egregiously, The Wings of Eagles, not a good film in any case, but made even worse by this asinine tone Ford injected into so much of it.

The same goes for Mister Roberts...which Henry Fonda, who surely knew something about what made the play work, also believed.

[–] GeorgiaDixie 10 years ago

As far as a better, I think it would have been better if they had either let Ford take control throughout, without as much second-guessing from Fonda or just let Fonda go his own way with a less demanding director. Either way probably would have been better, even though it was still a good film anyway (but highly overrated as well).

P.S. I like that "rowdy" humor that permeates Ford's films. I wish there was more of it in today's films, instead of the completely dirty comedy that many films have recently.

Courage is being scared to death- and saddling up anyway

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Overall one director would have been better than two. If Ford had exercised restraint with his dumbbell humor and insulting one-dimensional characterizations of the enlisted men he could have made a fine film and done the play proud.

But since he wasn't so inclined, the film needed a director more in tune with what the story is actually about. I'm not sure Mervyn Leroy -- a competent director but not one with a lot of imagination, especially by the 1950s -- would have been right either. Billy Wilder could have done this film well, respectfully and imaginatively. Of course there are others.

I agree with you about the quality of "humor" in many films today but that doesn't mean Ford's postwar brand was good. It was ridiculous, heavy-handed horseplay, and worst of all, repetitive -- the same stuff over and over again in so many Ford films from Fort Apache on. Ford could do subtle humor that blended with and added to a film's narrative -- as he did in such films as Stagecoach, The Grapes of Wrath, How Green Was My Valley, They Were Expendable, My Darling Clementine and even later, in The Last Hurrah and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In those films the humor flowed naturally and moved smoothly within the film; it helped move it along, it didn't interrupt it. In too many of his later movies, however, Ford's humor was loud, forced, labored, irrelevant and crashingly unfunny...and, worst of all, it disrupted the flow of the film -- like driving a car on a level, comfortable road and suddenly hitting an endless series of annoying speed bumps.