COVID, a big move, and work has put my life out of order and my 'one a week' film project has fallen about a month behind. Hopefully, I can fire off a few of these recaps and get back on track!...
When a U.S. Senator passes away, a state governor must appoint a replacement to finish out the vacant term. Stuck between picking a political stooge or a risky reformer, he is convinced of a third option: to pick the seemingly malleable Jefferson Smith. As the leader of the “Boy Rangers”, Smith shares his rose-colored image of America with children and is a popular choice among state parents. When Smith gets to Washington, he is overwhelmed and excited until the press begins to lambast him for being a naive, temporary seat filler. Frustrated with his situation, Smith turns to his senior Senator Joseph Paine for advice. Though secretly crooked, Paine is publicly admired and a former friend to Smith’s late father. As such, Paine takes a great liking to Smith and recommends that he advance a bill to create a national boy’s camp—a seemingly harmless passion of Smith’s that could occupy the young Senator’s time (and keep his nose out of Paine’s dirty deals). Smith partners with the Senators’ secretary Clarissa Saunders, who teaches Smith about the convoluted path from an idea, to a bill, to a law. Everything is going rather inspiringly until Senator Paine realizes that the parcel of land Smith has identified in his boy’s camp bill is the very spot he has been spinning back room deals to build a dam on (at the behest of his corrupt political boss). Cue political chaos.
Going into “Mr. Smith”, I was really fearful the film would be saccharine-sweet, hyper-patriotic fodder that, quite frankly, I’m not particularly in the mood for. And while Jefferson Smith starts his journey with these ideals (and we get plenty of B-Roll shots of Lincoln quotes and D.C. monuments), the film has an irrefutable cynicism to it. Even in 1939, the film plainly acknowledges that Congressmen are crooks, the system is rigged for big interests, and the will of the people is being subverted. And it’s in this dichotomy—both endeared to American ideals and disgusted by its reality (through the lens of soft-focus, snappy-dialogue, ’30s filmmaking)—that the film is an impressive feat. I couldn’t help feeling like “The West Wing”, one of my favorite TV shows, was cut from the same cloth as this film. This film is perfectly cast, excellent political drama, and just as relevant today as it was when released.