Atajo a la felicidad

As a teacher of fifty years experience in language and cinematic arts,I taught "The Devil and Dan'l Webster" as part of the fictional pantheon of American Literature. Although Alec Baldwin certainly has burned some bridges along the way in his career, this film takes creative risks, many of them worthy of consideration, which exemplify a significant part of Americana. Like its forbear, the 1941 cinematic adaptation starring Walter Huston, this version was attacked, condemned and dismissed when it was released. I believe that every adaptation of any book is an aesthetic fossil caught in cinematic amber.

The movie substantiates the same sort of meretricious value system in its depiction of Jabez Stone that struck Stephen Vincent Benet and the makers of the 1941 gem. In its lampooning of pretentious high society panderers of cheesy albeit popular writing, casting them as best-sellers, "Shortcut to Happiness"dramatizes a contemporary examination of what actually constitutes success in the dizzying world of publications.

Anthony Hopkins was well cast in the role of Daniel Webster. It is instructive to compare and contrast Edward Arnold's portrayal of Webster in the 1941 classic with that of Hopkins, because both actors have earned a lifetime of accolades, portraying both admirable and despicable characters. Hopkins and Arnold remain symbols of financial and thespian success.

Hollywood has a bad record for disapproving of movies solely on the basis of profit. I would love to see "Shortcut to Happiness" go into post-production, be subjected to a diverse array of test audiences after a skillful rewrite. The issues that concerned Stephen Vincent Benet in 1937 are alive and with us all today in almost every area of business, politics, entertainment, and government. Success is whatever you can get away with.

Audiences will go to see bad movies. But Hollywood only seems to take the loving and meticulously-artistic care to produce two or three cinematic gems each year. Whoever had the final say in terms of condemning this movie wasted time, money, and the potential for achieving what its creators had in mind when the idea was but an inspiration culled from reading the classic and wishing to update it.

If one of my students had submitted this movie script to me, I would have said, "Promising rough draft," and suggest various ways to improve it with my reasons for doing so.

It's very interesting how some old ideas always come back "in new clothing" to movies or literature. This movie is a good example. It's about the "old but nice" cliché of Faust, the man how sells his immortal soul to the devil in exchange of achieving happiness.

I like Jennifer Love Hewitt playing devil in this movie. I don't think she's gorgeous or a tremendous actress, but she's cute and did a good job in this movie.

This movie mixes references to classic US writers, the "not a penny in the pocket" world of the amateur writers struggling to be noted by a publisher and the the US mania for justice court battles.

It's a light movie for relaxing with friends or the girlfriend/boyfriend.

Tasteless rewrite of "The Devil and Daniel Webster" has a struggling novelist named Jabez Stone unable to get anything published much less find anyone to read his work; he enters into a pact with a comely female Satan for fame and fortune in exchange for his immortal soul. Update of Archibald Macleish's play "Scratch" and 1941's far-superior "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (wherein a panicked farmer was the tempted man) was produced and directed by its star, Alec Baldwin. There's a fine supporting cast including Anthony Hopkins as lawyer Daniel Webster and Jennifer Love Hewitt as the Devil but, unfortunately, the picture was edited against Baldwin's wishes after sitting on the shelf for years (it finally debuted on the Starz network in 2007 after a few theatrical bookings). The film begins well but quickly loses its footing once Baldwin's writer gains the success he so desired, turning the picture into a yuppie treatise on the old money-can't-buy-happiness ploy. The filmmakers are so out-of-touch, they don't even consider the fact that maybe some of the writer's needs are in fact fulfilled by his newfound celebrity. Instead, he becomes a sad sack with money in the bank and women at his feet--clearly not something actual struggling writers can identify with. Worse, there's never a moment when Stone's heart is detectable; Baldwin is so callow an actor (not to mention as the director) that all we perceive are his handsome, unmodulated externals. Pursing his lips and gazing intently at the camera, hoping to smolder, Baldwin loses track of the character and where he came from. The final courtroom battle is well-played, though so much of the writing is smarmy and executed without style that the overall results are distinctly unsatisfactory. *1/2 from ****

This is yet another Faustian tale put to celluloid, though unlike both versions of Bedazzled, it's not exactly a comedy, more a dramedy, only funny in parts. Both Baldwin and Hopkins are fine in their roles, but unfortunately Jennifer Love Hewitt is completely out of her depth, especially when sharing the screen with Hopkins.it's a okay plot that will keep you entertained, though nothing more.

One of the reviews says there were three versions of the film. I'd like to see Baldwin's original cut of this movie. The last version was cut badly, there are many unnatural breaks in the film. like it was edited for commercial breaks. The breaks where scenes were cut seem apparent.

Apparently the 1941 movie suffered a similar fate, with many titles and severe editing.

The story runs counter to the traditional American ethic of money equaling happiness.

The film was purchased out of bankruptcy for a fraction of production costs, and renamed and hacked for a fast return on investment.