Magic Town

I have to admit the premise behind Magic Town was a really good and original one. The fact that small time pollster James Stewart discovers a town that is a microcosm of American thinking. What a shortcut, just move in there and poll the citizens on any question. But you have to do it with subterfuge and the town can never have any marked growth of any kind or the goose that's laying Stewart's golden egg is cooked.

Enter Jane Wyman, acting editor of the small town paper who has some ideas about getting the town to grow. That sets up the conflict with Stewart and then the romantic complications set in. Their romance and their differing agendas set the tone for the rest of the film.

I think with a lighter touch this could have been a classic film. It's not a bad film, it's moving in spots, but the subject matter doesn't lend itself to Frank Capra type populism. I'm sure this is a property that Capra himself must have rejected.

Stewart and Wyman are ably supported by the usual group of great character performers that usually populate a Capra film. William Wellman directed this and I think he was out of his element. He's so much better in action films.

It's also so old fashioned in its view of small town America. I can't believe that such a place like Grandview could possibly exist. Think about it, a cross section of America would have its bad people too among the population. Not a bad person in the whole town.

And they even list a U.S. Senator in their population. That would in and of itself make it atypical by his mere presence. In fact when this film was made Harry Truman was president and certainly Independence, Missouri has never been "typical" since he came to political prominence.

My favorite scene is the dance where the whole crowd except the outsider Stewart sing the high school song. It's sung to the tune of I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen. It's a nice moment and it demonstrates just how alien big city slicker Jimmy Stewart is in this environment. It's good, but it does tip over into the saccharine.

Both Stewart and Wyman have certainly done better, but fans of both these performers will like it. But can you imagine what someone like Preston Sturges would have done with this material?

Certainly not one of the great comedies, but charming and rather whimsical in its own way. In this day and age of raucous and crude humour (if you can call it that), a movie like "Magic Town" will probably seem hopelessly old-fashioned and dated, but for those who prefer a quieter and more gentle humour, "Magic Town" will fill the bill very nicely. Very Frank Capra-like (not surprisingly since screenwriter Robert Riskin collaborated with Capra numerous times), "Magic Town" reminds us of a by-gone era, a time when living in a small town meant knowing your neighbours, pride in your community, and the moral values of common decency and humility were still part of everyday life. James Stewart as the pollster who discovers a town full of people whose opinions exactly mirror the national thinking gives his customary good performance, as does Jane Wyman as the newspaper publisher who wants to see change in the town. Many well-known character actors (Kent Smith, Wallace Ford, Ann Shoemaker and particularly Ned Sparks) provide capable support. A slight offering, perhaps, but quite worthwhile.

"Magic Town" is a film about something that we nowadays take as normal but which was a novelty in 1947. It was about the new "science" of public opinion polling. This was only understood poorly and not only by the public but by those who actually mattered: the politicians who would grow to need them. In 1936 the Literary Digest, a popular magazine of the day, had conducted a poll of it's membership on who would win the Presidency. It concluded that Governor Alfred Landon of Kansas, a capable man, would beat incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately the readership of the Digest were upper class, and basically Republican (as Landon was). In November 1936 FDR won one of the biggest landslides in political history, with three quarters of the popular vote and all the electoral votes except for those of Maine and Vermont. Literary Digest went out of business shortly afterwords. In the decade since Roper and Gallup had been improving polling techniques, but the full system was still uncertain. In the 1948 election there would be another polling snafu, with most of the polls awarding the election to Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, as opposed to incumbent President Harry Truman. Harry won a remarkable come-from-behind over Tom, and enjoyed showing off a headline from the Republican "Chicago Tribune" saying that Tom won.

In the midst of all this there was a classic sociology study entitled "Middletown". Set in the typical mid-American town (it was in the Midwest) the authors (a husband and wife team) showed how it's citizens opinions mirrored what mid-America believed. Ten years later the same authors published a follow up study of the town, and it turned there was little change in the opinion differentials between the town and the country.

It is with the "Middletown" study that the background of this film was based. Jimmy Stewart and his assistants (including Ned Sparks and Donald Meek - in his last role) are pollsters, and Stewart has a theory he has been working on that would save pollsters millions. He believes there is a perfect community in the middle of America that can be used for polling it's citizens. He has been studying the problem for several years, and he has found a town where the percentages of the opinions of the citizens perfectly mirror those of the American people as a whole. Stewart goes to the town and sets up there with the intention of using the citizens as his poling guinea pigs, but (as the movie progresses) he gets involved with Jane Wyman and the others in the town. When Wyman discovers Stewart's plans she reveals them, and the town goes crazy. Their sudden unofficial power goes to their heads, and instead of giving the sensible polling answers to questions they give outlandish ones. This causes the crash of their reputation, and the crisis of the film.

It is a first rate film and has some nice touches (including Gabriel Heater intoning on the radio). As an early story regarding the polling industry it is unique, and the film is well acted and directed (by William Wellman). Perhaps not a Capra movie, but it is a nice one all the same.

James Stewart stars as Rip Smith, a leading pioneer in the new sciences of public polling and demography. He discovers a small town that serves as a microcosm of the US, with the same percentages of men to women, farmers to shop-keepers, Democrats to Republicans, etc. Etc. This means that Rip and his two associates Ike (Ned Sparks) and Mr. Twiddle (Donald Meek) can survey this one town and get the same results as if they's polled the whole nation, saving companies vast amounts of time and money. However, to keep the townsfolk's answers honest, the trio of newcomers pose as insurance salesmen. Rip also falls for local gal Mary (Jane Wyman), but how will she and the others react when they learn the truth of why Rip's in town?

This was made during a time when the new advances in sociology, group psychology, and by extension Madison Avenue's advertising firms, were thought be on the pulse of the future of the nation. This kind of thinking could make for a thoughtful movie with the right script, but this isn't it. This is a traditional rom-com mixed with lukewarm social commentary and square citizenship lessons. Stewart and Wyman are both fine, as usual, and I liked seeing Ned Sparks, one of the busier character actors of the 1930's, acting wry and cynical again. This would be Sparks last film, as it would be for Harry Holman and Donald Meek, too. Director William Wellman keeps things moving quickly enough, but no one would consider this one of the better films by anyone involved.

This picture feels like one of the Capra/Riskin classics of the thirties but made a decade later there's something not quite right. The prog-rock analogy would be when Marillion in the 80s tried to emulate Genesis of the 70s - really good but lacking authenticity.

The golden partnership of Frank Capra and Robert Riskin had broken up by now and both were pursuing solo careers. The two former friends now really disliked each other and when Riskin saw his old pal's IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, he was furious that Capra had made a film just like the ones he used to write himself. Consequently he made this as his reply. Although Riskin's film has exactly the same tone and mood as his earlier works he did with Capra in the thirties, he seems to try too hard to outdo Capra by making the story a little bit too far-fetched and being even more sentimental and mushy.

The films he made with Capra were incredibly sentimental but they work - they're believable and engaging. I think the passing of the decade from the thirties to the forties made this type of film too sweet for our tastes today. The thirties were a long time ago, we don't know anyone from that decade so we imagine them as a distinct species living in a Hollywood dream world where sentimentality was as natural as air and where an overwhelming sense of optimism, decency and kindness would always overcome the evils of society. OK, the forties is also a long time ago, because it's post-war those people don't seem that remote - they're virtually the same as us and don't think that differently to us. Seeing therefore that 1930s mind-set transposed to people whom we think are like us doesn't quite sit right.

Being a big 1930s movie fan, it's great although a little sad to see the stalwarts of the pre-code days - but much older. We've former leading men, Regis Toomey and Wallace Ford now in supporting roles. We have Donald Meek and the great grumpy Ned Sparks in their last roles. The presence of these 'old timers' adds some necessary nostalgia from the earlier decade. Necessary because the whole premise of this picture is to imbue the audience with a sense of how warm, cozy and innocent America was before the war. What Riskin tries to do is make another of his classic little guy fights and beats 'the man.' In this case the little guy is a whole innocent and idyllic little town and 'the man' is greed and corruption. The trouble is that it's now 1947 so stories like his didn't quite resonate with a cynical post-war audience. Just like IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, this film was a momentous flop at the time (although IAWL lost even more money!)

MAGIC TOWN is not a bad film, it's just a rather pale reflection of better films! Whereas those earlier picture developed tension and a sense of outrage when things looked like they were starting to go wrong for our hero, this just plods along its predestined well-trodden path. You don't develop any empathy with the characters. Maybe that's because the hero of this story isn't really James Stewart, it's vaguer than that. Is the hero meant to be the townsfolk, these "average Americans" or possibly good old American values.

You can't engage with these people. James Stewart as always is likeable but he's not loveable in this one. Jane Wyman is pleasant enough but she doesn't exhibit any real personality and you honestly couldn't care less whether or not any romance develops between her and James Stewart. Worst of all - it feels like hours and hours of the story are devoted to Mr Stewart coaching a basketball team of pretentious kids - nobody cares.... no, worse than that is actually the school song which again goes on for about an hour allowing the camera to pan over every single man, woman and dog in the whole annoying town allowing them all to do their bit of acting as tears of pride well up in their eyes and smiles of affection abound (I can't say I put my hand on my heart and look wistfully at the sky when I think of my old school but that's clearly what everyone in 1947 did!).

What's most disappointing is William Wellman, Mr Action himself. It's hard to believe that "Wild Bill" Wellman made such a slow paced (plodding through treacle) mediocre movie. But would Frank Capra have made it better? Probably not - his output in the fifties wasn't anything to be that proud about either.