Il romanzo di una vita

I like the fact that Edison was nominated for the Oscar for best Original Story. How many biopics can claim that honour ?

Spencer Tracy is excellent as the dynamic American inventor. Although he was a 40 year old playing a 25 year old he produced sufficient energy to overcome the obstacle of years. This is a fine piece of acting and is well supported by the bit-parts and by the director who clearly enjoys telling the story of Edison's finest achievements, the invention of the light bulb and of the recording device.

The main problem with the film is its lack of balance. We don't hear enough about his theft of patents and his failure to give credit to his co-workers. Edison is a metaphor for America in the early twentieth century, exciting, inventive, thrusting, dynamic but also shallow and lacking in grace.

I have probably seen more bio-pics than anyone you'll ever meet and so I obviously like this style film. BUT, at the same time, I am a retired history teacher and love to know the true stories behind the films--and often these movies and reality have little in common! In some other cases, there stories are close overall to the true characters and events BUT key elements have been changed or omitted--and such is the case with "Edison the Man". While generally sticking to the truth better than most bio-pics of the era, some parts of Edison's life were changed for a variety of reasons. In some cases, I understand, the movie COULD have been 6-8 hours long if it dealt in detail with all of Edison's most important inventions. Plus, in doing this, what about his private life? You just can't do it all in a two hour film! However, one odd omission occurred in the film that I think they should have addressed. Edison's young wife portrayed in the film didn't live that long--dying before age 30. Here, they appear to have been married a long time and no mention is made of his second wife nor the children from this marriage. It's odd, as the dying young wife could have infused the movie with a bit more pathos and drama. A few other incidents were compressed because of time and to heighten the drama--such as how the phonograph developed (it actually took some time and inventions by other folks following Edison's invention to prefect the device). But, despite these errors and omissions that crazed ex-history teachers might notice, the film IS very good. It achieves the goal of lionizing this important inventor (and ignores his foibles to do so) and is always interesting. Well worth seeing but I strongly recommend you read up on the man--he was much more complex and incredible than the character you see in the movie.

By the way, despite what was said in the film, ostriches DON'T stick their heads in the ground--whether they are afraid or not. It's an old myth.

Spencer Tracy stars as the famous inventor Thomas Edison. This movie deals primarily with his struggles to invent the electric light. Beautiful Rita Johnson plays Edison's wife. Excellent supporting cast includes Henry Travers, Charles Coburn, Grant Mitchell, Felix Bressart, and Gene Lockhart -- solid character actors all. Grand MGM polish and production values make for a great-looking picture.

This is the second MGM biopic of Edison released in 1940. The first, Young Tom Edison, starred Mickey Rooney and covered the inventor's early years. Edison, the Man is sort of a sequel to that film. Both are excellent. These old biopics were usually solid, uplifting character-driven stories. Yes they take liberties with the details but the more cynical defamatory biopics we get these days do the same. I'll take an inspirational biography that builds people up and leaves you with the warm fuzzies over some deconstructionist tabloid trash any day.

If anyone is looking for a factual account of the life of Thomas Alva Edison this ain't the film for you. In fact Edison the Man is the second film that MGM did on him. Young Tom Edison had come out before this one and Mickey Rooney played a boy's life version of him. At the conclusion of that film there was a preview that Edison the Man would be coming out soon starring Spencer Tracy.

The widow Edison who was still alive at the time gave her personal stamp of approval on casting Spencer Tracy as her husband. Who wouldn't want his life's story portrayed by Tracy. But among the many things not shown was the fact that she was the second Mrs. Edison. The first Mrs. Edison, played by Rita Johnson in the film died in the 1880s and Edison married again the Gay Nineties. He had three children with each wife. So you can see a lot of the personal life has been left out.

The film is told in flashback as an aged Edison is sitting at a banquet table listening to the toastmaster tell of his life. We only see about 10 years of it from the time he arrives in New York to when he proves the validity of the electric light by powering a section of New York.

One of the great quotes from Edison is that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Inventing the electric light was the result of trial and error running into the thousands of methods and that is the part of Edison graphically shown.

Edison is always held up as the great example of the American success story. He was a man with little formal education at all who had ideas and the natural ability and will to see them through. It should always be remembered that Edison gained his fame during the Horatio Alger era. He was the living embodiment of those stories about the poor kid who succeeds through hard work.

The part of Edison that's not so nice, his battles over patents with other inventors, his ruthlessness in business exploiting those patents, that all comes later. It would take a mini-series to really do his life justice.

But I think Edison himself would have loved to see the way MGM handled his life in both films. He certainly would have seen himself as Spencer Tracy plays him, the wise benevolent man, with an iron perseverance.

Just don't anyone doing serious research on Edison use this film as a guide to his life.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. We hear current scandals and corporate ruthlessness now and in past history. This picture paints the "Hollywood" side of Edison, but he too has a ruthless side.

Edison certainly deserves much credit, but he had his vices. He invested heavily in Direct Current (DC) technology; good for many applications, but not for the needed power and lighting applications Edison envisioned. No mention is made in the movie of Nikola Tesla. Edison invited him to the USA from Croatia to work in Edison's labs. Edison made him work from 10:30 am to 5:00 the next morning, seven days per week. Even though Tesla did not believe in Edison's direct current motors he worked hard to improve them. Edison told him if he could do that he would give him a bonus of $50,000. He came up with twenty-four new designs to replace the old ones of Edison's. Edison was delighted with the results but did not pay Tesla the $50,000 he had promised. When Tesla finally asked him about it, it is said that Edison told him, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor." That is when Tesla left the Edison Co. and eventually worked for Edison's rival George Westinghouse. Westinghouse was ruthless as well, but he and Tesla got along, and secured the contract to supply generators at Niagara Falls.

Films such as these are great to bring initial awareness. My hope would be they prompt more investigation. That in mind, I'll take these "Hollywood biographies" over what often comes from the current film industry: recycled garbage.