George Stevens: A Filmmaker's Journey

"George Stevens: A Filmmaker's Journey" is a loving tribute to the craft of Stevens by his son, George Stevens Jr.. But like1995's film about William Wellman by his son ("Wild Bill: Hollywood Maverick"), the movie isn't really a biography but a filmography. So, you only learn a bit about the man's personal life...but only a bit and it's NOT the movie's intention of being a biography. Instead, it focuses almost exclusively on the various big films of Stevens (like most filmographies it only covers the major movies). As such, it's very well made, interesting and is able to explain his uniqueness as a director. Well worth watching, very well made and filled with nice interviews and film clips.

No one can fault George Stevens Jr. for not wanting to make the movie that really ought to be made about his father-- the decline of a once-nimble and always intelligent filmmaker into the bloated self-consciousness of his 1950s films and the suffocating self- importance of his virtually unwatchable final work. But this is a frustratingly superficial work that misses what's interesting about early Stevens so that it can lavish praise on the noble intentions that were so disastrous to the later work. For instance, Stevens' apprenticeship at Hal Roach (where he directed Laurel and Hardy) is reduced to a soundbite about Stevens wanting a subtler approach to character-driven comedy than Roach-- as if Roach were Mack Sennett rather than the man who pioneered a subtler and more character-driven form of slapstick. If Stevens wanted to out-Roach Roach, that's surely a more interesting line of inquiry than making Roach out to be a hack. Likewise, Stevens is credited by Hermes Pan with inventing the idea of dance numbers that advanced the plot in Swing Time-- when seduction-by-dance had been a feature of the Astaire-Rogers films since The Gay Divorcee, and in any case it's doubtful how much Stevens would have had to do with the dance numbers' form. It would have been far more interesting (not to mention accurate) to have a real film critic explore the development of Stevens' style in these early house assignments, which in the end look like Stevens' most consistently fine work. Conversely, when we get to the postwar period, we hear only about Stevens' ideals and intentions, his encouragement of the actors and his technical innovations (Warren Beatty has a good anecdote to tell), but even well-chosen clips can't cover up the fact that Shane clothes a stock story in a handsomely muddly realism, that Giant is merely a ponderous soap opera, that Diary of Anne Frank, visually promising, is nearly unbearably wrong with those cute California kids telling each other Hallmark sentiments (in sadly ironic contrast to Stevens' own home movies of the camps)-- and that The Ghastliest Story Ever Told, the aircraft carrier of Jesus movies, is not even a movie but a series of visually exquisite, dramatically deadly religious postcards. By this period, almost any other series of similar films would be more interesting to examine-- who wouldn't rather hear Nicholas Ray talk about They Live By Night, Johnny Guitar and King of Kings, say? Or Anthony Mann talk about Winchester 73 and El Cid? Or Pasolini talk about how he was inspired to make The Gospel According to St. Matthew by how wrongheaded Stevens' Jesus was?

"George Stevens: A Filmmaker's Journey" is a testimonial of Steven's son to his father. Stevens was a most talented director, whose work spanned many years and whose films embraced many genres. He was a fine comedy director and also directed musicals with class. His action films were spirited and his romantic dramas moving. Many critics have tended to first overrate, then upon re-evaluation underrate Steven's work. My feeling is that Stevens chalked up a remarkable record of high quality films throughout his career, and this bio provides a wide range of his work, through film clips, interviews by actors, producers and directors, and through a loving narration by George Stevens, Jr. This is a must for Stevens fans and an enjoyable film for others.

George Stevens, Jr. Produced and narrates this look at his father's life and work. It includes interviews with Katharine Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Hermes Pan, Joel McCrea, Warren Beatty, and Mrs. Stevens, all of which are very interesting.

The most fascinating parts of this documentary are the ones which show footage from Stevens' own camera. There is on the set material from various films and his amazing World War II films of the liberation of Paris, Dachau, and the Normandy invasion. Staggering and stunning.

This perhaps deserved its own documentary, and I believe that later on, the footage was released separately.

Film clips include parts of: Alice Adams, The More the Merrier, Shane, Diary of Anne Frank, Giant, A Place in the Sun, The Greatest Story Ever Told.

Shelley Winters, not interviewed here, sadly, tells the story in her autobiography of Stevens having them rehearse without dialogue. It's perhaps the secret of the intimacy that is often captured in his films. "The More the Merrier" clip is that of an improvised love scene between McCrea and Arthur.

Someone commented here that it's not for Stevens Jr. To canonize his father. Being in the field of classic film, I disagree. This may not be a perfect documentary, and it may not dwell on his father's failures, such as the overblown The Greatest Story Ever Told.

The common problem faced by many of these great filmmakers is that as the studio system collapsed and Hollywood changed, it was difficult for them to adjust.

The point is this: yes, the legacy speaks for itself - but who is there to hear it speak if the families don't honor their famous relative? A son's insight may be biased, but it's also more enlightened in many respects.

If anyone believes there is some huge movement afoot to see that these wonderful contributors to film history are remembered, they're wrong. Even the theaters once devoted to classic film hesitate to show them now because they can't make any money.

I say bravo to anyone willing to make a documentary on any aspect of classic film.

I think George Jr. is using his position at the American Film Institute to "manage" his father's legacy---which is wrong. The impact of George Stevens' work should be judged on its own merits. His films speak for themselves, and it's embarrassing to see a son canonize his father so publicly.

I'm proud of my dad too, but I wouldn't erect a monument to him for being one of America's all-time great little league coaches.

If George Stevens' films are important (they are) and stand the test of time (they do), then let others praise this unique American artist. For a son to create documentaries about (and name AFI awards after) his father is a tacky cry for attention. "Hey, don't forget my dad! He was a great American filmmaker!" Usually, TV producers will see the potential of (or a market for) a documentary about a great American filmmaker and ask the artist's family to participate by donating old photos and agreeing to be interviewed on-camera. George Jr. apparently grew impatient waiting for such an offer. Possibly he feared no offer would ever come...so he produced his own documentary. And all to build up his father's legacy.