Edward, My Son

When it was originally presented on the London stage, Robert Morley starred and wrote Edward My Son and I believe he had Lord Beaverbrook in mind. If that is the case Edward My Son was as daring in its way as Sweet Smell of Success was in America taking dead aim at Walter Winchell.

Lord Beaverbrook for those on this side of the Atlantic was a Canadian industrialist Max Aitken who settled in the UK and purchased a string of tabloid like newspapers. He was a very powerful force in the post World War I United Kingdom and served in the War Cabinet of Winston Churchill. He was every bit as cunning and as ruthless as we Sir Arnold Boult made out to be.

And to accommodate Spencer Tracy's North American speech, Sir Arnold is made Canadian. That was making it more daring. Beaverbrook was not a man to cross.

We never see Edward at any time in the film, the picture we form of him is through the eyes of the other characters. A kid spoiled rotten by his ever indulgent father. Boult, ruthless in business and finance, is just as ruthless at getting whatever for his son, giving him everything but a decent set of values to live by.

Tracy's portrayal rings true for me because I actually knew someone like Arnold Boult in my life. He was a political person who spoiled his son absolutely rotten, used up favor after favor for him. When the son developed a drug problem he never tried to deal with it, but actually schemed to give him jobs he couldn't handle. I look at Tracy as Sir Arnold Boult and see this man staring right back at me.

Deborah Kerr is Tracy's wife and Edward's mother and Leueen McGrath is his secretary and mistress. They are the major female roles in Edward My Son and both are captured well. Others to look for in the cast are Felix Aylmer as the prep schoolmaster, Mervyn Johns as Tracy's tragic former business partner, and Ian Hunter as Tracy's friend and eventual second husband to Kerr.

Look at Tracy's methods in dealing with his personal and professional life and it's small wonder Edward turned out to be the spoiled brat he was.

Some have commented that they felt that Spencer Tracy was miscast in this film, playing a character very different to the altruists that he typically plays, and being the only American among the principle cast. However, I believe that this perhaps is Tracy's strongest performance, partly because it is so different to his usual roles. Tracy plays a determined and unrelenting man with real strength, although as his wife, Deborah Kerr also has a number of strong scenes, particularly in the final half hour. The two lead performances are however the bulk of what makes this a good film. It is reasonably engaging, with gimmicks of the title character never on screen, and Tracy speaking to the viewer, to keep it interesting, but the plot is not too great in itself, and the story tires before the end. It is also a bit too stagy, which limits how involving it is to an extent. Nevertheless, despite any possible shortcomings, the powerhouse of acting, not only from Tracy and Kerr, but some of the supporting cast too, make this a film worth checking out.

Spencer Tracy stars as a ruthless man who spoils his son, Edward, and sacrifices everything else only to have the boy die during WW II.

Bitter story is so sad it's hard to watch BUT for the brilliant performances of Tracy and Deborhah Kerr (Oscar nominee) as the wife. Also great writing and direction from George Cukor.

Neat plot device is that we never see Edward, just a parade of birthday cakes and bits and pieces of his life as he grows up and how his parents react to his disturbing behavior. Story is clever and heartbreaking.

Good supporting cast includes Felix Aylmer as the headmaster, Mervyn Johns as Simpkins, Ian Hunter as the physician, Leueen McGrath (excellent) as Miss Perrin, Tilsa Page as Foxley, James Donald as Bronton, and Colin Gordon as Ellerby the teacher.

The film has overtones from Citizen Kane but is nothing like that great film except in its theme of corrupting power..... Worth a look

For years I resisted this movie because of the sobbing title. I expected a maudlin, embarrassing tale.

I should have known better. And while I've never been a particular fan of Spencer Tracy (his emotional range never interested me), this time he worked okay, in that he wasn't a god-damned hero, and there wasn't a bevy of minor actors sucking up to him. I liked him being a bad guy; I liked his covert, vaguely whimsical smile. For the first time, I found him believable, more than stock characterization.

Also, the movie was so well crafted that Tracy's ambitions were always credible. And when you understand the motivation, usually, you are sympathetic.

It was Deborah Kerr who stole my interest. Her character, toward the end of the film, is so broken, that she approached Greek classicism. She was ugly, tear-stained, stooped - and her lamentation carried throughout that great barn of a mansion of a home. She couldn't have been more than 35 (ca.), but she had become 80, in spirit. One knew, when she went upstairs that final time, that she would not be seen again, and would only be spoken of in past tense.

Although Kerr is a favorite, there's only one other film of hers that knocked me out: for her beauty, her rawness and her intact feminity - and that of course is "The Sundowners". These two films place her at the pinnacle of Britain's actors.

Very sophisticated writing and restrained acting performances make for a compelling drama of a ruined father's dreams. Spencer Tracy plays the not very lovable father who's desire to protect and give "the best" to his son distorts his behavior with all those around him, including Deborah Kerr as his wife, his business partner, and ultimately his son himself, whose character is never allowed to develop. A nice conceit is that we never see the son, Edward, just his birthday cakes.