Man on Fire

Bing might have been one of the most loved singers of the early 20th century but he was no great actor.

From all I've heard he was no great father either. A complete tyrant. His children must have watched this movie in awe, not even recognizing his behavior towards his son.

The movie opens with Bing Crosby singing the Sammy Fain-Paul Francis Webster title song over the opening credits. But that's all you hear from Crosby the singer. For the first time Bing starred in a film without any singing at all.

The story involves a pair of divorced parents who have fallen out of love and are contesting the custody of their son. Crosby the father has the kid and wife Mary Fickett and her new husband Richard Eastham want him.

It's a well acted film and Crosby proves he doesn't need to sing to carry a film. His Earl Carleton is a troubled man, a loving father wounded terribly by the divorce. Mary Fickett is a loving mother who's been denied custody of her son by a hastily signed agreement at the time of her's and Bing's divorce. Her new husband Richard Eastham wants a share of custody for his wife's sake.

The point is that this is a film without villains. These are just good people caught in a bad situation trying to do the right thing as they conceive it. And in probably the best performance of her long career, Judge Anne Seymour has to decide it. The custody hearing scene in her chambers is the best acted scene in the film.

This situation may have inspired some of the situations portrayed in the current series Judging Amy. The film has an honored place in the films of Bing Crosby. A must see.

Definitely a forerunner to "Kramer vs. Kramer" with Bing Crosby starring as a father who has custody of his young son. His wife (Mary Fickett) divorced him years ago for a Washington political person. Crosby is a successful businessman who has a wonderful relationship with his son. Enter mom and her husband who want custody of the child.

Anne Seymour, in a one-scene restrained performance, plays the judge who surprises everyone with her decision to give the boy to his mother since the child has no ties with her. An embittered Crosby goes on a brief binge while being consoled by Inger Stevens, an assistant to his attorney played by the usual movie-lawyer E.G. Marshall.

The film is interesting and well acted by all but my flaw with it is that the child is constantly bounced around as Crosby and Fickett fight it out. In addition, the Solomon-like decision did not apply here. If we remember our bible, the woman who was willing to see Solomon divide the child really didn't love the child at all, if she wanted this to happen. In the film, the mother finally relents as she sees that the child really wants to stay with his father and therefore, in the tradition of Solomon, she loves the child more. This is wrong and the writers of this picture should have read the bible more carefully.

Naturally, everyone comes to his senses in this one by the end as a reasonable solution is obtained. One could question why this solution couldn't be put forth at the beginning of the controversy.

Nevertheless, the film shows insight in its discussing the effects of divorce on children, the anger of one parent in particular and that a child should remain with the female parent. Yet, haven't we come a long way in equality for both parents?

The first time I saw this movie I was a teenager, barely older than the boy in the movie. (By the way, Malcolm was 13 and his voice was changing -- why did they have to say his character was 10?). It made me very angry. I was the son of divorced parents and I didn't even know where my father was. I envied the boy his relationship with his father. I thought the situation in the movie was unfair to men because it undervalued the importance of male bonding between father and son. Now that I've watched it again in my 60s I see I was wrong about it. Of course it's best for a kid to have two parents who love each other and stay married, but when we can't have what's best, we have to decide from the options that are available. I think this movie does a very good job of being fair to everybody.

Bing Crosby is a "Man on fire" in this 1957 film starring Inger Stevens, Mary Fickett, Richard Eastham, and E.G. Marshall.

Crosby plays Earl Carleton, a successful businessman who has been divorced from his wife and has custody of their son Ted (Malcolm Brodrick). His wife (Fickett) left him for another man (Eastham) and Earl isn't about to forgive or forget. Angry and bitter, when she and her new husband want sole custody of Ted, Carleton fights them hard, at one point resorting to kidnapping.

Inger Stevens plays an associate in attorney E.G. Marshall's office, and she falls for Earle and wants to help him.

This film was meant to show up the problems of divorce, but mostly it demonstrates the need to move on, otherwise, your anger will devour you. It's the lesson Earle, who loves his son, has to learn, and do what's best for the boy.

"Man on Fire" was Inger Stevens' big break. A beautiful young woman, she apparently had a habit of falling for her leading men, and Crosby was no exception. She was devastated when he married Kathryn Crosby. She finally lost her life either to suicide or an overdose in 1970. Since she refused treatment for carbon monoxide poisoning on the set of "Cry Terror," saying she wanted to die, it doesn't appear that, with everything she had going for her, she was ever very happy. A real pity.

It was delightful to see soap opera star Mary Fickett in a non-soap role, and she was very effective.

Bing Crosby had an enormous effect on popular music and was one of the most popular actors in films for years and years. He was much more than a crooner. He plays the role of a difficult man very well.

The denouement was a little abrupt, but the film made its points.