Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Director: Frank Capra
Written by: Sidney Buchman, story by Lewis R. Foster
Year: 1939
Genre: Drama
My rating: 5 out of 5

Similar to "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" begins abruptly with a death. A string of phone calls goes out to announce the death of U.S. Senator Sam Foley, of an anonymous western state. Governor Hubert "Happy" Hopper (Guy Kibbee) is faced with a difficult choice: should he replace Foley with the stooge that his corrupt political boss, Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold), wants him to? Or with the reformer that the public wants? Stressed and indecisive, he follows the advice of his children and chooses respected youth leader Jefferson Smith (James Stewart). Smith's doe-eyed patriotism is established when, upon arriving in D.C., he forgets to go to his office and instead goes straight from the train station to a five-hour tour, which we follow in the form of some prehistoric version of the montage. Smith is quickly taken under the wing of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains), who was the closest friend of his late father. When the press accuses Smith of being too inexperienced for the Senate, Paine advises him to keep busy by working on a bill. With the help of his disgruntled assistant, Saunders (Jean Arthur, "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" co-star and Frank Capra's favorite actress), he writes one overnight that calls for the appropriation of loaned funds to set up a national camp for boys, to bring together youth from all over the country. The proposed location of this camp, however, conflicts with a dam-building graft scheme devised by the Taylor political machine and included in a Public Works bill supported by Senator Paine. When Smith refuses their offer to support the bill and forget his own, he finds himself caught up in an elaborate framing, with the Taylor machine working through Senator Paine to get him expelled from the Senate. With the encouragement and coaching of Saunders, he makes a brave stand against corruption, leading to one of the most well-written and powerful scenes ever captured on film.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is without a doubt one of the smartest and most inspirational dramas of all time. And yet while remaining a very respectable drama, it manages to accomplish quite a bit of comedy. Smith's timidness around Senator Paine's daughter, Susan, is nothing short of hilarious. And the scene (another montage) where Smith goes around town and punches every reporter that slandered him almost seems ahead of its time, comedically. The film transitions effortlessly, however, from funny to serious, and each scene of debate is more engrossing than the last. What's especially amazing about the film is its ability to achieve all of this without becoming too complicated. The impeccable acting assists greatly in this. James Stewart's breakthrough, Oscar-nominated performance is clearly one of his best. He is so honest and spirited that we get excited when he gets excited, and nervous when he gets nervous, and so on. Claude Rains and Harry Carey (as President of the Senate) were both nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Jean Arthur's performance is clearly as masterful as her co-stars, but sadly the Academy once again overlooked her. However, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was nominated for a total of 11 Oscars (a would-be record at the time, if not for the same year's "Gone With the Wind"), and anyone who knows anything about movies knows that it is one of the best.


Structure/Form:
Why does the film start in the way that it does?
Earlier information is fairly irrelevant.

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
Not really, no. The plot doesn't require any.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax? How does this scene resolve the central issue of the film?
At the very end, Senator Paine admits his mistakes, and Smith's name is cleared.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
It ends with the President of the Senate reclining in his chair with a smirk on his face, showing that he is impressed with Smith's work. The rest is left to our imagination, but there isn't much ambiguity.


Theme:
How does the film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The movie is about a decline in American values, particularly in governmental corruption and public apathy. Smith stands out as the only person in Washington who is actually interested in the historical significance, and he fights persistently against corruption in the Senate. In the end, we see how the efforts of one person can combat it.


Mise en Scene:
Smith reads the telegrams from his state telling him to stop fighting (see above).

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first? Why?
The papers in his hands, because we don't know what he's going to do with them.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
There is a contrast of high key on Senator Paine's face and slightly shadowed on Smith's face.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
We notice Smith's expression, and then Senator Paine's triumphant stance.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?
We get a general idea of how the characters are feeling, but we don't know what they are thinking.

Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around, or can they move freely without impediments?
There is a fair amount of empty space, but the characters look pretty frozen in place.