Tennessee Johnson

I've never been a fan of Van Heflin. But I must admit that he was excellent in this film portraying President Andrew Johnson. I believe this film to be underrated. Yes, it is a biopic, with all its inaccuracies, but unlike some biopics of the time, it is extremely well done. The opening of a shackled Johnson escapee from bondage as a tailor apprentice is dramatic, and gives Marjorie Main some good scenes. It goes on to show the prejudice of of how landowners attempted to control the American population. Then, suddenly, there's a big gap in the film of about 20 years. The depiction of the bitter tensions boiling over in the U.S. Senate as the Civil War approaches is dramatic, and the set itself is impressive. Lionel Barrymore plays his role -- of Thaddeus Stevens -- to the hilt...very much like his role in "It's A Wonderful Life". And the Barrymore part really comes to life as the film enters the phase of the story regarding Johnson's impeachment, which is handled quite well. This is an interesting biopic, well done, with a fine performance by Van Heflin.

"The Senate of the United States, in 1868, sat as a High Court in judgment upon Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln as President. In the only great State trial in our history, President Johnson was charged with violation of a law which forbade him to dismiss a member of his Cabinet. In 1926, the Supreme Court pronounced this law unconstitutional - as Johnson had contended it was. The form of our medium compels certain dramatic liberties, but the principal facts of Johnson's own life are based on history. In the Spring of 1830 - in a Tennessee valley - our story begins," states the disclaiming prologue... There, we meet film subject Van Heflin (as Andrew "Andy" Johnson), in a leg iron. The future President is a runaway apprentice (between free-man and slave, but significantly closer to free). Bound to a tailor, Mr. Heflin has learned the profession and goes about mending figurative fences with local townsfolk. He learns to read and write from attractive Ruth Hussey (as Eliza McCardle), who becomes Heflin's first lady. Reading "The Bill of Rights" gets Heflin interested in expanding US Constitutional rights to include non-property owning "white trash" like himself... Becoming successful in politics, Heflin's Johnson goes against the Southern grain by supporting some of Abraham Lincoln's platform; they both want to keep the Union whole. After the Civil War, President Lincoln selects Johnson as his Vice-President to help heal war wounds and assist in Reconstruction. Johnson has problems after succession to the top office. Yes, there are "dramatic liberties" (lies, even) taken, as the opening states. Heflin is fine, and makes Johnson a sympathetic character. Lionel Barrymore (as Thaddeus "Tadd" Stevens) and popular "silent" film star William Farnum (as Senator Huyler) have pivotal roles. ****** Tennessee Johnson (12/42) William Dieterle ~ Van Heflin, Lionel Barrymore, Ruth Hussey, William Farnum

The post-Civil War period of Reconstruction (1865-1877) has always been one of the most controversial periods of American history; to some extent, it remains so today. At its core was the question of whether federal or state authority was to be paramount; variations on this basic argument continue to ring out in modern-day America. Yet this question has come to be overshadowed by an even more vexing problem: the lack of consensus on Reconstruction's basic morality as well as its constitutionality. Whenever Reconstruction is discussed today, a very prickly quandary must be raised: were the Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives really sympathetic to the civil rights of the freed slaves, or did they only desire to wreak vengeance upon the ex-Confederates in the South? Up until about the mid-1950s, most historians proposed the latter view. It is therefore something of a credit to William Dieterle, the director of this 1942 movie, that he broke somewhat with what was then conventional wisdom. Whereas the contemporary custom would have been to paint the Radical Republicans (and Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in particular) as deranged and villainous, this film shows some restraint in condemning their actions and acknowledges the noble motives behind them. At the same time, Dieterle clearly rejects the late-20th/early-21st century portrait of President Andrew Johnson as bitter, raging white supremacist. True, both Johnson's and Stevens's less positive traits are played up: Johnson's alcoholism and violent temper, Stevens's smug pomposity. Yet both men come across ultimately as admirable, if only for the iron force of their wills in trying to achieve what each of them believed to be just - goals that happened to be mutually exclusive. They both allow their stubbornness and self-righteousness to drive them at each other's throats. Van Heflin is commanding as the President, while Lionel Barrymore manages to mine some humanity from the crusty Stevens. Best of all, perhaps, is the utterly convincing makeup used to "age" Andrew Johnson and his wife Eliza.

The subject of this biopic is Andrew Johnson, the President who succeeded Abraham Lincoln, the only American President who had no formal education whatsoever (and yet was a voracious reader), the only southern member of Congress who did not walk out when Secession arrived, the man who attempted to implement "presidential reconstruction" as outlined by Lincoln at the cabinet meeting on the last day of his life, and the first President to be impeached (the pretext being the ability of the President to dismiss a Cabinet appointee, a question later resolved by the Supreme Court in Johnson's favor). What dramatic material! But try to find a DVD of this movie! Johnson is condemned for his bluntness and, above all, for his racial views, which happened to be fairly similar to those of Lincoln. His great sin, however, was in considering the Constitution to be indeed the governing law of the land. In our current time he is condemned. The censors are determining what we can see.

The film is rich in history and certainly boasts outstanding performances by Van Heflin as the maligned president and Lionel Barrymore, in top form, as the crusty Sen. Thaddeus Stephens,a Radical Republican, intent upon punishing the south forever for its efforts in the Civil War. The major problem that I had with this very good film was that it should have been longer. The period of 1830 is quickly fast forwarded to 1860. The Civil War is dealt with quickly. The real story here is the Johnson impeachment proceedings. Barrymore reminded me somewhat of the crusty old character he would play once more, four years later in the memorable "It's A Wonderful Life." He was an expert in getting people to loathe him. Even being confined to a wheelchair did not impair his acting ability. In fact, it made it stronger. Heflin is terrific, especially in scenes where he defends himself against the charges brought up against him, as well at the end when he returns to the senate as a former president and now Senator-elect. The picture just proved the hate of some people by using excuses of going against The Office of Tenure Act to drive out a sitting president from office in order to fulfill their agenda of hate and vindictive behavior.

VAN HEFLIN as Andrew Johnson and RUTH HUSSEY as his wife both give earnest performances and the screenplay, while fictionalizing certain points for dramatic license, is a good one. But, as usual, history buffs are going to nitpick the inaccuracies to the point of dismissing the film as fiction. Not true. What it does do is make anyone who watches it want to consult the history books--and that's a good thing if you want to know the whole story behind Johnson being the first president in history against whom impeachment charges were made. As his adversary in the impeachment process, LIONEL BARRYMORE delivers another one of his more restrained performances without overdoing the ham. He and Heflin share some pretty dramatically effective moments, both of them in fine form. Heflin takes the character of Johnson from his humble beginnings as a tailor to his marriage to Hussey and his gradual emergence as a spokesmen for the people of Tennessee. For the sake of running time, it skips most of the years leading up to the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination, compressing all of those events and managing to keep the screenplay a tightly knit focus on the impeachment process itself. Only quibble is it fails to make clear the strongest point of the impeachment. VAN HEFLIN plays most of his role in appropriate age make-up (as does Hussey) and they're both terrific. In lesser roles, MARJORIE MAIN, REGIS TOOMEY and CHARLES DINGLE provide colorful support. Summing up: May not be a complete history lesson, but it will certainly cause viewers to probe more deeply into the detailed background of historical interest. And it does serve to remind us what a fine actor Van Heflin was in a demanding role.

"Tennessee Johnson" is a perfect example of how a largely fictional account of history can still succeed as an excellent dramatic motion picture (much in the way "J.F.K." would, decades later). Please don't watch this piece of WWII flag-waving drama with the idea that it's going to give you the "real story" on our 17th President. Still, as a piece of cinema, "Tennessee Johnson" is quite satisfying. Many reviewers seem very willing to toss off the historical inaccuracies of this film with comments about "the Hollywood treatment" and "dramatic license", and up to a point, this might be true. I won't go thru the list of historic inaccuracies of this movie -- others have done that thoroughly. No, what really sinks "Tennessee Johnson" as history is the completely distorted view it gives us of President Johnson, trying to make him a hero, instead of the real man who deservedly stands as one of the worst (and most out-of-step) Chief Executives in history. This is not to say that the real Andrew Johnson didn't have some good qualities (or that the real Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans were lily-pure, themselves). But unfortunately Andrew Johnson was a Southerner and a Democrat, who happened to remain loyal to the Union during the Civil War, and was definitely the wrong person to be in the White House during the critical years of Reconstruction. It is well documented that Johnson was quite racist towards blacks, and showed himself to be completely indifferent to their plight as "Freedmen" who were still virtual slaves in the post-War South. He had no aversion to setting up Southern state governments dominated by former Confederates, leading most Northerners to wonder just who DID win the Civil War. Johnson particularly turned a blind eye to the incredible violence, brutality, and murder of blacks in the southern states. In this he earned the scorn of such Union war heroes as U.S. Grant, William Sherman, and Phil Sheridan, who saw that it was a simple necessity for the national government & army to protect them. The real Johnson could also be very petty and vindictive, obstinate and unreasonable... and by all accounts (and quite contrary to this film's depiction) was considered a heavy drinker, and that in an era when many men imbibed to excess! While this forum isn't the place for political discussions, I would challenge readers to get a good book on the subject and judge for themselves who the real heroes & villains were in that time period (I might suggest David O. Stewart's 2009 volume "Impeached"). Some of the comments in this forum seem to indicate that only recently has it become fashionable to find fault in Andrew Johnson; like the anti-Johnson view is now "trendy". Actually, Johnson and his presidency have been almost universally held in low regard from the late 1860's onward, and it is really THIS film that attempted to buck the tide and show Johnson as a hero. Very odd, especially for a WWII patriotic biopic, at a time when studios were lionizing those who fought to free people, not keep them in bondage. I certainly question MGM's decision in 1942 to make this film, attempting to reverse what was, by then, 75 years of deservedly "bad press" for our 17th President. Still, warts and all, MGM did succeed in making a compelling drama, especially the (highly fictionalized) Impeachment Trial itself. It's undeniable that Van Heflin and Lionel Barrymore both give particularly excellent performances. "Tennessee Johnson" is definitely worth seeing -- just take it with a large "grain of salt"!

The name of this film is called " Tennesse Johnson " and relates the story of the 17th president of the U.S. Van Heflin stars as Andrew Johnson and Lionel Barrymore plays his chief adversary, Thaddeus Stevens. Having studied the life of Andrew Johnson and then watching this Black and White film, I found it to be a shoddy and haphazard biography of Lincoln's successor when the great man was assassinated in 1865. Still Van Heflin's performance produced a superior piece allowing the audience to glean a more sympathetic view of the often fiery and very vocal V.P. Ruth Hussey and Marjorie Main as well as Noah Berry Sr. add to this historical and memorable film. Although a bit flawed, the movie is worth viewing by anyone interested in studying the 17th President of the U.S. ****

It is very interesting how history actually changes over time. In other words, the same people and incidents can be seen VERY differently depending on when they are discussed in history books or portrayed on film. During the 1910s-40s, the Confederacy and Andrew Johnson were seen in a much more favorable light than they are today. Back in 1942, he was seen, generally, as an able president who was persecuted by Congress. In 1866 and today, he was seen mostly as a tactless obstructionist who did everything he could to prevent blacks from receiving their rights as citizens. Because of this, I doubt if you'll seen any sort of favorable film about the man for the foreseeable future. So on to the film. The production values are very nice--with fine acting and direction--just as you'd expect from MGM. Much of the film was NOT about Johnson's presidency--and this portion it generally got right. His wife did teach his to read and write and his path from local office to the Presidency was generally on target. However, when it came to his presidency, it only once made a comment about Johnson's ill-temper. For the most part, he's shown as a reasonable man who is besieged by an evil Congress. This is far from the case--as I mentioned above. And, Thaddeus Stevens and his friends were mostly caricatures of evil--which is also incorrect. Likewise, Johnson never actually addressed the Senate during his impeachment proceedings--this is pure fiction. Bkoganbing from Buffalo hit it on the head with his review as to the many inaccuracies of the film. What you're left with is a film that is entertainment but just wrong in too many cases to be taken seriously.

One gets an indication as to what fiction is being perpetrated very early in this film. It comes upon the death of Lincoln, when Andrew Johnson and his wife both state that he was chosen as Vice President by Lincoln because he wanted Johnson to be the man that replaced him if something happened to Lincoln. Say what!? Johnson was chosen by Lincoln for one purpose, to steal Democratic votes that Lincoln worried he might need in what was shaping up as a tight race in 1864. As it turns out, that ridiculous scene is one of the more believable scenes in this ridiculous farce of a movie. Johnson was a semi-illiterate, deeply racist, hotheaded, buffoon. However, this film paints him as one of the greatest human beings ever to grace this country. Would have loved to see how they handled his "Round the Circle" speeches, where a drunken Johnson cursed out anybody that raised a voice to him. This film was just plain silly.