In this offbeat comedy/drama, a young Hollywood director decides to take to the road as a tramp in order to get some "real-life" experience about human suffering. Why? So he can more effectively direct his next film about the tragic human condition.
Lots of crazy, zany things happen along the way -- most of which prohibits Sullivan (McCrea) from truly gaining any insight into the life of the less fortunate. Finally, however, something unexpected occurs which truly gives him a new perspective on the poor class and as his role as an entertainer.
While many (if not most) consider this film to be a comedy classic, I'm afraid I must disagree. Although there are some humorous parts, the film (in my perspective) fails in it's most lofty ambition -- that is to poignantly express the condition of the less fortunate while wrapping a screwball comedy around it which would be just the kind of entertainment those same unfortunate soles would enjoy -- an ironic movie about movies.
Charlie Chaplin was much more effective in expressing both the sadness of the poor class while mixing in effective and genuinely funny humor. Perhaps his films (and others with similar themes) succeeded where this one failed because we were drawn into the life of someone in the poor class and routed for the underdog as our protagonist in the midst of the humorous circumstances.
In this case, I found the protagonist to be shallow, selfish and ultimately hypocritical. Here we have a rich, well-to-do Hollywood type pretending to be a tramp and being at a disconnect with their way of life for almost the entire film. As such, we never develop a fondness for his character, even though the circumstances he finds himself in may be interesting. In addition, the whole character of Veronica Lake was entirely out of place in this film. The love interest distracted from the message the film tried to convey, and she couldn't come across as looking even remotely the part of a poor, disadvantaged young girl. She looked much more out of place in the tramp suit than did McCrea.
In the final vignette where Sullivan supposedly sees the real plight of the "less fortunate", it is via rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals (!), not just the poor, unemployed, trampled-upon, everyday man. And then he uses his position of status to its fullest (unethical) extent in order to weasel his way out of his undesired condition. Then we're asked to turn around and cheer for our liberated hero and his supposed "enlightened viewpoint". I don't find such a plot that funny or poignant.
Not a classic by any means in my eyes.
Lots of crazy, zany things happen along the way -- most of which prohibits Sullivan (McCrea) from truly gaining any insight into the life of the less fortunate. Finally, however, something unexpected occurs which truly gives him a new perspective on the poor class and as his role as an entertainer.
While many (if not most) consider this film to be a comedy classic, I'm afraid I must disagree. Although there are some humorous parts, the film (in my perspective) fails in it's most lofty ambition -- that is to poignantly express the condition of the less fortunate while wrapping a screwball comedy around it which would be just the kind of entertainment those same unfortunate soles would enjoy -- an ironic movie about movies.
Charlie Chaplin was much more effective in expressing both the sadness of the poor class while mixing in effective and genuinely funny humor. Perhaps his films (and others with similar themes) succeeded where this one failed because we were drawn into the life of someone in the poor class and routed for the underdog as our protagonist in the midst of the humorous circumstances.
In this case, I found the protagonist to be shallow, selfish and ultimately hypocritical. Here we have a rich, well-to-do Hollywood type pretending to be a tramp and being at a disconnect with their way of life for almost the entire film. As such, we never develop a fondness for his character, even though the circumstances he finds himself in may be interesting. In addition, the whole character of Veronica Lake was entirely out of place in this film. The love interest distracted from the message the film tried to convey, and she couldn't come across as looking even remotely the part of a poor, disadvantaged young girl. She looked much more out of place in the tramp suit than did McCrea.
In the final vignette where Sullivan supposedly sees the real plight of the "less fortunate", it is via rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals (!), not just the poor, unemployed, trampled-upon, everyday man. And then he uses his position of status to its fullest (unethical) extent in order to weasel his way out of his undesired condition. Then we're asked to turn around and cheer for our liberated hero and his supposed "enlightened viewpoint". I don't find such a plot that funny or poignant.
Not a classic by any means in my eyes.