Giving in to a bleak mood — and coming out of it — with the help of “Kings Row”

Watching the movie Kings Row the other morning on TCM was a pleasure for me — it really coalesced a bad mood that’s been coming on for a while.  I’d probably seen the entire movie before, but not for a very long time, and suddenly there it was, starting very early on Saturday morning and I settled in to watch.  Before long, I figured that I couldn’t have stumbled on a better movie than the 1942 melodrama.  I’ve been in a funk lately, and when I realized that Kings Row was really just a microcosm of the way I’m starting to feel about the U.S. — full of lies, of hypocrisy, people in power inflicting their corrupt values on others and delighting in bringing pain, engaging in economic exploitation, those who would speak the truth and expose the darkness being muzzled, weird things coming out of small towns — well, it didn’t help my mood right away, but it did fascinate me.

Based on novelist Dr. Henry Bellamann’s 1940 novel, the titular town of Kings Row“A Good Town, A Good Clean Town, a Good Town to Live In, and a Good Place to Raise Your Children” proclaims a sign at the edge of town — was patterned on Bellamann’s actual home town of Fulton, Missouri, and let’s hope he was exaggerating somewhat about the creepy goings-on.  Of course, by the time the book hit the screen, with a script by Casey Robinson, direction by Sam Wood, photography by James Wong Howe, and a score  by Erich Wolfgang Korngold, the Production Code of the time had exerted its power and some of the more horrifying and sexually sordid aspects of the story had been laundered, if not exactly scrubbed clean.  Producer Hal Wallis knew that the more sensational aspects of Bellamann’s story were important to the potential success of Kings Row as a movie, but also realized that mainstream audiences might find the unrelenting stark horribleness of a lot of the plot’s revelations to be a bit much for a night out at the cinema. 

Thus — and if you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want any spoilers, skip this part — in the movie the relationship of the idealistic Parris (Robert Cummings) and his childhood sweetheart Cassie (Betty Fields), who is basically held captive by her father and home-schooled, is doomed by the suggestion that Cassie has inherited her mother’s insanity.  The town is rocked to hear that Dr. Tower (a cold incisive Claude Rains) has killed his daughter and committed suicide.  Parris eventually learns, through his mentor Dr. Tower’s diary, that he knew Cassie was starting to exhibit symptoms of insanity, and so he killed her to end her suffering and her inevitable decline.  In Henry Bellamann’s original novel, the truth is far more unsavory.  Dr. Tower does keep his wife locked up because she’s going mad, and though Parris and Cassie do consummate their attraction, Cassie has worse problems.  Dr. Tower has been committing incest with his daughter in order to study the psychological effects of it on her.  His daughter becomes a nymphomaniac, and Dr. Tower, though a brilliant physician, has let his dark side overwhelm him and so he kills himself and his daughter to end it once and for all.

Yikes!  Pretty clear why 1940s-era American moviegoers maybe weren’t quite up for that, eh?  There were also some hints of homosexuality which weren’t transferred to the screenplay, but we pretty well get the sense that Drake McHugh, Ronald Reagan’s character, is going at it like rabbits with some of Kings Row‘s more nubile and easy young ladies.  This is, of course, what precipitates Dr. Gordon (a  chilling Charles Coburn) to spurn Drake as a respectable suitor for his daughter Louise, played very effectively by Nancy Coleman.  Gordon, who has a whispered-about reputation as a sadist and a butcher of a surgeon, waits for his ultimate vengeance on the carefree Drake.  Meanwhile Drake — a turn-of-the-century trust fund baby waiting for his payout – finds that he’s been swindled out of his inheritance by a crooked local banker in charge of looking after his legacy.  Drake’s diminished circumstances knock him for a loop, and he’s genuinely down-and-out and worried about money for the first time in his life.  He no longer can take long and satisfying buggy rides with the giggly Ross sisters, but renews a childhood friendship with the down-to-earth, practical and refreshingly guileless Randy Monaghan, a gal from the wrong side of the tracks who keeps house for her widower father and her older brother.  Drake gets a job with the railroad, hard work but he likes it, and marries Randy.  They flirt with the idea of starting a real estate development, but their money situation doesn’t allow it.

So here comes the part that everybody remembers.  Drake is injured in a railroad accident, and they summon Doc Gordon, who now sees his chance.  He quickly assesses the damages and declares they must amputate both of Drake’s legs.  Before Louise (who has also heard about the accident and rushes to the scene) can interfere and stop her father from acting on his vengeful sadism, which she knows and is forced to keep quiet about, Gordon cuts off Drake’s legs.  When he wakes up, the script gives Reagan, as Drake, his most famous line from all his movies, and the future title of his autobiography.  “Where’s the rest of me?” he cries out in horror.  Nursed back to health by Randy, but completely dispirited and broken by his disablement, Drake is down in the dumps, way down.

I haven’t talked about main character Parris Mitchell (Robert Cummings) much, not because he isn’t interesting; he’s actually the catalyst or at least the nexus between all the other characters.  His friendship with Drake, his relationship with the stricken Cassie and her father, and earlier, the loving nurturing from his grandmother, played by Maria Ouspenskaya, which gives him a more cosmopolitan outlook than his peers — he is looking to get away from the small town environment — form his interesting personality.  Some have faulted Cummings’ performance, but he’s thoroughly decent, convincingly intellectual and gentle as Parris, who goes to Vienna to study medicine and is drawn into psychiatry, no doubt from being fascinated by the assortment of neuroses on display in his hometown.  Prior to that in the movie, Parris’ beloved grandmother dies a painful death from cancer, but in the book, Parris considers her unbearable suffering, and drawing upon the example, however muddled and flawed, shown by Dr. Tower in putting his daughter out of her misery, he performs euthanasia on the old woman. 

The movie continues as Parris returns to Kings Row as a doctor and confronts the blackness there.  His friend Drake is bedridden and depressed.  Doctor Gordon’s daughter Louise, who has confronted her father with her knowledge of his depravity and has been threatened with being sent into the asylum if she breathes a word, is slowly growing crazy with the burden of her father’s cruelty.  The vicious father-daughter argument when the doctor promises to send her to the madhouse if she talks is frightening.  The sheer horror of such an authority figure squelching the truth and in doing so, his daughter’s spirit, reminded me too much of forces in America which are trying to beat down women’s choices and, despite outward appearances and slogans, force back progress and enlightenment.  Sure, Louise ends up sort of a wild-eyed crazy lady, but no one will listen to her, and she must be heard.  But Parris does listen, finally.  We also learn that Louise, after her father died, was found next to the body as he lay in their parlor, hitting his corpse in a brutal attack that could only begin to exorcise some of the demons he inflicted on his daughter. 

In another change from the book, in the movie the finale is Drake getting a stiff dose of reality from Dr. Parris, after he completely believes Louise’s story about Doctor Gordon’s unnecessary amputation of Drake’s legs.  Knowing, or hoping at least, that only the truth will set Drake free, he bounds into Drake’s room.   “Some people grow up, and some just grow older.  I guess it’s time we find out the truth about us, you and me. ..I don’t know if you can take it, Drake.”  “Give it to me.”  ”Doctor Gordon cut off your legs.  I don’t know if it was necessary.  He was that kind of butcher, who thought he had a special ordination to punish transgressors…he wanted to see you turn into a lifelong cripple, mentally as well as physically.  That’s all there is, Drake.”   After a short pause, Drake starts to laugh, emboldened by the truth.  “That’s a hot one, isn’t it?  Where did Gordon think I lived, in my legs?   Did he think those things were Drake McHugh?”  Parris was brave enough to know that his friend could take the truth, and Drake could.  This kind of display of pluck and forthrightness is so rare these days, and when it does happen, most of the people don’t want to hear it, preferring sentimental yarns and soothing stereotypes instead of facing what needs to be faced.  Now, in the book Drake eventually dies from cancer brought on because of his mutilation at the hands of Doc Gordon, but let’s not spoil the mood, huh?

Sure, I know Kings Row isn’t about America in 2008, but I’m taking what I can from it.  I’m putting my hopes behind the smart folks, behind the ones who face the truth and try to make a better world, and reject superstition and have compassion for others.  I’m turning my back on zealots, and liars, and going for the hope.  Well, what do you know?  I’m not in quite as bad a mood as I was a while ago.  I’m working for change.

(For those of you who haven’t seen the movie lately, shhh…it’s actually online.)

10 Responses Giving in to a bleak mood — and coming out of it — with the help of “Kings Row”
Posted By larry 48 : September 10, 2008 2:04 am

great movie fantastic score Regans fianest perforance

Posted By moirafinnie : September 10, 2008 9:23 am

This was an insightful analysis of what may be one of the most subversive American major studio movies of the post pre-code era. Ironic, isn’t it, that it was helmed by one of the most politically reactionary of directors, Sam Wood, (who also made Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, with a decided sympathy for the Spanish Republic)? Clearly, he was a storyteller first.

I guess that goes to show that politics in Hollywood is one thing, making commercially viable movies with great stories is another. In terms of the exposure of the underside of the American dream, it seems to me that the power of this movie may be its recognition of pain, waste and evil in every corner of the world. The fact that the characters see this clearly by the end of the film, and release themselves from the burden that it might impose to move on with their lives is all the more remarkable, since this movie was made at the height of WWII. I would love to see all of the PCA correspondence with Warner Brothers over the content of this screenplay, as the article that you cited really touched off my curiosity!

This may also be one of the few movies in which the presence of Robert Cummings doesn’t send me lunging for the remote control.As you point out, he is actually convincingly intellectual without seeming to be what used to be called a “pantywaist” about it, (“pantywaist” probably equals “ineffectual, possibly effeminate nerd” in more recent terminology). Since many American movies of the period, (not to mention now), have a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in them, this is really refreshing.

One small quibble, which probably reflects my bias toward Claude Rains in anything: “cold, incisive” seems to be his persona on the surface, but, as revealed in several scenes, particularly in the final meeting of Cummings & Rains, he’s also a man who sees rather clearly that his analytical skills and self-imposed sense of dignity have isolated him from life. He is clearly desperately lonely and trying to do the right thing for once in his paternalistic relationship with Cummings‘ character. I thought that this largely tacit acknowledgment of the trap that he has made for himself gave his character a truly tragic element.

I try to see this movie every couple of years, particularly to hear the glorious score, the cinematography and that marvelous, studio-bound yet all encompassing art direction of William Cameron Menzies, not to mention the cast’s work, (in particular Ann Sheridan, who was never more winning). I can see that you’ve now given me even more to derive from it.

Thanks, Medusa–this is a fine, provocative piece with much to think about in your observations.

Posted By Al Lowe : September 10, 2008 11:34 am

I can understand why you are feeling discouraged by whats going on in this country. I’m reminded of the ending of the movie Grapes of Wrath, when Ma Joad turns to Pa Joad and says, “We’ve sure taken a beating.”
I just thought of another movie scene. Remember the Monty Python gang on crosses in Life of Brian singing “Always look on the bright side of life.”
Keep your chin up. I often get my inspiration from old movies too.

Posted By Stacia : September 10, 2008 6:27 pm

“King’s Row” is a kind of joke in the film community, so when I first saw it a few years ago I was surprised at how good it was. Sheridan really was a fine actress and I recommend “King’s Row” to anyone who thinks she was just a pretty face. Cummings is always pleasant and he gets a bad rap for it, although in KR and other films his pleasantness is necessary and welcome amidst all the melodrama and chaos and murder.

My only disappointment with KR is in Rains’ character, because even toned down you get a real sense of evil underlying his actions, yet it’s so vague that one has trouble getting a handle on it. Rains’ trademark pathos and humanity just muddies the waters in that particular plotline.

What an excellent write-up! I’m glad to see KR get some much-needed positive, intelligent discussion.

Posted By Medusa : September 10, 2008 9:53 pm

There is something definitely special about “Kings Row”, possibly the whole is better than the sum of its parts. Though some of the acting is maybe a little on the breathless side, there is real humanity in the performances. Sheridan is really quite good, isn’t she? I think knowing what happened in the book informs watching the film — even if they are talking about insanity in the movie, you can believe that Rains was playing it as if it were the incest from the book. And of course Rains is so good that even being so misguided, he’s a sympathetic (well, sort of) character. But Charles Coburn…brrrr! He’s terrifying in the role. I also forgot to mention Charles Davenport as Col. Skeffington, one decent constant in the town. Great performance.

Thanks for the comments!

Posted By Jeff (Atlanta) : September 10, 2008 10:28 pm

Yes, lovable old Charles Coburn is a cold, sadistic SOB in this film which only proves just what a great range he had and how effortless he made it appear. But as horrible as he is, we still adore him because he cut Ronald Reagan down to size.

Posted By Joe aka Mongo : September 11, 2008 6:10 pm

Medusa, congratulations on a fine piece about one of my favorite films “King’s Row”. I like tales about small towns and it’s inhabitants where evil usually lurks.
Of course Ann Sheridan is a big plus for me since in my eyes she is a movie legend, although the rest of the cast is perfecto.
Charles Davenport? I believe you meant the wonderful character actor Harry Davenport.

Good stuff.

Posted By Medusa : September 11, 2008 9:34 pm

Oops, Mongo…yes, I meant Harry Davenport.

And Ann Sheridan is radiant, isn’t she?

Thanks for the comments!

Posted By Al Lowe : September 16, 2008 3:33 am

This country may be going to heck but there are always the movies and TV to make you forget about it.
I just watched a rerun of What’s My Line, which every so often would have two mystery guests.
On this episode the two guests, appearing seperately, were Frank Lloyd Wright and Liberace.
Liberace got more applause.
Incidentally, I saw King’s Row a long time ago, when Reagan was president. Your essay makes me think I ought to take another look.

Posted By Marylin : September 24, 2008 12:11 pm

Medusa, I’m so glad you chose to write about “King’s Row.” I saw it on television for the first time when I was 11 or 12 and had to talk myself into watching it again as an adult. Charles Coburn really did a number on me! Very scary performance! Of course, I did watch the movie again and thought all the actors gave fine performances – especially, Ann Sheridan.

I hope you’re feeling less in a funk. Sometimes I have to declare a moratorium and avoid the news for a few days in order to stay sane. Movies are great “comfort food.”

Great article!

Leave a Reply

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.
Archives
Popular terms
3-D  Actors  Actors' Endorsements  Animation  Anthology Films  Awards  Books on Film  British Cinema  Character Actors  Chicago Film History  Cinematography  Classic Films  College Life on Film  Comedy  Comic Book Movies  Czech Film  Dance on Film  Digital Cinema  Directors  Disaster Films  Documentary  Drama  Early Talkies  Editing  Educational Films  European Influence on American Cinema  Exploitation  Family Films  Film Composers  film festivals  Film Noir  Film Scholars  Filmmaking Techniques  Food in Film  Foreign Film  French Film  Gangster films  Genre spoofs  Guest Programmers  HD & Blu-Ray  Holiday Movies  Hollywood lifestyles  Horror  Horror Movies  Icons  independent film  Italian Film  Literary Adaptations  Martial Arts  Melodramas  Method Acting  Mexican Cinema  Monster Movies  Movie Books  Movie locations  Movie Stars  Music in Film  Musicals  Outdoor Cinema  Parenting on film  Polish film industry  political thrillers  Pornography  Pre-Code  Producers  Race in American Film  Remakes  Road Movies  Romance  Romantic Comedies  Russian Film Industry  Scandals  Science Fiction  Screenwriters  Semi-documentaries  Short Films  Silent Film  silent films  Social Problem Film  Sports  Sports on Film  Stereotypes  Straight-to-DVD  Studio Politics  Suspense thriller  Swashbucklers  TCM Classic Film Festival  Television  The British in Hollywood  The Hungarians in Hollywood  The Irish in Hollywood  The Russians in Hollywood  Theaters  Underground Cinema  VOD  War film  Westerns  Women in the Film Industry  Women's Weepies