-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
Trash on the Hudson
The new FDR movie Hyde Park on Hudson is a travesty and total lie.
Bill Murray would seem an unlikely Franklin Roosevelt. But the promos for Hyde Park on Hudson show him surprisingly persuasive, amid the charm and beauty of FDR’s upstate New York estate. There he famously entertained the King and Queen of England in 1939 as part of his stagecraft for persuading Americans eventually into another wartime alliance with Britain against Germany. It was a sort of hot dog summit, with the somewhat surprised royals enjoying mustard on casual American fare in a picnic.
But I’ll be skipping this movie, thanks to reviews from the New York Post and the Washington Post, which outline, respectively favorably and unfavorably, how the film is more a sex farce than biopic.
Supposedly the film is based on the diary and letters kept by FDR’s cousin and friend Margaret Suckley, which were found in 1991 after she died at age 99. But the filmmakers evidently were dissatisfied that none of the documents show Suckley as more than an attentive companion to both FDR and Eleanor. So they turned her into his mistress who performs a sexual act on the President while he drives about the countryside, waving off the Secret Service.
Were Suckley still alive she’d probably be horrified. Never married, she was a rather proper, Victorian spinster, in the parlance of the day. Historian Geoffrey Ward, who published her papers, believes she was chaste all her life, which she spent in her family’s mansion near FDR’s. She was one of several doting female cousins invited into his circle to attentively listen to his stories, laugh at his jokes, and exchange Hyde Park gossip. Suckley and another cousin were with FDR when he died at Warm Springs, Georgia, in the presence of a woman, Lucy Rutherford, who really had been his mistress decades before. Much of her remaining 46 years Suckley devoted to perpetuating his memory by working at his nearby presidential library.
So Suckley was hardly Monica Lewinsky. But many film reviewers have unquestioningly swallowed the tall tale. The New York Post review, headlined “Commander in Cheat!” gushes: “Half as long and twice as much fun as the self-important ‘Lincoln,’ Roger Michell’s charming sex-and-politics comedy ‘Hyde Park on Hudson’ is basically a frothy tabloid take on presidential history.” The reviewer calls Suckley the “latest in a harem of mistresses” shown, including presidential secretary Missy LeHand and publisher Dorothy Schiff. Actually, Schiff later recounted that she probably would have bedded the President. But he never asked her, instead housing her with Eleanor at a separate cottage and merely driving her good-naturedly about the estate. Schiff’s recall is noteworthy, because it reveals a crippled man who enjoys the company of women but who was not a Lothario. This historical nuance did not interest the filmmaker. Evidently without much subtlety, the royal hot dog picnic, which Suckley attends, is reputedly rife with phallic symbolism. No doubt hilarious.
Fortunately, the real life characters in Hyde Park on Hudson were far more interesting and more focused in 1939 on weightier issues than hot dog sight gags. The Washington Post review more accurately pans this “grubby little movie about a shallow little man,” noting, “Never has crude behavior been more attractively lit.” FDR is “less concerned with Hitler than with juggling women he treats like hookers,” making Bill Clinton’s “treatment of Monica Lewinsky look almost gallant” by comparison. The Washington Post reviewer interviewed the historian editor of Suckley’s papers.
“His relationship with her was an extremely old-fashioned, very decorous sort of 19th century — they wrote each other letters and may have kissed once, in a car on a hilltop,” Ward said. “It was the delight of her life to be the friend of Franklin Roosevelt.” Ward admitted FDR was “manipulative with everybody he knew; he was a politician. But did he have what you so nicely called a ‘transactional relationship’ with her? No. I feel so guilty,” he told the Post, for facilitating the film by publishing her papers.
So the movie evidently is trash, adorned by good scenery, period costumes, and a convincing performance from Murray, who touchingly reenacts FDR’s nonchalant attitude towards his paralysis. A movie that could have aspired to a more modest grandeur than Spielberg’s Lincoln instead reduces a soaring historical personality to the nasty level of a Hollywood casting couch.
If Hollywood wants to portray historically accurate presidential scandal, there is more recent material available. But presumably the Clintons would litigate against any authentic film chronicle of his squalid behavior, if Hollywood were even willing. JFK’s own episodes are also largely avoided or handled gingerly, despite a new memoir by one of his conquests, who was a barely legal teenager when seduced in the White House. A recent film about one of JFK’s mistresses who was murdered instead absurdly targets the CIA and anti-communist Cuban exiles as the killers.
But a prim, dignified matron of the Hudson Valley who befriended FDR gets smeared as the sexual dish rag of her presidential cousin. Hyde Park on the Hudson sounds thoroughly worth avoiding.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/21/trash-on-the-hudson
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Cobalt| 12.21.12 @ 6:58AM
After President Kennedy's death, Jackie Kennedy invited Theodore H. White to come to the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport.
Jackie Kennedy wanted White to write an essay on JFK for Life magazine. She suggested to White the Camelot metaphor, that has come to describe the Kennedy presidency.
The media has helped perpetuate this nonsense since 1963.
Al Brooks, BleedingHeartlib | 12.21.12 @ 10:21PM
FDR proved you do not have to be a good person to be a good president.
So did Lincoln; he didn't want slavery in the territories because he didn't think blacks were good enough. Who did the big new Lincoln film: the guy who did ET?
OP4| 12.21.12 @ 9:04AM
As an American History major, I had to spend far too much time on FDR. The more I read, the less respect I had for the man.
I don't really know or care about his sex life. His casual disregard for the Constitution and the thoughtless way he destroyed the American economy was revealing.
Before the war in Europe started FDR wasn't indifferent to Hitler and Stalin - he admired them and often tried to emulate their economic policies. I'm not going to be outraged by FDR being portrayed as adulterer - the truth was probably worse.
Appleby| 12.21.12 @ 9:05AM
Little boys obsessed with their wee-wees ... some things never change.
Frank Drackman| 12.21.12 @ 2:13PM
what is it with you and little boys wee-wees....
Moe Blotz| 12.21.12 @ 5:56PM
Maybe the first time she saw one she became jealous because she lacked one. Later in life she realised she had the equipment to get as many as she wanted.
Al Brooks, BleedingHeartlib | 12.21.12 @ 10:24PM
"what is it with you and little boys wee-wees"
Blame me, I'm the one who does little boys-- who do you think framed poor Sandusky?
Al Brooks, BleedingHeartlib | 12.21.12 @ 10:26PM
oh wait, Jerry had older boys- but only because he wanted to leave the choice morsels for me!
SUBVET| 12.23.12 @ 10:39AM
It must be a fantasy.....but it has to be a mormon one.
C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 9:30AM
Not to be too critical, but how can anyone do an objective movie review when they haven't even seen the movie? All this "review" amounts to is a review of reviews.
FDR overcame a great deal of personal tragedy, and became a great wartime leader. He was also a progressive, which is what most conservatives don't like about him. Do we see any of these themes explored in the movie? Don't know, the reviewer didn't see the movie so can't tell us.
Moe Blotz| 12.21.12 @ 6:04PM
Never trust anyone who looks so much like George "Steffie" Stephanopolous.
Al Brooks, BleedingHeartlib | 12.21.12 @ 10:30PM
"FDR overcame a great deal of personal tragedy, and became a great wartime leader."
So did Stalin.
JimH| 12.21.12 @ 10:55AM
First a Lincoln movie, now this. Any chance of a Wilson homage anytime soon?
Rhoetus| 12.21.12 @ 10:31PM
Where did Wilson hang his white robe and hood?
In Lynchberg.
Al Brooks, BleedingHeartlib | 12.21.12 @ 10:34PM
I wont see the FDR film, or any on Lincoln, either: I only say that Lincoln was a bit better than Jeff Davis, and FDR was somewhat better than Hitler and Tojo.
jdondet| 12.21.12 @ 11:27AM
Are you surprised, Mr. Tooley the left always eats its own. Give it time, they will turn on Clinton one day.
Jade12| 12.21.12 @ 11:35AM
I am surprised they are portraying him in a negative light. Usually they gush over Dem Presidents no matter what they do.
grant1863| 12.21.12 @ 1:23PM
Probably more to excuse the Clintons than anything else.
Doctor Right| 12.21.12 @ 12:24PM
A movie review done by a critic who refuses to actually see the movie...
I guess there's a first for everything.
C. Vernon Crisler | 12.21.12 @ 2:43PM
I've seen it happen more than once. Some people condemn books without even reading them. Not that their condemnation is unjust, but without reading a book or seeing a movie, such condemnations may be true but they are not reasoned judgments.
PolishKnight| 12.21.12 @ 1:22PM
Obviously, the sexualization of FDR by the filmmakers is to attempt to both normalize Clinton's behavior and simultaneously create an association with FDR. Clinton's presidency was largely about a failed attempt at national healthcare and then being the waterboy for Greenspan and Republican welfare reform bills while the economy roared on during the dot.com boom.
It's interesting that Hollywood doesn't make a film that would be more gripping and suspenseful than any spy thriller either real or imaged: All the Clinton murders during his presidency and a simple matter-of-fact detailing of what happened. No need to embellish. Simply state the facts. Show Vince Foster under investigation and then his body showing up in a park. Restage the scene including the non-bloody hands. Show Clinton and the media engaging in the spin control. Show the documents going missing. All of these facts. Then show Ron Brown's plane going down. 3 guys going to the scene before the official rescue and Brown dead and a FA dying in a helicopter on the way back after walking around for hours. Just show the facts and let the viewer ponder...
THAT would be an amazing film especially if all the FACTS were simply presented as is, wouldn't it?
A Grin without a Cat| 12.23.12 @ 11:21AM
'...an FA dying in a helicopter on the way back...'
Pardon my ignorance, but what's an FA?
PolishKnight| 12.23.12 @ 3:35PM
FA: Flight attendant.
Seek| 12.25.12 @ 8:27PM
Aren't we projecting motive a bit? There is no reason to believe why the filmmaker sought to "normalize" any president's behavior, never mind Clinton's. FDR's extramarital activity had been well-known (or at least suspected) for decades. And the movie is based on the memoirs of a sixth cousin, Margaret Suckley. The source material was there to work with.
Incidentally, yes, I did see the movie. And equally clearly, you didn't.
cicero| 12.21.12 @ 2:14PM
Which is why I avoid the movies being made now. If it doesn't explode, gush with blood, or take all of its clothes off, it doesn't make it to the Oscars. Give me a "Casablanca', or a "Magnificient Seven", any old day. They are well written, well acted, and have a message that can inspire something other than mayhem. Since the advent of the film noir movement, we have been subjected to the anti-hero, and the destruction of the real heroes of our culture. No thanks.
Moe Blotz| 12.21.12 @ 6:01PM
"Magnificent Seven" was a knockoff of "Seven Samurai". Before PBS became a propaganda arm for progressive policy, one of the affiliates broadcast the original Japanese film with English subtitles. I wonder ifinfact one could find it on Netflix.
Seek| 12.25.12 @ 8:30PM
Cicero, I can point to a hundred movies this year alone that have guts, imagination and thought, certainly far more than the forgotten (and forgettable) films from your "golden age."
By the way, is there a more telling sign of cinematic naivete and ignorance than the phrase, "well-acted?"
Frank Drackman| 12.21.12 @ 2:15PM
Margaret "Suckley"????
I'll bet her dance card was always filled.
What exactly was a "Dance Card" anyway??
Frank
Al Adab| 12.21.12 @ 2:47PM
I wondered who would be first to mention "Suckley". Congratulations Frank.
Merry Christmas to all of you.
Stan Redmond| 12.21.12 @ 2:55PM
This is shocking that anyone in Hollywood would do anything to make FDR look bad. He's the democrat "Dear Leader" (Wilson is the Great Leader) of the progressive big government revolution. He did no wrong. He saved us from the great depression, he saved the world from the Nazis, he cured polio, he saved the old, he saved the hungry. All that other stuff about packing the SCOTUS, ignoring the constitution, imprisoning US citizens for their heritage, philandering, just sounds like right wing smears to me....
obadiah| 12.21.12 @ 3:36PM
I liked the scene where MacArthur buggered Ike in the Filipino hacienda.
Marc Jeric| 12.21.12 @ 6:20PM
Usual Hollywood garbage.
Rhoetus| 12.21.12 @ 9:58PM
Not interested in a movie of a Fascist president that gave eastern Europe to Joseph Stalin and put law-abiding US citizens (native born Americans of Japanese ancestry) in concentration camps.
Cobalt| 12.22.12 @ 10:47AM
Some people, including FDR, initally referred to the WWII War Relocation Centers, or internment camps, as concentration camps.
Japanese Americans who were incarcerated in these camps were treated badly, and unfairly.
Reparations paid to survivors of these WWII camps were at best a token.
However, no Japanese Americans held in these internment camps were starved, tortured , or sent to a gas chamber and then cremated.
The Japanese American internment camps were in no way analogous to the Nazi death camps.
https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1264&bih=661&q=nazi+concentration+camps&oq=nazi+concentration+camps&gs_l=img.12..0l6j0i5l2j0i24l2.2482.9674.0.12307.24.24.0.0.0.0.143.2801.1j23.24.0.cpsugrpq1high..0.0...1.1.UzPWS8SxIKo
Rhoetus| 12.22.12 @ 11:56AM
They violated our Constitution, these people were denied their life, liberty and property, there was no logical or moral justification for this. It was hatred pure and simple and an example of absolute State power.
Bob K| 12.22.12 @ 9:59PM
Actually the Roosevelt did not give eastern Europe to the Russians. They took it on their way to Berlin.
Rhoetus| 12.22.12 @ 10:29PM
The Yalta Conference gave it to the USSR (negotiated by Alger Hiss) along with the heavy support we gave the USSR during the war. The war started on Sept. 1, 1939 when Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland. Ironically Great Britain declared war on Germany because it had a treaty with Poland to defend it.
Bob K| 12.23.12 @ 6:17PM
You can argue with the negotiation tactics at Yalta but you cannot argue with the reality of the situation as it existed. And it certainly should go without argument to note that Stalin was certainly not going to give Central Europe back if Roosevelt told him at Yalta that he could not have it. After all, his army was already ensconced there.
Reality is the driving force behind diplomacy and Roosevelt did not need Hiss to point this out to him. In fact Hiss's work at Yalta was limited to matters which would concern the United Nations and nothing more.
PolishKnight| 12.23.12 @ 10:22PM
If Reality was the driving force behind diplomacy, then Britain should never have declared war on Hitler at all. If Hitler hadn't foolishly declared war on the USA (and the Poles hadn't supplied them with a prototype Ultra), there was a good chance that Britain would have lost.
FDR had the A-bomb and Stalin knew it. Stalin's scorched earth policy and the war in Europe made it difficult for Stalin to wage war. Stalin really didn't want Poland and Eastern Europe anyway. His eye was on a greater prize (doing what Hitler had wanted, getting France, Britain, and Belgium) but he was beat to the punch when Hitler surprised him with Barbarossa.
Bottom line: FDR lied about his health condition backed up by leftist, so-called journalists and therefore was a puppet for a mass murderer worse than Hitler.
Bob K| 12.23.12 @ 11:10PM
Polish Knight,
All this is wishful thinking. The USA was not going to drive Russia out of Eastern Europe because they couldn't. They still had to win the war in Japan and the Atom Bomb wasn't ready for use until months after Germany surrendered.
You can read all about this in John Lukacs's recently published (2010-Yale University Press) "The Legacy of the Second World War; particularly the chapter on "The Origins of the Cold War."
At Yalta Stalin even agreed to stay out of the War against Japan until 45 days after Germany's surrender (5/2/1945) and he followed that agreement to the day when he began sending trainloads of Russian Troops to join in an invasion of Japan. The bomb was dropped on 8/6/45. He still tried to get part of northern Japan by negotiations but Truman turned him down.
Rhoetus| 12.24.12 @ 7:14PM
If we were going to reward the USSR with half of Europe the war there wasn't worth one American life. The US strategy and tactics in Europe could have prevented the Red Army from getting to Berlin or any real estate outside of Russia.
Kevin Brent | 12.21.12 @ 11:50PM
Mr. Tooley, you need to take off the Roosevelt colored glasses. FDR didn't have women around, except for sex, period. And if he was married to one cousin, what makes you think he would except a Lewinsky from another?
Kevin Brent | 12.21.12 @ 11:51PM
***makes you think he wouldn't***
Ronald54321| 12.22.12 @ 8:29AM
The Left took over the movies in the last half of the 60's. The Left turns everything it touches to filth.
Seek| 12.25.12 @ 8:32PM
You've been reading too many crappy editorials by Michael Medved. The Coen Brothers' catalog alone make your faves look backward.
Ok, you want wholesome? Go rent some Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks animation flicks.
BackToBasics| 12.22.12 @ 12:18PM
I'd bet that 50% of Americans over 18 do not even know who FDR is. Those who created the movie probably also know it so they went the trashy route. But it is still interesting that Hollywood allowed a movie like this to be made about FDR who is one of their supposed icons. Maybe they think it makes Obama a better figure in comparison.
If FDR can be trashed by the left then is anyone to the right of Obama sacrosanct? It's more and more dangerous ground we are on; with the route we are going and with Obama as president many on the left will eventually come to see Bill Clinton as too conservative.
Rhoetus| 12.22.12 @ 10:32PM
They were bragging that FDR could still get it on.
BackToBasics| 12.23.12 @ 1:19PM
I would not doubt it. It's freakish either way on the left's part. I will not see it. I think that over time my last sentence about liberals will still hold up.
Al Brooks, BleedingHeartlib | 12.23.12 @ 4:37PM
"I'd bet that 50% of Americans over 18 do not even know who FDR is."
Or under 18-- did you mean to write under 18?
BackToBasics| 12.23.12 @ 5:54PM
If I had been referring to those younger than the voting age of 18 the percentage would be more like 96%.
It's more and more dangerous ground we are on; with the route we are going and with Obama as president many on the left will eventually come to see Bill Clinton as too conservative.
Imagine that, you too will be considered too conservative under the coming political paradigm. I think you can appreciate my humor by saying, "Welcome to the club."
Occam's Tool| 12.23.12 @ 11:54PM
My kids know who the Spartans were at age 9.
BackToBasics| 12.24.12 @ 8:58AM
They are part of the 4% who do know. In the early to mid 1980's for 5 years I used to be a teacher in 2 different districts, one an inner city and the 2nd a suburban. Although I taught science and math I could get a general idea of what the kids knew on other fields and what they do not know. Many did not even know who the vice president was let alone a president from the 30's and 40's. It's a shame that so many never experienced the joy of learning and did not care to try. I suspect it is only worse now, 30 years later.
BackToBasics| 12.24.12 @ 8:59AM
corr - knew in other fields and what they did not know
Hardcard| 12.22.12 @ 2:19PM
Trash on the Hudson, shyt floats.
sdfhlk | 12.23.12 @ 4:10AM
Merry Christmas,NBA 2012
Jimbobogie| 12.23.12 @ 7:33PM
Perhaps if the US had joined the rest of the Allied effort (including Churchill, Stalin and MacKenzie King), instead of doing business with Hitler from 1939 to Pearl Harbour, the Holocaust might have been smaller. I will never drive a Ford product.
Occam's Tool| 12.23.12 @ 11:53PM
Well, the King in 1939 was praying that nothing would happen to make Churchill PM. A reason why Churchill has zillions of books about him, and the King gets movies made about his stutter.
Winnie is my hero. Awesome hero. It's Franklin and the King who are the Poohs.
Rhoetus| 12.24.12 @ 8:03PM
Merry Christmas to all!