jarrodmcdonald-1 Edward G. Robinson fills the role of Joe Keller nicely in an adaptation of All My Sons, which was a hit on Broadway. This time he is on the wrong side of the law in a melodramatic story about a businessman that cuts costs and is responsible for the death of his son and others. What works here is the repetitive dialogue, which seems rather poetic, and the fact that Joe Keller is in continual denial about his misdeeds. People obviously do act this way, when they have to repress a painful truth.In many ways, the film plays like a high-grade soap opera, and it is interesting to watch the two separate story strands (the defective war equipment and a missing son) integrate into one cohesive whole. The final scene where Robinson goes up the stairs and says the boys that died in the war were all his sons is probably one of the finest moments the actor has on screen. It is not overwrought as one might expect but a masterful delivery of eloquence and despair.

jotix100 A moral dilemma is at the center of this excellent expose about an unscrupulous man that has been responsible for the death of young pilots during WWII. Joe Keller, a prosperous man, is by all appearances a successful businessman. Most people in his town think he got away with murder. Joe, in defending himself, points out that justice prevailed, feeling vindicated for the crime that sent his partner, Herbert Deever, to jail for a crime he is involved after following Joe's orders.The past comes to haunt Joe Keller as Annie Deever, the daughter of Herbert Deever comes to visit the Kellers. Kate Keller is suffering for Larry, her missing in action son, who after three years after the end of that conflict has not come back. Annie has fallen for Chris, the other son that now works in his father's business. Annie's visit proves to be the spark that marks the unraveling of Joe Keller, as he comes to term in facing his guilty conscience. Learning the real reason of Larry's fate in the war brings Joe to face a reality he did not want to deal with because he chose the status quo, knowing full well his own guilt in the tragedy he provoked.Arthur Miller wrote the play in which this film is based. The original cast included Ed Begley, Arthur Kennedy and Karl Malden, in the legendary production directed by Elia Kazan. The playwright took a hard look at the American Dream, as early as the boom years after the end of WWII, something clearly unheard of in those days. Mr. Miller became a new voice in the theatrical world by bringing forward issues that took a look at the core of the American society. The inspiration for the drama was based on a real story that appeared in a newspaper. Miller questioned many things Americans took for granted.The film version boasted an ensemble cast dominated by Edward G. Robinson, an actor that gave impressive accounts of the characters trusted to him to bring to life. His Joe Keller is a calculating man that feels he did not do anything wrong. Burt Lancaster plays Chris, the son that must fight for his right to marry Annie, the girl the Kellers did not want for him because of her involvement with Larry. Mady Christians was impressive as Kate, the wife who chose to go along with a husband she loved, but who she thought was guilty, all along. The weakest role in the film version was perhaps Louisa Horton who was miscast as Annie. In a way, this was her first screen appearance, so it might have been she felt insecure in connecting with her Annie. Howard Duff, Arlene Francis, Harry Morgan and the excellent Frank Conroy, are seen in minor roles.Irving Reis directed Chester Erskine's screen adaptation. The black and white cinematography was by Russell Metty and the music score is credited to Leith Stevens.This is a powerful drama.

rcshepherd A standard 1940's group of ensemble players, coupled with strength of an Arthur Miller project. All of the cast principles and minor players as well were at the top of their forms when they stood before the cameras. None were noted as powerful stage actors in their own right. Yet when they appeared in this film, they succeeded in doing what I think a film of a major stage work should do. Carry the viewer into the stage (not film) theater, and give him/her the unique experience of a Broadway or Off-Broadway theater seat.The production style and direction, (for reasons of cost and utility) let the words of Miller's play take center stage. The Art and Set direction, in beautiful black-and-white, are spare, firm, and commanding. They command our attention. Miller is big on attention to the issues his characters are grappling with and their impact on the great issues of our (and all) time.As Miller repeats in Death of a Salesman, there are layers upon layers of meaning and understanding between his characters and the issues they confront both internally and externally. The two business partners have had a long, intimate, family relationship (like Cain and Able). So close a relationship, that his son could have married his partner's daughter. And she of course, is the only one who has always known (from that son) the truth about the death of the son. And the truth(s) about the father.Miller shows us that the father's Horatio Alger lies are so much at the foundation of who we are individually and collectively as Americans; the they can almost completely wash out what individuals and a community should think about its leading citizens. It is an interesting plot twist that as Miller's script points out, it is the low class birth and poverty of the father embeds him into the fabric of the community.That the film faithfully carried Miller's message of contempt and loathing not only for the worship of that false god(capitalism), but also for the whole Horatio Alger hero myth (that both American liberals and conservatives embrace) is quite daring. Even for a film world that had not yet descended into the long night of the "Black-List".

denscul Arthur Miller is one of our best authors. His play however reeks of a bias, that makes him seem ignorant of his own times. Without Industry, and the profit system, the US would not have won WWII. Rubber was one of those items needed to fight a modern war. And it was the "war profiters" who provided our nation with synthetic rubber. If your too young to remember, ask your grandfather or Dad about the rubber shortage. If a writer wants to focus on immorality, why don't they start at the top, and blame those politicians and propagandists who get us into wars. Watch nearly every movie made from 1939 until 1945, and you will see what Playboy magazine called "Hollywood Go to War."People of German, Italian and Japanesse decent were racially and ethnically played in the worst possible way, and any artist worth his salt would agree that even a movie as great as Casablanca had its share of propaganda.Miller and Chester Erskine, who adapted Miller's play seemed an illogical indictment of anyone who made a profit during the war.Aircraft pistons are one part of an Aircraft. They are less likely to fail than compression rings, rods, bearings, electrical and hydraulic parts. Losing one piston, does not usually cause crashes.Writers may be clever about how they write, but they can sound awfully stupid writing dialog that has Joe Keller stating that he "beat an old stove up for scrap." Scrap is sold by the pound, not by condition.More importantly, both writers seem to be totally ignorant of the government and manufacturer's inspection systems. Manufactures would not accept "junk" material from a subcontractor. As aircraft are put together, each manufacturer assumes liability for the pieces they build. More than the Federal inspectors, they would not risk their contracts by routinely and criminally accepting faulty pistons. Miller and Erskine conveniently overlook that logic and fact, and concentrate on one character who probably would have been caught before the piston ever found its way into an aircraft.Before the aircraft was accepted by the military, it would be flown to its maximum performance standards. The military would also fly the aircraft in a test flight before sending it into combat. The failure of one piston, in an engine would not usually bring an aircraft down. This is particularly true of multi-engine aircraft. And perfectly good pistons have been known to break down occasionally. Producing perfectly good pistons that break is not a crime or immoral. Proving that a faulty piston caused 29 accidents, and was a crime, is legal fantasy.There may have been a million pistons produced in WWII. The sheer number makes it likely that some perfectly good pistons failed.Miller's and Erskine's play and film script becomes a tall tale to weave its "moral" failings of one man, or the industries that produced "The Arsenal" of Democracy.From the lowest person who pushed a broom, to the very capable men who made millions, Miller's seemed to go out of its way to indict the industry that provided the arms for the the millions in uniform. I would be foolish to defend the rotten apples, cowards, stupid mistakes, and expediencies which cost lives. It just makes me wonder why Miller picked on one piston manufacturer to make his clumsy points. I recall a line in the film dialog, where Joe Keller stated that he had been arrested and spent some time in jail, and the jury declared him innocent. Did Miller or Erskine ever attend a real criminal trial? Does he know what it takes to convict anyone in this country? Convincing a jury that a batch of bad pistons among millions caused 29 crashes goes beyond any real concept of the trail system.Why did Miller pick a fight with the men who made profits during the war? His play shows his contempt for such men, the film version softened his personal views.The film ignores some basic facts. A public trial opens up an opportunity for all sorts facts and evidence to surface. More importantly, since Joe Keller was acquitted, he could not be charged again. As the film opens, his reputation is already an open question with some in his circle of friends, and should have been fixed during the time the film opens. Neither Miller nor Erskine inject any new information into Keller's guilt or innocence. Whether Keller was sick or not on the day the "faulty" pistons were shipped, in any ordinary trial would have been investigated and regurgitated by Keller's defense team. Keller's statement at the dinner table, that" he had never been sick a day in his life" has as much resonance as the comments all men make at times, such as "I would have killed him".Miller doesn't know anything about American combat pilots. They were not inclined to go on suicide missions due to defects in family or friends.Miller should have written what it was like to have survived as a combat crew-member during the war. Or the moral anguish that officers had over sending men to their death. especially when mistakes were made. Did they have a moral struggle to admit they cost innocent lives?Miller's play is a fiction that goes beyond "literary license" and to this film lover, seems to be an effort at politics, rather than a morality play.I still do not understand the purpose for creating a character like Kate Keller. Anyone who continued to think her son was still alive three years after the war does not seem to be a stable person and more likely to commit suicide than the character of Joe Keller.