JohnHowardReid Producers: Jack H. Skirball and Bruce Manning. Copyright 9 December 1946 by Hallmark Productions, Inc. A Jack H. Skirball-Bruce Manning production, released through Universal-International. New York opening at Loew's Criterion: 7 December 1946. U.S. release: November 1946. U.K. release: 5 May 1947. Australian release: 29 May 1947. 8,710 feet. 96½ minutes. Australian release title: MAGNIFICENT LADY.SYNOPSIS: Quaker's daughter, forced into an unwilling marriage, is freed by the death of her husband to pursue political ambitions in Philadelphia. Time: around 1790-1814.COMMENT: The stills from the film look great - Ginger, radiant in lavish period costumes with feathered hats, set against colorful backgrounds crowded with picturesque props - but the film itself is something of a disappointment. Borzage's slow, turgid direction does nothing to enliven Irving Stone's embarrassingly pedestrian script which reduces the sweep of major historical events to common¬place domesticities. Mind you, we should be grateful - for the one time Mr Stone attempts to demonstrate the sterner facts of Constitutional freedom, he veers into unintended parody.Nonetheless, despite the handicaps of unsympathetic direction and a soap-operettish script, the players manage to provide some measure of interest. Admittedly, actual acting is often poor. Ginger gives one of the least convincing impersonations of her career and often seems to be floundering in too-deep waters (although it's doubtful if even a Helen Hayes could carry off the contrived oratory of the climax). And David Niven too seems ill-at-ease with Aaron Burr. The transition from charming patriot to psycho czar is handled with a fair degree of skill but doesn't quite succeed. Even a normally solidly reliable actor like Burgess Meredith has obvious difficulty with such unworldly dialogue (particularly in his scene with Rogers in the empty Hall of Congress).Usually, having chided the principals for minor shortcomings, the critic can point to the support players as faring better. Oddly enough, with only one or two exceptions (Peggy Wood, Francis McDonald), this is not the case here. Most of the character cast seem even more uncomfortable and less-suited to their roles. Some are nothing short of inept.Despite its major problems in script, direction and acting, Magnificent Doll has been produced on a remarkably lavish budget. Photography, sets and costumes are always so attractive that even at its dullest or most juvenile, the picture is worth watching. In a way, all the money was wasted. The sets and the big crowd scenes could have had much more impact in the hands of a stronger, less jaded director. (But then what forceful director would agree to film such amateurish, historically laughable tosh as Magnificent Doll?)

bkoganbing Popular historical novelist and biographer Irving Stone wrote the story and screenplay for The Magnificent Doll the story of Dolly Madison and the three men in her life, first husband John Todd, second husband and 4th president James Madison, and 3rd Vice President Aaron Burr. The roles are played by Ginger Rogers, Burgess Meredith and David Niven without his familiar mustache. The charm however is there.I would rate Magnificent Doll a lot lower but for Niven's portrayal of Burr. It is one of the few villain roles that Niven ever did in his career. But Aaron Burr had a considerable reservoir of charm which enabled him to rise as he did. In real life Burr did stay at the boardinghouse of Dolly Payne and did pay some court to the widow Todd. But there was no romance there and Burr was hardly her lost love. He had a well cultivated reputation as a rake and after the death of his wife many years earlier he was proving on all occasions his sword was mightiest of all.There was a wife for Burr and a daughter Theodosia whom he doted on and who was his official hostess and political partner. She's eliminated and Dolly Madison's son by her marriage to John Todd did not die in the yellow fever epidemic. Her son Payne Todd was spoiled rotten and was the bane of the existence of his stepfather James Madison who exhausted a great deal of his own money with his stepson's gambling debts and buying off all the women he consorted with. Children of two of the three leading characters just eliminated from the story.But that's only part of the problem with what Irving Stone wrote. According to Stone, Burr was early on fascist, not a believer in democracy especially when it went against him. That was a good movie selling point in 1946, but in real life Burr never thought in concrete methods to put his vast plans into action.But Stone could always spin a good yarn in work like The Agony And The Ecstasy and The President's Lady which were historical novels that became pretty good films. Many years ago he wrote a book with short biographies of the men who ran and lost for president called They Also Ran. His conclusions about some of these defeated candidates are laughed at today by serious historians.Ginger Rogers and Burgess Meredith are good in their parts. But acting honors go to David Niven in Magnificent Doll for what he does with the man described as the American Catiline, Aaron Burr.

bkrny I saw this movie 45 years ago on the "Fabulous 52", a late night show dedicated to old movies. I was a teenager at the time and would stay up very late while babysitting. It made a big impression on me and I never forgot it. I especially enjoyed the story line of her first marriage although, I later found out it was not accurate. I searched in recent years to find it on DVD to no avail. To my delight, I recently was able to watch the entire movie on the Internet, 45 years later! What a treat! I remembered a lot of it. I would love to have a copy of it. Although the story line is not quite accurate, the movie got me interested in Dolley Madison and her life. I thought it was very well done for a movie of its time. I would recommend it to old movie buffs.

theowinthrop Except for those Vice Presidents who ended up as President (14 of them)only one is remembered as a distinct personality: Aaron Burr. And it is for some questionable reasons. His ambitions were on the scale of Napoleon Bonaparte, aimed (supposedly) not only towards the U.S. but also Mexico, and against Spain (and supposedly willing to use French or British assistance). He managed to show that Thomas Jefferson, for all his brilliance as party leader and politician, could be momentarily thrown for a loop by a clever, unforeseen loophole. He helped destroy Alexander Hamilton's political career, and then ended Hamilton as well. And, despite facing political ruin, he managed to leave his political chief's political projects in ruins. To 90% of the American public, mention Burr and the word "traitor" or "unscrupulous" pops up.There are those who deny this view of Burr. Jefferson and Hamilton were grown men, who played hard ball politics with each other and with each other's supporters. Burr was no different from them. Jefferson was willing, as John Adams' Vice President, to forget his old friendship with Adams and concentrate on derailing his chief's policies and aims (as Burr did towards Jefferson). Hamilton hit Burr pretty well in the New York Gubernatorial race of 1804, helping to defeat Burr in that election (and in the process so insulting Burr as to lead to Burr's challenge and their duel in Weehauken). As for the treason against the U.S., it is now questioned if Burr was really planning to overturn U.S. government control over the western states, or just jumping the gun on westward expansion (Burr died in 1836, and lived long enough to see the fall of the Alamo and the creation of the Texas Republic - he made some sharp and cutting comments that one age's treason was another age's patriotism, which seems well called for). But in any case, Hamilton had played around with similar expeditions in Latin America in the late 1790s. But he never went as far as Burr did, involving the ranking general of the U.S. Army as a co-conspirator. So Hamilton's actions are forgotten today but Burr's actions are not.One day a creative script on Burr's career will be created, and a Scorsese director will handle it. Until then, the only film dealing with Burr's career (aside from a television version of "The Man Without a Country" made in the 1970s)is this odd little film that concentrates on the career of Dolly Payne Todd Madison, the wife of the "father of the Constitution", our 4th President James Madison. Ginger Rogers and Burgess Meredith play the Madisons (and give good performances), but the film is stolen by David Niven. Niven's darker side was rarely noticed in his climb to stardom, but when he played a figure with frailties (the Major in "Seperate Tables", or the scoundrelly heir in "Tonight's the Night") he actually gave his best performances. Here he played Burr as the ambitious politico who nearly stole the 1800 election from Tom Jefferson (but for Alex Hamilton's action to keep enough Federalists from supporting Burr), and as Hamilton's slayer turned into super traitor - who got acquitted in the treason trial of 1807 (the film does not show how poor the government's case against Burr really was). Unrepentent at the end, he manages to maintain our fascination, although the audience feels it was a blessing that he failed in the end. In reality, given his commitment to immigrants, abolitionism, and feminist rights (which neither Adams, Jefferson, nor Hamilton were fully committed to), one wonders if it would have been such a bad thing had he become President in 1800.