MartinHafer It is very interesting how history actually changes over time. In other words, the same people and incidents can be seen VERY differently depending on when they are discussed in history books or portrayed on film. During the 1910s-40s, the Confederacy and Andrew Johnson were seen in a much more favorable light than they are today. Back in 1942, he was seen, generally, as an able president who was persecuted by Congress. In 1866 and today, he was seen mostly as a tactless obstructionist who did everything he could to prevent blacks from receiving their rights as citizens. Because of this, I doubt if you'll seen any sort of favorable film about the man for the foreseeable future.So on to the film. The production values are very nice--with fine acting and direction--just as you'd expect from MGM. Much of the film was NOT about Johnson's presidency--and this portion it generally got right. His wife did teach his to read and write and his path from local office to the Presidency was generally on target. However, when it came to his presidency, it only once made a comment about Johnson's ill-temper. For the most part, he's shown as a reasonable man who is besieged by an evil Congress. This is far from the case--as I mentioned above. And, Thaddeus Stevens and his friends were mostly caricatures of evil--which is also incorrect. Likewise, Johnson never actually addressed the Senate during his impeachment proceedings--this is pure fiction. Bkoganbing from Buffalo hit it on the head with his review as to the many inaccuracies of the film.What you're left with is a film that is entertainment but just wrong in too many cases to be taken seriously.

michaeldouglas1 "Tennessee Johnson" is a perfect example of how a largely fictional account of history can still succeed as an excellent dramatic motion picture (much in the way "J.F.K." would, decades later). Please don't watch this piece of WWII flag-waving drama with the idea that it's going to give you the "real story" on our 17th President. Still, as a piece of cinema, "Tennessee Johnson" is quite satisfying.Many reviewers seem very willing to toss off the historical inaccuracies of this film with comments about "the Hollywood treatment" and "dramatic license", and up to a point, this might be true. I won't go thru the list of historic inaccuracies of this movie -- others have done that thoroughly. No, what really sinks "Tennessee Johnson" as history is the completely distorted view it gives us of President Johnson, trying to make him a hero, instead of the real man who deservedly stands as one of the worst (and most out-of-step) Chief Executives in history. This is not to say that the real Andrew Johnson didn't have some good qualities (or that the real Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans were lily-pure, themselves). But unfortunately Andrew Johnson was a Southerner and a Democrat, who happened to remain loyal to the Union during the Civil War, and was definitely the wrong person to be in the White House during the critical years of Reconstruction. It is well documented that Johnson was quite racist towards blacks, and showed himself to be completely indifferent to their plight as "Freedmen" who were still virtual slaves in the post-War South. He had no aversion to setting up Southern state governments dominated by former Confederates, leading most Northerners to wonder just who DID win the Civil War. Johnson particularly turned a blind eye to the incredible violence, brutality, and murder of blacks in the southern states. In this he earned the scorn of such Union war heroes as U.S. Grant, William Sherman, and Phil Sheridan, who saw that it was a simple necessity for the national government & army to protect them. The real Johnson could also be very petty and vindictive, obstinate and unreasonable... and by all accounts (and quite contrary to this film's depiction) was considered a heavy drinker, and that in an era when many men imbibed to excess!While this forum isn't the place for political discussions, I would challenge readers to get a good book on the subject and judge for themselves who the real heroes & villains were in that time period (I might suggest David O. Stewart's 2009 volume "Impeached"). Some of the comments in this forum seem to indicate that only recently has it become fashionable to find fault in Andrew Johnson; like the anti-Johnson view is now "trendy". Actually, Johnson and his presidency have been almost universally held in low regard from the late 1860's onward, and it is really THIS film that attempted to buck the tide and show Johnson as a hero. Very odd, especially for a WWII patriotic biopic, at a time when studios were lionizing those who fought to free people, not keep them in bondage. I certainly question MGM's decision in 1942 to make this film, attempting to reverse what was, by then, 75 years of deservedly "bad press" for our 17th President. Still, warts and all, MGM did succeed in making a compelling drama, especially the (highly fictionalized) Impeachment Trial itself. It's undeniable that Van Heflin and Lionel Barrymore both give particularly excellent performances. "Tennessee Johnson" is definitely worth seeing -- just take it with a large "grain of salt"!

Ripshin Unfortunately, I almost didn't make it through the first thirty minutes set in Tennessee, complete with a Marjorie Main variation of her "Ma Kettle" schtick. The town of Greeneville actually has some beautiful colonial architecture, is NOT near Nashville, and was not a backwoods mud pit in the mid-1800s - it is the second oldest town in the state, and was the capital of the former State of Franklin. (Johnson's home and tailor shop are standing today, as museums, and part of the National Park Service. A web site provides a history, and photos.) 30s/40s Hollywood would always "whitewash" history, except apparently, when it came to small towns in the South....then they'd falsely exaggerate the yahoo image for "atmosphere."The final impeachment proceeding scenario is indeed rousing, but loses it's punch when one knows it is a fabrication. I usually prefer my history lessons to come from books or documentaries, although the latter can obviously be as biased as a narrative film."Senator" Johnson's final scene in the film occurred a mere six months before his death in East Tennessee. (Interestingly, the guest home in Carter County where he took ill, later became part of a roadside tourist trap in the 50s, but has recently been sold for relocation, and one hopes, restoration.)Regardless, Heflin is great, as is the always reliable Barrymore. Worth a viewing, IF you learn the actual facts beforehand.

georgigems OK, so it's not that accurate a portrait of the era and the writers may have fabricated "history" but that's Hollywood. Let's not under estimate Van Heflin. The guy was one of my favorites and terribly underrated. You can see all kinds of emotion in his eyes. He was not a very energetic actor like Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power nor did he have the matinee idol looks of a Robert Taylor but the guy was cerebral. He was brilliant in "Johnny Eager" and all but stole every scene he was in in "Santa Fe Trail". He excelled at complex characters. I wonder what kind of career he would have had if he had lived longer. Watch this movie with an open mind and really enjoy Heflin's acting.