In this film, what I got from the filmmaker is that he was trying put forth a point about how no matter how much those around you persuade you to conform to what they want, a man can have power and stay as caring and selfless as was with no power or money.
Longfellow Deeds was a young poet, writing on postcards for a living from Mandrake Falls, Vermont. When Martin Semple, a family member of Deeds, dies in a motor accident, Deeds is left with Semple’s twenty million dollar fortune. Deeds has always lived in Mandrake Falls so when this fortune falls into his lap, he packs up his tuba and moves to New York, a place he has never ever been. This is where new things begin to happen in his life and it becomes a test of trust, honesty, and love.
The end of this movie had a positive impact to me. I did not really expect Deeds to turn and become so generous all of a sudden. I mean I understand how heartbroken he was when he found out that Mary Dawson was really Babe Bennett, the woman writing about Deeds in the paper, and not in a very upbringing way either. I was impressed with how well Deeds turned himself around in such a bright way. He was basically pushed down and had greedy people wanting his money the entire film and after finding out that heartbreaking news, he turned it into a good thing and gave his money to those in need of it. With that being said, I did have a positive reaction on the film once it was over.
I feel that the filmmaker was trying to make the film a twist between a romance and a drama. Mr. Deeds had a love interest and he proposed to her and was as in love as he could be, which supplements the romance of the movie, but when he finds out she isn’t who he thought she was, things go off track and he is heartbroken. He turns himself around and decides to give his money away which almost gets him locked up for being “mentally ill”, which helps add to the drama portion of the film. I believe that the filmmaker did a fairly well job at accomplishing the goals of the genre and it was also easy to follow as well.
A good theme for this film would probably have to be integrity. I believe that this is a theme throughout the entire film because Longfellow Deeds was always honest and sincere. He was that way before having an encounter with fortune and he stayed that way once having the money in his hands. Another was integrity was shown in the film was when Mr. Deeds found out that Mary Dawson was actually Louise “Babe” Bennett, the woman writing the not-so nice articles about him. Although she did not tell Deeds about what she was doing, she was not lying and as soon as he found out, she came clean and was on his side during his bad time at court and truly did love him. Mr. Deeds showed the type of integrity in this film that most people want to see in our everyday lives.
The main issue that the director draw to my attention was a social issue when Mr. Deeds was in court and literally the whole court was against him because what one person said about him. Since one man said Mr. Deeds in mentally insane for wanting to give his fortune away, everyone else agreed. I feel like that is a big social issue otherwise known as conformity. It’s not conforming them as people but their viewpoint on who Deeds is. It’s ridiculous that those people formed their opinion of Deeds on false information rather than noticing what a good thing he was doing to those in need. I feel the way that the director pointed this out was very clever because it doesn’t necessarily say anything about the people “conforming” but just the way he came about with their actions to the situations in the film gave it away in a hinting manner.
I noticed during the film that each and every character contributed a fair part to the plotline of the story. There was Deeds and Babe, they were clearly the main characters and had about the same personality and opinions on certain situations for the entire film. Then there were the other “main” characters, for example, the attorney and the citizens of New York. These characters were designed with changing personalities to different situations. At first being against Deeds and what he chose to do with his inherited money, but then they listened to Deeds side of the story in court and changed their minds realizing that he portrayed more of a “hero”-like character than anything else! What I’m trying to say is that every character in this film played their own important parts to the leading up to of the end of the movie and how it ended the way it did.
Even though I, myself, wasn’t alive during the 1930s, I do believe that the movie does indeed address the same concerns that the people coming to see the film when it originally came out would have had. I know that back then, there were people working for a living to earn the money they deserve. Just like in the movie, people back in that day had to do what they could do to get more money, and I definitely believe that if one came across a large chunk of money, it would cause a little bit of chaos and greediness within the community. Also, there would be quite a few people being dishonest to get their hands on some of that money, whether they deserved it or not.
Overall, this was a good movie. It had a slow start in my opinion but it definitely picked up and it was easy to follow. I believe that the filmmaker did a great job of showing how Deeds stayed honest and selfless through every situation he came to even though there were obstacles coming to him that could have made him go mad with power because of his money. Deeds isn’t the type of man to use good things that come his way to a selfish advantage and the filmmaker proved that by having Deeds give it away to those who truly needed it and even when he was brought to court for being “insane” because of it, he still won and he came out on top because of the way he treated the inheritance of that large amount of money.