clanciai Edward G. Robinson on the top of his career and Burt Lancaster in the beginning of his as his son must turn into something absolutely special, and it does, with a vengeance. To this comes the very ingenious composition of the play. It's impossible to guess anything of what is going on in the beginning, as all you get glimpses of to begin with is some relationship problems. Gradually the war gets involved, and then the trauma starts building up.Larry has not returned from ther war, and his mother is still expecting him every day. His girlfriend Ann is coming for a visit, and Larry's brother Burt Lancaster wants to marry her, certain that Larry never will come back. Both his parents advise against it, but she is willing, and Burt is difficult to turn off. Other relatives turn up, especially young families, and then there is some problem about Ann's brother and their father, who is in jail. Gradually it dawns on the audience that Burt's father got him there and that there still is some unfinished business around somewhere.This is just some contours of the very complicated mess of family intrigue, which constantly turns more complex and difficult to cope with, as also the other father in prison finally gets an important part in the play.This could be the greatest of American family dramas. Arthur Miller would never succeed in writing anything like it, and his following plays are shadows of it. The actors are all at their best and make the drama truly a Greek tragedy widely transcending anything Eugene O'Neill has written. Tennessee Williams would find a more stable standard though than Miller in keeping up a high level of drama in many plays.

george_cherucheril I watched this movie on TCM yesterday for the first time. I have seen other movies starring Edward G. Robinson and have always liked his work. Without Robinson this movie would flop. Yes, Burt Lancaster stars in it too but he does not add much. Others could have played the role of the son and in fact Lancaster seems miscast as Robinson's son. When watching a new release I don't have the luxury to weed out the biases one acquires from watching something filmed in one's own date and time. One distinctive mark of a good movie is how it appeals over time. This movie was made more than 60 years ago yet it transcends time. The styles and fashions of the 1940s fail to get in the way of the story which seems just as real today as it was back then. This is the hallmark of a great movie.Edward G. Robinson plays his role perfectly. One would think that the character and actor are one in the same but this was not the case. Robinson's character lives in classic denial. He is convinced of his lie. When confronted by Lancaster you can see the pain in Robinson's eyes. I enjoyed this movie and the wonderful performance by Edward G. Robinson. It's a joy to unearth such a treasure as this movie turned out to be. Also fun was watching a young Arlene Francis and Henry Morgan. They strike me as such nice people. I enjoy watching old clips of "What's my Line." Also, growing up I always liked the comforting presence of Henry Morgan who is still alive today!

funkyfry "All My Sons" is one of those disappointing films that goes far enough in a certain direction to become somewhat interesting but doesn't really follow these ideas to any kind of meaningful or even dramatically satisfying conclusion. To how much of an extent that was the fault of the original work by Miller and how much was due to the changes by the screenwriters it's impossible for me personally to judge because I'm not familiar with the material. But regardless of the reason, in my opinion it doesn't add up to a particularly good film.Chris Keller (Burt Lancaster) is the somewhat disillusioned son of an industrialist, Joe Keller (Edward G. Robinson) who happens to be in love with the daughter of his father's former business partner (Howard Duff), Ann Deever (Louisa Horton). What could have been a rosy small town setup however has been sent off the tracks by a criminal investigation into the war-time practices of the company, which was accused of passing off defective parts which ended up killing American pilots – Ann's father has been sent to prison for a crime that it becomes increasingly obvious was probably just as much Edward G's character's fault.The great weakness of this film is that it's completely obvious that his character is the guilty one. Otherwise there would be no story at all. And a moral dilemma should really have more weight than this one. Should Keller have rejected the defective parts, even if it meant shutting down his plant? Obviously he should have rejected them, so there's really no dilemma. The film tries to convince us that his plant would have been forced out of business if he had rejected them, and yet at the same time shows us that his business was booming during the war. This makes the economic element of the dilemma unconvincing. And even if we did believe that he had to choose between rejecting the parts and closing his plant, his speech about how hard he's struggled to create this legacy for his children hardly inspires me to empathy with his "plight".As if to quash any last possibility of compelling drama, the film's eventual conclusion focuses on a letter from Chris' brother, who died in the war. His letter, which the film implies should be like an earthquake of drama shaking this family, is instead predictable and its tragic consequences are also predictable.

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.