disinterested_spectator During the hearing to determine whether Longfellow Deeds should be institutionalized in an insane asylum, a psychiatrist explains the difference between the mood swings of a normal person, which are confined to a narrow range, and those of a manic-depressive, which lurch from one extreme to another. This is the one part of the movie that actually makes sense and is realistic. Furthermore, it is a correct diagnosis.If a normal person inherited a $20,000,000 fortune, which would be over $300,000,000 adjusted for inflation, he might give a portion of it to charity, but he would never give it all away, even if he were perfectly happy before he got the inheritance. But that is what manic-depressives do when they are in their manic phase. They'll pick up a hitchhiker and give him the car.Furthermore, if a normal person were placed in a mental institution against his will by people trying to get possession of his money, he would get a lawyer and defend himself. He would not sit there listlessly at his own hearing, refusing to utter a word, even if he were despondent on account of his having been betrayed by a lover. Only a manic-depressive, in one of his extreme states of melancholy, could reach a state of depression so dark that he would not care if he were institutionalized for the rest of his life.But we are supposed to reject this diagnosis on the part of the psychiatrist. Instead, we are supposed to think of Deeds as a saint, someone who is too good for this world, whose despondency is the result of being overwhelmed by a realization of how evil other people are. However, even though the diagnosis is correct, that in itself would be no reason to confine someone to a mental institution. The lawyer representing Deeds' relatives, who want to get possession of the fortune, argues that Deeds needs to be locked up because his scheme to give all his money away to needy farmers threatens to cause civil unrest and undermine the very foundations of our nation. That is preposterous, and no court would take such an argument seriously. Deeds' excessive philanthropy might be a justification for having a court-appointed fiduciary take control of the inherited fortune for Deeds' protection, although I doubt it. But it would be in no way a reason for locking someone up in an insane asylum.On the other hand, what would justify Deeds' being institutionalized gets very little attention, which is that he routinely assaults people: two poets in a restaurant, a psychiatrist (in a scene we only hear about), the lawyer opposing him at the hearing, and possibly an operatic diva (in another scene we only hear about). Now, anyone who goes around punching people is either going to be arrested and put in prison or confined to a mental institution for the criminally insane. But even though the judge at the hearing witnesses one of those assaults, he seems unimpressed by it.Suffice it to say that much in this movie is totally unrealistic. The real question is, What is it about this movie that people find appealing? We are not like Longfellow Deeds, nor would we want to be like him, nor would we want to live where he did, in Mandrake Falls. He is a virginal bachelor who never married because he dreamt of saving a lady in distress, a naïve bumpkin living in a small town, where everyone seems a little dotty. Apparently, people like the idea that there are places like Mandrake Falls, even though they would not like to live there themselves; and they like the idea that people like Longfellow Deeds live in towns like that, even though they have no desire to be like him, or even to be around someone like that for very long. It would simply be too dull.

SnoopyStyle Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper) is a beloved tuba-playing greeting card writer in the tiny Mandrake Falls in Vermont. When his forgotten banker uncle Martin Semple dies, he is the sole benefactor of the $20 million fortune. His uncle's scheming lawyer John Cedar (Douglass Dumbrille) brings him back to NYC and tries to hide his firm's stealing by getting him to sign the power of attorney. Ex-newspaperman Cornelius Cobb (Lionel Stander) tries valiantly to keep him out of bad PR trouble. Everybody is trying to take advantage of him thinking he's a small town simpleton. He wants to give away the fortune and rescue a damsel in distress. Ace reporter Babe Bennett (Jean Arthur) insinuate into his life by pretending to be poor girl Mary Dawson fainting in front of him. She starts writing articles giving him the nickname "Cinderella Man" which he hates.Gary Cooper is the everyman nice guy. He has a childlike wonder and a upstanding persona while maintaining a sincerity in his performance. Jean Arthur is terrific as a real broad and the heart winning love. Lionel Stander takes a consolation prize for his hard talking character. It's a simple premise that Capra uses to elevate the nobility of the common man. It does turn serious which is a bit jarring in tone. It doesn't have the same resonance as when it was made during the Great Depression.

hellraiser7 One of the things that make everyone different is because we all have different dreams, different desires as to what we want out of life or how we feel the world should work. I'll admit I do have a soft spot for director Frank Capra and his films, despite how much time has gone by the content has always made them timeless (in my book anyway) this is my second favorite film from him.I do like the story, it's true that it may seem a tad unrealistic in places but it's a movie what do you expect and realism is boring (to me anyway). And the plot is a bit plausible, who's to say no one inherits a big fortune.What make this story stand out for me are the characters and what they do throughout the film, that to me is one of the reasons why I like most of Frank Capra's film are that their actually concerned about characters not just plot line alone.I really like the protagonist Longfellow Deeds played brilliantly by Gary Cooper. His character I find relatable and easy to emphasize with because I myself am a bit like him, because the thing about him is he's an outsider, he simply want to just do his own thing. Three things I really like about the guy are the fact that he isn't afraid to act on his feelings or do what he feels like doing. One example is when he hears a fire brigade and runs to help out, nothing wrong with that personally I think it's the most sensable thing to do, help where help is needed.Another is the fact that he loves playing the Tuba because it makes him feel good and think, for me it's writing or physical exercise. But also it's just plain fun, there doesn't have to be a reason for it. But most importantly that his heart truly is in the right place, he's selfless he really does care about other people along with his significant other Babe Bennet.Babe Bennet (Jean Arthur) I also like she's a strong female character, I really like the chemistry between both Longfellow and her I felt it was believable; this film is also one of the only romance stories I actually like because of that.She's a character that you can easily forgive because of her redemptive quality. At first she kinda starts out as a bad guy, well OK not exactly more of a person whose head is in the wrong place. She goes out with Deeds at first for the wrong reason, to her he is her ticket to fame and success though exploitation and slander of his character; even she at first believes the lies. But of course as she spends more time with Deeds, he actually touches one thing she's lost touch with for so long her heart and she realizes that he's the real deal. From that we hope it's not too late for her to do the right thing but also for Deeds to forgive her somehow.I even like how the film despite having comedy and fun isn't all fun and games but actually the film is a bit dark from the prejudice he's forced to endure and takes a really unfun turn when it gets down to the trial scene. Which was a ploy to both hinder Deeds selfless act but worst of all inflict disgusting prejudice for being him.Most of that the work of John Cedar (Douglas Dumbrille)whom is just a greedy blowhole whom has only one goal in mind which is just to get more money then he already has. But he's also a hypocrite, throughout most of the film he's trying to make himself seem like the good guy looking out for everyone, but in reality he doesn't give a crap about anyone else and is just looking out for just him.I'll admit that just made me feel heavy pathos for Deeds, but that just all the more made me want the character to win. Personally I feel Deeds was simply doing the right thing let alone the sensible thing. Deeds as he stated was content with not having a big fortune, why wouldn't he put it to good use, actually why wouldn't anyone. As well as the bile crap he had to endure from some of the beginning to the end of the film which I felt was uncalled for, most of the sources that have brought this on him are unreliable and don't even know him. So what if he does this or that, or is simply different he's not harming anyone; we're all individuals we all do our own thing as well, it's human nature you can't stop this.This film has I feel a couple of good messages about the importance of being selfless, if you have the ability or opportunity then use it. But most importantly an anti-prejudice message, we should accept people for who they are for whatever makes them unique.A man of dreams are the kind of men that make big or small differences because they have the ability to turn dreams into reality.Rating: 4 stars

Sergeant_Tibbs Well, I'll go ahead and admit it, I used to have a soft spot for Adam Sandler's remake in 2002. It was amusing at the time and an introduction to a few good things like Steve Buscemi and John Turturro. I didn't realize how close it was to Frank Capra's original, nearly 70 years earlier, in all the near trivial detail. It's A Wonderful Life is enough for me to call myself a Capra fan, and his sense of feel-good storytelling is ideal for this timeless small town boy in the big city story. While Mr. Deeds Goes To Town does still have its dated parts, particularly in the camera choices, stage like sets and strange reactions (either under reactions or over reactions), the great script ties it all together. Gary Cooper can be more stoic than his role requires but his chemistry with Jean Arthur makes it all worth it. But what makes the film truly interesting is the final points on mental illness and the reaction to carelessly throwing the labels around. Now it appears to be the fashion, it's interesting to see this debated nearly 80 years ago. And its final points on what people do when they think makes the film all the more human and all the more timeless.8/10