A Major Disappointment

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Spencer Tracy stars as the famous inventor Thomas Edison. This movie deals primarily with his struggles to invent the electric light. Beautiful Rita Johnson plays Edison's wife. Excellent supporting cast includes Henry Travers, Charles Coburn, Grant Mitchell, Felix Bressart, and Gene Lockhart -- solid character actors all. Grand MGM polish and production values make for a great-looking picture. This is the second MGM biopic of Edison released in 1940. The first, Young Tom Edison, starred Mickey Rooney and covered the inventor's early years. Edison, the Man is sort of a sequel to that film. Both are excellent. These old biopics were usually solid, uplifting character-driven stories. Yes they take liberties with the details but the more cynical defamatory biopics we get these days do the same. I'll take an inspirational biography that builds people up and leaves you with the warm fuzzies over some deconstructionist tabloid trash any day.

I have probably seen more bio-pics than anyone you'll ever meet and so I obviously like this style film. BUT, at the same time, I am a retired history teacher and love to know the true stories behind the films--and often these movies and reality have little in common! In some other cases, there stories are close overall to the true characters and events BUT key elements have been changed or omitted--and such is the case with "Edison the Man". While generally sticking to the truth better than most bio-pics of the era, some parts of Edison's life were changed for a variety of reasons. In some cases, I understand, the movie COULD have been 6-8 hours long if it dealt in detail with all of Edison's most important inventions. Plus, in doing this, what about his private life? You just can't do it all in a two hour film! However, one odd omission occurred in the film that I think they should have addressed. Edison's young wife portrayed in the film didn't live that long--dying before age 30. Here, they appear to have been married a long time and no mention is made of his second wife nor the children from this marriage. It's odd, as the dying young wife could have infused the movie with a bit more pathos and drama. A few other incidents were compressed because of time and to heighten the drama--such as how the phonograph developed (it actually took some time and inventions by other folks following Edison's invention to prefect the device). But, despite these errors and omissions that crazed ex-history teachers might notice, the film IS very good. It achieves the goal of lionizing this important inventor (and ignores his foibles to do so) and is always interesting. Well worth seeing but I strongly recommend you read up on the man--he was much more complex and incredible than the character you see in the movie.By the way, despite what was said in the film, ostriches DON'T stick their heads in the ground--whether they are afraid or not. It's an old myth.

Motion Picture biographical representations of famous people usually remove the warts in their life history. It was not until February of 2003 did I learn that using carbon filaments, was the brainchild of African-American inventor Lewis Latimer and his partner, Joseph V. Nichols. The movie focuses around Edison's discovery of the carbon filament which lights the world, when actually Edison's filaments were made from bamboo and only lasted 30 hours.The story as told is very pleasant and the performances of Spencer Tracey, Gene Lockhart and Charles Coburn hold the viewers interest. With the warts, this is still an inspiring motion picture. I think seeing Mickey Rooney as YOUNG TOM EDISON should be viewed first.

I like the fact that Edison was nominated for the Oscar for best Original Story. How many biopics can claim that honour ?Spencer Tracy is excellent as the dynamic American inventor. Although he was a 40 year old playing a 25 year old he produced sufficient energy to overcome the obstacle of years. This is a fine piece of acting and is well supported by the bit-parts and by the director who clearly enjoys telling the story of Edison's finest achievements, the invention of the light bulb and of the recording device.The main problem with the film is its lack of balance. We don't hear enough about his theft of patents and his failure to give credit to his co-workers. Edison is a metaphor for America in the early twentieth century, exciting, inventive, thrusting, dynamic but also shallow and lacking in grace.