Bing Crosby was a two faced man. The Public Bing was happy go lucky; the Bing Crosby in Man on Fire is not happy go lucky or even likable. This is a bleak little film full of unlovable characters doing their best to behave in ways sure to offend each other and the audience.
The plot is simple, a business man fights to retain custody of his son when sued by his exwife for the rights to the teenager. The impact of the battle and what results from the feud is what this film focuses on - from fathers point of perspective.
While others have called this a very lifelike movie, showing the no win situation that divorce presents a la Kramer vs. Kramer, this film allows people to not only act badly, but behave poorly as well.
First, the characters overact. Bing Crosby plays a man who owns things - a factory and his son among them. As if playing his role as a parody of his real life abusive behaviors, Crosby adds bitter sarcasism to alomst every line he delivers after the judge rules against him in the custody fight. Smart Judge - this inner rage is no type of man to raise a son; no wonder his wife left him! Enter the ex-wife/mother, played by the forgettable Mary Fickett whose breathy delivery is better suited to the stif drawing room dramas that Hollywood cranked out in the early 1930s.
Inger Stevens, in her film debut is beautiful but plays a woman who loves to suffer: the character is smart and preachy, but she is in love with the abusive and unlikable Bing Crosby character. (In real life, the two had a tumultuous affair - Stevens never was able to get over Crosby. She killed herself in 1970 at the age of 35.) Even the party scene is full of unlikable extras playing their roles to the most obnoxious levels imaginable.
In the end Crosby's character does the right thing, and walks off screen with Stevens whose love for the man - who just evening previous had eluded to her character as a dime a dozen type of girl - is hollow. That's shear dysfunctionality.
This also explains why this little gem never made the Sunday afternoon television movie circuit - its just an unpleasant way to spend ones time; its the type of film that makes you wonder what else you could have done with your time that was more productive.
Just like divorces in real life, this film is a no-win for the bystander, in this case, the audience. Case closed.
The plot is simple, a business man fights to retain custody of his son when sued by his exwife for the rights to the teenager. The impact of the battle and what results from the feud is what this film focuses on - from fathers point of perspective.
While others have called this a very lifelike movie, showing the no win situation that divorce presents a la Kramer vs. Kramer, this film allows people to not only act badly, but behave poorly as well.
First, the characters overact. Bing Crosby plays a man who owns things - a factory and his son among them. As if playing his role as a parody of his real life abusive behaviors, Crosby adds bitter sarcasism to alomst every line he delivers after the judge rules against him in the custody fight. Smart Judge - this inner rage is no type of man to raise a son; no wonder his wife left him! Enter the ex-wife/mother, played by the forgettable Mary Fickett whose breathy delivery is better suited to the stif drawing room dramas that Hollywood cranked out in the early 1930s.
Inger Stevens, in her film debut is beautiful but plays a woman who loves to suffer: the character is smart and preachy, but she is in love with the abusive and unlikable Bing Crosby character. (In real life, the two had a tumultuous affair - Stevens never was able to get over Crosby. She killed herself in 1970 at the age of 35.) Even the party scene is full of unlikable extras playing their roles to the most obnoxious levels imaginable.
In the end Crosby's character does the right thing, and walks off screen with Stevens whose love for the man - who just evening previous had eluded to her character as a dime a dozen type of girl - is hollow. That's shear dysfunctionality.
This also explains why this little gem never made the Sunday afternoon television movie circuit - its just an unpleasant way to spend ones time; its the type of film that makes you wonder what else you could have done with your time that was more productive.
Just like divorces in real life, this film is a no-win for the bystander, in this case, the audience. Case closed.