User Reviews

"Keeper of the Flame", the 1942 George Cukor movie was shown recently on cable. The screen play is by Donald Ogden Stewart, one of the best writers working in movies at the time. This somber film holds our interest because of Mr. Cukor's excellence as a director. The film was also the second film that Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn did together.

The great Robert Forrester, a man that is considered a patriot, has died. We are taken at the beginning of the film to witness his funeral during a rainy spell. It appears how much the death of this man has touched the people, as we see lining the streets of the small town where he lived.

Steven O'Malley, a news correspondent comes into town to report about it. He is a distinguished journalist that wants to get a first hand view of what was behind the accident that caused the death. He wants to meet the widow, the enigmatic Christine Forrest, who at first is reluctant to cooperate, but who is one of the keys to solving the mystery.

Fascism, was one of the themes that preoccupied Hollywood before and during WWII. The figure of Robert Forrest seemed to be modeled after Charles Lindberg. Both men's lives appear to have shared a common interest in their admiration for all the things that were happening in Germany during that period. It was obvious that O'Malley will get in waters about his head as he investigates, but the awful truth emerges, and it's not pretty.

Spencer Tracy proves why he was one of the best actors in movies during that period this movie was done. He worked effortlessly in front of the camera, yet, his interpretation of O'Malley comes as one of the best things he ever played. Katherine Hepburn, in a subdued performance, is also an equal match for Mr. Tracy. Her Christine Forrester was also one of her best appearances.

The supporting players, Richard Whorf, the excellent Margaret Wycherly, Forrest Tucker, Audrey Christie, and Darryl Hickman, among them, contribute to make this movie better.

Spoiler Alert.

After hearing about this film for years, I finally watched it tonight on TCM. For the comments about it having been an echo of "Citizen Kane" and a reference to William Randolph Hearst, it seems to me that the "great man" is based on Charles Lindbergh. After all, Lindbergh was the most admired public figure in the U.S. after the 1927 trans-Atlantic flight and then following the kidnapping and murder of he and Ann Morrow Lindbergh's son in 1935. But the kicker was Lindbergh's involvement, nay his leadership of the America First movement that cinches for me that Mr. Forrest's "great man" -- who is shown to have secretly been behind a conspiracy in the guise of a patriotic movement -- is meant to refer to Lindbergh.

This is an ambitious attempt to combine a murder mystery with a wartime anti-fascist story. Stephen O'Malley's (Spencer Tracy) tries to tie both themes together by investigating the populist leader Robert Forrest's household after his death. The assortment of odd-ball characters add a lot to the plot, and keep the suspense humming along for most of the movie.

We've got Forrest's secretary, groundskeeper, cousin, not to mention his mother and even his wife (Katherine Hepburn's Christine) as suspects. The cab driver has tossed a few coins into the fountain as well--who wouldn't like a character named Orion Peabody? I agree with the reviewers who feels that the movie works pretty much as a folk or gothic tale: mansions, accidents/murders, remote settings, and meandering plots playing out in the dark. However, things start out briskly. We're set up with a montage of Forrest's proto-fascist events, the embryonic Hitler Youth-style group of earnest teenagers, and Steve's quest to get at the recent widow to land his big story, all sprinkled wth the authentic gaggle of fellow journalists, particularly Jane (Audrey Christie) as his wing-man (woman).

Steve, though, basically bulldozers his way to the story; notably just walking into both Christine's and her mother-in-law's (Margaret Wycherly's) houses. It would be better if he were a detective or government agent. Although he's stalled or rebuffed here and there, he soon assumes the role of an old family friend or distant relation; that is, one who might not be favored, but cannot just be sent packing. Why should Christine agree to help him after her rather feeble resistance? It makes sense that she'd want to expose his fascist intent, or, on a more wifely level, his infidelity with the groundskeeper's daughter. But, hasn't she caused his death by withholding knowledge that would have prevented his accident? How come she isn't made to account for this?

What happens is that the anti-fascist theme blots out the murder mystery. In other words, her actions are presented as self-evidently justified. If Steve had been the law, maybe she's arrested for manslaughter, but then a jury decides that the crime was justified. That's a more consistent way to show the inherent power in the rule of law against taking the law in your own hands. The two themes started out complimenting each other, but, unfortunately, we get stuck with Christine's 'speech' which takes us out of the theatre, so to speak, and into the classroom. The political theme could've been shown, had there been more scenes with the youth group, and maybe have Robert as an actual character, with flashbacks to color-in his populist appeal. Instead, the movie just ceases to entertain when it lectures.

Actually, the content of her 'speech' is very well-written; the sympathy for the common German places the blame squarely on the influence of fascism; it made more sense to find some sort of explanation for the war other than expecting the public to simply hate Germans. This, however, is what you might expect from a newsreel from the front. Keeper Of The Flame makes a strong political message dramatically without this billboard put up

The other issue was that Steve and Christine are neither likeable characters, nor show much liking for each other. As someone else aptly said in their review, this is "a flabby Jane Eyre." When the minor characters are the only interesting ones, there's something wrong. Still, this is entertaining; especially the first part, and for some of the atmospheric touches--it's great when a thunderstorm strikes up just as old Mrs. Forrester starts going on about Robert and the family. Worth watching, but ultimately kind of disappointing. 6/10.

This movie got me with its spectacular opening of a car crashing (which was reused in "Dead Men don't wear plaid" 40 years later. Looking deeper into it, it is a Hepburn Tracy partnership definitely on the darker side of things as it evolves around the dead politician, who was a hero in the public mind, but had a very sinister leaning towards fascism, that lead to his early death. The discovery of this basically makes up the film, with Hepburn as grieving(?) widow and Tracy as the reporter trying to uncover, what is first only a gut feeling. This whole thing is rather dark, with people rejecting to talk openly or trying to put away the truth. An interesting look on American susceptiveness towards totalitarian, if it is only dressed up as "good American".

Of all the films done by Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy (except, possibly, "Sea Of Grass" and their last film, "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - the latter for a different reason), "Keeper Of The Flame" was the great downer among the Hepburn - Tracy romps. "Sea Of Grass" has a portrait of a ruthless western cattle baron played by Tracy, whose happiness is marred by Kate's dalliance with Melvyn Douglas and the actual provenance of his "son" Robert Walker (who dies in his arms). "Guess", of course, was saddened by the decline in Tracy's health, visible in several scenes, and that last moving speech about his passions for Hepburn remaining even in his old age. But "Keeper" ends with Hepburn's death. As pointed out elsewhere on this thread it was rare for Hepburn to die in her film ("Christopher Strong" and "Mary of Scotland" come to mind as exceptions preceding "Keeper"...few came afterward too).

Actually "Keeper of the Flame" is more than just the sole tragic film of the Tracy - Hepburn series. It is their only joint attempt at a film noir. It is also a thinly disguised discussion of one of the most controversial heroes of 20th Century American History: Charles Augustus Lindbergh.

Robert Forrest is a great national hero, whose very existence gave the reporter Steve O'Malley (Tracy) a warm, glowing feeling when he was abroad, studying the mess in Europe and Asia. With people like Forrest at home, O'Malley felt that America had nothing to fear about it's security and freedom. Then, like most Americans, he was shocked and saddened to hear that Forrest was killed in a car accident on his estate. He is sent to the estate on an assignment, and intends to do a bit of personal research to give a proper final magazine monument to his hero's memory. But he meets Forrest's widow Christine (Hepburn) and finds that her behavior is odd - and not very upset at the death of the great man. He notes her interest in her cousin Geoff Midford (Forrest Tucker), which seems too close for decency. Also he notes how Forrest's "agreeable" secretary Clive Kerndon (Richard Whorf) acts with a degree of secrecy and even threat towards Christine.

"Keeper Of The Flame" never really makes Forrest an exact copy of Lindbergh. After all, the "Lone Eagle" was still alive in 1942, and capable of suing MGM. But it leaves at least one "Lindbergh" trace in Forrest's background, which most people would not notice unless they read the recent novel by Philip Roth "The Plot Against America". Roth has the Republicans, in 1940, nominate Lindbergh to run against FDR, and Lindbergh wins. This keeps us out of World War II, and it turns our country into a neo-Fascist state. In actuality, Lindbergh was suggested as a Vice Presidential candidate to run with Wendell Wilkie, but he did not get that nomination. If you listen to Whorf's dialog, at one point he is willing to allow Tracy hear a recording of Forrest's speech at the 1940 convention rejecting that nomination.

But there is no mention of how Forrest became such a national hero - certainly nothing about aviation. And there is no mention of any children with Christine who got kidnapped and murdered. As I said, the studio did not want to be sued. But the unpleasant experience of Lindbergh's American First crusade, culminating in his notorious "Des Moines" speech where he hinted at Jewish influence to push the U.S. into war, was sufficient to make the character of Forrest stand for only one other American.

The slow revelation of Forrest's true character, his egomania and arrogance - his embrace of fascism for power, and his huge following with other malcontents is done well. Of course, today, seeing the film and knowing it's reputation, the effect of the slow revelations is not as effective as in it's original release in 1942. Best moment in this is Margaret Wycherley's as Forrest's senile mother - but a senile woman whose character is as bent as her son's. Notice her comments about the size of houses.

Hepburn's performance, of the two leads, is weaker - she does show her everlasting intelligence as Christine, but little of the passion that guides her to do what she has to do. Tracy is better - he is a true believer in the cult of Forrest, and his disillusionment is painful ("Robert Forrest...what happened?"). But for my money it is Whorf's performance which is the best, because of his quiet fanaticism in protecting the great man's secret, and his menace towards Hepburn. If one only thinks of Whorf as Sam Harris in "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (which he made the same year), this performance is a revelation of his strength as a dramatic actor. Whorf had a short life (he died in the 1960s), and gradually became a film and television director. He could have remained a very effective dramatic actor.

This is one of the less famous films starring Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn and after having seen it again recently, I can see why. While their performances are excellent (particularly Tracy's), the movie itself is a bit hard to believe and comes on a bit too strong. I'm sure this is a result of the time in which it was made, as the film had a very strong injection of patriotism and Americanism thanks to our being brought into WWII. In many ways, the film was like a variation on MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, except that Smith dies and in the end you find out he's a Fascist!! The film begins with the death of a famous American patriot and all around great guy. However, despite a tremendous outpouring of sympathy, his widow refuses to see or talk to anyone...that is, until reporter Spencer Tracy appears. Then, slowly the story of this great man begins to unfold, though over time Tracy can sense that it's all a put on--there IS some secret that they are trying to hide from him. In the end, the secret is revealed and Hepburn inexplicably dies--and I really didn't understand why she so quickly died and Tracy seemed just fine even though he was in the same burning building! The film does have a few plot holes (like the one mentioned above) and at time it lays it on a bit thick, but still, based on the charisma of the stars, it's still well worth seeing. Just don't expect magic.

All the major powers were spending huge sums of money and effort to influence public opinion prior to and during WWII. This film falls into that category.

This film did not serve as a wake up call for those who opposed the war. We had already entered the war against the Nazi's, and the thinly disguised attack against Lindberg was unjust because once the war started, he threw his name and reputation behind the war effort.

Despite Lindberg's contribution for wining that war, he has always been a target for those who found his constitutional and legal fight against the illegal and unconstitutional actions of President Roosevelt.

For those who have commented that today's politicians should watch this movie, they should know that President Roosevelt had by 1942 lied numerous times to the public about his intentions to get into the War on the side of Great Britan. Lindberg's political movement was constitutional and legal. Only his judgment should be questioned.

History has vindicated Roosevelt's lies and illegal acts against neutrality, and his personal motive to fight with he Allies. But what if the Allies had lost, or the War dragged on for over a decade? Depending on your politics, propaganda is good or bad. Was Washington a traitor or hero. It all depends on who is making that judgment.

This site is dedicated to art and film as an art form. Unfortunately, some of the films made at this time are propaganda, and a target for condemnation for the corruption of true art.

Art that is timeless, because it touches on universal truths while temporary fashions come and go.

This film fails because it has an unrealistic plot line, situations that are unbelievable and younger viewers with a weak knowledge of history would fail to understand what the plot attempts to portray.

The story begins by showing a speeding car in a hard rain, and then crashing. There is a universal mourning of the American public. but five minutes into the film which expects us to believe that this great man, is reckless since he speeds in tremendous storm and doesn't have the sense to slow down approaching a flimsy wooden bridge. But Forrest was a man who has the resources, or had enough influence to build a steel and/or concrete bridge. Key to the plot is that Hepburn, who plays Forrest's young wife, knows the bridge has collapsed and he will be killed. It also requires us to accept that she knows Forrest would be killed. But hasn't everyone heard that "it was a miracle that he/she survived the accident?" The writer's must give Hepburn's character the courage to kill Forrest, without actually killing him. The speeding, the collapse of the bridge,and certain death must be accepted by the viewer to allow Hepburn's canonization at the end of the film. Never mentioned is the possibility that some innocent person may get killed. That question is never asked by the character played by Tracey, who goes from hero worshiper discoverer of the REAL Forrester. In the space of several days, he unravels what it took Hepburn years of married life to determine. We must suffer with her anguish as she determines that she must kill her husband, but save his public reputation. Of Course Tracey talks her out of such a scheme-for the good of the country. The youth of the country may be lead to believe that Stalin never existed, or that his ideas of conquest were much different than Hitler. Though Stalin's crimes against humanity were at least as bad as Hitler's, he had the better fortune to have switched sides and were now one of our allies in 1942.

Richard Whorf plays Forrest's creepy assistant. First he recommends that Hepburn speak to Tracey-is not the sort of journalist who can be put off. So what does that say about the others? There all dopes, or Hepburn should talk to the smartest one? Doesn't make sense to me.

Of course Tracey discovers everything, and Whorf's character plots to kill Tracey and Hepburn in the ancient fort, and destroy evidence at the same time. Alledgedly there is no comedy in this film, but I laughed at the idea of starting a fire with gasoline, expecting to kill Tracey and Hepburn and all the evidence. So you start a fire and shoot Hepburn? Ask any fireman about destroying files or papers, especially when a structure is primarily stone.

What purpose is served by shooting Hepburn other than giving her a death scene? Is it to avoid the unanswered question of putting innocent people at risk? I recently saw this film on TCM and the moderator stated that Louis Mayer stomped out of the theater because the film attacked his friend William Randolph Hearst. That statement is not correct. Hearst was the real person fictionalized in Citizen Kane. Hearst was never a beloved hero like the man who flew the Atlantic and earned the hearts of his fellow Americans, who then suffered through the kidnapping of his child. Lindberg, not Hearst, became one of the leaders of a political movement that advocated strict neutrality.

Whatever faults Lindberg had about his failure to see Hitler for what he was, there are many more who did not see Stalin for what he was.

Once the war started, Lindberg threw himself and his tremendous prestige into the war effort. But some never forgave his opposition to the illegal violations against neutrality. Political opposition to war is a constitutional right, regardless of the "justice" of the war.

Influential investigative reporter Spencer Tracy is assigned to tell the story of the life of a late philanthropist whose sudden death shocks the nation. Having been a very prominent humanitarian, the late man left behind a battery of secrets held tightly by his family, which includes his seemingly devoted widow (Katharine Hepburn) and his reclusive mother (Margaret Wycherly). It is difficult at first for Spencer to get through to Katharine, but once he does, she slowly begins to confide in him. In the process of investigating the man's life, Tracy unconsciously begins assisting his survivors in the various aspects of his life. This brings to light the man's true nature and the revelation that his public reputation was not necessarily what his own family knew about him.

"Keeper of the Flame" is a sleeper Tracy/Hepburn movie, one of their least famous, but well worth a look. It is also their only drama together other than the western epic "Sea of Grass". In many ways, the dead protagonist of "Keeper of the Flame" is like the dead "Rebecca" of Daphne Du Maurier's novel and the 1940 Hitchcock movie. What everyone around them perceives this person to be is definitely not who they really were, and the revelation of this dead man's true nature comes as a total shock to Tracy who now has to make the choice of how to proceed with his expose on the man's life. Should he reveal the truth and not destroy the legacy the man left behind, or should he keep his mouth shut and keep the legend safe? Also, he has to face the dilemma of Hepburn's role in her husband's demise as well as members of the late man's organization who are desperate to keep their activities quiet. This leaves Hepburn and Tracy in a life-or-death situation that results in an emotional conclusion.

It goes without saying that Hepburn and Tracy are excellent. In this, their third pairing, they don't share as much a romantic relationship as they do a kinship of understanding. While it is implied that a romance could loom on the horizon, that isn't the focus of their story. Hepburn's widow is obviously a vital woman whose passion for life has been damaged by the truth, and Tracy's reporter is a man filled with integrity that is threatened by what he finds out and how he has to deal with it. Howard da Silva is excellent as a distant relative who at first seems darkly mysterious, but has noble reasons behind his facade. The wonderful Audrey Christie is great as a reporter pal of Tracy's. Wycherly shines in her brief role as the grieving mother, while stage legend Blanche Yurka is sadly wasted as the Mrs. Danvers like housekeeper that keeps her eye on the mother. There are also some fine moments with young Darryl Hickman as Da Silva's son who takes a shine to Tracy and assists him in meeting Hepburn.

"Keeper of the Flame" is a film that is still socially relevant today as it warns the viewer to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. What may seem honest up close may not be. As an examination of a dead man's life, it can also be compared to "Citizen Kane", if not as engrossing because the man never appears on camera. But viewers will be able to identify people in the public eye who may or may not be guilty of manipulating them into believing that they are someone they are not.

I saw this movie last week for the first time in a few decades--I don't recall it being shown at Hepburn festivals in the seventies and eighties.. Apart from an occasional heavy-handed Reference to WWII, I was surprised by the intelligence of the dialogue, ad the lack of any overt "communist'message that some film historians ascribed to it.Of course when Ogden Stewart was a Communist he had no ealistic understanding of Stalin's Russia.

Hepburn's part was stronger--and longer- than I recalled though the Breen office's requirement that she die for letting her husband get killed looks contrived.The movie would have been more popular if she and Tracy had been allowed to develop more of a personal bond. Also the photography was SO dark that she sometimes looked downright anorectic!!

The message of this film is clear and unambiguous: Extremism in the name of Fascism is no virtue. In 1942, during the early years of World War Two, many industrial and political leaders believed that the implicit order found in fascism was favorable to the implicit confusion of communism, and some of these leaders actively supported fascist governments in Europe and Asia. In large measure, many of the rich supported the contention that the masses needed to be controlled for their own well-being. Christine Forrest's (Katherine Hepburn) husband is a media mogul who believed such--and to an extreme degree. Of course, there were plenty in power in 1942 who could serve as a model for her husband--many of them famous Americans. In essence, the film points out that fascism unchallenged is fascism unleashed. Reporter Steve O'Malley (Spencer Tracy) suspects that Christine's husband's activities were un-American, all under the assumed posture of Americanism. The conflict is therein enjoined. As a film, there are two outstanding performances by Hepburn and Tracy. Most remarkable is the timing between elements of dialogue, particularly the pensive quietude in appropriate scenes. Unfortunately, the acting of the rest of the cast is pretty thin, yet the action is sufficient enough and the ideas profound enough to carry the day. On balance, it is a worthwhile production with chilling overtones.

The propaganda content is routine for WWII. It is anti-Fascist, but with no new or exciting aspects. For example, the Fascist lackey "Kerndon" meets a routine, unspectacular end right on cue after he learns that Spencer Tracy's character is about to uncover something. In fact, there is a routine-ness to everything here. The strong patriotic message was clearly intended to dominate this film. This is a case of a meticulous director delivering a dominant message, and these factors steamroll over everything else.

Katherine Hepburn of course is above-average in her performance, but is overly subdued. Her character has some depth, but as an actress it appears that the director or someone has tamed her natural vibrant acting style. Please don't misinterpret this comment- she is fascinating as always and well cast in the role. I believe that her performance was subordinated to the dominance of the message.

Spencer Tracy gives a strong, believable performance. His character, however, is quite one-dimensional and relentless. Thats OK since he is supposed to be a super-patriot which is understandable in a time of war. It might have been seen as inappropriate for Tracy to have added much nuance here.

Very fine black-and-white cinematography and first-rate production values. Good supporting performances. Despite these virtues, the film overall is somewhat plodding. It does have mystery, but lacks much that is spontaneous or original.

For an exciting WWII espionage film with a similar plot and propaganda message, you can view the highly acclaimed "Foreign Correspondent" (1940). If you contrast the two films you will see the points I am trying to make, far more distinctly than I can write them.

You could also view "Watch on the Rhine" (1943) wherein the performers and writing are allowed to shine with equal brightness to the strong propaganda message.

I recently watched "Keeper" on TCM. It was one of two Tracy-Hepburn films I had never seen, and I would rank it as the least successful of their films together. Director George Cukor and cinematographer William Daniels give this movie the full-out Gothic treatment, with obvious allusions to both "Citizen Kane" and "Rebecca." With its dark, "Citizen Kane" lighting, its heavy-handedly sinister atmosphere, its creepy Xanadu/Manderly-like fortress-mansion, its mad mother in the dower house (an interesting variation on "Jane Eyre"), its inexplicably hostile and secretive characters (including Richard Whorf as a worshipful male equivalent of Mrs. Danvers), its bizarrely ambiguous performance by Hepburn (is she mad, evil, a murderess, a faithful grieving widow, part of a cover-up conspiracy, a dupe?), it is certainly something to behold. But lacking any subtlety, it's just not that good. Hepburn's first appearance, dressed in white from head to toe and bearing an enormous bouquet of white flowers--more like a bride or vestal virgin than a grieving widow--as she glides toward an idealized portrait of her dead husband, borders on the camp. Only Tracy's consistently understated performance as the reporter and Percy Kilbride's incongruously comic turn as the skeptical Yankee cab driver withstand this ponderous approach. Hepburn's long final monologue, in which she reveals the truth about her dead husband to Tracy, is awkwardly declamatory and politically vague. I would recommend the movie for Hepburn-Tracy completists; just don't expect a very good film. For the record, to me the top Hepburn-Tracy movies are 1)"Adam's Rib," 2) "Woman of the Year," and 3) "Pat and Mike." The first and last of these were also directed by Cukor, but with a decidedly lighter touch.