User reviews

This highly fictionalized biopic from MGM and director William Dieterle charts the life of Andrew Johnson (Van Heflin) from his days as a near-illiterate tailor in Tennessee to his unlikely education at the hands of Eliza McCardle (Ruth Hussey) who would become his wife, to his entry into politics, eventually becoming Vice President under Abraham Lincoln, succeeding him after his assassination, only to become the first US President to face impeachment. Also featuring Morris Ankrum as Jefferson Davis.

The liberties taken by the screenwriters to make Johnson into a shining patriotic hero were so egregious to some that a protest movement formed against this movie, leading to picket lines and angry print editorials. Strangely enough, the most vocal opponents to the movie were Vincent Price and Zero Mostel! The movie is mostly malarkey, but so were so many "history lessons" coming out of Hollywood, so this one doesn't offend me that much. The purpose was to inspire and celebrate rather than inform or educate. If only it succeeded more at the former the lack of the latter wouldn't be so noticeable. The movie is clunky in its pacing, and can't decide what it really wants to say about its protagonists. Heflin and Hussey do as good a job as they were able given the material, but many of the supporting cast are wasted in nothing roles. The production design is nice, with detailed settings and nice costume work. Running about 105 minutes long, the movie really needed another 30 or so to add more depth and nuance to the players.

"The Senate of the United States, in 1868, sat as a High Court in judgment upon Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln as President. In the only great State trial in our history, President Johnson was charged with violation of a law which forbade him to dismiss a member of his Cabinet. In 1926, the Supreme Court pronounced this law unconstitutional - as Johnson had contended it was. The form of our medium compels certain dramatic liberties, but the principal facts of Johnson's own life are based on history. In the Spring of 1830 - in a Tennessee valley - our story begins," states the disclaiming prologue...

There, we meet film subject Van Heflin (as Andrew "Andy" Johnson), in a leg iron. The future President is a runaway apprentice (between free-man and slave, but significantly closer to free). Bound to a tailor, Mr. Heflin has learned the profession and goes about mending figurative fences with local townsfolk. He learns to read and write from attractive Ruth Hussey (as Eliza McCardle), who becomes Heflin's first lady. Reading "The Bill of Rights" gets Heflin interested in expanding US Constitutional rights to include non-property owning "white trash" like himself...

Becoming successful in politics, Heflin's Johnson goes against the Southern grain by supporting some of Abraham Lincoln's platform; they both want to keep the Union whole. After the Civil War, President Lincoln selects Johnson as his Vice-President to help heal war wounds and assist in Reconstruction. Johnson has problems after succession to the top office. Yes, there are "dramatic liberties" (lies, even) taken, as the opening states. Heflin is fine, and makes Johnson a sympathetic character. Lionel Barrymore (as Thaddeus "Tadd" Stevens) and popular "silent" film star William Farnum (as Senator Huyler) have pivotal roles.

****** Tennessee Johnson (12/42) William Dieterle ~ Van Heflin, Lionel Barrymore, Ruth Hussey, William Farnum

VAN HEFLIN as Andrew Johnson and RUTH HUSSEY as his wife both give earnest performances and the screenplay, while fictionalizing certain points for dramatic license, is a good one. But, as usual, history buffs are going to nitpick the inaccuracies to the point of dismissing the film as fiction. Not true. What it does do is make anyone who watches it want to consult the history books--and that's a good thing if you want to know the whole story behind Johnson being the first president in history against whom impeachment charges were made.

As his adversary in the impeachment process, LIONEL BARRYMORE delivers another one of his more restrained performances without overdoing the ham. He and Heflin share some pretty dramatically effective moments, both of them in fine form. Heflin takes the character of Johnson from his humble beginnings as a tailor to his marriage to Hussey and his gradual emergence as a spokesmen for the people of Tennessee. For the sake of running time, it skips most of the years leading up to the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination, compressing all of those events and managing to keep the screenplay a tightly knit focus on the impeachment process itself. Only quibble is it fails to make clear the strongest point of the impeachment.

VAN HEFLIN plays most of his role in appropriate age make-up (as does Hussey) and they're both terrific. In lesser roles, MARJORIE MAIN, REGIS TOOMEY and CHARLES DINGLE provide colorful support.

Summing up: May not be a complete history lesson, but it will certainly cause viewers to probe more deeply into the detailed background of historical interest. And it does serve to remind us what a fine actor Van Heflin was in a demanding role.

Unfortunately, I almost didn't make it through the first thirty minutes set in Tennessee, complete with a Marjorie Main variation of her "Ma Kettle" schtick. The town of Greeneville actually has some beautiful colonial architecture, is NOT near Nashville, and was not a backwoods mud pit in the mid-1800s - it is the second oldest town in the state, and was the capital of the former State of Franklin. (Johnson's home and tailor shop are standing today, as museums, and part of the National Park Service. A web site provides a history, and photos.) 30s/40s Hollywood would always "whitewash" history, except apparently, when it came to small towns in the South....then they'd falsely exaggerate the yahoo image for "atmosphere."

The final impeachment proceeding scenario is indeed rousing, but loses it's punch when one knows it is a fabrication. I usually prefer my history lessons to come from books or documentaries, although the latter can obviously be as biased as a narrative film.

"Senator" Johnson's final scene in the film occurred a mere six months before his death in East Tennessee. (Interestingly, the guest home in Carter County where he took ill, later became part of a roadside tourist trap in the 50s, but has recently been sold for relocation, and one hopes, restoration.)

Regardless, Heflin is great, as is the always reliable Barrymore. Worth a viewing, IF you learn the actual facts beforehand.

The name of this film is called " Tennesse Johnson " and relates the story of the 17th president of the U.S. Van Heflin stars as Andrew Johnson and Lionel Barrymore plays his chief adversary, Thaddeus Stevens. Having studied the life of Andrew Johnson and then watching this Black and White film, I found it to be a shoddy and haphazard biography of Lincoln's successor when the great man was assassinated in 1865. Still Van Heflin's performance produced a superior piece allowing the audience to glean a more sympathetic view of the often fiery and very vocal V.P. Ruth Hussey and Marjorie Main as well as Noah Berry Sr. add to this historical and memorable film. Although a bit flawed, the movie is worth viewing by anyone interested in studying the 17th President of the U.S. ****

Vice-president Andrew Johnson (Van Heflin) assumes the helm after Lincoln is assassinated and faces impeachment as a result of his reconciliation policies towards the vanquished Confederacy. Typical of Hollywood 'biographies', the story deviates from the truth when convenient for the plot (or the messaging - this film was made early in WW2 and emphasises the need for American unity in times of crisis). Having scant knowledge of the post-bellum American politics of the late 1860s I found the film interesting but otherwise slow and underwhelming. Lionel Barrymore is quite good as Johnson's nemesis Thaddeus Stevens and Ruth Hussey does a creditable job portraying wife and first lady Eliza McCardle Johnson as she ages across the story arc. Johnson is considered one of the worst presidents but in 1942 there was little inclination in Hollywood to highlight the flaws and weaknesses of former Commanders-in-Chief.

Never heard of this film until yesterday 7/15/03..and I am a film buff Thanks agaim to TCM... not sure of the historical 100 % accuracy but the main story is history: re: Andrew Johnsons Impeachment /came up during the Clinton impeachment trial... never knew this was filmed.. Van Heflin is brilliant..as the maligned president... as is the rest of the cast...Lionel Barrymore is especially excellent as he hams up the screen. Missed the first few minutes..cant wait till TCM schedules again!! Lost in the shuffle of great films released in late 30s early 40s ! Not to be missed

In the UK this was called "The Man on America's Conscience", a title guaranteed to put off the Saturday night crowd but then would the Brits really be interested in the biography of the first American President to be impeached? Andrew Johnson was the President who succeeded Lincoln but despite his impeachment he's not really one of the 'famous' presidents. In "Tennessee Johnson", to give the film its US title, he's played by a young Van Heflin, fresh from his Oscar-winning success in "Johnny Eager", and he's actually very good, heading a cast that includes Ruth Hussey, Lionel Barrymore, (outstanding), Marjorie Main and Regis Toomey.

The director was William Dieterle, a dab hand at this kind of folksy Americana, and if this isn't one of his great films it's certainly one of his most entertaining and certainly one of his most underrated even if Heflin is a tad miscast, (he ages from young buck to grandfather overnight). It's certainly a handsome looking history lesson and a surprisingly intelligent one even if the Lincoln movies were always the ones to get the better press.

Though Tennessee Johnson boasts fine performances by Van Heflin, Ruth Hussey, and Lionel Barrymore as Andrew Johnson, Eliza McCardle Johnson, and Thaddeus Stevens respectively, the wrong story about Johnson was told here.

The accepted historical view of Andrew Johnson's presidency now is that had he been a bit more of a politician and also had been able to rise above the prejudices of his poor white class, the whole impeachment would never have happened. His actions through the use of the presidential veto in stalling the Reconstruction set racial equality in the USA aside for a century. Men of good will on both sides had they been willing to give a little might have settled on a compromise Reconstruction policy without all the rancor that characterized it and U.S. politics for decades.

The real story is Andy Johnson's rise to the presidency. As is showed here young Johnson arrives in Tennessee escaping a kind of slavery of his own. He was an indentured servant to a tailor and learned the trade, but after differences with his employer in his native North Carolina, Johnson escapes to Tennessee.

Andrew Johnson is the only United States president who never spent one day inside a school classroom. He was taught to read and write by the woman who later became Mrs. Johnson. There's was a real love story, one of the most romantic in our history.

Johnson's real moment of courage was after a slow rise up the political ladder that saw him elected as Mayor of Greenville, Tennessee, the state legislature, the House of Representatives, governor and then senator from Tennessee. In 1861 he was the only southern Senator to not walk out of the Senate when the south seceded. He became military governor of Tennessee when the Union Army captured enough of it to set up a government. Johnson's very life was in peril every minute from the firing on Fort Sumter to Lee's surrender at Appomattox. That's a story worth telling.

Unfortunately Johnson represented the poor white class in Tennessee and saw freed slaves as a rival labor force. He had all the prejudices of his class and wasn't hesitant to voice them. That part of the story is not told in Tennessee Johnson.

I did like Charles Dingle's performance as Senator Waters, why he wasn't given his real name in history of that of Ben Wade of Ohio is beyond me. As President Pro Tempore of the Senate with no sitting Vice President, he was first in line of succession had Johnson been impeached. From what I know of Ben Wade, Dingle fitted the role well.

Though it made good cinema, Andrew Johnson never addressed the Senate personally during his impeachment trial. There was an ill Senator who cast a deciding vote that saved Johnson's presidency. But unlike William Farnum's character of Senator Valley, James Grimes of Iowa had been felled by a stroke and no one expected him to be in the Senate that day. But he was carried in and voted not guilty.

The real story of Andrew Johnson is one of the most dramatic about one who turned out to be one of our worst presidents. Too bad it wasn't told in Tennessee Johnson.

The story of the first US president to be impeached gets the Hollywood treatment. It is superbly acted although glossed up quite a bit. Some of Johnson's flaws are exposed, but not nearly as many as are excused. Barrymore's Stevens is terrifyingly brilliant. This is an art that Hollywood used to excel at -- telling history in an interesting and mostly factual matter without the need to flaunt the director's abject cynicism.

The post-Civil War period of Reconstruction (1865-1877) has always been one of the most controversial periods of American history; to some extent, it remains so today. At its core was the question of whether federal or state authority was to be paramount; variations on this basic argument continue to ring out in modern-day America. Yet this question has come to be overshadowed by an even more vexing problem: the lack of consensus on Reconstruction's basic morality as well as its constitutionality. Whenever Reconstruction is discussed today, a very prickly quandary must be raised: were the Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives really sympathetic to the civil rights of the freed slaves, or did they only desire to wreak vengeance upon the ex-Confederates in the South? Up until about the mid-1950s, most historians proposed the latter view. It is therefore something of a credit to William Dieterle, the director of this 1942 movie, that he broke somewhat with what was then conventional wisdom. Whereas the contemporary custom would have been to paint the Radical Republicans (and Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in particular) as deranged and villainous, this film shows some restraint in condemning their actions and acknowledges the noble motives behind them. At the same time, Dieterle clearly rejects the late-20th/early-21st century portrait of President Andrew Johnson as bitter, raging white supremacist.

True, both Johnson's and Stevens's less positive traits are played up: Johnson's alcoholism and violent temper, Stevens's smug pomposity. Yet both men come across ultimately as admirable, if only for the iron force of their wills in trying to achieve what each of them believed to be just - goals that happened to be mutually exclusive. They both allow their stubbornness and self-righteousness to drive them at each other's throats.

Van Heflin is commanding as the President, while Lionel Barrymore manages to mine some humanity from the crusty Stevens. Best of all, perhaps, is the utterly convincing makeup used to "age" Andrew Johnson and his wife Eliza.

That letter Lincoln was supposed to have sent Johnson has kind of puzzled me. After all, it is read out loud twice. It SOUNDS like Lincoln's prose style, but I'd never heard of any other reference to it. So I posted the question on a Civil War news groups. Here's one of the exchanges.

"Robert Maxwell" wrote> It's generally agreed that at the second inauguration, Andrew Johnson was skunk drunk when he took the oath and tried to make his speech. I just watched the movie, "Tennessee Johnson," and it appears that Johnson was ill during the inauguration and that Lincoln later sent him a letter saying something like, "If you took a drink more often, you would know better than to take brandy on an empty stomach because you are ill. I know you only were there because I asked you to be."

Does anyone know if this letter ever existed?

Reply. "Having worked for three years as an assistant editor with The Papers of Andrew Johnson and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Abraham Lincoln Association, which is engaged in supporting projects to edit the papers of the sixteenth president, I can safely say that no one I know has ever claimed such a letter to exist."

Anyone interested in the impeachment of Johnson might watch the first 20 minutes of Blight's lecture on the subject, on open courses from Yale. Don't be intimidated by "college" or "Yale". (I went there and it's not that demanding.) Blight gives an informative, objective, and lively presentation of the material -- interrupted briefly by somebody yelling "Let my people go," to which Blight replies, "You're free to leave...I hope that guy doesn't have a gun."

http://academic earth.org/lectures/black-reconstruction-economics-of-land-and-labor

Please eliminate the space between "academic" and "earth". It's only there because IMDb.com doesn't allow words that are too long, like floccinaucinihilipilification.

I doubt if a film made in 2004 or after about Andrew Johnson would be as kind as this 1943 film. Johnson did support the North in the Civil War (he was the only Southern Senator to remain in the U.S. Government during the war, and would be appointed Governor of that portion of Tennessee from 1863 - 64). Lincoln, in order to have a strong National ticket in her 1864 election chose Johnson (a Democrat)as his running mate. So Johnson became Vice President. And then John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, and Johnson became President.

Johnson was illiterate, until his wife taught him to read and write. He educated himself, and rose in the legal and political world of Tennessee (and then the nation). But he was a piece of "po' white trash", and remained so with all it's cultural baggage. He supported the North because he (rightly) distrusted the Southern plantation aristocracy (epitomized by Jefferson Davis). However - he hated slaves and free Black people. Hence his willingness to be soft on the South. Lincoln would have been soft too, but Lincoln had great gifts at managing his adversaries and probably could have arranged a compromise. Johnson was pig-headed. He antagonized the Radical Republicans controlling Congress. They waited for him to make a mistake, and he did (technically he violated the Tenure of Office Act, by firing Secretary of War Stanton without getting Congressional permission - this act was declared unconstitutional in the 1880s). Then followed his impeachment and the saving of his skin by seven Republican Senators who voted not to remove him. And those men all lost their Senatorial seats.

In 1943 Johnson was considered a hero, for saving the Executive Branch from becoming a rubber stamp for Congress. Actually, there was nothing to show that some Radical Republican President could not have restored power to the Executive Branch if Johnson had been removed. He gets high grades for his grit and courage, but his pig-headed stupidity and racism sink his historical rating.

Still Van Heflin, Lionel Barrymore, and the other actors (like Charles Dingle) make the film interesting and enjoyable enough. Good film making but mixed history. Two final points: Edmond Ross was in good health when he voted, but James W. Grimes of Iowa also voted for acquittal, and he had a paralytic stroke a few weeks earlier (he died within a year). Second: Andrew Johnson is the second Vice President of the name Johnson (and Lyndon Johnson the third Veep). The first was Martin Van Buren's Vice President, Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky, whose career as a politician might make a diverting comedy.

This is a film biography of Andrew Johnson (who was Abraham Lincoln's Vice-President at the time Lincoln was assassinated). President Johnson's story is usually glossed over in history classes as the first President to be impeached. The hows-and-whys of this impeachment are worth while understanding, and this film is the only one I know that takes on this task—although after reading a review of this movie in IMDb, I realize that there may have been many historical liberties taken. The film's director, William Dieterle, made some of the best film biographies of the 30s and 40s (Juarez, The Life of Emile Zola, Dr Ehrlich's Magic Bullet, and The Story of Louis Pasteur).

As the movie starts, Johnson (Van Heflin) is shown as an uneducated runaway apprentice tailor. He is freed in Tennessee and meets a girl (Ruth Hussey) who teaches him to read, write, and speak properly. He is a Jacksonian Democrat that has a passion to enfranchise people who don't own land. His public speaking popularity projects him into politics-- finally into the U.S. Senate.

During the Civil War, he was the only Southern Senator to remain in office and support the Union. After Lincoln's assassination, he becomes President and attempts to carry out Lincoln's reconstruction plan—total inclusion (without punishment) of the defeated South and amnesty to all Southerners.

His attempts are continually thwarted by Congressional Republicans, led by Thaddeus Stevens (Lionel Barrymore). Finally, the impasse between Johnson and the Republican Congress leads to a radical bill-- called the Tenure of Office Act—which was finally found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1927. The Act was designed to limit Johnson's (executive) powers with regard to removing any of Lincoln's cabinet members.

Although Congress overrides Johnson's veto of the bill, Johnson still attempts to remove one of his cabinet members (really a disloyal "spy" working for Thaddeus Stevens). THIS was the excuse for his impeachment and attempted removal from office. The movie builds to an exciting climax as Johnson is tried in by the Congress. As with all good courtroom dramas, this movie "hits the mark" for me!!

When I showed this movie to a Civil War specialist, he said it was almost comedic because of the many historical errors. For example, Johnson actually stayed away from the Senate Trial. In the movie, however, he gave a wonderful speech in his own defense. Also, the Senate President Pro Tempore, next in line to be President, was Benjamin Wade. In the film, however, he was James Waters. In reality, Senator Edmond Ross, who was healthy, cast the acquitting vote. In the movie, however, a dying senator named Huyler did this.

"Tennessee Johnson" canonizes Andrew Johnson and demonizes Thaddeus Stevens. I prefer a more nuanced interpretation of history, for I find good and bad in both men. Ambiguity was not the order of the day (1943), however. Instead, the film reflects the dominant historical interpretation of the day--the Dunning Thesis.

FYI, I hold a M.A. in American History.

The subject of this biopic is Andrew Johnson, the President who succeeded Abraham Lincoln, the only American President who had no formal education whatsoever (and yet was a voracious reader), the only southern member of Congress who did not walk out when Secession arrived, the man who attempted to implement "presidential reconstruction" as outlined by Lincoln at the cabinet meeting on the last day of his life, and the first President to be impeached (the pretext being the ability of the President to dismiss a Cabinet appointee, a question later resolved by the Supreme Court in Johnson's favor). What dramatic material! But try to find a DVD of this movie! Johnson is condemned for his bluntness and, above all, for his racial views, which happened to be fairly similar to those of Lincoln. His great sin, however, was in considering the Constitution to be indeed the governing law of the land. In our current time he is condemned. The censors are determining what we can see.

One gets an indication as to what fiction is being perpetrated very early in this film. It comes upon the death of Lincoln, when Andrew Johnson and his wife both state that he was chosen as Vice President by Lincoln because he wanted Johnson to be the man that replaced him if something happened to Lincoln. Say what!? Johnson was chosen by Lincoln for one purpose, to steal Democratic votes that Lincoln worried he might need in what was shaping up as a tight race in 1864. As it turns out, that ridiculous scene is one of the more believable scenes in this ridiculous farce of a movie. Johnson was a semi-illiterate, deeply racist, hotheaded, buffoon. However, this film paints him as one of the greatest human beings ever to grace this country. Would have loved to see how they handled his "Round the Circle" speeches, where a drunken Johnson cursed out anybody that raised a voice to him. This film was just plain silly.

OK, so it's not that accurate a portrait of the era and the writers may have fabricated "history" but that's Hollywood. Let's not under estimate Van Heflin. The guy was one of my favorites and terribly underrated. You can see all kinds of emotion in his eyes. He was not a very energetic actor like Errol Flynn or Tyrone Power nor did he have the matinee idol looks of a Robert Taylor but the guy was cerebral. He was brilliant in "Johnny Eager" and all but stole every scene he was in in "Santa Fe Trail". He excelled at complex characters.

I wonder what kind of career he would have had if he had lived longer.

Watch this movie with an open mind and really enjoy Heflin's acting.

It is very interesting how history actually changes over time. In other words, the same people and incidents can be seen VERY differently depending on when they are discussed in history books or portrayed on film. During the 1910s-40s, the Confederacy and Andrew Johnson were seen in a much more favorable light than they are today. Back in 1942, he was seen, generally, as an able president who was persecuted by Congress. In 1866 and today, he was seen mostly as a tactless obstructionist who did everything he could to prevent blacks from receiving their rights as citizens. Because of this, I doubt if you'll seen any sort of favorable film about the man for the foreseeable future.

So on to the film. The production values are very nice--with fine acting and direction--just as you'd expect from MGM. Much of the film was NOT about Johnson's presidency--and this portion it generally got right. His wife did teach his to read and write and his path from local office to the Presidency was generally on target. However, when it came to his presidency, it only once made a comment about Johnson's ill-temper. For the most part, he's shown as a reasonable man who is besieged by an evil Congress. This is far from the case--as I mentioned above. And, Thaddeus Stevens and his friends were mostly caricatures of evil--which is also incorrect. Likewise, Johnson never actually addressed the Senate during his impeachment proceedings--this is pure fiction. Bkoganbing from Buffalo hit it on the head with his review as to the many inaccuracies of the film.

What you're left with is a film that is entertainment but just wrong in too many cases to be taken seriously.

Historical accuracy and interpretations aside, "Tennessee Johnson," thanks to superb screenwriter John L. Balderston, is the most suspenseful, involving and well-structured Washington DC melodrama this side of Gore Vidal's "The Best Man" (1964). At 103 minutes, it's a marvel of the kind of concision rarely seen today, ranging through the course of a man's life from illiterate runaway slave to President of the United States to US Senator. Under the skillful direction of William Dieterle, Van Heflin stars in the title role, ably supported by Ruth Hussey as his teacher and wife and an outstanding studio cast. Dieterle's staging and pacing are wonderful. It should inspire research into the history of the period in the same way Vidal's film casts light on some of the prime issues of the 1950s and the inner workings of our constitutional republic.

The cast is spectacular- Heflin , Hussey, Barrymore , Main and Regis Toomey.

The movie tries to lionize Andrew Johnson, 17th President as carrying on Lincoln's legacy and policies.

In fact, Lincoln made a monumental mistake by letting this Democrat near the White House.

Johnson repeatedly vetoed Republican efforts to bring former slaves into true freedom and equality.

He allowed southern Democrats to install segregation and institute discrimination, setting race relations back 100 years.

Johnson didn't speak at his Senate impeachment trial.

So much dramatic license was taken in this film, it's tough to trust anything.

Not sure why the filmmakers wanted to rehabilitate Andrew Johnson but I did appreciate the actor's efforts.