The Fearmakers (1958)

Joe McCarthy may have been censored by his Senate colleagues four years earlier and may have been dead a year, but his spirit lives on in The Fearmakers. That's a pity because the film actually did have some interesting things to say about the advertising industry and high priced lobbyists and most of all the manipulation of polls to get the desired results.Dana Andrews has come home from Korea where he was captured and subjected to some patented Communist brainwashing techniques. Still suffering from symptoms of their torture methods, Andrews is still hoping to resume his career in a small Washington, DC based public relations firm. But when he returns he discovers his partner dead and Dick Foran taken over and expanding operations quite a bit. His clients include some shady lobbyists and some Communist fellow travelers pushing peace at any price.At the suggestion of an investigating US Senator, Andrews goes in to get the goods on Foran. It's very possible his partner may have been murdered.Mel Torme is in this film in a straight dramatic role, totally unrecognizable in horn rimmed glasses and a mustache. Torme plays Foran's computer nerd though he shows he's got some urges that demonstrate computers aren't all he's interested in.Without the heavy right wing ideological bent The Fearmakers does have some interesting things to say. If the producers had only left that out.

Overlooked when first released among the mass of Red Scare pictures, in retrospect, it was ingenious (not to mention prescient) to treat this theme in the form of a corporate thriller. That said, Dick Foran's ruthless villain-in-a-suit is kind of weak (given the title), especially since he is flanked by such stereotypes as burly thug and fidgety geek (effectively played by crooner Mel Torme')! On the other hand, Tourneur regular Dana Andrews (for whom he had just starred in the occult masterpiece NIGHT OF THE DEMON [1957]) is in good form as the distraught Korean War veteran met with betrayal and hostility when trying to return to his job as an honest pollster. Aiding him is an elderly statesman, a crusading journalist (who actually does very little to further his cause!) and Foran's sweet-natured secretary (who obviously feels, and then falls, for our hero). Though not exactly a noir, the pervading mood of this one is quite similar (in fact, it proved to be the director's last in that style) in view of the double-crosses, the investigation, the beatings and the seediness of some of its settings.As a sop to the superiority of the American Way (and the integrity of decent folk), the climax takes place beside Washington's famed Lincoln memorial – with Andrews felling Foran via a series of karate chops (perhaps a nod to BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK [1955]). This, however, rather suggests that the former ultimately benefited from his tenure as a P.O.W. in the hands of the Chinese (incidentally, the film came out a good four years before THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE [1962])! Ultimately, therefore, once one gets past the disappointment that this is not going to deliver on the promise of brainwashing episodes displayed in the opening credits, this emerges an above average thriller nevertheless.

Just think, in 1951, handsome Dana Andrews looked great in the Korean War flick, I Want You. Some seven years later, maybe because of a jet-set lifestyle, or excess drinking and smoking, or just a fast life of hard living, Dana Andrews looked really old and worn out in this second rate Cold War "thriller."Like Alan Ladd, Tyronne Power, and countless other stars, Andrews literally lost his "looks" by his early 40s. This is not to say his acting wasn't up to his former greatness. Of course this film looked like it was made on a shoe-string budget. The script was over-the-top, and it's clearly out-dated today. The Fearmakers is a fear to watch. Rent the classic, The Best Years of Our Life, to see the vintage Dana Andrews.

The real irony, when viewing this film, is the way it views those who lobby for special interests in Washington (and the "marketing" of candidates, skewing polling data to achieve the desired results whether the sampling or data is fair or not) has become the norm in our own era. Hence, the villain in this film is pretty much doing the same sort of thing a Karl Rove does now, but we've just changed our perspective on it. The film purports a high tone of moral outrage at political practices which completely dominate our own time.That to me is the most fascinating thing about this film (which is well-made in a clearly B-picture sort of way: not too many sets, a conspicuously minor set of actors except for Dana Andrews--though I agree with others posting here that Mel Torme's performance is a standout--and a certain unadventurousness in the visuals and pacing, despite Tourneur's presence at the helm). By watching the film, we are made aware just how much we've come to accept certain the vast "untruthfulness" or immorality of the way politicians are marketed and elected. It's as though all of the things deplored in this film have completely become "business as usual" in our time, seemingly because the desire to operate this way in politics has survived tenaciously despite the occasional railing against it the way this film does. These days you might hear objections from alternate news sources or fringe publications to this type of deceptive political lobbying and marketing, but other than that it's clearly our daily contemporary political reality being objected to so strenuously 45 years ago in THE FEARMAKERS. While the film unfolds tightly and economically enough, it does suffer from a certain "pat-ness" concerning the plot coincidences concerning the doctor character Andrews meets on the plane at the beginning of the film. That whole subplot unfolds too easily within the overall story, as though the already claustrophobically tiny world of the characters of this movie couldn't possibly expand enough for some randomness or ambiguity between it's small ensemble of characters. Is there no-one in Washington who isn't in some way related to this plot? If memory serves, I don't believe there is ever a line spoken by anyone in this film who is not in some way part of the web of characters involved somehow for or against the unfolding scam, even though we are in cabs, in hotels, in a boarding house, on a plane, and in the city of Washington, throughout.Still, it's worth the time invested, and presents a curiously brusque performance by Andrews. His character is supposed to be tired and unstable after his ordeal in Korea, and yet it's difficult to know whether the occasionally zombie-like performance of Andrews in this film is entirely intentional. The actor himself seems fatigued and lethargic at times-- is that all for the sake of the character? But there are enough little twists and surprises in this film to hold our interest, and if the film feels at time like an extended episode of the old Perry Mason TV series, that's not necessarily a bad thing if you like that sort of presentation (as I admittedly do).I'd also agree with others here that this is a film ripe for a remake, although there is no doubt it would be a COMPLETELY different movie, with a completely different moral sense.