Having finished watching "Wilson," I decided to compare it with other biopics of American presidents. I was surprised how few presidents have had movies made based on their lives. Abraham Lincoln gets the award for having the most, and he is the only president so featured prior to "Wilson" save Andrew Johnson. After "Wilson," there is a movie about Andrew Jackson in the early 1950s, and that is just about it until we get to the 1960s when American culture underwent radical change with the movies following suit. And needless to say, movies about presidents after Nixon and the Watergate scandal would never be the same.Regarding the pre-1960s biopics of American presidents, it is clear why they are so few in number. They are insufferable, being both boring and cloying. Notwithstanding all the money that was spent on the elaborate sets in making the movie about Woodrow Wilson, it is completely lacking in entertainment value. Nothing bad about Wilson is depicted. For example, we don't find out anything about what a racist he was. But those who produced this movie were not content simply to omit anything even slightly negative in his character. Like those who made movies about Lincoln during this period, they felt compelled to go way beyond mere omission and make the case that Wilson was no mere ordinary mortal, but rather was too good for this world, on a moral and spiritual plane high above his contemporaries, all but canonizing him for sainthood.

This 2.5 hour movie won FIVE Oscars and was nominated for FIVE more!! It is the best major presidential biopic that I have seen in that it covered Wilson's entire presidency--not just a portion of it. This is my 2nd viewing of the movie, and I got MUCH more from it this time than I did from only one viewing. This movie was made during WWII, and I suppose that audiences were more drawn toward experiencing WW II, as in Since You Went Away (1944), The Seventh Cross (1944), or Lifeboat (1944)--or escaping from it, as in Going My Way (1944) or Gaslight (1944) did. My assumption is that movie audiences did not much want to look backwards towards WW I. Still, there is some good history, here, presented in an entertaining and enlightening fashion. I felt that Alexander Knox gave a convincing— perhaps Oscar-worthy--performance as Wilson. The movie generally presents the legislative accomplishments of his first term and his struggle with WWI and trying to get his 14 points and the League of Nations approved during his second term. It also inserted some real black-and-white newsreels from period. Also, I am quite sure that Knox gave a couple of Wilson's speeches as they were originally written. e.g. his speech to Congress asking them to declare war on Germany. I have two main reservations with this movie: 1) It only covered the positive side of Wilson's presidency and did not cover his negatives (but I suppose that is typical of a Hollywood movie). 2) I felt the internal designs of the White House were a bit too ornate. If you haven't seen this movie, I would recommend it.

I agree with many of the comments posted here. I, too, was pleasantly surprised by this film. You always read what a box-office disaster the movie was, and you get the idea that it was a real turkey. On the contrary, I think it was a very well-made film. As many others have pointed out, it whitewashes some of Wilson's biography, and omits inconvenient truths about him, (such as some of his racial views and actions). It does point out his stubbornness in relation to the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, though, and his reluctance to compromise on those things. So it isn't a total revisionist biography. It does outline the major events of his political career, and fairly accurately, I think. One thing that really strikes me on watching this film, is how well it captures the complexities of the American Presidency, and the hysteria that the public, and other politicians, often direct towards the president. I think many people, in any historical age, tend to think their generation is the first to experience certain kinds of events, such as war, depression, or political controversy. As we all know, these are timeless events, and though the particulars may change, the reactions to them don't change so much. As for politics, there are some wonderful scenes in the film of the Democratic Conventions of 1912 and 1916, that detail the serious issues, as well as the hoopla and occasional nonsense that has always marked those events. Marching bands, rural banjo players, pretty girls, etc., etc. And it also accurately details the hysterical attacks made against President Wilson- that he was weak, a waffler, a man out of his league, or a warmonger, even a traitor- comments that somehow bring to mind the outrageous things said about more recent presidents. As well as about everyone from Jefferson to Lincoln. It kind of puts it into perspective. People always say how uncivil our politics are now, which is true, but was it really different then?I'm also very impressed by Alexander Knox's performance, in which he really captures Wilson's character. Much as I love Bing Crosby, I think Knox should have won the Best Actor Oscar for that year. He is so convincing, and almost channels the President. Again, this IS a prettied-up picture of him, but I think it gets many of the essentials right. And, when compared to the paranoia in films like the Oliver Stone presidential biographies of Kennedy, Nixon, and Bush, I think this movie comes pretty close to the way it actually was. It is Movie History, but it seems to follow events fairly accurately. And it gives you a good feel about what it must have been like to be in the center of the storm. I think the film also recreates the period very well. The costumes seem accurate, the sets are realistic, the Technicolor photography is beautiful, and the contemporary music evokes the atmosphere of that time. The genuine newsreels add a lot of authenticity, too. I think the explanations for how the U.S. got into World War I are also pretty accurate, and detail what a moral struggle it was for Wilson to go to war. And, in the film, Wilson mentions the various conspiracy theories about the reasons for that war that have been in circulation since that time. Again, that reminds a person of the different conspiracy theories that swirl about our time, too.Anyway, I think this is a better film than it's given credit for. I think it is similar to the various mini-series made about Lincoln, Kennedy, and other presidents, in the TV age. It may not be complete history, but it's a good starting point for anyone interested in Wilson.Footnotes: character actor Dwight Frye, who is so beloved for his acting in "Dracula," "Frankenstein," and many other classic movies, was slated for the part of Newton D. Baker, Wilson's Secretary of War, in the film. As all Frye fans know, shortly before filming started, Frye tragically died of a heart attack, while riding on a bus. It's a shame, as the part might have turned his faltering career, and life, around.Also, in the scenes on board the train, just before Wilson has his stroke, you can see cars outside the window. It is supposed to be 1919 or 1920, but some of the cars look very contemporary- 1930s or 1940s cars. A goof, and very easy to see. But I don't think it really detracts from the movie in any serious way.

For those who dismiss Wilson as a propaganda war time film, they are making a vast mistake. It's propaganda to be sure, but it's propaganda concerning our war aims both in the First and Second World War and how they fell short of the mark. At least the mark set by Woodrow Wilson who was our 28th president and subject of this biographical film.Prior to our entry into World War II, the country was in a great debate, with it almost split down the middle as to whether we should get involved in the second World War. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor that debate ceased and we went to war with only one dissenting vote in the House of Representatives. The isolationist Senators who opposed the American entry before Pearl Harbor became an endangered species. Most over the elections of 1942, 1944, and 1946 in the Senate were defeated or chose to retire.It was an article of faith that had we entered the League Of Nations as Woodrow Wilson wanted there might not have been a second World War. The pressure for American entry into a new world organization was near irresistible. And this film makes the case for the reason why.The film covers that portion of Woodrow Wilson's life from the time some Democratic political bosses approached the President of Princeton University to see if he'd be interested in being governor to the end of his term in the White House in 1921. The film covers roughly an 11 year span. It does get the main points of Wilson's life accurately recorded.Some names were changed, Thurston Hall's character of the political boss who approached Wilson was actually named James Smith and was a former US Senator who desired to go back to Washington. The characters that Charles Coburn as one of Wilson's professors at Princeton and William Eythe as a student whom we last see going to France as a doughboy are as far as I can tell completely fictional. But both serve as sounding boards for the Wilson character.The women play a great part in Wilson's life, he was married twice and had three daughters with his first marriage. Ruth Nelson plays Ellen Axson Wilson his first wife who dies in the White House a year after his inauguration. She was a person who could occasionally bring him to a halt when he got too self righteous which even his devoted admirers agree he could.The second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson played by Geraldine Fitzgerald was also supportive. She however tended to mirror and exacerbate the worst features of his personality. She is also credited with being our first unofficial female president when Wilson suffered his stroke in September of 1919. Maybe she was in fact because she controlled who and what had access to his person during the last 16 months of his term. Today historians firmly believe that Wilson made two disastrous blunders by first calling for a Democratic Congress to be elected in 1918 and the war weary public responding in the opposite. Not the way to go if you want bipartisan support. And secondly not taking members of the Senate who had to pass on the treaty with a 2/3 vote to help in the negotiation. Wilson's predecessor William McKinley in ending the Spanish American War had no less than five members of the Senate involved in the process.If the film has a villain it's of course Henry Cabot Lodge played by Cedric Hardwicke, unrecognizable in the white mane and goatee that the real Lodge had. Lodge may have wanted to kill Wilson's treaty by increments because it was Wilson's treaty, but he also raised some valid points about American sovereignty. Historians today recognize the strengths and faults of both men.Whatever else Wilson was, he was a person of high ideals who did quite a bit in his term in the White House. The idealism of Wilson is what Alexander Knox captures well. Wilson was 20th Century Fox's prestige picture for 1944, it received ten Oscar nominations and won five Oscars that year in technical categories. Unfortunately it was also up against Going My Way in 1944 and it lost Best Picture to that classic, Bing Crosby beat out Alexander Knox for Best Actor, and Henry King lost for Best Director to Leo McCarey. Historical revisionism has dated Wilson badly and it doesn't hold up well. Woodrow Wilson isn't on quite as high a plane as he was in 1944 when we were trying to sell the United Nations to the American public. Still it's not a bad film, but should be viewed with a whole salt shaker.