James Hitchcock
In one of my earlier reviews I stated that although James Stewart may occasionally have played morally ambiguous, conflicted characters, especially in the Westerns he made with Anthony Mann in the fifties, I could not recall him ever playing an outright villain. At first sight it seems that this film is going to be an exception, as we learn early on that his character, Mattie Appleyard, is a murderer. It soon becomes clear, however, that this is going to be one of those films where the criminals are the good guys and those supposedly charged with enforcing the law the bad guys. The story takes place in 1935 in West Virginia. The elderly Appleyard is one of three prisoners released from jail on the same day; the others are middle-aged bank robber Lee Cottrill and the young Johnny Jesus. (We never learn exactly what Johnny's alleged crime was, although he continues to protest his innocence). The three are put on a train out of town, but soon realise that they are in danger from an unexpected source. A prison official, Captain "Doc" Council, and two accomplices are trying to track them down and kill them. The reason is that Council, who is in league with a corrupt local banker, wants to embezzle the large sum of money, in excess of $25,000, which Appleyard has received for all his work during his 40 years in prison. During the earlier part of his career, Stewart was as accomplished a comic actor as he was a serious one, appearing in classic comedies as good as "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", "Destry Rides Again", "The Philadelphia Story" and "Harvey". After about 1950, however, his gift for picking the right film seemed to desert him when it came to comedy. He continued to appear in some excellent serious movies, principally Westerns, but few of his comedies from this period are of the same standard, and "Fools' Parade" is an example of what I mean. He has one splendid bravura passage where, in the throes of a supposed religious conversion, he plucks out one of his eyes in order to frighten off one of Council's sidekicks who has come to shoot him. (What the said sidekick doesn't realise is that this is in fact a glass eye). For most of the time, however, Stewart is simply trying to invest Appleyard with a greater depth and significance than he really merits; as one critic said "Time and again he gives you the impression of an interesting character that really isn't there in the role."This was really Stewart's last starring role. After the film came out in 1971, he was absent from the screen for five years, and in his later films, starting with "The Shootist", he confined himself to supporting roles and cameos. In his autobiography Charlton Heston recounts a conversation he had with his co-star Maximilian Schell during the making of "Counterpoint", in which Heston played an orchestral conductor captured by the Nazis during the war and Schell played the German officer holding him. Wouldn't it be fun, they agreed, if a second version of the film could be shot, this time with the music-loving Schell playing the musician and Heston (who rarely got the chance to play a villain) as the Nazi? Someone seems to have had a similar idea with "Fools' Parade" because it stars both George Kennedy and Strother Martin, both of whom had several years earlier appeared in another prison drama, "Cool Hand Luke". Only here their roles are reversed. Kennedy, who had played a prisoner in the earlier film, here plays Council, whereas Martin, a brutal prison warder in "Cool Hand Luke" ("What we have here is failure to communicate"), here plays the prisoner Cottrill. Martin does not have the same impact here as he did in the earlier film, but Kennedy is one of the better things about "Fools' Parade". His Doc Council, complete with pebble glasses, bad teeth, an ill-fitting suit and a curious stooping gait, is a splendidly leering pantomime villain who combines his villainy with religious fanaticism. (In his spare time he is a Sunday-school teacher). I earlier described the film as a comedy, although I note that some reviewers on this board have insisted on taking it seriously, possibly because the film-makers and cast seem to have been unsure what sort of film they were actually making. As I said, Stewart was trying to invest his character with a certain seriousness, but others, especially Kennedy's Doc and Anne Baxter's Cleo, a raddled old whore with an obsessive grievance against the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, who refuse to have her as a member, seem to be played firmly tongue-in-cheek. The result is a rather uncertain black comedy which occasionally tries to cross the border into seriousness but never gets very far. A frequent complaint by my fellow reviewers is that "Fools' Parade" has not been released on DVD. Well, keep asking, lads, but personally I feel that there is more chance of Cleo being accepted by the DAR. 5/10
dshafer228
I to wish this movie was available on DVD or VHS.....can't even get it from video stores etc. There is however another excellent movie from this author available, "Night of the Hunter" excellent also. I also lived in Moundsville when they were filming this move (lets not talk about how My BFF and I tried to sneak on set to see Kurt Russell) but I would have loved it at any rate. Excellent story to begin with. The entire cast is in top form. Shooting it in WV was a brilliant move with all of the natural scenery, railroads and old buildings makes the film that much more enjoyable and realistic for this period piece. If you wish to read some of this authors books, they are available online (used) Although, Amazon now has a hard back reprint of this title, for those who wish to read it. Davis Grubb in my opinion was the William Faulkner of West Virginia and I'm so glad that I have dragged those books every time I moved, as now I can share them with the other readers in the house.
MartinHafer
Aside from seeing Jimmy Stewart, I really can't think why anyone would want to see this rather silly film. I have seen almost every film Stewart has made and I am a bit compulsive about things like this, so I forced myself to watch this slight film. The problem is that the writing and acting was rather poor and it's a sad way for Stewart to begin wrapping up his acting career with such films.Stewart and two other men are being released from prison in 1935. They're all friends and plan on going into business together but they are indeed a motley crew--guys you wouldn't expect to be friends, as they range in age from an old Stewart to a very young Kurt Russell. The film begins with the three being placed on a train and being sent to a West Virginia town near the Ohio border. However, once they arrive, the same nasty jailer (George Kennedy) is waiting for them with some sidekicks, as they want to kill and rob the three men. It seems that Stewart has accumulated a huge bankroll while in prison and Kennedy will stop at nothing to get it. Now at this point you are left wondering--if the three men took a train, given the roads of 1935, how could Kennedy have beaten the train there?! The rest of the film consists of the three men being chased by the homicidal maniacs. Considering Stewart was a very fine actor, such chase films seem way out of his league and he certainly deserved better. There were also some clichés in the film that just seemed more like plot devices than anything else (such as the romance between Russell and the teenager they pick up during their travels). As for the acting, it wasn't too bad except for George Kennedy. With his horribly stained teeth and over the top acting, he more closely resembled a wild hog than a villain--making it one of the worst performances of his career.The bottom line is that this isn't a particularly interesting or inspired film. In hindsight, I really wish Mr. Stewart hadn't done this film as it was simply beneath his abilities and star power to be in such a sub-par movie.
