Profile- Sullivan's Travels (Preston Sturges, 1941)

At the time of Sullivan’s Travels, many filmmakers had dabbled in making socially conscious films.  Known collectively as The Popular Front, most of these filmmakers focused on the serious nature of social issues.  

Sullivan’s Travels is ironic.  In it, Sturges criticizes the methods and motivations of the Popular Front, yet at the same time, he somehow seems to make a social critique in the style of the Popular Front. At the time of its release at the end of the Great Depression and the start of World War II, the film was almost dated. Audiences had forgotten about many of the problems that the film highlights.

One of Sturges’ most significant statements in the film involves race, as the only real sympathetic characters are members of the all Black congregation. The inclusion of these sympathetic Black characters marked one of the few and earliest occasions that Black characters existed in a comedy film for a purpose other than being the butt of a joke.

Like Chaplin before him, scholars have called Sturges (1898-1959) an auteur. He began his film career as a writer, later transitioning to the role of director. Within recent years, more critical attention has returned to Sturges’ works, which had been mostly overlooked for decades.  

Notice that Sturges chose to hire an actress that was not recognized by audiences as a comic performer—adding to the ambiguity that audiences felt when the film premiered and they could not understand if it was a comedy or a tragedy.

Reception

Film reviewers all over the United States praised Sturges and his film.  Here we see how the manner in which comedy borrows the conventions of other genres is not only confusing to reviewers, but to the studio producing the comedy film as well.  Variety liked the film, stating, “Sullivan’s Travels is one of the screen’s more ‘significant’ films. It is the best social comment made upon Hollywood since A Star Is Born. And that, we quietly suspect, is exactly what Mr. Sturges meant it to be”.  About Sturges, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, said “Preston Sturges need make no excuses for the dominance of comedy on the screen, since he has done more than any one over the last two years to give brightness and bounce and authority to this general type of fare”.  Notice how these critics address its explorations of the nature of Hollywood and of comedy, yet ignore his explorations of class struggle. 
 
The National Board of Review named it one of the Top Ten Films of 1942.  However, it was not nominated for any Academy Awards.  I cannot find any explanation for why the Academy did not recognize the picture, but perhaps its left-leaning themes and criticism of America were too controversial for a nation at war.

Today, many film historians consider the film to be Sturges’ greatest achievement.  Although it is a comedy, many say that it is one of the most accurate depictions of the plight of the homeless during the Great Depression—a fact that contemporary critics avoided mentioning.  Once again, a Screwball Comedy represents a collaborative effort and the reviewers acknowledge that.  As director and writer, Sturges’ talents receive the most praise.  In 2001, Glenn Erickson of DVD Savant said “Preston Sturges at his best is nothing short of amazing”, noting its great dialogue as well as Sturges great direction.  Jeff Ulmer of Digitally Obsessed echoed Erickson, when he called Sturges “a genius both as a director and as a writer”.  Todd McCarthy of Criterion remarked on Sturges’ ability to combine comedy and tragedy, calling the film “both terribly funny and deeply moving”—a statement reminiscent of reviews of City Lights (1931).  Derek M. Germano of The Cinema Laser compared Sturges to the title character when he said, “Sturges achieves the goal that he sets up for his fictional director in the film”. Terry Coll of DVD Verdict added “you can’t dislike Sullivan because he’s so well intentioned, if a little naïve. He truly wants to make his work meaningful”, much as we can infer Sturges had wanted.  Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian added that the film succeeds as “a distillation of pure happiness”. Like the contemporary reviewers, John J. Puccio of Movie Metropolis dubbed it “the finest film about filmmaking ever made,” commenting on its accurate depiction of the Hollywood mindset.    Speaking to its longevity and to its exploration of the value and purpose of comedy, Angie Errigo of Empire Magazine said, “Sullivan’s Travels is still as brilliant and funny today as it was back in the early ‘40s,” adding “Few comedies are as smart as this. Anyone with a taste for laughter, even those with the lowest of brows, should forever find the consolation, vindication and affirmation of comedy’s merit”.  In 2009, Ed Howard of Seul Le Cinema added that the film is “an ode to comedy, a love letter to Charlie Chaplin and all the other great comic performers who have graced the screen”.  Jeffrey M. Anderson of Combustible Celluloid wrote about the film’s history, “Forgotten for years along with its maker, writer/director Preston Sturges, Sullivan’s Travels has only recently enjoyed a comeback and induction into classic status”, adding “It actually describes the same conundrum that’s still going on in real life; that comedy doesn’t get the same respect drama does”.  No doubt the attentive reader has encountered this argument before.