A newspaper columnist, about to lose her job, comes up with a unique idea to get the attention of her readers and impress her employers. She writes a bogus letter from a non-existent man she calls John Doe. This man is so distraught with the inhumanity of modern life that he plans to kill himself by jumping off the city building on Christmas Eve. The public believes the story and newspaper sales skyrocket. The columnist not only keeps her job, but she and her employers, seeing big money possibilities, take the phenomenon one step further. They hire a homeless man, whose real name happens to be John Willoughby, a former baseball player, to portray the fictional John Doe for the public. He gives speeches written for him by the columnist. He becomes so beloved by the millions of people who believes he is "real" that a nationwide movement, based on "his" words, gets underway. The publisher of the newspaper, who has political ambitions, decides to use John Doe to form a new political party in order for him to gain power.
Does this scenario sound like a cautionary tale against modern-day AI? The ultimate fake news being passed off as truth? Frank Capra's brilliant, prescient and disturbing 1941 classic film is all that and much more. It's also a prime example of the fast-moving newspaper drama so popular in the Golden Age of motion pictures. And it can even be at least partly considered a woman's picture because of the powerful presence of Barbara Stanwyck's character, Anne Mitchell. This is also a Frank Capra populist statement, a picture focusing on the common man and woman of the time, a story about real Americans and what they were experiencing and feeling. But most importantly, it is also a realistic look at how easily people can be manipulated by the media.
This third film that was shown in my Barbara Stanwyck film class is one I've seen before, and it's one of those films that gets better with subsequent viewings. Capra's movies are so fast paced, so dialogue driven and so filled with supporting and minor characters that it's easy to be overwhelmed by too many faces and too much talking. The film is also loaded with star power, headed by the always watchable Gary Cooper as the title character. While Cooper may appear a little too healthy and physically fit to be a hobo living under a bridge, he brings so much warmth and humanity to his portrayal that the audience is on his side form his first scene. He is perfectly matched by the energetic, almost breathless Stanwyck. Also on hand is the eternal scene stealer, Walter Brennan as John's skeptical fellow hobo and best friend, who is the film's consistent voice of reason concerning the corruption of power, fame and money. Edward Arnold is effective as the power-hungry newspaper publisher, and the ever-dependable James Gleason is perfect as the hard-nosed newspaper editor with a conscience, a trait that is lacking in many of his peers, including his publisher.
As the story progresses, John begins to feel conflicted by the image he is being paid to portray and its influences on the masses. While initially he was happy just to finally have a warm, safe place to sleep and good food to eat, he starts to feel a certain responsibility to the folks who listen to him and take "his" words to heart. He is also falling in love with Anne, who begins to return his feelings. For Anne's part, she is the sole support for her mother and sister and is happy to have found both success and a steady income, factors that bring her very close to selling out for money and abandoning her principles.
Without giving away too many details that would spoil the experience for first-time viewers, let me just say that the film isn't without its flaws. While there are many effective and moving sequences, the film comes to a somewhat convoluted conclusion. Capra and his screenwriter, Robert Riskin, had problems deciding exactly how the story should end, which I can believe. But that doesn't take away from the pleasure of watching a movie that has long been considered a classic from the Golden Age.

