Meet John Doe (1941)

 Second viewing; previously viewed (probably in a dubbed copy) between 1983 and 1986.

A newspaper columnist writes a suicide note which she attributes to a character she makes up and publishes it as if it were real. Thousands are moved by it and the newspaper's new owner convinces her to go on with the lie, even hiring a real person to pass off as the note's author. This John Doe becomes the object of a national following. People believe the things he says, though he only reads out loud what the columnist wrote for him; furthermore, the newspaper's owner has his own personal political goals in mind.

This is tremendously confusing from an ideological standpoint, which makes for a somewhat frustrating yet curiously fascinating viewing experience. Is this an anarchist manifesto? At some point it looks like the "movement" is making government superfluous. On the other hand, the "people" don't seem to have much craving for autonomy, and their cohesion disappears when their leader is revealed to be not exactly what he said he was. Also, there is a sinister streak here that seems to demonize an attempt to build a third party with some relevance in the United States. The funder of the movement, an oil magnate, is revealed to have fascist tendencies. But did he have to be that way? Why couldn't he be a normal guy with legitimate political aspirations? Is it the fact that he was a liar what makes him bad? But the "good" guys were liars too, and the film gives them a chance to come clean and redeem themselves. Why doesn't the magnate have the same chance in the script? On the other hand, I don't deny that this film is really entertaing, perhaps even in a kind of oneirical manner.

Rating: 63 (down from 67)