Today, as we re-start our “Kazan Redux” series, we’re going to re-review director Elia Kazan’s twelfth film, “Baby Doll.” The review below was first posted on April 25, 2017 and has been revised.

Baby Doll
Directed by Elia Kazan and featuring Karl Malden, Carroll Baker (nee Karolina Piekarski) and Eli Wallach
Warner Bros., 1956, 114 minutes

All of Elia Kazan’s previous eleven films contained some type of hard-hitting social message. With the farcical, dark comedy, “Baby Doll,” Kazan would break the mold and also begin his “Southern Trilogy.”
Plot
Middle-aged, Archie Lee Meighan (Malden), is at the end of his rope. He had bought the dilapidated Mississippi Delta plantation mansion, Tiger Tail, with plans to renovate it for his young bride, Baby Doll (Baker), but a modern, syndicate cotton gin plant has put the small, independent ginners in the area, like Archie Lee, out of business. Compounding his financial humiliation is the public’s knowledge of Archie Lee’s wedding pledge to Baby Doll’s father to refrain from consummating the marriage until her twentieth-birthday, just a few days away. But Baby Doll is repulsed by the financially strapped and increasingly unhinged Archie Lee. The last straw comes when all of the Meighans’ furniture is repossessed. Even the poor Black folk of the area hold Archie Lee in derision.
Archie Lee gets revenge for his misery by burning down the syndicate gin. The owner, Silva Vacarro (Wallach), suspects Archie Lee is the culprit and the very next day arrives at Tiger Tail with a convoy of raw cotton. While Archie Lee is gleefully preoccupied processing the cotton with his ramshackle gin, Vaccaro and Baby Doll remain at the mansion. He coyly coaxes her into signing an affidavit admitting that her husband was responsible for burning down the syndicate gin. That evening, Archie Lee returns to the mansion, and with the affidavit safely in his pocket, Vaccaro goads him to the breaking point. Archie Lee grabs his shotgun while Vaccaro scoots up a tree. When the local sheriff hauls Archie Lee off to prison, Vaccaro victoriously proclaims he’ll be back the next day with more cotton to gin. Baby Doll turns to her demented Aunt Rose Comfort (Mildred Dunnock) and says with a mixture of hope and despair, “Well, let’s go in now. We got nothing to do but wait for tomorrow and see if we’re remembered or forgotten.”
Sometimes, big shot, you don’t seem to give me credit for very much intelligence at all. I’ve been to school in my life – and I’m a magazine reader! – Baby Doll to Archie Lee
Commentary
Baker, Dunnock, Tennessee Williams (screenplay), and Boris Kaufman (cinematography) were all nominated for Oscars, but it was Malden who stole the show as the tragically comic foil. The movie was filmed in Benoit, Mississippi at the abandoned Burrus Plantation, which has only recently been renovated (see here). As in many of his other films, Kazan used local citizens to augment the cast, including many African-Americans. There are several examples in the film of the segregation of the Deep South in 1956. It’s ironic that Archie Lee seeks swift justice for the perceived wrongs he has suffered while the segregated Blacks of the town must silently endure systematic abuse from Archie Lee and the rest of the White population.
Additional thoughts from a believer
Although it’s a simple farce without much of a plot or message, “Baby Doll” is ultimately about revenge and justice. Archie Lee seeks revenge and justice by destroying what he views as the cause of all of his problems; the rival syndicate gin. Vaccaro seeks revenge and justice by seeing that Archie Lee is successfully charged with arson. Baby Doll wants to extricate herself from her hopeless situation and sees in the suave Vaccaro a possible escape.
Can a follower of Jesus Christ garner anything from this “tiger’s tail”? Elia Kazan may have been an atheist, but his films often had excellent critical insights into the “human condition.” How much of our energy goes into striving to rise above others through our jobs/careers and number of possessions? How much of our self-worth is tied to money, the things we own, and social status? When we suffer loss or embarrassment, is our kneejerk reaction to seek revenge? How many of our undesirable circumstances are the “other guy’s” fault. How much do we live by, “Doeth unto them before they doeth unto you”? Why does it feel so good to hang onto a grudge?
We are all sinners full of self-serving hypocrisy and until you can admit to that, there is no hope for you. But God provided a way out from the eternal punishment we deserve through His Son, Jesus Christ. Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior by placing your faith in Him alone.
“I did not come to call the [self-proclaimed] righteous [who see no need to repent], but sinners to repentance [to change their old way of thinking, to turn from sin and to seek God and His righteousness].” Luke 5:32 AMP
Next up: “A Face in the Crowd”
Good review, Tom. I watched this film about 5 years ago and thought it was sick, perverted, disgusting, and a waste of time. It had no redeeming values whatsoever, and I felt dirty watching it. A bunch of pagan filmmakers doing what they do best.
Please excuse my shyness in expressing my views. 🤣😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, David. I understand your reaction. Kazan was very adroit at pointing out the foibles and hypocrisies of American/Western society, but as a Marxist and an atheist, he offered no solutions. This film is definitely a “tiger’s tail” but one of the redeeming values is the hypocritical revenge-justice theme in the face of blatant injustice in the Jim Crow South. Cardinal Spellman launched a campaign against this movie in NYC with priests standing in the theater lobbies and taking names, but it was revealed after his death that Spellman was an insatiable predator of young seminarians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OOPS!!! I meant to say “sick.” What a typo, but appropriate, I suppose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fixed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never heard of these movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kazan was the top director in the U.S. back in the late 1940s to late 1950s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Commenting back to your comment: wow 9 F is too cold! I thought at first you were saying you had 9 K but that is super cold! Day is well a break from homeschooling and playing with kids a helicopter that was their Christmas gift
LikeLiked by 1 person
🚁 Sounds like fun!
LikeLiked by 1 person
THanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kazan’s film seems to be aware of his era’s social tensions and unease that would boil over in the 60s and beyond. And also man’s darker nature and sinfulness. Envy, jealousy, hate and despair is still with us today
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Kazan did such a great job of pointing out/exposing the sins (and hypocrisies) of society, but as an atheist he would call them something else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True he would have called it less than sin since he doesn’t have the biblical framework to see the sinfulness of evil
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good review Tom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Crissy!
LikeLiked by 1 person