I had never even heard of this film until I saw it yesterday on TCM. Louis Calhern does an excellent job portraying Holmes, and Ann Harding does a creditable job as his wife, although she is saddled with lines of insufferable banality. Eduard Franz is quite good as Brandeis, and judging from pictures I have seen, he looks quite a bit like Brandeis as well.
All this having been said, it was astonishing to me that this film tells us almost nothing about Holmes' professional life, even though he spent over 30 years as a Supreme Court Associate Justice. Holmes is 61 years old when the film begins! The only hint we get of his life before this is a couple of mentions that he fought in the US Civil War, and that he went to Harvard. There is no mention of his having been Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. There is no inkling of why Teddy Roosevelt appointed him to the US Supreme Court, and we are left with very little notion of why Roosevelt was disappointed with Holmes, other than that Holmes wrote a few opinions that Teddy didn't like.
The film seems totally unwilling to tackle weighty or controversial subjects. We get a few glimpses of Holmes' rulings on free speech issues, and his willingness to restrict free speech when it may present a clear and present danger to the public good. Holmes' notorious opinion in Buck v. Bell, upholding the right of the state to sterilize 'mentally defective' people, in which Holmes made the statement that 'three generations of imbeciles is enough, is never mentioned. The focus of this film is almost entirely on Holmes' domestic life and the fact that he and his wife devotedly loved each other but regretted not being able to have children. The film also depicts how Holmes' court clerks were in effect surrogate sons. Louis Brandeis is a significant character in the film, but he is there only to show that he and Holmes had a close friendship and often voted alike. The film depicts that the appointment of Brandeis by Wilson in 1916 was controversial, and that 22 senators voted against confirmation, but we are never told exactly why Brandeis was controversial, other than that his being Jewish may have been a factor. Finally, I was irritated by the fact that there is a recurrent character named Adams, whose first name is never mentioned. We learn that he is a grandson of John Quincy Adams, but who is he? Is he Henry Adams or Charles Francis Adams? We never find out.
This film was released in 1950. That is surprising, because it must have been an anachronism even then. It has much more of the flavor and feel of the biopics of the 1930s, e.g., the biographies of Pasteur and Juarez starring Paul Muni, although it is nowhere near as good as either of those. In short this is an entertaining film worth watching for Calhern's performance, but don't expect to learn anything of substance about Holmes.
