Given multiple reviews about 1948 movie State of the Union, each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ["Mr. Smith Tries to Go to Washington - and hits the rocks. Or, what would have happened if Willkie had allowed himself to be corrupted This may be Frank Capra's next movie after *It's a Wonderful Life*, but it bears no resemblance to that sentimental feature. Rather, it is a deeply cynical follow-up to *Mr. Smith Goes to Washington*. The politicians are even more corrupt and disdainful of the common man/voter. They are even more sure that they can manipulate voters, who are repeatedly condemned for being too lazy to vote in the primaries - of which there were far fewer in 1948. There is not just one Edward Arnold character this time, they are everywhere, all convinced that they can manipulate their part of the American voting public. This gets hard to watch at times. Anyone who says that Capra only made sentimental movies clearly never saw this one. And whereas the male lead in *Mr. Smith* is not pulled down into that filth, the male lead in this movie succumbs to it at one point. That's Spencer Tracy, and it's not fun to see him sink so low - though he gives a truly magnificent portrayal here. There is a lot first-rate acting here, especially by Lansbury, in a role that foreshadows her appearance in The Manchurian Candidate as a would-be kingmaker , Hepburn, and Johnson - in fact, this is probably the finest acting I've seen from Van Johnson, who usually wasn't called on to act. It's sometimes painful to see American politics depicted so cynically, even if it seems very much on the mark today. ------------------------------- I wrote the above in 2019, before I realized that the play on which this movie was based, and therefore this movie itself, are a sort of extrapolation on how corrupt politics could have dragged into the mud one of the truly remarkable American politicians of the 20th century, Wendell Willkie. Matthews/Tracy's second speech, in the hotel room at the dinner table with Hepburn and Menjou, summarizes Willkie's uncommon universalist view of the role of government in uniting not just all Americans, but finally all the peoples of the world. (Willkie's book on this subject was titled *One World*.) Matthews is from a town named Glenwood; Willkie from Elwood, IN. (At least in this movie. Glenwood is not mentioned in the Broadway play, of which more below.) Willkie, like Matthews, had a long-standing extra-marital affair with an intelligent woman, Irita van Doren, who helped him polish his written work. In the movie she is conflated with the head of a publishing empire, who in real life was Henry Luce, the publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune, a strong Willkie backer from early on. After that hamburger dinner in the hotel, however, Matthews, unlike Willkie in real life, diverges from his ideals and starts to sell out to special interest groups because he thinks that that is the only way he can get the Republican nomination against Dewey, Taft, Vandenberg, and Stassen. (He sinks much lower in the movie than in the play. The scene on the airplane where Matthews/Tracy is won over by Menjou and the messages from party hacks is new with the movie.) Willkie, to his credit, did not sell out, but was pushed out of the 1944 race for the Republican nomination by the other three, who did not share his progressive and internationalist ideals. As a result, this movie, even more so than Tracy and Hepburn's previous *Woman of the Year*, can be watched in two very different ways. You can either watch it as audiences would have seen it in 1948, as a riff on Willkie and what corrupt politics could have done to even so idealistic a candidate. Or you can watch it with no knowledge of its historical references, as a sometimes funny but often deeply cynical political comedy. Like *Mr. Smith Goes to Washington*, this cynical depiction of national politics clears everything up at the end in just a few minutes, with Matthews'/Tracy's third, magnificent speech, almost as magnificent as James Stewart's astounding delivery of the protagonist's filibuster at the end of *Mr. Smith Goes to Washington*. In both cases, the quick turn for the better comes off as unrealistic. Quite intentionally so, I suspect. If Capra made this movie several years after *Mr. Smith*, it was because he didn't believe Washington politics had gotten any better. The saddest thing about this movie is that Matthews'/Tracy's final speech, though dating from the late 1940s, sounds as if it could have been delivered in 2020. Capra was right: we don't learn from our mistakes and our politicians don't get any better. -------------------------------------- This movie so intrigued me that I decided to read the play, which was a big hit on Broadway just two years before. A comparison of the two is all to the advantage of the movie, which makes the following changes: 1. The first two acts of the play, up to the final scenes in the Matthew household where Grant/Tracy meets the various political figures, are carried over often verbatim from the play. Scenes are added, like those in the airplane, to create variety. The scene where Mary makes up Grant's bed on the floor after discovering that he had seen Kay is more developed in the movie, more romantic with all the dialogue after the two get in their separate beds. It makes Mary's character more sympathetic. She is not all that sympathetic in the play. In general the movie follows the play, however, but makes Mary more likable and Kay nastier but also more active in the political shenanigans. (The scene where Kay plants her glasses next to Grant's bed is added to make her look more calculating, for instance.) Grant's Willkie-like speech about one world in the hotel room over hamburgers is developed further in the movie. 2. The last act, the scenes around the radio/tv broadcast from the Matthews home, is new with the movie, and a big improvement over the play. Some of the material is adapted from the play, but the connivers are made to look far more evil. Some is a recollection of the broadcast scene in *The Man who came to Dinner* (1942). Mary makes more of a fool of herself in the play, but we only hear about it. Grant's final speech in the play, though truly inspiring, would have lost its impact after 1946 and definitely after Truman's election in 1948, by which time the United Nations had begun to function, Italy was a democracy, and Europe had settled down somewhat. The play makes it much clearer that there are corrupt politicians in both parties. The movie seems more pro-Democrat. "]

        Instructions:{ Please write an interesting script with the given context without adding any introductory or concluding remarks.
        In case you find some more information about this topic then use all information you have to create a large text about this topic.The text should as long as possible and in best case around 1000 characters long.
        Ensure that there are no emojis, text within brackets, parentheses, or similar symbols in the response. 
        Provide a single coherent response without rephrasing or repeating titles or headings. Avoid enumerations or bullet points. 
        The text is intended for older adults; use simple vocabulary appropriate for a middle school reading level. Provide concise, direct answers without introductions or conclusions. 
        Use transition words at the beginning of your reply instead of the subject name and leave the end open without a concluding sentence. 
        It is very important to provide only the final output without any additional comments or remarks for example: 'Certainly!' Here's the revised text.
         
        Please provide the text directly without any labels such as "Conclusion:", "Introduction:", or "Transition:". Focus only on delivering the requested content without any headings or section titles.
        Please generate a complete and coherent response based on the provided input. Ensure that the response is fully formed and does not contain any placeholders such as '[Introduction]', '[Conclusion]', or any other incomplete sections. 
        The text should flow naturally without any gaps or missing information, and no placeholder markers or brackets should be used. 
        Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words "Reply finished" to indicate that your response is complete. 
        Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.}