Lasternes by
Ugh, that
was a tough one.
“The Phenix
City Story” was a shocking experience, even for a 21st century jaded
viewer like me. This is not only the most violent movie of the fifties (so far)
but also one that gives us ugliness right in the face. It takes a strong
stomach to get through this one.
I cannot
begin to imagine how this movie would have felt like for an audience in its
time.
You may
argue that such an explicit exposition of crime and violence is a B-movie
gimmick and undoubtedly this is a B-Movie, but I feel there is a real purpose
to the explicitness here because the story told is both gruesome and real (at
least so we are let to believe). The producers seem aware that maybe they have
gone a bit too far and so have inserted a lengthy “news report” in the opening,
telling us that the story is real, that the good guys won and preparing us for
the murder of one of the lead characters. I am not sure though that I am easier
about it knowing that this is supposed to be a real story. To think this really
happened is just horrible.
So, the
story is that Phenix City, Alabama has had a long history of gambling,
prostitution and the associated mob activities. This apparently to the extent
that the business employed a large part of the population and that it was, if
not liked, then certainly accepted. When I say that the business employed a large
part of the population that includes law enforcement and the courts.
Despite the
overpowering strength of the mob there are segments fighting the mob, mainly
due to their associated activities such a murders, intimidation and general
corruption. However since law enforcement is bought and paid for this fight is
a vigilant fight and thus ineffective and ultimately as bad as the mob itself.
The story
told here is about the fight that finally overthrew the mob rule and it centers
on the Patterson family. Albert Patterson (John McIntire) is an elderly lawyer
who has kept strictly neutral, but is forced to take sides when his son, John
(Richard Kiley) returns from Germany with wife and children and decides to take
up the fight. The mob, led by jovial looking Rhett Tanner (Edward Andrews)
decides early on to scare the new resistance away, but only manages to infuriate
them. There is a truly horrible scene where a little black girl of maybe five
years is picked up by mob bullies, killed and thrown out of the car on the lawn
of John Patterson in front of his screaming children.
That was
the moment where I wondered if I really wanted to watch this movie. Hurting
children is seriously overstepping my tolerance.
All this
was just to send a message and, almost as an afterthought, to punish the girl’s
father Zeke Ward (James Edwards) for siding with the protesters. I do not know
if there was a hint of racism in that the mob so callously kills a black child
or that the producers chose to show it so explicitly. Would they have done so
with a white girl?
John’s wife
Mary Jo (Lenka Peterson) understandably freaks out and insists they leave this
very minute. I tend to agree with her. This is no place to raise children and
not for any cause would I risk my children. John only seem to get message from
his wife halfway, sending the children away, but insisting to fight the battle.
It does
have the effect of turning Albert Patterson to the cause and so the strategy is
to get him elected as attorney general, empowering him to fight the mob. This
sets off a vicious reaction from the mob as they are doing their utmost to
sabotage and intimidate the election process. Again very explicitly depicted. When
this fails they go for the man himself.
Murders,
violence, blood running down faces, callous and cold blooded mobsters, I lost
count of the incidents in this movie, there are so many victims. Vigilantism is
always inches away as law is nonexistent here. Yet the message also seems to be
that only law can succeed against inhuman crime of this caliber. It just seem
almost naïve when corruption has soaked everything. What do you do when the
very tools to fight corruption are corrupted?
There was
one quote from the movie that was very telling of how close to the surface
violence always lurks: Mary Jo has just seen Mr. Gage, a lawyer, casually pick
up his gun “Does Mr. Gage always carry a gun?”. To which Albert answers: “Sure,
I guess so, why not? He’s got a license”, and chuckles. Little did it help him
though when he got mugged shortly after.
Yet, for
all this, or because of all this, I found the movie had a lot of nerve and
managed to keep me interested and even mesmerized all the way to the end. It is
exciting and revolting and if this is truly what happened and happened for a
long time in this town then somebody must sit back with a very bad taste.
I hate to
admit it, but I did enjoy the movie. I just do not think I could bear watching
the murder of that little girl again. Ugh.
It's an odd little picture, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI get your last comment entirely because I feel the same way. This is an ugly film, but it's compelling. In fact, it might well be compelling because it's so brutal and ugly.
Indeed, but even without the violence it manages to keep up steam right to the end. It is a movie want to, but cannot, move away from.
DeleteI agree this film stands out from the others you've been watching up to this point, but there will be far more violent ones, and ones where children are harmed, coming later in the list for you. Schindler's List comes to mind. I consider it a great movie, five stars, and one of the very best films to ever win Best Picture...but I will never watch it again.
ReplyDeleteThat is not so great news, though I expected it.
DeleteI like Schindlers List and have watched it several time but it is hard every time. Spielberg is a sucker for emotional manipulation and the girl in the red dress pushes those buttons every time. When I saw Schindler's grave at Yad Vachem I cried like a baby. uff.