Blinde Wut

An idealist sets out to visit his girlfriend, whom he hasn't seen for a year, but he is picked up by the cops for no real reason and thrown into a cell because a flimsy piece of evidence hints that he might be the kidnapper of a young woman. A rumor flares in the small town and soon most of the populace is standing outside the police office demanding retribution.

I won't outline the plot any further, because there are many twists and turns to come. Fury is basically a study in justice, guilt, revenge, and mindless fury. Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sydney star and are exceptional. The supporting cast is excellent also. Lang's direction is often amazing. It is always stylistic, expressionistic and it challenges you every step of the way. Watch for one scene near the center of the film where Lang cuts together a series of close-ups. His timing is incredible here. The script is imperfect. In fact, there are a lot of instances of unbelievability and silliness in the film. It is a testament to the rest of the script (and the other aspects of the film, too) that Fury ends up being such a great film. I like it nearly as much as M. It may not be quite as good, but it moves at a brisker pace and is thus often more exciting and suspenseful. 9/10.

Eighty years after its first release, this story of mob violence in USA is a savage indictment of the American system of mob "justice" from the 1880s to the 1960s. The fictional events of this movie, based upon a true incident, took place in the 1930s. Produced by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, directed by Fritz Lang, it stars Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sidney in the key roles; with an excellent supporting cast, this is a story that stands the test of time.

I won't comment much on the plot and the story, both of which have been adequately addressed by the storyline on the main IMDb page, and a ton of detailed reviews here.

However, without Lang and Mankiewicz on this production, the dramatic irony would not, I think, have been as effectively portrayed - for two reasons. First, Lang coming from a Germany where Nazism was ascendant, knew all too well what injustice was all about and how people can prostitute their principles for what is perceived as justifiable retribution. Second, Mankiewicz was a highly experienced actor/producer/director who has shown, throughout his career, that injustice in all its forms must be shown for the evil it is. With such a combination at the reel wheel, this movie was guaranteed to be hard-hitting.

Lang's direction is very much on form, using lighting and shadow for full effect; using close up, quick editing in mob scenes; using the camera in extreme close up to ensure viewers note a particular item; and cross-cutting and inter-cutting scenes to heighten suspense. Not the first director to use those techniques, but Lang was a master at it.

For the most part, the script and dialog are excellent. My only critique centers upon the courtroom scenes and dialog which, by today's standards, are somewhat stagy; the repartee, between the prosecution and defense counsels, is particularly so, too often for this viewer. And the very last scene, seemingly preachy and even corny, which involves a long verbal exchange between the judge (Burton) and one of the main characters, can only be fully appreciated in the context of the times: a long history of lynching across the USA, an economy in the midst of a Great Depression and a nation on the cusp of another world war.

For Lang enthusiasts, Fury is a must see movie, despite the presence of a couple of handy coincidences, an improbable result with the use of dynamite and a glaring loose end - at the very end. Still, this is a movie that should be seen by all, and one I heartily recommend. Eight out of ten.

April 24, 2015

Famed German director Fritz Lang's first American film, Fury, is loosely based on a story by Norman Krasna, "Mob Rule", which itself was based on the tale of California's last public lynching, in 1933, of Thomas Harold Thurmond and John M. Holmes, the kidnappers and murderers of Brooke Hart, the "son" in San Jose's L. Hart and Son Department Store. Fury is a fine exploration (although not an analysis) of the mentality of vengeance, whether from a mob, as in the first half of the film, or from an individual, as in the latter half. It is loaded with fine acting and an unusually constructed script by Lang and co-writer Bartlett Cormack, although it is not without flaws.

Joe Wilson (Spencer Tracy) is deeply in love with Katherine Grant (Sylvia Sidney). Wilson lives in the Chicago area in a small apartment with his two brothers, Charlie (Frank Albertson) and Tom (George Walcott). Wilson wants to marry Grant, but they're short on money. Despite the relationship hardships it will entail, Grant returns to Texas to work--she'll be making good money there, while Wilson tries to improve his lot in Illinois. Wilson finally manages to buy a gas station with his brothers, and earns enough to buy a car and take a road trip, with his dog Rainbow in tow, to meet Grant so they can get married. When he's almost there, Wilson is suddenly stopped by a sheriff's deputy in the small town of Strand. They question him about a kidnapping. Two minor details make him more suspicious, and so they decide to hold him in the town jail while the D.A. looks into his background. Rumors makes their way around the town and things go horribly wrong, bringing us to mob mentality, lynchings and vengeance.

Lynchings were an emerging social problem in the early 1930s. There were 60 known lynchings in the U.S. between 1930 and 1934. Beginning in 1934, the earliest of the "anti-lynching" bills was presented to the U.S. Congress, and that number grew to 140 different bills by 1940. The visual arts also voiced in on the issue--one museum held "An Art Commentary on Lynching" exhibition in 1934. So Fury was certainly pertinent to our culture at the time, and was one of many films to come, such as Mervyn LeRoy's They Won't Forget (1937) that centered on strong anti-lynching sentiments (believe it or not, there were also pro-lynching films, such as Cecil B. DeMille's This Day and Age, 1933).

It's interesting to note that although lynching was primarily a "racial"-oriented phenomenon, Lang was not allowed to comment on that very much. There are a couple shots of blacks in the film, but they are extremely innocuous. Anything even more slightly controversial was excised at MGM's (and specifically Louis B. Mayer's) behest.

Fury's structure is very unusual, contributing even more to its unpredictable, captivating nature. It begins as an almost bland romance while Lang sets up the characters and their slightly exaggerated innocence, turns into an interesting hardship film, briefly becomes a road movie, switches gears again when Wilson is arrested, and actually presents a profoundly impactful climax at the midway point--it seems as if the film could end there. The second half makes a major u-turn as what could be seen as an extended tag/dénouement becomes an in-depth courtroom drama that builds to a second climax. The second half allows Lang to explore the same vengeance mentality as the first half, except from an individual rather than the previous mob perspective.

Although the second climax denotes a fine work of art on its own--there are some very moving performances and developments towards the end of the courtroom stuff, the star attraction is the gradually building mob material in the middle. What begins as an annoyance for Wilson turns into widespread tragedy as the rumor mill gears up and easygoing conformism rears its ugly head. Of course it is well known that Lang came to America to escape Nazi Germany, where he had been asked to act as Hitler's minister of film, so Fury, although sometimes criticized as a commercial film for Lang, certainly had personal poignancy for him. Lang shows rumors gradually distending in a game of "Telephone" with serious consequences, and inserts a humorous shot of chickens to symbolize "clucking women". He shows how easily a situation can go from those kinds of increasingly misreported claims to dangerous action due to conformism. Most folks are shown as all too eager to go along with the crowd and avoid local conflict.

For a few moments, the mob mentality leads to a situation that presages John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). And overall, Fury is sometimes said to have anticipated film noir. However, despite some highly stylistic shots, such as the early, shimmering reflections of rain soaked windows on opposing walls, or the almost comically exaggerated action/reaction shots of the mob in full force (some of the more poignant material in the film), much of Fury's cinematography is more pedestrian. In his interview with Peter Bogdanovich that serves as the bulk of the DVD's "director's commentary", Lang states that he prefers simple, straightforward cinematography, to emphasize realism, or "truth". That may sound odd coming from the man who gave us Metropolis (1927), but at least for Fury, it is consistent.

But this isn't a flawless film. A few dramatic transitions are awkward, including two very important ones--the initial "capture" of Wilson, which is fairly inexplicable, and the final scene of the film, which leaves a significant dangling thread. But the underlying concepts, the performances and more often than not the technical aspects of the film work extremely well, making Fury an important film to watch.

A compelling "message picture" with good performances from both Sylvia Sidney and Spencer Tracy and deft direction from Fritz Lang. 'Fury' is tautly dramatic and not without lessons for a modern audience, but it still falls just a little short of masterpiece status.

This was Lang's first American film, the studios were presumably in fierce competition to sign him to a contract and seems clear that MGM was quite proud of itself and thought they could safely fit the Austrian master into their mold while also revisiting some of his past successes. 'Fury' is by no means a remake of 'M' but it does share some key themes. However, the style is a marked departure from the director's German work and the Hollywood treatment keeps this film from being as compelling as its older brother.

Hailing from the Midwest as I do, the Hooterville Junction take on small-town America rankled with me a bit. Gossipy housewives and self-important businessmen are played for laughs and then suddenly turn into a howling mob bent on the death of a man against whom the "evidence" is literally peanuts. It's a serious matter, as we're later reminded by the prosecutor's speech about the number of lynchings in America's then recent history, it should never have been treated lightly.

Do watch it though, and keep an eye out for a very familiar Cairn terrier. Also, early on when Joe and Katherine are looking at bedroom furniture there's a distinct chuckle at the expense of the Hays Code (which was enforced starting in '34).

Horribly melodramatic, but psychologically complex, well-directed and excellently edited. Spencer Tracy is an innocent man assumed guilty by a mob and "lynched." Making this 1936 film still-timely are the growth of the mob and its trial, conviction and execution of Tracy based only on speculation and emotion instead of on evidence and reason. Also, the line, "I will remind the jury of the easy habit of putting on foreigners events that disturb our conscience" comments on a tendency that still exists today (just listen to talk radio here in Massachusetts!). The story touches on many issues - morality, humanity, patriotism, law, politics, media, etc - and, as such, raises many issues for discussion. Teachers might consider showing this film in class as a start-point into exploration of today's issues. Spencer Tracy gives an appropriately melodramatic performance, but Edward Ellis as the town sheriff gives the best (albeit small) performance. For entertainment value, I'd give this film 6/10; but for fans of any of the stars, the director, or for advocates of civil rights and justice, this film is worth about 8/10; finally, as a tool for teachers, 10/10.