Escape

Peggy Cummins (92 at this writing) is probably best known for her portrayal of a gun-happy gal in the classic noir "Gun Crazy" from 1950.

After winning the lead in 1947's Forever Amber over 200 auditioners, she was replaced by Linda Darnell because the producers decided she wasn't famous enough.

Here she is in a programmer, "Escape" from 1948, alongside Rex Harrison. Harrison plays Matt DEnant, convicted of manslaughter after an accident involving a policeman.

It was a just act, defending a woman talking with him in the park; he punched the police officer, who hit his head on the bench and died as a result.

Matt is sentenced to three years in prison which he doesn't want to spend for something he doesn't feel responsible for. He escapes during a thick fog and is caught by a young upper class woman, Dora Winton, as he's stealing her breakfast in her bedroom. She feels sorry for him and gives him a coat and hat, and he takes off as the police search her family's house.

Matt runs into Dora again when a car he stole breaks down, and again, she helps him. Unfortunately, while she helps him, another friend does not, and he nearly walks into a trap.

Matt learns that she's engaged to a man she doesn't love, strictly for money as her family has fallen on hard times. She doesn't think three years is all that long to serve, and points out that if Matt has to run and hide the rest of his life, isn't that prison too?

Good story with good performances. There are a couple of messages here - there are different kinds of prisons, and different kinds of laws. As a priest tells Matt, God's law is infallible. Man's is not.

The end is unexpected, at least it was by me.

This is of course a remake of the 1930 film starring Gordon Harker.This was the second film made by Associated Talking Pictures at Ealing.It is therefore rather primitive when compared to this film which gives it a Holluywood makeover,notwithstanding the fact that it was made in the UK by Fox.Given the use of the quotation from Galsworthy at the end one can only assume that this film is somehow supposed to teach a moral lesson and inspire faith in the workings of the machinery of Justice.Ironic when you think of the miscarriage of justice that was going on at the time with the infamous Christie case just one example of the way justice was not working.The problem with this story is that since it would appear that the crime was committed ,the protestations of wrongful conviction rather fall on deaf ears.

The acting of the main characters - Harrison, Cummins and Hartnell - are convincing but generally lack a great deal of passion. Everyone behaves pretty much as one would expect. There are many twists and turns in the plot but these are often fairly predictable; one is rarely surprised. The settings - prison, village, moor, country cottage, are just what they're supposed to be, no more, no less. The dialogue is convincing, and also just what you might expect. There is variety of tone and many moments of humour, darker points, philosophical themes regarding justice, honour and life. Generally, the film takes its time making its points, just so you don't miss them. So it rolls along in an amiable manner and is enjoyable to watch; however, it does lack some of the sparkle of the 1930 version.

Although based on a play,unlike many Mankiewicz' s movies,this one is no "filmed stage production" style .It even sometimes recall Hitchcock's 'the thirty-nine steps " for the bulk of the action is a chase .

A strong performance by Rex Harrison (who would be the star of three other Mankiewicz works :" the ghost and Mrs Muir" " the overlooked "honey pot" and the largely underrated "Cleopatra " in which he was the best Julius Ceasar in the history of cinema),who is sentenced to jail (three years!)for what he considers a just act.Actually what happened to him could happen to anyone .That's why it's so easy to identify with him and to feel he had been treated unfairly.

"Escape" has two meanings :escape from jail for the convict ,escape from a world she does not fit in for Dora:she's going to make a money match ,because "she's tired of being poor" ,but she realizes ,after meeting the fugitive that she would live in a prison too.

This is an offbeat story ;the conclusion is not what the audience is expecting and may be off-putting for some viewers.God himself intervenes ,and ,as the priest says ,only Him can judge man,only his justice is infallible.Besides ,one of the hero's friends betrays him to get Judas' thirty pieces of silver.

An ex-RAF gentleman pilot (Denant) has casual speech with a girl in a park, a girl of the night. As he leaves, a heavy handed police detective attempts to roughly arrest the girl, and Denant turns back to politely intervene, a "there's no need for that". The detective is a petty tyrant, out to make his bust of a poor working girl, though she had only been on the bench, not on the game. The two men tussle—the long arm of the law and the stronger arm of the righteous gentleman. The law falls, Denant stays righteous and is sent down for his pains.

Soon he breaks out and goes on the run, as a righteous matter of principle. He falls in with Dora, a daughter of a well respected family, whose family has fallen financially, and she is engaged for lucre not love. Stretching credulity, she very readily casts in her lot with him, defying the injustice of the law, and committing ever more until she's dropped her intended, exchanging lucre for love.

For Denant's part, he comes to accept that human justice is imperfect, and if you don't like it it might be better to lump it. Some reviewer has strangely suggested that God's direct voice features. That misses a big point: at most, it's God's indirect voice through a church leader, who philosophises that hearing God's voice is often difficult, even for Christians, in a fallen world. In short, moral decisions aren't always perfect—even as in chess several different moves according to objective rules can be good, and a seeming good move might be ill-judged. Should the church leader, as a law-abider, turn Denant in, or as a God-abider should he conceal Denant who has claimed sanctuary? What sanctuary remains in the world? Should Denant willingly suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? The film is explorative.

Its conclusion is clear about some decisions, but not clear about some conclusions, such as whether recapture will lead to extended jail time, or possibly a retrial, especially if a missing witness were to come forward. The imperfection of human justice, the futility of opposing it, the individual's freedom of choice even under Big Brother (sorry David & Teresa, lol), what it means to be human, all are looked at in this play.