Die unsichtbare Front

This entry from 20th Century Fox feels like a low-budget film; no action footage, no epic scenery; just a lot of indoor dialogue. But make no mistake, this is a remarkable film, primarily thanks to the spectacular performance of the great Ernest Borgnine.

It seems to me that in most of his movies, Borgnine simply plays himself: a boisterous and bawdy character, sometimes benign, sometimes evil (see "A Bad Day at Blackrock"). But here, perhaps even more so than in "Marty", Mr. Borgnine gets a chance to play something different: a soft-spoken, kind-hearted man, who never fails to be conscious of how anything he says and does affects those around him. He is sensitive and bewildered, due to the accusations directed at him, and he plays his part so wonderfully well that you might actually forget who the actor is - I can't think of a better way to compliment this gentle bear of a man.

The supporting cast are fine throughout. Some of the sentimentality sometimes threatened to become maudlin, but, thanks to Borgnine's strength as an actor, it never takes over the film.

Particularly curious is the young actor Warren Berlinger, playing Borgnine's son Harry. We are left to wonder how Borgnine could have a son with a heavy Brooklyn accent when the rest of the family is essentially accent-free. But no matter, he too is appealing.

Ray Milland plays Borgnine's lawyer hard and well, though he looks a little puffy around the left cheek and jowl. The scene early on when he tests Borgnone's loyalty by berating him is particularly powerful.

The movie, though longish at 88 minutes, actually flies by, as you wonder desperately how Borgnine will fare in the end. A strongly recommended movie.

A government employee (Ernest Borgnine) loses his job when his superiors receive notice that he had had ties with Communist organizations in the past. Set in offices in Washington D. C. and as well in a suburban development, the film goes between the two locales to track the action. Probably the more interesting locale is the suburb where he lives with his family and where the opinion seems to be divided between the neighbors as to whether or not he actually is a subversive. The Washington side of things is more or less focusing on his trial to prove his innocence and shines a favorable light on government fairness during his trial, which features Ray Milland as his legal representative and Nina Foch as the government heavy trying to prove the case against him. One wonders in real life if this opportunity was actually afforded to suspected Communists during the 50's. In any event, back at his suburban neighborhood things get pretty heated at his two kids' high school where they face rumors about their family, and other interesting situations as well arise that make the film at least mildly interesting compared to the whitewash it portrays at his trial.

Charging an innocent man without proper evidence on mere hearsay of vague rumour, someone having heard someone else having heard something, leading to a witchhunt of McCarthyism getting lost in a maze of anonymous reports, ultimately leading to a murder trial with no satisfactory outcome, as everyone's testimony of the perfect reliability of the man is not enough for the absolute demands of impeccable security measures of the navy, making no allowances for any possible loose end of a human factor, in the strictness of exact perfection of order, where mere assurances of innocence are not enough for convincing the bureaucracy.

At the height of the Cold War and the HUAC hearings, government employee Bernie Goldsmith (Borgnine) is summarily fired. He discovers, to his horror, that he's suspected of being a Communist. Ostracized by most of his community, he hires a lawyer and fights the charges. The other two brave men of the title are his lawyer (Milland) and a representative of the military (Lovejoy) who stand up for him. The film depicts the trauma Goldsmith and his family go through in the efforts to clear themselves. Based on a newspaper story, the film is an interesting attempt to deal with the blacklist issue circa late 1956 when it was produced.

Ernest Borgnine plays a government employee who is accused of being a security risk and is fired. What this meant in early 1950s language was that he was suspected as a communist. However, the exact reasons for this as well as his accusers were never presented to him and defending himself against vague charges was difficult, if not impossible. Fortunately, he's defended by a capable lawyer (Ray Milland) and some members of the community come to his defense--though many of his so-called friends decide he MUST be disloyal and treat him and his family roughly. How can a guy defend himself if no witnesses or evidence are presented?! Such a film critical of the Red Scare of the early 1950s would never have been made much before 1956. Fortunately, by 1956, folks in Hollywood were willing to finally talk about the overreactions of the time. Now I am NOT saying communism was no threat--but the reaction was clearly a case where Constitutional rights were ignored. The film does a very nice job showing this and making Borgnine very sympathetic and real--sort of a great 'everyman'. And, I really liked Frank Faylen's portrayal as the mailman--he was quite the character! Overall, a very compelling film--and interesting as a portrait into our history.

By the way, this film was based on a real life government employee, Abraham Chasanow. However, Chasanow lived in Greenbelt, Maryland, a place that looks nothing like Riverview from the movie. A planned Levittown community, it was made up mostly of multifamily homes and were often blocky and unattractive--not the sort of place you'd want in a film. It looks a lot nicer now (they gave the places makeovers a few decades ago), by the way and I grew up only a few minutes from there.

Also, you might want to keep some Kleenex nearby. Some parts are very touching and emotional.