La rançon

While I enjoyed the Mel Gibson remake of this picture and was pleased to see him in a serious role where he could display his acting chops, I thought the whole idea was a little divorced from reality, although it made perfect sense at that time as it must have seemed forty years earlier. The notion of a kidnapping victim's family refusing to pay any ransom and using it instead as a tool to convince the perpetrators to turn the boy loose sounds logical enough, but in real life such an act would bring such universal condemnation upon the father in a real-life scenario that no one has ever considered doing it for real. Part of the reason is that so few children are snatched for money, but usually for other more nefarious reasons by mentally warped individuals who generally work alone and don't confide their plans to friends and associates, making such threats to kidnappers at best useless or at worst counterproductive. Because the villain was evident in the Ron Howard remake, the story had to take a turn whereby the father would have to confront the kidnapper one on one. In this original, the snatchers are virtually unseen, so all the drama rests with the victimized family and how they interact with those who come to their aid or to view the spectacle. As such, it gives the principals, Ford and Reed, the chance to emote and they perform very well. Donna Reed was an unusually gifted actress as her Oscar win and Emmy nominations attest and Glenn Ford was an underrated actor in his day, probably best known by younger generations as Superman's adopting father in the final stages of his career. Sad to say, there's very little suspense in the narrative, and one wonders how great directors like Hitchcock, Zinneman or Kazan might have turned this into a great film. If you've only seen the newer version of the two films, take the time to watch the original. Some of the acting is exceptionally good, and it's mostly a well-crafted film. If nothing else, it's interesting to see how different generations of filmmakers can put totally differing spins on essentially the same story. Dale Roloff

This story was based on a real life crime. First seen on Live T.V during 'The U.S. Steel Hour,' in 1954, as 'Fatefull Decision.' It was eventually re-staged in 1955 for the small screen, then further replicated in 1956 and lastly in 1996 by Ron Howard for the Big screen with Mel Gibson. Watching it for the first time, then comparing it with the newest version, I found, I enjoyed the older version better. Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of Mel Gibson, but I believe Glenn Ford was better fitted for the role. The Movie was in Black and White and called simply " Ransom. " The early imagery, stark shadowy profiles and Fords immense skills as a bone-fide actor made for an intense situation and the heavy dramatic part of Donna Reed assured it would become a Classic. Indeed, with the added exceptional talents of Leslie Nielsen, Robert Keith, Bobby Clark and Alexander Scourby, this movie was crafted with real movie magic. Easily Recommended. ****

I had seen him in the Big Heat and while it was an admirable performance, seemed a bit wooden. Not so in this film. Ford gives many dimensions to a man in conflict and trauma, he is multi-faceted and really the focus of the film.

The film was based on a true crime committed in the 1950's. Ford's son is kidnapped by someone posing as a nurse, removing his child from school. A wealthy man, Ford questions the efficacy of paying a ransom- why pay? he asks.

Donna Reed as his wife is acceptable but at the start of the film a bit too perky and perfect. There is a nice sub-plot with Juano Hernanadez, the family butler, who looks after Ford and prays for him; trying to help him survive the horrific events.

I had seen the new version with Rene Russo and Mel Gibson. It is a pale version; the new version is all glitz and no substance. Ford draws the audience into his despair, and we truly care about the outcome of these characters. There is no mindless action, violence as there is in the Gibson movie.

Highly recommended. 8/10.

After viewing the film and reflecting on what made the film tick, my kudos do not go to the actors, who appear to be the backbone of the film, but to a solid script and screenplay.

For the first half hour the movie seems to be making inane statements about bringing up children. But those early conversations become meaningful after the movie is over as the choices the father makes have much to do with the parallels in teaching the son early lessons in life--"stealing" planks from your parents' bed to make a toyhouse is to be viewed in comparison to "stealing" stockholder wealth to regain personal property.

At another level, the story is a mirror of Job's dilemma--standing steadfast on principles when all his earthly possessions (including his wife) are being taken away. It is to the credit of the script and the director that the tormentors (the kidnapers) remain unseen and the battle is merely relegated to one man's internal moral turmoil.

Was Glenn Ford's performance creditable? Yes and no. At the end of the film you tend to think it was a memorable performance. But think of replacing Ford with any good star of the day and the effect could have been much the same, thanks to the script.

I feel this was a good film because it did not lapse into trivial confrontation with the kidnapers as most contemporary movies do. It was good because the film avoided pitfalls, while adding color to fringe characters by providing them with short punchy lines such as the lines of the school headmistress, the journalists, the ice-cream vendor, the pedestrian who wonders how speeding police cars don't get tickets, and last but not least the Afro-american butler.

Having seen the mediocre remake of Ransom, starring Mel Gibson, I was intrigued when I came across the original from 1956 that featured the always great Glen Ford. I'm glad I did, because now I know how the film was supposed to be made.

Ransom! is the story of the wealthy Mr. Stannard (Ford) and his wife (Donna Reed) who are devastated to find out that their son has been kidnapped. Stannard immediately agrees to the kidnapper's terms, but at the last minute turns the tables when he goes on television and announces that the 500,000 ransom is now a price on the kidnapper's head, a decision which shocks the local townspeople and especially his wife.

I have a feeling this film was innovative using television as a platform, it had to have been based on the year the film was made - 1956. Although I had seen it played out before in the more recent version of Ransom, with a mild effect, the use of the medium in this manner was extremely powerful, even slightly shocking. Ford made his career playing fairly tough characters; even his roles in comedies had a slightly rough edge. I have to say that this was the best I have ever seen him. He was steely, yet desperate in his resolution that he was making the wisest decision, no matter what the consequences - and when his vulnerability finally cracked through the surface, you cannot help but absorb some of his pain. Donna Reed was a fairly minor character as the mother - she helped set the tone in the beginning, but was basically used later in the film as fuel for Ford's guilt. Leslie Nielsen was also featured as a newspaper reporter who becomes a kind of sounding board for Ford's character, and did a decent dramatic turn at it. It's still interesting to see him as a dramatic actor when we are so used to seeing him only in comedies for the last twenty years.

While Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low" still remains my favorite film in the "kidnapped" genre, this is definitely a close second. The kidnapping of a loved one has been a pretty common plot device in the first century of cinema, but when a film adds to or even transcends the genre it becomes distinct. Ransom! does just that, and I highly recommend it.

--Shelly