Escape

Rex Harrison is walking in the park after a losing day at the track. He falls into conversation with a young woman sitting on a bench. She hands him a card for her business and Harrison begins to walk off, when a police detective comes up to arrest her for solicitation. Harrison protests. The detective tells him to scarper off. Harrison protests some more and the 'tec takes a swing at him. They tussle and the policeman splatters his head on the bench's ironmongery.

Found guilty of manslaughter, Harrison is sent to Dartmoor. He escapes, is pursued by the police in the form of Inspector William Hartnell, and succored by Peggy Cummins.

It's a remake of the 1930 movie that was the first production of what became Ealing Studios, directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, with John Galsworthy's original script updated by Philip Dunne -- lots more sexual tension between Harrison and Cummins than in the original script. It's certainly a competent remake, and purists will be pleased that the outdoor scenes were shot in Dartmoor; the original used Northamptonshire. Yet I am always confronted by the question of how it is that it's always the good-looking people who are morally superior, and who are believed to be honest. Frederick Piper, who plays the convict to whom Harrison confides his intention to escape.... had he been the one who did so, would Miss Cummins have helped him?

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.

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.

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.

A dark story of injustice, charting the hopelessness of a fugitive not from justice but from the law, which has failed in giving justice. Rex Harrison is a former war hero who defends a defenseless girl in a park and accidentally gets into more trouble than he bargained for, with fatal consequences, for a villain who deserved it, and for himself, who has to survive it. It's a great story by John Galsworthy with many instructive insights on the way. It's kind of an exploration of the problems of injustice. Anyway, risking his life and prolonged sentence by escaping, he does win something on the way, which he wouldn't if he hadn't risked everything for freedom.

Joseph Mankiewicz' direction displays all the literary deserts of the story and communicates it well with clarity and detached poignancy. It's a small film but the greater for its spartan concentration, containing much more than what any film can show.