अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA convict sentenced to three years for killing a detective escapes from a prison and goes on the run aided by a local girl.A convict sentenced to three years for killing a detective escapes from a prison and goes on the run aided by a local girl.A convict sentenced to three years for killing a detective escapes from a prison and goes on the run aided by a local girl.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 जीत
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
Poor old Rex Harrison ("Denant") is taking a stroll though a foggy park when he gets involved in a tragic contretemps with a prostitute and an undercover police officer. The ensuing fracas sees the officer fall to the ground where he bangs his head on the leg of a bench and dies. "Denant" stays put, owns up and throws himself on the mercy of the court - and a sentence of three years is his reward. He manages to escape, though, and with the help of a young girl "Dora" (Peggy Cummins) manages to lead the pursuing police - led by William Hartnell - a merry dance. I've got to say, though, that aside from the obvious criticism of the demonstrably inflexible justice system that penalised a man for an accident, I struggled to quite see the point of the rest of it. It has gently religious - or, perhaps more specifically Christian - undertones, and maybe that serves to illustrate that a system with some flaws is better than no system at all, but it doesn't resonate in a fashion that concludes in anything substantial. Perhaps that's the point - maybe we are too prone to look for definites where there are none to be had. It's decently paced - much of it takes place on the run - and there is the odd comic scene, too. Harrison and Hartnell do their jobs well enough without either really having to tax their resources, nor for that matter must we, watching.
10clanciai
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाWilliam Hartnell (Inspector Harris) and Patrick Troughton (Shepherd) achieved widespread fame for playing the Doctor in Doctor Who (1963). Hartnell played the first Doctor from 1963 to 1966 while Troughton played the second Doctor from 1966 to 1969.
- भाव
Inspector Harris: Who was it said that er, "a prison is a monastery of men who have not chosen to be monks"?
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe law is what it is, a majestic edifice sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another.
- कनेक्शनReferenced in You Must Remember This: Carole Landis (Dead Blondes Part 5) (2017)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 18 मि(78 min)
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें