Furia

Fritz Lang's first US film is arguably the best he made there,containing elements of his most celebrated film,M,though this time here the mentality of mob violence does not have a genuinely evil monster (so brilliantly portrayed in M by Peter Lorre) as it's point of retribution,but a decent,ordinary man in the shape of an equally superb Spencer Tracy.The first reel or so of FURY is somewhat dull,with Tracy and his fiancé Sylvia Sidney struggling to raise money for their wedding in what seems a straight-forward domestic story.But the film soon gets into gear when Tracy is mistaken for a kidnapper and held in a small town jail,and is lynched by most of the town's population,led by waster and bad boy Bruce Cabot.Or it seems he is lynched......Tracy somehow escapes,and totally hardened by the experience,is determined on exacting revenge against the perpetrators.

The film wasn't a particular critical or box-office triumph in it's day,maybe because it told some unpalatable truths in aspects of American life at the time.While not necessarily Hollywood's best-loved or most effective leading man,Tracy was arguably it's best actor from a technical viewpoint,and his performance is outstanding here.His transformation from an innocuous everyman to vicious criminal is totally convincing.After he makes his way back home to his brother's apartment,his speech detailing his ordeal and his thirst for vengeance is a quite brilliant piece of screen acting.Tracy had this and other memorable big screen monologues to his credit in a distinguished career (watch other fine examples in such films as STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE,STATE OF THE UNION,INHERIT THE WIND and GUESS WHO'S COMING HOME TO DINNER),and there were few,if any,that could equal him in similar circumstances.There are no forced histrionics,no exaggerated hand or facial gestures,no bellowing out of words,just a careful and believable building up of rage until he explodes on the final word he comes to.......,DEATH!

Aside from Tracy's excellence,the film is at it's most effective in the setting up and brief aftermath of the lynching itself.Lang's penchant for Germanic expressionism and moody lighting is very effective here,especially in the scene where the converging of the mob on the police station is represented by a subjective tracking shot,a remarkably powerful scene which is the film's highpoint.

The film goes slightly downhill in the courtroom sequence,which although has interesting elements (the use of newsreel footage as evidence),tends to get over-melodramatic and obviously contrived(Tracy's peanut habit and word misspelling are not too convincing plot devices),and Lang was reportedly very opposed to the somewhat sappy ending tagged on by MGM(as Hollywood's moral code demanded in the 30's).That aside,fine support performances(Ms Sidney,Walter Brennan,Edward Ellis,Walter Abel,etc.),a good musical score(Franz Waxman),stylish visuals(Joesph Ruttenberg)and bravura direction by Lang still make FURY,despite dated elements,a powerful and effective essay on lynch mob rule seven decades later,which most of it's contemporaries can certainly not boast.

RATING:7 and a half out of 10

Horribly melodramatic, but psychologically complex, well-directed and excellently edited. Spencer Tracy is an innocent man assumed guilty by a mob and "lynched." Making this 1936 film still-timely are the growth of the mob and its trial, conviction and execution of Tracy based only on speculation and emotion instead of on evidence and reason. Also, the line, "I will remind the jury of the easy habit of putting on foreigners events that disturb our conscience" comments on a tendency that still exists today (just listen to talk radio here in Massachusetts!). The story touches on many issues - morality, humanity, patriotism, law, politics, media, etc - and, as such, raises many issues for discussion. Teachers might consider showing this film in class as a start-point into exploration of today's issues. Spencer Tracy gives an appropriately melodramatic performance, but Edward Ellis as the town sheriff gives the best (albeit small) performance. For entertainment value, I'd give this film 6/10; but for fans of any of the stars, the director, or for advocates of civil rights and justice, this film is worth about 8/10; finally, as a tool for teachers, 10/10.

The hard worker Joseph "Joe" Wilson (Spencer Tracy) and the teacher Katherine Grant (Sylvia Sidney) are in love with each other, but they do not have enough money to get married. Katherine gets a better job in Washington and together with Joe, they save money to get married one year later. Joe quits his job in the factory and uses his savings to buy a gas station, working with his brothers Charlie (Frank Albertson) and Tom (George Walcott). He makes enough money to get married with Katherine and buys a car. While driving with his dog Rainbow to meet his fiancée, Joe is stopped in Strand by the redneck Deputy "Bugs" Meyers (Walter Brennan) as suspect of kidnapping a boy in the Peabody Case. When they find peanuts in his pocket and a five-dollar bill in his pocket with the numeration of the money paid for ransom, Joe is arrested in jail for investigation.

"Bugs" Meyers makes a comment in the barbershop about the prisoner and sooner the gossip is spread in the little town. As a tale never loses in the telling, Joe is accused by the population of kidnapper and they try to invade the police station to lynch him. For political reason, Governor Burt (Howard Hickman) does not send the National Guard to help Sheriff Tad Hummel to protect Joe and the Police Station is burnt down by the vigilantes. Katherine witnesses the action and has a breakdown.

Joe is presumed dead but out of the blue he appears at his brothers' apartment seeking justice. He had learnt that in accordance with the laws, Lynch Law is murder in the first degree and his brothers open a case against twenty-two dwellers of Strand. The prosecutor Mr. Adams accepts the case and Katherine Grant is the prime witness. Joe's revenge is set in motion.

"Fury" tells the heartbreaking story of dehumanization of a good man and hard worker that believes in the justice and loves his country through the imprisonment and subsequent lynching by despicable people moved by gossip. Fritz Lang makes another excellent feature in his first American work, and I enjoyed the gossip sequence that ends in a brood of hens.

The story is engaging with a great revenge of the bitter Joe. I would love to see the twenty-two defendants going to the gallows, but the moralist conclusion works perfectly in the story. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Fúria" ("Fury")

"When a mob takes it upon itself to identify, try, condemn, and punish, it is a destroyer of a government that patriots have died to establish and defend."

A couple of blowhards without moral compasses whip a crowd up into a frenzy of hate, leading to an institution of government being stormed and destroyed. The mob is more willing to believe an unsubstantiated rumor than let the facts play out in a court of law. Thank god there was video evidence that could be used to help identify the culprits. It's trite to ask whether that sounds familiar, but it's impossible not to see the similarity to the real-life events of 1/6/21.

The script for this film was based on the 1933 lynching of two suspects being held in a San Jose jail for the kidnapping and murder of Brooke Hart. What was horrifying about it was that California Governor James Rolph actually endorsed the lynching, saying he would pardon anyone who was convicted. It's particularly onerous when those in positions of power subvert the rule of law so blatantly - and we see a representation of Rolph in a character who stops the National Guard from being sent out to protect the jail. (Again, ringing any bells?) It's a little unfortunate that this wasn't an African-American lynching case given the statistics spouted in the courtroom scene had to be stilted in that direction, but I don't fault the film for that because it was 1936, and the case selected was itself compelling.

Warning, spoilers from here on.

It's all very riveting, but I think where the film missteps is when it has the victim of this violence (Spencer Tracy) secretly survive, and then attempt to get mob members tried for murder anyway. The intention was likely to show his own lust for revenge getting the better of dispassionate rule of law, but it defies belief, and undercuts the power of the film. It would have been far more artistically truthful had he died, and his fiancée (Sylvia Sidney) used to carry on the prosecution of the thugs responsible. It doesn't ring true at all when she points out to him how the members of the mob probably regret their actions of that day. Ha! The film seems to want to take a little left turn into happy-land, with Tracy and Sidney ending up smooching, the townsfolk all having learned some lesson (you know, rather than being tried for attempted murder), and our faith in humanity restored because Tracy didn't let these people get convicted. It's all ridiculous.

If Fritz Lang had died or been killed by the Nazis (whom he detested and opposed)in 1933 or 1934, it is stunning to realize that his position as a great film director would have been assured. He would have already had METROPOLIS, SPIES, DR. MABUSE, and M down to establish his credentials as a master of cinematic art. But he left Germany to escape the real villains who were coming to power. And he ended up, after briefly staying in France, coming to the U.S. Most of his later films would be made in the U.S. FURY is his first American masterpiece - a study of mob violence, and the destructive forces it unleases in even the most decent people. Here, it is Spencer Tracy, the erstwhile victim of a lynch mob, who becomes demonic in retaliation for his own mistreatment at their hands. It would be a theme Lang would return to again and again in later films - Edward G. Robinson turning on Joan Bennett and Dan Duryea in SCARLET STREET is a good example.

Like many great crime films it is based on an actual incident that occurred in San Jose, California in 1933. Brooke Harte, the son of a wealthy department store owner, was kidnapped by two rather stupid men, Harold Thurmond and Jack Holmes, for a ransom, and drowned when they collected the money. Brooke had been a very popular young man, and when the men were caught a mob attacked the jail, and killed them (hanging at least Thurmond when he was still alive - Holmes was beaten to death in the jail). The incident gained notoriety around the globe (the Nazis had the nerve to use it to suggest Americans were violent degenerates - and frequently republished photos of the dead men as propaganda in World War II). It was hard to hide the story - the mobs were filmed attacking the jail, and (as mentioned above) the swinging bodies of the two kidnappers were photographed. Most people in America were appalled by the incident, but it had defenders. Governor James Rolph (former Mayor of San Francisco) defended the lynch mob beyond any reasonable point (Rolph was running for re-election, and in ill health - he would die before the reelection was held).

A fine account of the crime, SWIFT JUSTICE by Harry Farrell, only touches lightly on the Lang movie. The similarities with the newsreel trucks and even a Rolph-clone (Clarence Kolb, in a small but sinister role as a powerful man trying to convince the Sheriff - Edward Ellis - to leave the jail underprotected from the mob)are there. But Lang allows Tracy to survive, unlike Thurmond and Holmes. Also, in reality the newsreel footage was not clear enough (like that in the film) to be used against the defendants in their trial. In fact, nobody was ever indicted for the lynch murders of Thurmond and Holmes.