Nella polvere del profondo Sud

No movie could ever do justice to Faulkner's command of the English language. but they did a pretty good job here. Lucas Beauchamp is exactly the way I pictured him in the book, as is Chick. What the movie couldn't really go into was how Beauchamp wasn't liked by the Negro people either, because he was equally as stubborn. Not that it is a bad thing, but from my take on the book that was his attitude toward the world (yet, I got the feeling it was white society's racism that started it and it spilled over into Negro society, until that became his attitude toward everyone).

the best part of the movie is that you get to see Yoknapatawpha county (actually, Oxford, Mississippi) exactly as Faulkner wrote about it (the film was made when Faulkner was alive and writing). It doesn't look that much different today. Because of this alone, the movie is worth a watch considering it is filmed in Faulkner's backyard. A true must see for Faulkner fans.

A white man is killed in 1940s small town Mississippi. Proud black man Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernández) is arrested for the murder. He asks young Chick Mallison to get his uncle local lawyer John Gavin Stevens (David Brian) to defend him. Stevens would rather stay out of the case which everybody assumes Lucas' guilt. Lucas had helped Chick when he fell into a frozen creek and taught him about something. After a short interview, Stevens is certain of Lucas' guilt but Chick returns to hear him out. Lucas directs Chick to his own gun which is different from the murder weapon. Elderly Eunice Habersham (Elizabeth Patterson) just happens to be in Stevens' office as Chick tries to convince his uncle. Stevens is unconvinced. Chick, black servant boy Aleck and Eunice set out to prove Lucas' innocence.

Chick's relationship with Lucas is one of those big lessons like Scout in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. He doesn't know that he's learning even while he's learning it. I love the Habersham character. The story also gives a slice of small town Deep South pre-civil rights era. The racism turns a bit more towards a murder mystery later on.

Director Clarence Brown does a tremendous job in presenting Juano Hernandez as a dignified man living within a southern community steeped in Jim Crow. Hernandez is falsely accused of murder and is resigned to the fact that this prejudice will lead to his incarceration or worse.

The movie is full of surprises and, happily, ends on a positive note. One of the major movies on racial or cultural prejudice of the era, it was done after Gentlemen's Agreement (1947), Crossfire (1947), but precedes Sidney Poitier's No Way Out (1950) by a year. Clearly, the only other movie that touched on this issue beforehand was the first version of Imitation of Life (1934).

This era was a time when the motion picture industry was struggling with this issue and showed an earnest attempt at portraying this problem with dignity. Hernandez's role as Lucas Beauchamp was no ordinary role for a black actor during this time when the movie industry was still under the control of whites. All in all, this is one of the greats.

Great supporting acting from David Brian, Claude Jarman, Jr. and Elizabeth Patterson.

An unjustly neglected classic, "Intruder in the Dust" is one of the great films of the 1940's which has unfortunately slipped into obscurity. Based on a story by William Faulker, and shot in his hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, "Intruder" tells the story of Lucas Beauchamp (played with great dignity by Juano Hernandez), a black man unjustly accused of the murder of a local white man, and a white boy (Claude Jarman, Jr.) who uses this situation as an opportunity to pay a previous debt to Beauchamp. Terrific acting, especially by two great character actors, Porter Hall (as the dead man's father) and Elizabeth Patterson (best known as Mrs. Trumbull on "I Love Lucy") as an old woman willing to stand against the townspeople to see that right is done. This straightforward, tense and sincere study of racial bigotry deserves to be seen more.

I usually don't like movies based on famous and well-established authors, "sure bets". They seem to be telling the public "You can't POSSIBLY dislike this!!!" I tend to prefer movies that take chances with unknown authors or actors, movies that care for art, not money. But this one is so well-made. Everything works: the photography, the acting, the pacing, and it has that documentary beauty of real life that so few movies have (love those window shots where you see small town downtown traffic!). It's historic interest also makes it enjoyable. A kind of poetry pervades this movie that makes it far more effective than the similar "To Kill a Mockingbird". Hernandez is pure dignity - character and actor - and Jarman is a most refreshing contrast to today's smart-alecky youth. He has a humility that is touching. It is hard to imagine another actor in that role. Is this movie on the side of the angels? Sure. And the black and white poetry saves it.