L'uomo che uccise il suo carnefice

No need to cover the plot beyond what has already been said. As has also been stated, in many ways this seems like a one-hour teleplay that has been expanded into a feature film. Though billed as a courtroom drama, most of the screen time is taken up with two romantic subplots and a third drama involving the relationship between Maharis and his mother (Jurado).

Maharis is bland as the lead, as are the two women in his life (this is more of a script problem than the actors' faults). Gene Hackman has a fairly small role as the sheriff, so doesn't really get to shine. The one standout, surprisingly, is Earl Holliman. He can often be hammy or wooden, but here he deftly alternates between sympathetic and despicable in the movie's one complex role.

The other standouts in the film are its period setting (early 1900s New Mexico), and the luminous photography by Robert Burks in his next-to-last film.

There is not much memorable about this film except for the performance of Earl Holliman. His panicked trek up the stairs to the gallows is so perfect, I'm surprised he wasn't nominated for an Oscar. Probably no one saw the movie but if they had, they'd be awed.

Normally, I don't complain but the summary on IMDb for this film is pretty bad. First, it discloses a BIG plot twist. Second, it really doesn't explain what the movie really is all about as well. Sure, there is a murder and execution...but it's all through the eyes of a young Hispanic judge (George Maharis) and there's no mention of him or how he relates to all this.

The story actually is a bit dispassionate...or should I say the first portion. Ben (Maharis) observes what's going on but seems surprisingly impassive about it. Later, however, when the case is surprisingly dropped into his lap, he has to become involved and make a decision based not just on law but common sense as it's really hard at this point to find a precedent for what happens.

Aside from the poor decision to cast Maharis (he's a handsome guy but hardly seems Hispanic), the film is an interesting look at justice and kept my interest. Worth seeing.

... , being the highlighted film on a night of films on Turner Classic Movies starring Gene Hackman who is nary to be found, but I'm OK with that because it was very good. The central figure is a newly appointed Hispanic judge in New Mexico, just twelve years after the territory has become a state. George Maharis plays that young judge, Ben Lewis. He is generally accepted by the legal community, but they have some doubts, some voiced some not, somewhat because of his inexperience, and somewhat because he is of Mexican heritage.

The central legal case has to do with a local real estate salesman found crying next to his recently murdered wife. (Earl Holliman as Brian Talbot). He is arrested for the crime, and although the evidence is completely circumstantial and Talbot never waivers in his declaration of innocence, he is convicted. The only penalty the law allows is death, and thus the older judge, who has been presiding, sentences him to hang, which is the only sentence he can give him. Ben can't help thinking that Talbot's past behavior, the fact that the whole town knew he gave his wife an STD that caused her to have a hysterectomy, the fact that she punished Ben for this by being openly promiscuous for years, was the real reason for his conviction.

The older judge then goes off on a fishing jaunt, thinking the work is done. What he doesn't know is that things are about to really get tricky. When Talbot is hauled to the hangman's noose, and I mean as in kicking and screaming, he makes Daffy Duck look like a profile in courage. He is crying and struggling all of the way, and then in his attempt to avoid that noose on the scaffold he falls off, taking the hangman with him. The hangman hits his head on a rock and then dies. Talbot is alright. So now they have to wait until the next day for another hangman.

In the interim the real murderer writes out a confession and commits suicide. Now the town needs a judge again, to absolve Talbot of the original crime, and to deal with the fact that he did cause the death of the hangman in clear view of two dozen people, and what penalty or charge should be attached to that action. With the older judge out of town and unreachable, it falls to young judge Ben Lewis to handle a case that might make the supreme court scratch their collective heads. After he receives briefs from both the prosecuting and defense attorneys, he is off to study case law, read the attorneys' briefs, and even discuss the case with legal scholars. Oh, and then there is that pesky conscience of his too.

I think this was supposed to be a film about the death penalty, about its finality and its justice, as viewed from the eyes of a man who has made it to the office of judge but is still not given his dues because of lingering prejudice. And that prejudice does not stop with the white community. Katy Jurado as Ben's mother is ultra traditional, very unhappy with Ben's current blue eyed blonde girlfriend, and wants him to marry a Mexican girl. I think Ben rightly sums it up when he says she wants to continue to rule over the house even after his marriage and knows an Anglo girl won't take being bossed around.

I'd give this film an eight if not for so much of the injection of Ben's love life into the film. I know this was 1967 and that Hollywood was just so excited that they could finally show couples in bed together, but Ben's behavior with women ultimately made him look like a - well not Tom or Harry, the other guy. And his ultimate decision in his love life had me going "What the...?". It just went against everything he had been saying and doing up to that point.

This film supposedly got Gene Hackman noticed, at least the TCM host said that it did, but I don't know why because he has few lines and plays his part like the supporting role that it is.

If it weren't for the fact that the idea behind this story is interesting, I would have rated it even lower. I haven't read the book, but it gets good reviews. The first several pages of the book in the free preview on Amazon did not feel like it described the same place or people as I saw in this film. The book also doesn't have any music like that in the movie. I think that's a good thing. Much of the music in the movie is forgettable at best, annoying at times.

In this movie there are too many excursions from the main theme, and Maharis isn't good enough to make those non-essential scenes believable or interesting. His scenes with his mother (Katy Jurado), as well as with Rosemary (Laura Devon), seem like mostly filler for a 1 hour 37 minute movie that could/should have been shorter. Katy Jurado was much better in "High Noon". Here she is okay, maybe trying at times a bit too hard to save scenes where Maharis isn't good enough. Devon's scenes -- both in number and length -- feel stretched to keep the movie long enough.

In other words, if you take just the legal and philosophical issues and work them into a television screenplay, this might have worked better as a 1 hour television episode of ... pick your favorite old legal show -- Perry Mason?. It also might have worked as a science fiction story on "Twilight Zone", where often difficult moral issues are faced head on -- such as the one about the robot that is accused of murder.

This movie does feature a couple of attractive actresses (Laura Devon and Wende Wagner), as well as an early-career performance by Gene Hackman and a good effort by Earl Holliman. As I said the main subject matter is interesting too. But don't be surprised if most of this movie doesn't keep your interest.