La rançon

Having seen the mediocre remake of Ransom, starring Mel Gibson, I was intrigued when I came across the original from 1956 that featured the always great Glen Ford. I'm glad I did, because now I know how the film was supposed to be made.

Ransom! is the story of the wealthy Mr. Stannard (Ford) and his wife (Donna Reed) who are devastated to find out that their son has been kidnapped. Stannard immediately agrees to the kidnapper's terms, but at the last minute turns the tables when he goes on television and announces that the 500,000 ransom is now a price on the kidnapper's head, a decision which shocks the local townspeople and especially his wife.

I have a feeling this film was innovative using television as a platform, it had to have been based on the year the film was made - 1956. Although I had seen it played out before in the more recent version of Ransom, with a mild effect, the use of the medium in this manner was extremely powerful, even slightly shocking. Ford made his career playing fairly tough characters; even his roles in comedies had a slightly rough edge. I have to say that this was the best I have ever seen him. He was steely, yet desperate in his resolution that he was making the wisest decision, no matter what the consequences - and when his vulnerability finally cracked through the surface, you cannot help but absorb some of his pain. Donna Reed was a fairly minor character as the mother - she helped set the tone in the beginning, but was basically used later in the film as fuel for Ford's guilt. Leslie Nielsen was also featured as a newspaper reporter who becomes a kind of sounding board for Ford's character, and did a decent dramatic turn at it. It's still interesting to see him as a dramatic actor when we are so used to seeing him only in comedies for the last twenty years.

While Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low" still remains my favorite film in the "kidnapped" genre, this is definitely a close second. The kidnapping of a loved one has been a pretty common plot device in the first century of cinema, but when a film adds to or even transcends the genre it becomes distinct. Ransom! does just that, and I highly recommend it.

--Shelly

This story was based on a real life crime. First seen on Live T.V during 'The U.S. Steel Hour,' in 1954, as 'Fatefull Decision.' It was eventually re-staged in 1955 for the small screen, then further replicated in 1956 and lastly in 1996 by Ron Howard for the Big screen with Mel Gibson. Watching it for the first time, then comparing it with the newest version, I found, I enjoyed the older version better. Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of Mel Gibson, but I believe Glenn Ford was better fitted for the role. The Movie was in Black and White and called simply " Ransom. " The early imagery, stark shadowy profiles and Fords immense skills as a bone-fide actor made for an intense situation and the heavy dramatic part of Donna Reed assured it would become a Classic. Indeed, with the added exceptional talents of Leslie Nielsen, Robert Keith, Bobby Clark and Alexander Scourby, this movie was crafted with real movie magic. Easily Recommended. ****

After viewing the film and reflecting on what made the film tick, my kudos do not go to the actors, who appear to be the backbone of the film, but to a solid script and screenplay.

For the first half hour the movie seems to be making inane statements about bringing up children. But those early conversations become meaningful after the movie is over as the choices the father makes have much to do with the parallels in teaching the son early lessons in life--"stealing" planks from your parents' bed to make a toyhouse is to be viewed in comparison to "stealing" stockholder wealth to regain personal property.

At another level, the story is a mirror of Job's dilemma--standing steadfast on principles when all his earthly possessions (including his wife) are being taken away. It is to the credit of the script and the director that the tormentors (the kidnapers) remain unseen and the battle is merely relegated to one man's internal moral turmoil.

Was Glenn Ford's performance creditable? Yes and no. At the end of the film you tend to think it was a memorable performance. But think of replacing Ford with any good star of the day and the effect could have been much the same, thanks to the script.

I feel this was a good film because it did not lapse into trivial confrontation with the kidnapers as most contemporary movies do. It was good because the film avoided pitfalls, while adding color to fringe characters by providing them with short punchy lines such as the lines of the school headmistress, the journalists, the ice-cream vendor, the pedestrian who wonders how speeding police cars don't get tickets, and last but not least the Afro-american butler.

Vacuum-cleaner heir and magnate David G. Stannard (Glenn Ford) is accustomed to getting his way. He will do anything to hold sway over his stuffed-shirt brother under the boardroom-portrait gaze of their late father, the family patriarch. David's marriage to Edith Stannard (Donna Reed) is surface-solid but fissured deep. Will it come apart when their only child, Andy, is kidnapped for ransom?

For son Andy doesn't return home as expected from school one day. By the time the day is over, David has mobilized all the men who count: the police chief, the family doctor (to watch over the potentially hysterical Edith), his brother and business associates (to assemble the ransom), the technicians who operate the switches at the phone company (to trace the kidnapper's call when it comes). The kidnapper, belatedly by phone, has demanded $500,000. And Edith, helpless woman, has already cracked under the strain and been put to bed, sedated.

Now David alone must decide what to do. The host of a TV program which David's company sponsors is standing by to go on the air in a white dinner jacket, a pre-arranged signal to the kidnapper that the ransom is ready. But here's a twist--the police chief and even an insouciant reporter who has invaded the Stannard residence (a young Leslie Nielsen) inform David that paying a kidnapper in no way improves the odds for getting the victim back unharmed!

It just shows potential future kidnappers that crime in fact pays. Criminologically, like begets like. David can strike a blow for fathers everywhere by standing up to the son-stealers of this world and refusing to pay. After a bedside visit to Edith in which he tells her nothing, and after much solitary agony, he appears on the TV show himself with the ransom money spread before him. He says to the kidnapper: Nothing doing. You get not one penny. If you don't free my son, all this will bankroll my unceasing efforts to hunt you down. Will your accomplices be able to resist its lure as bribe or reward for turning you in?

Now the wait is on. Which way will the kidnapper jump? Will Andy come home to his father or go home to his Maker? Meanwhile, just about everyone around David turns against him. The public. David's brother, with his yes-men. The sheriff. Most of the media. And especially Edith, who wakes up and twigs to what David has chosen to do. Even the police chief, who as much as egged him on, begins to play cover-his-arse. David's only stalwarts turn out to be his Negro (this is the 50's) butler, played by Juano Hernandez, and Charlie Telfer, the reporter, who has found his mettle. And, beyond Chapman's prayerful faith which likens this situation to that of the Biblical David and Absalom, they can't help.

David Stannard, a master of men, a veritable king, is completely isolated. He is making the gamble of a lifetime. If it pays off, patriarchy will be restored, in the form of a living male heir and possibly a reunited family. If it doesn't ... what?

Ransom is emblematic of the little, B&W films of the 50s that made up for their low budgets with high mindedness. In a similar context, it reminds me of Twelve Angry Men, made the following year. Both films expanded a profound human dilemma (how to resolve a kidnapping in one case, how to judge the guilt or innocence of a man regardless of popular consensus in another) into a cinematic drama that leaves a greater imprint on your mind than the slam-boom special-effect films of today can possibly accomplish. You leave the theater (or your home TV) thinking over and over, "What would I have done if I were in that situation?" Because of the kiddie-market mentality of modern film producers and the international demand for plots that are high in action and low in thought content, we will never see films of this kind being produced again (at least not by the majors). Savor this film and others like it.