La marque

The groundbreaking "The Mark" has now been released on a splendidly restored widescreen DVD with commentary by director Guy Green and star Stuart Whitman. Green admits that if the Whitman character had actually followed through on his child molesting tendencies and attacked the little girl he takes for a drive, the film would never have been made, as it would have been too difficult to keep the audience caring and sympathetic to such a man. While Whitman has fantasies and comes close to acting them out, he recognizes that he has a problem and turns himself in for psychiatric treatment, which is largely successful. The focus then shifts from his attempts to reintegrate himself back into society to the misunderstanding and persecution he experiences from those around him once they hear of his arrest. Thus the film can congratulate itself on being daring while staying well within the "safe zone." It's one of those movies that can pretend to be controversial while carefully editing out all the elements in it that would really make it so. This may be why it has been largely forgotten today. "The Mark" is engrossing as far as it goes, and avoids overt titillation (other than the kind that comes from dealing with such a story at all). It's expertly directed and acted by a fine cast. However, for a film that deals with the psychology of a child molester with complete honesty and candor, you would have to turn to Todd Solandz's heartbreaking, yet brilliantly funny and insightful "Happiness."

I had never heard of this movie before I saw it. In fact, I almost didn't watch it at all. As the black and white opening credits rolled, it looked cheap, and the cast wasn't all that impressive, but I had some dead time and took a chance. I'm glad I did. The story revolves around a man, who in the midst of an emotional crisis, almost sexually assaults a 10 yr old child. He is so appalled by what he almost did, that he offers no defense and spends three years in prison. After release, he enters into group therapy, and eventually individual therapy to work through his doubts. The story picks up from there. With the help of the therapist he finds a job, gets a promotion, falls in love with a co-worker, and is about to get his life back together. But as in most movies, at some point, it all hits the fan. I won't go further into the storyline, because it turned out to be a nail biter for me, and I would like it to do the same for you. Instead, let me comment on the performances. Stuart Whitman plays the lead, and does he ever play it. He has never been an expressive actor, but he hits every emotion required here, and there are lots of them. Sadness, optimism, doubt, fear, guilt, love. He does it all. Maria Schell plays the love interest, and practically every gesture is a marvel. Just a quick example. In a very emotional scene, she pulls out a hanky, puts it to her nose and blows it - loudly. How many times have you seen a principal actress put a hanky to her nose and actually make a noise? Rod Steiger plays the shrink, and he does it so well, he made mine look like an amateur. This is a British production from 20th Century Fox, but most buffs will recognize most of the supporting cast. Every one a pro. This movie was released in 1961 and could have turned into an exploitation flick. In fact, that's what I was afraid of. But instead, it was a sensitive, gut wrenching glimpse into a subject most people would rather not deal with. Well done.

An extremely difficult film to watch, knowing what we know now that the makers of this film did not know then, so many decades ago, about pedophiles / child predators and (if any) treatment. The film's heart is in the right place - it comes from a place of faith that any mental disease is curable, that every person can be restored to a normal life around vulnerable people with proper treatment, etc. - ideas that we know now, very clearly, aren't true for child predators, but you have to admire how much the film-makers support mental health services and therapy. But the film's incredibly outdated ideas and characters committing dangerous actions can make you oh so uncomfortable - like a psychiatrist talking about the seductiveness of prepubescent girls, same psychiatrist condoning his pedophile patient being around a young girl and even giving his patient alcohol, his patient not telling the woman he's dating, a mother of a young girl, why he was in prison, etc. None of those activities would be tolerable or condoned now - in fact, some would be criminal. On the other hand, the movie remains valid in its accurate portrayal of some pedophiles that know realization of their propensities would incredibly harmful and who are tortured by those inclinations and a lack of cure: Stuart Whitman is remarkable, truly, in the lead role, giving a powerful but, at times, very subtle performance, and is absolutely worthy of his Oscar nomination.

This is such a great, intelligent, courageous film, about so much that's right and wrong in our culture - good parenting, disastrous parenting, thoughtless media, unthinking prejudgments, psychology grounded in reality not dogma, fear, ignorance, innocence, love, hate, and the reach for deep inner joy and redemption. This is besides the great acting on the part of everyone involved, and the great direction, script, and cinematography. The film is not what the subject matter might lead someone to believe. I guess it's not better known because it is in part such an indictment of our anxieties, unthinking cruelty, and self-righteous morality - without condoning in the least the guilt at the heart of the central tragedy. It should and does make viewers uneasy - not because we're all repressed criminals at heart, but because we so often, as individuals and as a culture, refuse to look deeper than appearances, settling for inanities and superficial distractions, ignoring the profound possibilities for the growth of nobility we're all capable of, no matter what we've done. It may seem unrealistic to some, considering the kind of crime it revolves around and the nature of many if not most such criminals, but that's just the point - so often, without bothering to really investigate, we think we know enough to label and condemn.

Stuart Whitman, Rod Steiger, and Maria Schell star in "The Mark," a 1961 film from 20th Century Fox, filmed in England.

Whitman is Jim Fuller, who has been released from prison after being convicted of intent to molest a child. His psychiatrist, Dr. McNally, believes him to be cured and continues to see him in an attempt to help him get back into society and have some sort of a life.

The above is what makes the film seem dated, but in the case of the Whitman character, maybe not. Today we believe that this tendency is incurable or nearly incurable. In the case of Jim Fuller, a troubled man, he took a girl for a ride in a car, but backed out of doing anything. He brought the girl home. Seen in that light, it's possible this incident came out of something in his past (as we're told in flashbacks) and wasn't the result of some sort of perversion and therefore could be eradicated.

Jim has a job from a sympathetic employer and proves himself excellent at it. He rents a room from an older couple. And he meets a woman in his office, Ruth (Maria Schell) whom he tentatively starts to date. They fall in love, and he is introduced to her young daughter, Janie (Amanda Black), who is crazy about him.

When a young woman is kidnapped, Jim is brought in by the police but he has an alibi. Unfortunately a reporter who knows who he is starts stalking him. When he sees Jim at an amusement park with Janie acting completely above board, he writes a lurid story.

This is a well-done film with a sympathetic performance by Whitman, who received an Oscar nomination. He does a beautiful job as a sad, insecure, sometimes angry man who doesn't quite have the confidence in himself that his doctor has, but wants to believe he's okay. Rod Steiger is simply great, low-key (unlike The Big Knife where he chewed any scenery available) -- a perfect psychiatrist, patient, friendly, supportive.

Maria Schell was supposed to be a star in the U.S., but it didn't happen. A friend of mine recalls the night that Schell and Audrey Hepburn were given a party to introduce them to Hollywood. Norma Shearer, retired for over ten years by then, came with her ski instructor husband. She took off her gown's evening jacket and danced the night away. Audrey and Maria sat up against the wall all night.

At any rate, Schell is lovely here. Ruth, too, is afraid of love after being widowed. She falls for Jim knowing he was in prison -- but not why -- and trusts him with Janie. Can she stick with him once the story is published? Some trivia: Whitman lost the Oscar to Schell's brother Maximillian for his marvelous performance in Judgment at Nuremburg.

Excellent film. You're really pulling for Jim all the way through. A lost film well worth seeing.