... because even though it explores what was a new subject at that time, in the end it pulls all of its punches. I was particularly surprised when I found out that Rod Serling wrote the screenplay, but maybe it was so early in his career that he had to do what the suits told him to do. This was initially a TV broadcast, part of the United States Steel Hour, and made into a theatrical production.
Captain Ed Hall (Paul Newman) has just returned home from two years in a North Korean prison camp. However, he is facing a court martial, charged with collaborating with the enemy. During the trial it turns out the facts of what he did and why he did certain acts are more complex than what is on the face of things. Wendell Corey is the poker faced strictly business prosecutor. He is much better in this kind of role than when Paramount was trying to make him the romantic leading man a few years earlier. Lee Marvin plays a soldier who believes Hall has betrayed him. Edmund O'Brien is the sympathetic defense attorney. Complicating factors - Ed's dad (Walter Pidgeon) is a career military man with a strict code of conduct.
I just watched The Rack for the first time and was amazed to see that after having made a very good case to show that psychological manipulation was more painful and effective than physical torture - a modern version of "the rack" - the film made a complete turnaround and capitulated to the old moralism that if you love your country enough you can choose to be tough and and not give in.
When I hear Paul Newman admit that he did not actually mentally "break" and saw that Edmond O'Brien did not redirect and challenge his "confession" I couldn't believe it. That "error" lost the case. I knew he would be convicted. I also wondered why was no psychiatric expert testimony called to explain the use of psychological tactics.
But then, at the end of the film when Newman gives his "magnificent moment" speech you realize that the film's point of view is traditional military. Literally --- unbelievable . By the mid 1950s people were ready to examine WWII and the individuals involved in a different way - "The Enemy Below" for example. Because the foe had been vanquished and no longer existed. But the Communists were a clear and present danger, so no such nuances in films on that subject at the time.
Captain Ed Hall (Paul Newman) has just returned home from two years in a North Korean prison camp. However, he is facing a court martial, charged with collaborating with the enemy. During the trial it turns out the facts of what he did and why he did certain acts are more complex than what is on the face of things. Wendell Corey is the poker faced strictly business prosecutor. He is much better in this kind of role than when Paramount was trying to make him the romantic leading man a few years earlier. Lee Marvin plays a soldier who believes Hall has betrayed him. Edmund O'Brien is the sympathetic defense attorney. Complicating factors - Ed's dad (Walter Pidgeon) is a career military man with a strict code of conduct.
I just watched The Rack for the first time and was amazed to see that after having made a very good case to show that psychological manipulation was more painful and effective than physical torture - a modern version of "the rack" - the film made a complete turnaround and capitulated to the old moralism that if you love your country enough you can choose to be tough and and not give in.
When I hear Paul Newman admit that he did not actually mentally "break" and saw that Edmond O'Brien did not redirect and challenge his "confession" I couldn't believe it. That "error" lost the case. I knew he would be convicted. I also wondered why was no psychiatric expert testimony called to explain the use of psychological tactics.
But then, at the end of the film when Newman gives his "magnificent moment" speech you realize that the film's point of view is traditional military. Literally --- unbelievable . By the mid 1950s people were ready to examine WWII and the individuals involved in a different way - "The Enemy Below" for example. Because the foe had been vanquished and no longer existed. But the Communists were a clear and present danger, so no such nuances in films on that subject at the time.