Week Thirty-Four: Act of Violence (1949)
Director: Fred Zinnemann
Producer: William H. Wright
Writers: Robert L. Richards (screenplay), Collier Young
(story)
Cinematography: Robert Surtees
Music: Bronislau Kaper
Studio: MGM
Starring: Van Heflin (Frank R. Enley), Robert Ryan (Joe
Parkson), Janet Leigh (Edith Enley), Mary Astor (Pat), Phyllis Thaxter (Ann
Sturges), Berry Kroeger (Johnny), Taylor Holmes (Gavery), Harry Antrim (Fred
Finney), Connie Gilchrist (Martha Finney), Will Wright (Pop)
World War II was the most important and influential event of
the twentieth century so it shouldn’t come as any shock that the forties – the
decade in which the war took place – have the stamp of the war all over them.
Movies were no exception and we’ve seen how they reacted to the coming storm (La Grande Illusion), laughed at the
expense of the enemy (To Be or Not to Be),
dealt with issues about the war itself (The
Life and Death of Colonel Blimp), and the aftermath of soldiers returning
home (The Best Years of Our Lives.)
All of these were, for the most part, optimistic in their outlook or at least
like La Grande Illusion they end on a
somewhat happy note, or at least what could be construed that way. However, the
further filmmakers moved away from the War, the less obligation they felt to
present an optimistic, red-white-and-blue (or respective flag) colored glasses view
of the conflict and in particular the aftermath of such.
That is where film noir came in. With the war over and the
Great Depression now feeling like the past, America was more than back on her
feet again, she was thriving. However, any keen observer could see that this
wasn’t exactly the case once one looked a little below the surface and saw how
the perfect American dream was fraught with hypocrisy and dissatisfaction. It
was truth hidden under a flimsy covering, that noir attempted to expose.
Not surprisingly, the directors that took to the genre most strongly were all
outsiders, European immigrants who had seen the once idealized society of their
homelands so recently turned to ash by the war.
Among these was Austria-born Fred Zinnemann who, though he had
come to America in 1929, as a Jew who lost both parents to the Holocaust, knew
just how bad things could quickly go in a supposedly civilized society.
Zinnemann’s predominant style of filmmaking is that of documentary-realism,
which can be seen in the relatively straightforward choices he makes with his
camera angles as well as in the on-location shooting of Los Angeles and surrounding
areas that feature prominently in the film.
 |
| As is fitting with his documentary style of filmmaking, Fred Zinnemann used as many real Southern California locations as possible. |
That isn’t to say that Act
of Violence doesn’t have the shadowy, noir-look, like almost all films of
the decade, it most certainly does, but
without the over distortion or stylization of say, The Lady from Shanghai.
 |
| Though it has clear noir-style lighting, Zinnemann's style avoids overt stylization. |
One way that Act of
Violence does standout though, is in its use of sound, particularly one of
the character’s dragging limp. The idea of using sound as an identifier of a
character is nothing new – as we saw with the whistling in M – nor is the idea of using the sound of a limp (see The Fallen Sparrow, 1943) but rarely has
it been used so effectively. In one scene in particular, the sound of the limp
and the gentle running of tap water creates a world of tension all on their own.
 |
| Act of Violence uses sound as a way to create tension and suspense. |
After You Watch the Movie (Spoilers Below)
Act of
Violence is emblematic of the noir morality, in which no one can be
sure of anyone’s true nature until all the cards are on the table. And even
then perhaps not. Frank could easily have been one of the characters of The Best Years of Our Lives a few years
on: settled down, raising a family, a decorated war hero, and pillar of the
community. In every sense of the word, a hero.
 |
| War hero and leading citizen, Frank couldn't appear to be more of a good guy |
However, into his life comes a
strange man with a crippled leg. He carries a gun, tracks down Frank, lines up
a shot and is just about to pull the trigger when he loses the shot. Later he
menaces his target's family, invading their home and threatening them. He is, as
clear a movie villain as you could possibly imagine.
 |
| Joe, on the other hand, has all the earmarks of an obsessed psycho killer. |
However, the film quickly
unravels those assumptions when it is revealed that Frank and Joe were wartime
best friends, a relationship that ended when Frank betrayed Joe and the rest of
his men to the Nazis, resulting in their deaths minus Joe who is forever
crippled as well as mentally scarred by what he experienced. All of a sudden,
there is a complete reversal: Frank is the lowest of the low, a traitor and
Nazi stool pigeon who sold his men out and Joe is the victim out for justice.
The nuance of moral greyness doesn’t end there. Frank partially tries to
justify his actions by saying he was trying to save his men from their suicidal
escape attempts, however, even that isn’t completely true as he also admits he
also did it because he knew they would feed him better. For his part, Joe isn’t
really seeking justice, he wants revenge and is willing to commit just an
egregious crime, maybe worse, to get it. But of course, this is how real life
works, there are no cut-and-dry actions and motivations are not
black-and-white. Even the most undeniable of good acts – donating to charity –
can be done for a selfish reason – a tax deduction or good press. In reality,
no one can really be sure of anyone’s intentions or true nature, even the most
decorated hero can hide a darkness within themselves, and no amount of good
deeds can change the past.
This starkly pessimistic message is – though leavened by Edith
and Ann’s understanding love of two damaged men – completely backed up by the
rest of the movie. Act of Violence,
though there is really very little violence seen on the screen, is quite
unflinching in its description of what happened to Frank’s men. Joe’s
confrontation of Edith is particularly brutal, of one man with a wife and
family, he says “he made a nuisance out of himself showing everybody their
picture, afterward somebody got the picture back, it was so covered with blood
you couldn’t tell what it was,” and saying how the Nazi’s didn’t kill them but
left them to slowly die as the “men were moaning outside the wire all night
long” before ending with the sledgehammer “One of them lasted to the morning.
By then, you couldn't tell his voice belonged to a man. He sounded like a dog
that got hit by a truck and left him in the street.”
 |
| Joe lays out in frank terms both Frank's crime and his own mental scars |
Frank’s confession to his
wife is just as horrible, particularly as he talks about being unable to stop
eating as the men lay dead. Censorship and taste wouldn’t have allowed these
types of moments to be shown on the screen but in a way, they are more
effective as just words spoken by men.
By hearing and seeing Joe talk about it
we see just how much it has been destroying his soul and likewise, Frank’s shame
and guilt are obvious when he finally unburdens himself to his wife. The ending
too is pessimistic though there is a ray of hope in Frank’s sacrifice. Not
only does he redeem himself and save Joe’s life, but Frank also prevents Joe
from committing an act that would lead to him carrying with him for the rest of
his life the same guilt that Frank experienced. Frank uses the mistake that caused
all the trouble as a motivation to spare Joe the same suffering.
 |
| Frank Dumbledore: by sacrificing himself, Frank saves Joe's soul from the pain of murder |
Act of
Violence covers the same ground as The
Best Years of Our Lives but goes about it in a completely different manner.
Though both deal with the mental strain of war the latter takes an optimistic
tone whereas the former takes a distinctly noir-view of the proceedings. The Best Years of Our Lives is generally
of the opinion that all men returning from war are heroes, Act of Violence suggests that there is far more to the story than
that narrow view. However, both are great films, which leads us to an aspect of
film that must be understood: no film can take an all-encompassing view of an
issue. Those involved in making The Best
Years of Our Lives certainly knew that not all who served in World War II
were great guys just as those who made Act
of Violence understood that the characters who did something like Frank did
were few and far between. However, meaningfully inserting either concept into each
respective film would undercut the film’s themselves. Imagine if partway
through The Best Years of Our Lives,
it was revealed that Fred had murdered and raped German women? The whole
message of the film – that these men need help, understanding, and patience
adjusting to society – would be completely ruined. Likewise, any speech in Act of Violence about how most veterans
are heroes would wreck the taught, dark tone of the story. And so, even if not
all sides of a story can be told it is up to others to fill in the gap. After
years of World War II films focusing solely on the heroics of allied soldiers,
movies began exploring the other side of the conflict. These movies didn’t make
Nazi’s out to be heroes or anything like that, but the best of them relate some
of the tragic aspects of the story. For example, 1959’s The Bridge is set during the final stages of the war in Europe,
when the allies had entered Germany and fight against old men and young boys
who have been forced into fighting the invaders. In 2006 Clint Eastwood
directed two films about the Battle for Iwo Jima: one from the perspective of
the allies (Flags of Our Fathers) and
the other from that of the Japanese (Letters
from Iwo Jima) while presenting both sides sympathetically and while also
acknowledging the faults of the conflict.
In one way, however, Act
of Violence is similar to The Best
Years of Our Lives: when wrestling with his past, Frank walks through a
long tunnel and we hear an audio-only flashback of the moment that he betrayed
his men and see the emotional toll it takes on him.
 |
| Frank's walk down memory lane, which the audience hears, pushes him to the brink of suicide |
As much as we love movies with a clear good guy to root for
and a bad guy to root against that end happily, reality is much closer to Act of Violence’s view of the world.
Here again, we see the dual nature of cinema: escapism vs. realism – both are
integral aspects of filmmaking yet are diametrically opposed to one another.
Each serves their essential purpose and to ignore one or the other is a failure
to see the point of movies. The lines between the two – between entertainment
and education – can, of course, be blurred, is Act of Violence not entertaining? But from now until the end of
cinema, those two aspects will forever dominate the screen, escapism ruling the
box-office, realism taking home the majority of the awards.
See Also
The
Search (1948) dir. Fred Zinnemann
Zinnemann’s film prior to Act
of Violence also dealt with the dark aspects of World War II. In the film,
a family split apart by the Holocaust try to find one another with the help of
a young American. A powerful film with beautiful cinematography shot all over
Europe.
Crossfire (1947)
dir. Edward Dmytryk
Similar to Act of
Violence, this film deals with the less than heroic actions of some soldiers.
More of a mystery than a thriller though there are some very good performances
and a typical noir visual feast.
Pitfall (1948)
dir. Andre DeToth
A typically pessimistic noir look at the American Dream. A
successful married man and father (played by former Warner Bros. singing star
Dick Powell) finds himself a little bored with his perfect suburban life, so he
succumbs to a dalliance with a beautiful woman, which of course all falls
apart.
Comments
Post a Comment