MovieChat Forums > Act of Violence (1948) Discussion > Premise doesn't add up

Premise doesn't add up

posted 17 years ago by Turfseer
41 replies | jump to latest

Since so much of the plot of this movie is linked to the events that happened in a POW camp during World War II, I was very surprised that there were no flashbacks SHOWING what happened. The best director Fred Zinnemann could offer were some voice-overs in the famous "tunnel" scene. But those voice-overs were truly insufficient to explore character motivations. There had to be a more COMPELLING reason why Frank Enley (Van Heflin) would be so naive to trust the Nazis in attempting to thwart the escape plan. Think of it: have you ever heard of a story from World War II where a US commanding officer in a POW camp decided to trust the Nazis in order to save his men? In every World War II movie, it's always the commanders who get themselves thrown in the cooler to stick up for their men. Yes, there was Bridge Over the River Kwai, where the British commander (Alec Guiness), out of a sense of misguided pride, worked hard to build the bridge for the Japanese. But that kind of "collaboration" is quite different than actually going to the enemy and revealing plans about an escape. Furthermore, it has always been the number one aim of all American POW's to escape. So I had a real hard time buying the whole idea that Enley would try to prevent his men from escaping. Now if there were some flashbacks and we actually got to see more of Enley's personality and the other characters in the prison camp, then maybe a more convincing motivation would have emerged for Enley to rat out his fellow prisoners. If perhaps he was actually a 'coward', that could have been shown in a flashback. But the guy we see after the War, is a civic-minded, family man, a good guy who likes to go fishing with his neighbor--so it would have been a stretch to depict him as a coward underneath. If he really wanted to prevent the escape attempt, perhaps he could have physically confronted Parkson before he went into the tunnel or created some kind of diversion where he would take the blame and be thrown into the "cooler" (a la Steve McQueen). My other problem with the plot was how did Parkson find out that Enley had set him and the other men up? If the Army investigators had found out from the Nazis after the war, then Enley would have been court-martialed. This wasn't really explained very well. Parkson was a very underdeveloped character (simply bent on revenge) and I also couldn't believe that Mary Astor would bring a total stranger back to her apartment. What was her interest in Enley in the first place? He was obviously "out of it" when they first met, but I guess it was the old "heart of gold" that caused her to take an interest in him. Finally, the ending was also unconvincing. Parkson was so consumed with revenge, why would he suddenly be glad that Enley had saved his life by thwarting the gangster from shooting him? In fact, you get the impression throughout the film that Parkson is not concerned about the consequences of his actions. If he shoots Enley, he EXPECTS to go to jail. He simply doesn't care. Now Enley saves his life and all of a sudden his opinion of him has changed? Now he's the one who's going to go back and tell his wife that Enley has died? Didn't buy it for a second. It's obvious that the writers had to kill Enley off in order to atone for his "mistake". The mistake of course is Enley's naivety vis-a-vis the Nazis--a naivety which I was not at all convinced of. Nonetheless, the film moves along at a brisk pace and holds your interest, despite the simplistic premise.

[–] mdoolittle 17 years ago

SPOILER I agree totally with your comments but would point out that when Enley is speaking with his wife just before going to the station at the end of the movie he seems to be acknowledging the fact that he wasn't really trying to save the soldiers he was responsible for -- his true motive was hunger. Remember he remarks with anguish that while the Nazi's were killing those trying to escape he just kept eating and eating. I think he had to die because his motive was totally selfish. Had the slaughter been a noble plan gone wrong, they probably would have settled for his wife leaving him. This was a character driven story and needed much more depth of character to make it work.

[–] Turfseer 17 years ago

Whatever his motive was we never get a true picture of what went on in the camp. This is the major flaw of the picture and contributes to the lack of depth of the characters.

[–] Noir-It-All 17 years ago

Noirs are B-movies made cheaply. Just looking at the effect of these events on these two men was all I needed. The Nazis were good at turning people into animals, according to Sophie in Sophie's Choice.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 16 years ago

Yeah, but I bet all of you buy that Jesus Christ really existed and rose from the dead on the third day. The thing they always leave out is that he was wearing a beanie with a propeller when he flew into the sky.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] vocalistbob 16 years ago

With all due respect, I think Fred Zinneman knew exactly what he was doing and the movie is better for it.

Re-creating the POW situation would have required scenes illustrating the cruelty of the Nazis, the desperation of the prisoners, Heflin's inner conflict regarding his choice, the hope and fear as the prisoners plotted and carried out their escape, the Nazis slaughtering the prisoners, Robert Ryan's injury, recovery, mind-set, etc. That would have ruined the tight plot and quick pace of the film. It probably would have added at least 30 minutes to the length of this film. In addition, I found myself trying to re-create the events at the POW camp in my mind and came up with some pretty harrowing images.

And one more point - this film was made in 1946. There was no TV in those days and people spent their free time listening to the radio and imagining what Superman, Phillip Marlowe, The Shadow and Fibber McGee really looked like. We are spoiled because we have all relevant imagery clearly laid out for us on TV and in films - we rely on the filmmakers to use their imaginations so we don't have to.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 16 years ago

Bravo, vocalistbob! I enjoyed and agreed with your presentation.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] bullit2513 16 years ago

Robert Ryan narrating the disaster that was the escape made me think of the opening to Stalag 17. Two prisoners work their way through a tunnel only to be gunned down as they exit outside the wire, the work of a mole planted in the barracks. I think it might have been a slightly better movie with a flashback, even a brief one, but Ryan describing it was pretty powerful. The screams, the Nazis bayoneting the prisoners, Heflin's reaction, it all worked for me.

"Congratulations, Major. It appears that at last you have found yourself a real war." Ben Tyreen

[–] BlueGreen 16 years ago

Very well said.
I wish I had read your reply before writing mine - it would have saved me a lot of words. ;)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Turfseer 14 years ago

Okay maybe not a flashback but at least some kind of discussion as to what happened there. The story doesn't seem very historical; more like a generic thriller.

[–] Consul_Incitatus 14 years ago

The movie tells us all we need to know about what happened - that Enley betrayed his friend's escape plan, ostensibly to save them, but also because he's hungry and desperate, and a bunch of guys die horribly as a result. Actually showing what happened, aside from being unnecessary, might actually detract - by leaving it all to our imaginations, it builds into something more horrific than they would have been able to show back in the 40s.

[–] BlueGreen 16 years ago

Whatever his motive was we never get a true picture of what went on in the camp.

If there were a "picture" - literally, scenes showing what went on - they would inevitably be presented as THE truth, from one perspective only.
And even though both the main characters seem to "agree" on what went on, the truth of the reality (or the reality of the truth, if you prefer) is that they are both feeding off a memory, while living a life that is, in appearance, far removed from those days. They both seem "normal", and nobody in their "normal" daily life could possibly understand what they went through - what they are STILL going through inside.

And so, in my opinion, it was a courageous - or just inspired - decision to omit any flashbacks. True, you don't get a "complete picture"... but that's how LIFE is. (The thought that we CAN get a complete picture about anyone or anything can be a lethal delusion.)
By showing their present surroundings only, the director makes the two main characters even more dissociated from the life they are living in appearance, their inner plight even more pressing and lonely. A literal depiction of the events would remove (if only in appearance) that lack of understanding, their dissociation from "normal" life - a dissociation that can never be bridged. (Certainly not by fostering guilt and vengefulness.)

[–] Turfseer 16 years ago

Even if the screenwriter decided to dispense with actual flashbacks, there should of, in my opinion, been a better explanation (some kind of additional dialogue) explaining what happened to the two main characters while they were prisoners of war. The entire action of the film is driven by one character's desire for revenge and that desire is never explored. Just imagine a detective on a murder case who decides not to investigate the circumstances (i.e. the backstory) as to what led up to the actual crime. Detectives always look for motives and without a full exploration of the crime (a full effort), a district attorney would be severely hampered in bringing a criminal to trial (and hence to justice). Of course in some cases, we don't get a 'complete picture' because of a lack of evidence. But that's not the case here. The screenwriter could have easily provided his audience with a more detailed explanation as to the antagonist's motivations. It's a question of verisimilitude, which "Act of Violence" lacks!

[–] BlueGreen 16 years ago

Additional dialogue, to add depth to the motivation... I could live with that.
The film is not PERFECT, after all (although I do find it very good).

[–] onleft23 14 years ago

ive read this analysis thru three straight times
im still not certain i get it
but the best kind of analysis does that - it's deep stuff and you
have to work at it to get it to seep in

thanks for giving me something to think about (no joke)

[–] Steffi_P 16 years ago

There had to be a more COMPELLING reason why Frank Enley (Van Heflin) would be so naive to trust the Nazis in attempting to thwart the escape plan.

Well, Enley states he was concerned for his men's lives - he has a line something like "a dozen men were shot for trying the same thing at the British camp". In other words he thought it better for his men to sit out the war in the POW camp and survive, than for them to take a gamble on an escape attempt. I don't think that's implausible, it may well have happened in reality.

The point of Van Heflin's character is, he did a bad thing for good reasons, and now he's paying the price. You could compare it to Once Upon a Time in America, where Robert de Niro's character shops in his best friends to the police, preferring that they spend a year or so in jail than getting killed in a bank raid.

Of course, heroic stories about WW2 are great, rousing fun. But Act of Violence is not The Great Escape, and Frank Enley is not Steve McQueen.

Now if there were some flashbacks and we actually got to see more of Enley's personality and the other characters in the prison camp, then maybe a more convincing motivation would have emerged for Enley to rat out his fellow prisoners.

Flashbacks are rarely necessary in any picture. If the actors and dialogue are good enough, they will convey all the emotions and motivations of the present without literally showing the past events that have caused them. Have you ever seen the Pawnbroker (1964)? It contains a deep, haunting performance by Rod Steiger as a holocaust survivor, and is by and large well scripted, but is ruined by some explicit flashbacks that take the edge off the depiction of suffering in his character. Better to give us a few hints then leave the rest to the audience's imagination - that is a more powerful tool than any flashback.

[–] Turfseer 16 years ago

I haven't seen the film in quite awhile but of what I remember, Enley revealed the escape plan to the Nazis before it went into effect which is a no-no. Even if his motive was to save his men, he was guilty of gross negligence (and stupidity) for trusting the Nazis. As I recall, some of the POWs lost their lives as a result of his revealing the plan. And wasn't he court-martialed afterward? Also the film's scenarist felt it was necessary to have Enley sacrifice himself at the end in order to atone for his "sin". In older films, when the protagonist has committed a sin, he usually gives up his life in order to redeem himself.

Flashbacks can many times enhance a film. Wasn't 'Rashomon' an example of successive flashbacks told from different points of view? I agree that sometimes they can be misused and dialogue can suffice in filling in the backstory. The bottom line was that Act of Violence did not explain the back story sufficiently. They could have utilized either flashbacks or dialogue more judiciously. Since the entire movie was predicated on revenge, we needed to know more about why the antagonist was so obssessed in taking revenge on the main character.

[–] toshguy 15 years ago

Sometimes less is more. In old school movies you have to think and a lot is deliberately left to your imagination.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

[–] JParallax 15 years ago

I think not knowing exactly what went on in the camp and no flashbacks made this more engrossing. You don't need everything spelled out for you in a movie. I get embarrassed when every single detail is shown to me.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Turfseer 15 years ago

You don't have to know every single detail but there needs to be some sort of real history to the characters. Without the context of the historical World War II material, Act of Violence simply becomes another average revenge thriller. The film's scenarists could have used either flashbacks or some discussion explaining in more detail as to what exactly happened in the camp. As it stands now, the characters are missing that extra something that would make them more multi-dimensional.

[–] JParallax 15 years ago

To you, maybe. I think that's what separates it from the average revenge thriller because it gives hints and clues. He could of done a lot of things different.

[–] riogarhed 15 years ago

This is a film about guilt and its consequent fear, fear of the past embodied by the superbly driven Robert Ryan. It is filtered through Enley. Van Heflin does it magnificently. Flashbacks are too often the device of a hack filmmaker and if installed here would have been not only an insult to the intelligence of the audience but destructive of Zinnemann's carefully created tension. The narrative consciousness of the story is that of both men, including their memories of what happened in the P.O.W. camp. The only separation of relevance to the tale is that Ryan neither knows nor cares about Van Heflin's inability back then to anticipate the worst-case scenario resulting from informing. As for those who say no officer would inform, as Van Heflin did, or trust the SS commandant, as he did--who, speaking of trust, can trust such absolute statements? War and wartime internment is full of stories of men, officers included, pressed to a snapping point and the inability to think things through. Hunger alone will do that. The movie shows this clearly in Van Heflin's full confession to his wife on the hotel fire escape. The actor does a far better job of expressing his torment and confusion than a flashback would. Confusion--that's the word for the state of humans under stress that seems far more plausible than the canniness of a few posters high on some perch of certitude about human, including officers', behavior.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] onleft23 14 years ago

easypz wrote: ' ... a man who had the horrible misfortune of finding out what he's made of due to extreme stress ... '

i compliment the writer of this sentence
it is one the most powerfully insightful sentences ive ever read

i guess most every guy gets to find out the answer at some point
if i might add two things, first 'you better be ready for it'
second, 'you never really are'

i havent even seen this flick i was just reading up on an actor whose
work i want to admire - robert ryan

i will try to watch this movie

[–] anghmho 14 years ago

Turfseer, what I gather from your original post and your responses to the comments of others is that you would have made the picture differently. However, you don't and won't have the opportunity. Maybe there is/are some aspects of this film that don't work for you, but they seem to work for most of the rest of us. This is a terrific film, with an engrossing story, made by an expert film maker who knew how to reach audiences and inspire talented actors and actresses, which he certainly did for many decades. Fred Zinnemann was hired by studios because he had the ability to make great films, thereby making money for his employers. I wish he were still directing. Maybe we wouldn't see so many exploding cars on the silver screen these days.

Is this a perfect film? No, but I don't think there is one. It's pretty damn good, though, don't you think?

[–] Turfseer 14 years ago

It is obvious that I don't and "won't have the opportunity" to change the film to my liking. Why do you bother making such a statement? It sounds a little arrogant to me. I do not concur that this is a "terrific" film or "pretty damn good". It's a little bit above average but nowhere next to the top film noirs of its day. I certainly didn't dislike the film but you make it sound like I hated it. I was merely making a suggestion as to how the films' scenarists could have possibly done it a little differently, thus perhaps improving it a bit.

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

Well, you sounded off so much about this film that I naturally assumed you didn't like it. I didn't write that you hated it, but it did seem like you were very dissatisfied,

As to my sounding arrogant, where did that come from?

[–] Turfseer 13 years ago

My post was in April 2011. And now all of a sudden you're replying? I'm just a little curious about that.

As to why I thought you might sound a bit arrogant....

Here's what you wrote: "Turfseer, what I gather from your original post and your responses to the comments of others is that you would have made the picture differently. However, you don't and won't have the opportunity."

It sounds arrogant because there's no reason for you to say, "you don't and won't have the opportunity." It sounds arrogant because of course I DON'T and WON'T have the OPPORTUNITY! Read the sentence back and ask yourself why you made that statement!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screen14 13 years ago

I never like flashbacks in a movie like this, because I feel like they dumb things down. The director has to trust that his/her audience is savvy enough to build their own picture from the adequate details provided. The film isn't all that engrossing any other way.

[–] Turfseer 13 years ago

Okay...don't use the flashbacks but at least give us a little more back story via additional dialogue. Otherwise the whole prison camp story feels very sketchy and unbelievable.

[–] nikkiweir 11 years ago

It might have looked different to audiences in 1948. WWII produced 16 million U.S. veterans and a proportionate number of wives, girlfriends, and other significant others. Though only a small percentage went through the POW horror, many would have had little trouble providing context.

_____________________________________________________________
The consumer society is a giant tranquilliser for raw nerves.
--Theodore Zeldin

[–] Turfseer 11 years ago

Possibly. Perhaps looking at the original film reviews might give us a clue as to what people were thinking back then.

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

It is the sworn duty of an American POW to resist his captors by all possible means. Also, to keep faith with fellow prisoners. The commanding officer or senior ranking prisoner is especially expected to maintain morale and encourage every attempt to escape. One needs no more detail than to understand that the Van Heflin character was the bad guy.

Note that the credits were reserved for the end of the film. The director deliberately wants to keep us in the dark and mislead us about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Robert Ryan's character is intentionally made to look menacing and nefarious. We are routing for the family man to succeed at defending himself, until the end. Then, do we root for Ryan, or....

Giving us too much back story would spoil the payoff of the role reversal, and showing it all afterward would be dull, anti-climactic filler. I vote in favor of this director's technique.

[–] Dcamplisson 11 years ago

You might be over engineering this. The flimsly plot device is needed to drive the story.its a mcguffin.

[–] honkers1323 11 years ago

Even more flimsy a McGuffin because no US personnel escaped from German captivity.(it's German, not Nazi..BTW)

Can't find any credible reference to any really viable escape plans either.....

Applies to "The Great Escape" as well... none of our guys in that escape... although we did have POWs in the particular camp... different section tho' I guess

[–] deforest-1 11 years ago

There is a parallel to this premise in Cross of Lorraine (1943), where the French commander in the POW camp, played by Jean Pierre Aumont, apparently genuinely believes the Nazi aristocrats are "gentlemen" at heart. It is left to more aggressive, ungentlemanly types typified by Gene Kelly, to resist the Nazi captors. Act of Violence works great as a fast-paced film noir -- which would be irredeemably slowed down by the kind of exposition you suggest. But the political tenor pushed by the two girlfriends (Janet Leigh and Phyllis Thaxter) I find very hard to stomach, to the effect that Van's a good man and has made up for getting his ten men killed by being a nice, successful businessman since: without any trial or any other moral accountability brought to bear on him.

[–] Turfseer 11 years ago

I never thought that my comments posted so long ago, would get so many comments. I've heard the argument that adding exposition would slow the movie down. Maybe so, but the lack of specific historical reference, makes the film much more generic. Imagine a movie about concentration camp survivors who make some vague references to the concentration camp they were in and you never find out exactly which concentration camp they're talking about. Yes it still can work, but don't you think such a strategy plants the film in a decided 'fictional' camp? I like films with more verisimilitude. A SHORT flashback at the beginning might have still given the film that extra touch of historicity it needed.

[–] BunnyCake 10 years ago

Joe most likely has good cause to seek revenge, so we take his side up to a point, but we sympathize with Frank because he's an upstanding citizen with a family. By flashing back to Frank's actions or describing them in greater detail, any sympathy for him is lost and you're left with a character the audience could care less about and a one-sided presentation.

"Act of Violence" works because it makes us dislike, and also care about, the two main characters. It's a gray area, which ultimately makes the story more thought-provoking.

A footnote -- Mary Astor's character, Pat, would probably take a stranger into her house. She was a prostitute. Johnny makes a comment about Pat earning her money "on the chisel."

[–] sleepybone 9 years ago

I'm glad you explained why Mary Astor's character took Frank in. Her interest in him started because she was a prostitute and continued because he had money. She said to Gavery, "if you make a deal with him, remember I brought him to you."

This is one of my favorite movies.
Certainly on my top five list of noir. It works for me completely.

And I think a flashback would have been a huge mistake. We got detailed versions of what Joe remembered when he was talking to Edith in her kitchen, and we heard Frank's side at the convention: "I couldn't stop eating..." We didn't need the truth, we needed Joe and Frank's perceptions of the truth.

Frank definitely wasn't court-martialed. My guess was that the Germans told the men who ratted them out while they were being attacked-- and only Joe lived to revenge them.

Great performances by everybody.