Production Code


I've heard that the Production Code that was in effect at the time did not allow characters in movies to go unpunished for crimes. I just saw the last half of this movie, so I missed the "crime," but I've been reading about the movie, and a gather that the daughter didn't actually commit the murder, as the mother thought. But did the mother still think that she had successfully shielded the daughter from a deserved murder charge? I gather that the blackmailer's false confession got the man who had been falsely charged released from jail, as I assume that the Code would not have been happy to have the movie end with an innocent man in jail and the mother knowing that he was innocent -- or was the Code not as Draconian as I tend to think it was?

reply

Well it certainly was rather "draconian" indeed - and unfortunately, here it resulted in an overly neat and tidy (not to mention predictable... although I guess I somehow still hoped that perhaps Mason might get away, badly injured & with highly uncertain future. After all, the one he killed was a mean baddie and he´d also undergone a major change of heart concerning his crooked ways) ending that did not sit too well with me. That, however, is still hardly any overwhelming drawback in an otherwise excellent movie. I particularly liked how Bennett´s housewife wasn´t the helpless goody-good weakling so typical for the era, but rather an intelligent woman capable of functioning pretty well under enormous pressure. Very good performance by both her and Mason.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

The film is certainly notable for the lack of onscreen comeuppance. I listened to the commentary track but the issue was not addressed.

Seems like plenty of film protagonists of the era are punished for accidental murders. Apparently this script minimized responsibility for the death enough to satisfy the film board? Still, the daughter comes close to committing some type of negligent manslaughter -- smashing someone over the head so they dizzily fall though a poorly-maintained railing onto a dangerously-placed anchor spike.

reply

The man who had been falsely accused of murder had already been released before the final scene. That was why Nagel went out to Lucia’s house, because he knew that with the murder case still being open, the letters were still worth money.

I don’t think there was anything in this movie that violated the Production Code. The daughter only hit Darby in self-defense, and his falling over the rail was an accident. So even though there might have been legal problems for the daughter, as well as legal problems for Lucia for obstructing justice by moving the body, had the truth come out, neither were morally culpable, which is what the Production Code really cared about.

For example, in The Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade breaks the law when he lies to the police, but he does not have to go to jail for that because he is basically a good guy.

reply