MovieChat Forums > The Breaking Point (1950) Discussion > Complicity in Murder or No?

Complicity in Murder or No?

posted 12 years ago by idcook
5 replies | jump to latest

I note the imDb introductory description of this film states “An otherwise moral man…” Though it’s fairly clear that Morgan is no more than a tad shy of total malcontent and jumps too quickly to the path of least resistance to mop up whatever mess he gets himself into.

Seems to me that Morgan, despite the sad fact of his personal disappointment with not having achieved his dreams of being a wildly successful fisherman, wound up as an accessory to murder. In fact, several murders. Including the entirely innocent Wesley, his shipmate, who had no direct involvement in the crimes being committed.

Perhaps laws were different back then regarding ‘murder during the commission of a crime,’ but all the whimpering at the close didn’t leave me regarding Morgan as any manner of hero.

Pat Neal does a decent job of playing a wannabe Lorelei, but her role, which really added nothing stronger than an excuse for Morgan’s wife to dye her hair, adds precious little value to the story.

Though I’m a long-time Garfield fan, for the reasons cited above, I much prefer the Bogart/Bacall vehicle — To Have and Have Not.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

[–] matthewwave-1 12 years ago

I don't consider Morgan a hero for what he did. I never thought I was supposed to. I thought he was a desperate person who did what he felt he had to do. Those can be two very different things. That his plan led to Wesley's death certainly proves he's no hero. But, if anything, his not being a hero is part of why I think The Breaking Point is a better film than To Have and Have Not.

Matthew

[–] idcook 12 years ago

matthewwave-1,

I appreciate your take on this and the comparison to To Have and Have Not. I guess I was somewhat affected by the ‘otherwise moral man’ comment on the main page for this movie.

For me, his ‘MY boat, MY livelihood and MY family’ perspective completely destroys whatever sense of morality the character has. The end of the film seems to suggest that maintaining the relationship with his family is the big payoff for his having eluded being killed himself.

I think I need to take another look at THAHN to gain a fresh sense of comparison between the two. I really wasn’t thinking much about comparing them until I’d read that ‘otherwise’ statement.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

[–] matthewwave-1 12 years ago

id,

It's completely valid to view Morgan and his actions as immoral. He gets his family back, but look at what else he effects along the way. And it's tempting to see the film as actually saying that the re-establishing of his family means that what he did was okay... except that the film also does acknowledge the costs of Morgan's actions, albiet more quietly and more briefly than it dwells on Harry, his family, and the "female threat" to same. Wesley is portrayed as a good and likable person; there's no way Curtiz and co. weren't aware that even 1950 audiences (except perhaps in the deep South) wouldn't be effected by him in this film.

And the last moments of the film eloquently attest to the damage that Harry's done; one family is restored, but another is utterly destroyed.

I do think that at the beginning of the film Harry was someone who at least *intended* to lead a moral life, but The Breaking Point demonstrates that the title phenomenon for a person like Harry isn't necessarily very far off, that such intentions, and the people who hold them, break down rather quickly when faced with life's difficulties (certainly their monetary ones!).

In large part because of the way it addresses these issues, I really do think TBP is a great film.

Matthew

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Yes, while Morgan does achieve a measure of redemption in the end, he'll still lose his arm and you'll have to wonder what are his options on the job market after he recovers. And, indeed, he got Wesley killed - the final shots that you mention, of the little black boy looking for his father on the pier, are beautifully understated.

Generally, I do also like this Curtiz adaptation better than the Hawks one for it has a grittier feel and more of a noirish vibe by, for one thing, having the central character be a desperate, flawed average Joe driven to crime by dire financial circumstances; you just sense that he's inevitably headed for trouble. And while there was nothing wrong with Bogart in To Have And Have Not, Garfield here is dynamite, giving a nuanced, truly lived-in performance. Also, the final sequence on the boat is great.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] jawebster2000 9 years ago

Walter Brennan stole the movie "To Have and to Have Not" from Humphrey Bogart and the screen writers of that movie changed the Ernest Hemingway story so that it was unrecognizable to readers of the book. This movie was more faithful to the book and was the superior movie though the other wasn't bad either thanks to the three B's. (Bogart, Bacall and Brennan.)