Did anyone else have a HUGE problem with the way the judge stated that "snickering" was not allowed in the trial of "a man accused of murder"...but made no mention of the fact that someone may have been F'ing RAPED?
I know, I know, old film=old morals...but damn, man...they just glossed over it...
But the trial itself was over murder, not rape. If he says no snickering over a possible rape, then he's helping the defense and hurting the prosecution. He's obligated to stay neutral.
shareYou said it for me Paul.
Since Barney Quill was dead there was no way to prove or disprove the rape so the judge had to pretty much stay away from the topic so as not to confuse the jury. The subject of the trial was murder.
A heart can be broken, but it still keeps a-beatin' just the same.
...the trial itself was over murder, not rape. If he says no snickering over a possible rape, then he's helping the defense and hurting the prosecution. He's obligated to stay neutral.
Excellent understanding of the legal issues involved.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Did you notice the size of those panties? Were they Lee Remick's or Ma Kettle's?
share"Did you notice the size of those panties? Were they Lee Remick's or Ma Kettle's?"
You should know. I am sure they are similar to yours.
http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com
>Did anyone else have a HUGE problem with the way the judge stated that "snickering" was not allowed in the trial of "a man accused of murder"...but made no mention of the fact...
_________________________________________
Yes, ogami, totally agree.
True, the trial was about murder. as another poster said. And yet, the murder was *allegedly* as a response to her having been raped. Therefore, the discussion about the panties was also about an *alleged* rape. By saying the word Alleged, he would be remaining neutral. And so the judge should have said words to the effect that he "would allow no snickering in a trial where one man was murdered and another accused of it, not to mention the alleged rape of the wife of the accused."
Then again... come to think of it... he *didn't* mention it.
(Apparently, only a husband is supposed to be bothered by rape... sigh!)
Why do people have to be so picky? The point is that he called them out for their childish, inappropriate snickering.
shareNOBODY was snickering over the idea of RAPE.
Some in the gallery were snickering over the word "PANTIES".
Try paying attention.
What you have to understand is, at the time the movie was made, the word "panties" had never been uttered in a movie before. The use of the word here was HIGHLY controversial, because it was considered very racy and risque.
The way it is handled ("no snickering") was probably an effort on the part of the filmmakers to handle say, "let's all be grown-ups here."
The world was a different place then, and movie were very different as a result. Hard to understand, given how little is left to the imagination in the media now. But it's true.
This was a world where even discussing rape in a film, or real life, was frowned on. When they even brought up the subject it was usually called "being ravished" and the subject was quickly changed. Focusing on the trial is the wrong thing. Remember, the subject of rape, from a dialogue point of view, had been openly discussed from the opening of the film. No one was ducking it at all, and the wife, Lee Remick, openly said it had happened to her. That was new and groundbreaking. A very adult film, and really an extreme stance for its day. Think about how the "steamy" Peyton Place of the same era danced around it. What the judge said to the jury half way through was hardly the point at all.
shareThis movie was considered scandalous in 1959...even being banned in Chicago and other cities. It openly talked about rape at a time when the word was not mentioned in movies. The word and concept altogether was not even mentioned in Streetcar Named Desire. The world was a very different place in 1959, indeed.
share"the word 'panties' had never been uttered in a movie before. The use of the word here was HIGHLY controversial, because it was considered very racy and risque."
Actually it had been. W.C. Fields says "my little scanty-panty" in International House when Peggy Hopkins Joyce's skirt is caught in the door of his car and torn off. She's so upset about Bela Lugosi she doesn't notice. At the beginning of the film a hotel maid is shown unpacking for Peggy, and holding up some of her undergarments (one with a big greasy handprint on it), asking if she wants these things washed. This was made in 1933 and is considered pre-Code.
Fields said "scanty-panty" but scanties were more like thongs.
You've got me?! Who's got you?!
What you have to understand is, at the time the movie was made, the word "panties" had never been uttered in a movie before.Have you ever seen 42nd Street (1933)? In the lyrics to "Shuffle Off to Buffalo", they say "I'll go home and get my panties, you go home and get your scanties...".
The WC Fields film and 42nd Street were both made before the Hayes Code. They were very strict after the rules went into affect. Some very early May West movies had a lot of innuendo. The code went officially into effect in 1930, but some of the writers apparently didn't get the memo.
Anyone ever seen Bette Davis' film The Letter? It was a remake of the same story, same title starring Jeanne Eagles made in like 1930-31 - I can't find it in IMDB. In the original, she gets away with murder; in the remake Bette is killed (has to be punished) for murdering Hammond. That's the Hayes Code - at least part of it.
I think the judge was admitting how even as adults we all have this side of us that will still laugh and "snicker" at childish things such as innocent words like "panties". I dont see that he was brushing over the fact that an apparent rape had taken place or that a mans life was on the line for murder.
Plus, you have to taken in to consideration the time in which the movie was made. During the "golden age" of film movies such as this were not the norm and was pushing the limits of the moral compass Hollywood followed. Even the mention of rape, panties, loose women etc... had to be shattering to ma and pa kettle when they went to the matinee on Sunday to see the latest Jimmy Stewart flick.
The judge was likely addressing not only the spectators in the courtroom but the spectators in the theater in 1959.
cinefreak
Yeah, that bothered me, too. The fact that there was laughter in the courtroom then and at other times during a trial involving both possible rape and murder was a bit bizarre, despite some of the antics of the attorneys. I'm sure it was to lighten the film somewhat. It was rather long for there to not be any earth shattering revelations or great plot twists.
shareNo, not at all. He just wanted the people to grow up because it was a serious affair. You sound as if rape is more serious than murder, because the judge didnt mention it?? He would have had too long a sentence to detail everything, he wanted to brush over the 'titterings'..
share