I look at the time that this movie was made, and what was going on in the world at that time.
Is the intention of the film to take a stab of some sort at the Nazis?Something to the effect of normal people completely losing their rationality because of a group mentality? Sounds pretty damn familiar. Another one of his masterpieces, M, conveys a lot of the same themes.
Guy had balls of steel.
I agree. It took incredible moral courage for Lang to turn "M" into a film against capital punishment, especially when the victims were children. I disagreed with many of Lang's opinions, but his brilliance can not be denied. I had a co-worker who used to whistle the same song Peter Lorre's character did. Remembering "M," it unsettled me. "Fury" made the point that America was not immune. People do not know how close Britain, France, and even the USA came to becoming totalitarian societies in the 1930s.
shareThe problem I had with "Fury" is that it was so moralizing, painting the situation for the viewer in distinctly obvious hues. Joe so obviously didn't do anything wrong, so of course we were against the lynchers. I much preferred "M" for giving us ambiguity and nuance. I *want* to be conflicted when I watch a movie. I don't want to condemn, or champion, any character outright.
shareThere I agree, but "M" had its flaws too. For instance, in "M" when a "judge" asks Lorre's (M) lawyer what would happen if he escaped from the asylum again, he came up with the lame answer, "What are mental institutions for?" What kind of stupid answer was that? If you don't want to hang the sick scum as he deserves, put him in a prison he can't break out of so he can't kill more innocent children.
In the end, I wished Lohman and the cops had been too late to save him. Of course, the criminals "trying" him were more concerned with getting the police off their backs than justice for those poor children. Their leader had killed three British policemen, who were probably unarmed.
I think Lang believed, as many Europeans do, that American audiences don't like or understand ambiguity or nuance. He may have been right, at least back in 1936. I don't mind occasionally "condemning or championing a character outright", as long as the issues are not presented simplistically or dishonestly. I'll listen to a message, but don't hit me over the head with it.
I think something that ought to be taken into consideration before blaming Lang for the lack of subtlety/ambiguity in this film (as compared to "M") is that he just didn't have the creative control he had in Germany. MGM studio execs apparently forced him to make many changes to the script to make it easier for audiences to swallow. One of the changes was that Joe had to be blatantly innocent of the crime instead of guilty, which he originally was going to be.
For all that was taken away from the film by making it more heroes/villains, I think it gives a much different message than it would have had otherwise, one that needed to be told because many if not most of lynch mob victims were innocent. Otherwise it would've been a thematic clone of "M", which would diminish the power of both films by lending them to endless comparison instead of viewing them independently.
It's all fun and games 'til someone gets lobotomized!
I thought it was effective because it really made me hate the lynchers to the point I wanted to see them punished for "murder."
I sort of saw that reaction as being just like the lynchers themselves - jumping on the revenge bandwagon when in fact they were innocent of the murder they were accused.
That was the point I got from the film. Seeing incredible injustice, Tracy (and the viewer) wants these people to pay - even if they hadn't KILLED an innocent man. Suddenly I saw myself wanting a little vengeful justice.
This is a great film because I reckon the best make you think and feel with the characters.
...the guy in the $600 banana suit - COME ON!
Yes agree that like dark creepy "M" with the deliberate low lighting there is
the Mob doesn't think" theme. An entire nation could become an ant hill as
easily as a mob with one unshakable goal.
Eerie too is seeing the descent of a decent, follow the rules run into a
hopeless mental setup.
Notice the use of the shrink battering away at Grant on witness stand. She
nearly turned on herself as he tried to create the idea it was all in her
imagination. Mind Think as it were. If you can turn one, you've
turned the jury of 12. Mind over matter.
But not to worry as the lessons of filming "M" in pre Nazi time comes
to the rescue. The film crew has the solid evidence of mob rule when
there is no human witness breaking the stonewall of silence. Again that's
real foreshadowing of post WW2 concentration camps being unknown to the
citizens. Of course filming the camps at liberation mocks the lies. Unless one
is living in Iran where history is what you make it.
Kinda strange how here's a whole new Century and images are valueless as
they are so easily doctored. Hence can come claims that all images are now
suspect as is history itself.
Best we can do is to take heart from a black/white time and mix it
with the grays of a full colored subtle world.
As an aside wonder what contemporary US would have done to/with the 9-11 mob thinkers had they been caught. Guess those Freedom Fighters would get some
magazine covers and metals before shipping home with a warning that there
are people working in those Towers that deserve to live. And please
don't try for a third time to bring down a culture you disagree with.
After all some Americans just like to eat peanuts and so what.
Fun to see these rarely shown earlier Spence films.
joe was supposd to be black
Lang had to change that
You would have thought the setting might have been in the South, the way the the townspeople and elected officials acted. It was a powerful movie.
shareWhy the South? Some of the worst race riots of the 20th Century were in the North. The biggest center of the KKK was Indiana. Some of the most vicious resistence M.L. King encountered were in the suburbs of Chicago.
shareFritz Lang had left Nazi Germany shortly after Hitler came to power so he had seen how people could be manipulated. Also he was very good at filming crowd scenes in movies like "Metropolis" and he was very good at conveying the madness of the mob by showing the participants hate distorted faces in closeup.
Lynching was a very real problem when this movie was made during the thirties. Many of lynchings happened in the south but it certainly wasn't limited to that region. In 1920 three black carnival workers were dragged out of a jail in Duluth Minnesota and hung from a lamppost because of an unfounded assault accusation a teenage girl. As in this movie the National Guard had been put on alert but didn't get there in time.
TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.
According to the Trivia section, this movie was based on a specific case somewhere in the U.S. Whichever case it is, these kinds of things happen all the time. They may not always rise to the level we saw in the movie but they happen nonetheless.
We all probably played that game 'telephone' in school. It was supposed to teach us how easily stories can get distorted or blown out of proportion. As rumors and gossip spread, they can take on a life of their own. That's what happened to Joe in the movie.
People convince themselves they can continue to push the limits because they feel they're doing what's right and that makes it okay. They lose all sense of reason and just react to the slightest provocation.
The OP was posted in December 2007. I'm writing this in April 2015. In the seven intervening years, life has changed a lot. Social media has grown making the angry mob a lot easier to assemble and much more likely to make mistakes. People can now sit in the comfort of their own homes or cars or practically anywhere and participate in a public lynching. Someone's whole life or reputation can be completely ruined with a few simple clicks and in a matter of hours.
This movie was made a long time ago but the themes are still relevant today. In fact, the message it sends is an important cautionary tale for all time! It's a reminder we all need to think for ourselves, avoid jumping to conclusions, stop accepting accusations as fact, and remember how easy it is to become the aggressor or be the problem in a situation.
In San Jose, according to the director's DVD commentary.
share