MovieChat Forums > Sullivan's Travels (1942) Discussion > Let me out of prison, I'm rich! Yes sir!

Let me out of prison, I'm rich! Yes sir!

posted 8 years ago by melinda2001
15 replies | jump to latest

I don't understand. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison for seriously beating a rail worker with a rock while trespassing, but once they realize that he's rich they simply say "Oh, how foolish of us, of course you can go!" It doesn't matter if he convinces anyone that he was himself beaten, robbed, and left on the train. That would only excuses the trespassing, and the only witness to those facts was dead. There's no question that he was guilty and fairly convicted. Maybe he can appeal for a lighter sentence, but I imagine he'd still have to serve at least a year. I mean you can't just let someone walk simply because they're rich, right? What about people in comparable situations who aren't?

[–] nocomputer1962 8 years ago

I'll take the high road and say that Sturges was satirizing the way rich people rarely have to serve time, even for truly heinous crimes. Look at Robert Blake, Mark Wahlberg, Howard Hughes, Ray Lewis, Matthew Broderick, Bruce Jenner, etc.

[–] melinda2001 8 years ago

I wish you were right but there was not a hint that this was an injustice. It was a simple happy ending which most people would simply accept without even realizing there is something seriously wrong with it. That's what makes it all the worse in my mind. It's not even so much that there is essentially a separate set of rules for the wealthy, but that we tend to unconsciously agree with them. Much the same happens in Vertigo (1958) which is definitely not satire.

[–] nocomputer1962 8 years ago

Vertigo isn't a satire, but it does have a reputation for being thoroughly implausible. (For starters, how did James Stewart even survive the opening scene?) As I think about it, the plot of Vertigo seems to have more in common with The Lady Eve than with Sullivan's Travels.

[–] melinda2001 8 years ago

Vertigo certainly is implausible. My question is why we so easily accept that that there are separate rules for rich people? Is it because we secretly expect to join them someday and want all the perks to be there when we arrive? If we care about justice, then it should apply double to those with power, not half.

[–] caribeno 8 years ago

Hi, Melinda:

I just came across your entry in this thread on "Sullivan's Travels" this afternoon and I was so taken by it that I wanted to respond to it. I believe that that all public institutions in the United States, especially the legal and judicial systems, often affords one a different standard of justice in the United States, not to mention outcomes of trials based on the disparate access to good legal counsel, the ability to pay for that counsel, not to mention the prejudices and other biased attitudes judges, juries, and counsel will hold, maybe aware of them, maybe not, which all go into the process a court case will take in U.S. courtrooms every day. I totally agree with you that we, as a nation, have to take a far more active role in holding the legal and judicial systems accountable to the public in a way not seen since the 1960's and 1970's. If major strides were made then for the "public's right to know" back then (I remember when that phrase was used during that period), then we can make sure the public has a right to know how the legal and judicial systems of the United States are working for or abusing the very citizens they were meant to serve.

Thank you for your post!

[–] mathmaniac 7 years ago

If you can get the DVD of 'The Lincoln Lawyer' (Matthew McConnaughey) and listen to the commentary by author Michael Connelly, it confirms some of your feelings about the inequality of justice. It's a fascinating commentary - Connelly is very familiar with the court system.

[–] lynnrnsd 8 years ago

What truly heinous crime has Bruce Jenner committed? Besides participating in "Keeping Up With the Kardashians"? O.J. Simpson is a great example of money meaning getting you off.

[–] nocomputer1962 8 years ago

OJ was a good example at one time, but he finally went to jail for a bizarre crime that was far less serious than his double homicide of 20 years ago. Bruce Jenner caused a four-vehicle crash a few years ago, which resulted in the death of one person. This is a misdemeanor in California, if you're a wealthy and self-consciously eccentrice former athlete.

[–] lynnrnsd 8 years ago

Except that his trial seemed to be pretty screwed up. He had a head injury and was barely able to speak a straight sentence, much less participate in his own defense. That's at least grounds for appeal, right?

[–] PussyCrusher_Principal 8 years ago

Yes, thank you lynnrnsd, this, more than likely, is as responsible for his being released with "time served" as anything. Also, it's very likely he paid the RR Bull's medical bills plus.

Silly thread, especially since he said what would happen to Jimmy Conlin's Trusty in prison. And yes, Sturges was also satirizing the way " they don't send famous directors to jail " for things like what happened.

[–] delray151 7 years ago

Correct (I'm a defense lawyer). He was incompetent to stand trial or enter a plea. Besides that, he never actually pled guilty-- his lawyer pled without his consent (which creates a third appealable issue, ineffective assistance of counsel).

One scenario is the studio lawyerd rolled in, filed their appeals and got out Sullivan on bond until the court vacated his sentence. I prefer to think what happened was the studio boss called the governor and secured a pardon that same day.

[–] delray151 7 years ago

One other legal point, the newly freed Sullivan didn't need a divorce.

When someone is declared legally dead and they "come back to life", the death certicate acts as a divorce decree. Sullivan's wife (and Sullivan!) were
free to remarry.

[–] tmaj48 8 years ago

The injustice isn't that a rich and famous director could get off with time served and an agreement to pay damages to the railyard worker. The injustice is
that a destitute hobo suffering from a head injury and too incapacitated to speak
coherently, let alone defend himself, at his trial could be thrown into jail for
six years. Especially in that era, people suffering from physical/mental disabilities were treated like criminals, often thrown into prisons or institutionalized for such "crimes" as being mentally challenged, hearing impaired, or just too poor to be able to survive on their own. Many ended up dying
under the "care" of the state.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

[–] lynnrnsd 8 years ago

That is an excellent point.

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 3 years ago

Yes he didn't receive any kind of fair trial. I doubt if the authorities really wanted the full facts to come out!