Sullivan gets out of labor camp just because he is a famous film director, right? Aren't we supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law?
I enjoyed this movie, but this irritates me to no end. Sully should have just done his time. After all, he did assault the railroad worker. Maybe his Hollywood Lawyers plead to temporary insanity because of his amnesia? That didn't work in the first trial, though.
Sure, everyone's equal. It's just that, as the old saying goes, some of us
are more equal than others.
When Sullivan is just some nameless vagrant with no friends, family, status,
or money, the law doesn't care if he rots in jail forever. When he turns out
to be a wealthy film director with friends in high places, he's given a "get-
out-of-jail-free" card. Just like real life! I'm sure there are quite a lot of people in prison right now whose sentences are longer than they should be
because they don't have the money or influence to fight/appeal their cases;
conversely, there are many people--film actresses, ex-NFL stars, action film
stars, relatives of politicians, etc., who received little or no jail time
for their crimes (if not acquitted altogether).
I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!
Thank you for replying.
I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in real life, of course it does. My point is that I would've enjoyed the ending a lot better if Sullivan had said: "You know what, Insanely-Hot-Veronica Lake, I'm going to serve my sentence just like these other guys." At least he would've learned some humility on his travels.
You ain't no better than those hobos Sully-boy.
Who'd do that in real life?
shareIt may also be different when its "I was mugged, dragged in a railcar, then hit at the other end while still confused from first crime" than when its "I'm a transient in a railcar thats not responding". Course, good lawyers can make that appeal far better.
shareWhile preferential treatment clearly exists, once a sentence has been made, it's too late, at least in terms of determining the facts of the case. Perhaps they could have appealed the trial based on procedural problems like lack of due process (since it seemed like a pretty hasty, shoddy trial).
shareThere are exceptions like people released when dna tests confirm their innocence of coarse.
shareI had previously been bothered by this very same thing. I watched the film again today and suddenly it struck me differently.
Basically, I can see where his lawyers would have three strong grounds for appeal.
The first is due process. Because he appeared as a hapless tramp it seems virtually no effort was made to discover who he was and he was sentenced quickly without even a properly informed lawyer.
The second could be that he was mentally unfit to stand trial. He was suffering from amnesia, the judge himself during sentencing actually accused him of "refusing" to state whom he was. He was in no state to stand trial at that time.
The third cound be self defense. Assuming when his memory returned he remembered everything he would have remembered that the railroad worker struck him first. Even if he was trespassing that did not give the railroad worker the right to strike him in the head.
Between these three and the other sad reality that the wealthy do receive different treatment in the courts I image his lawyers could have him released fairly simply.
Good post Yorga. I can see some logic to 2 of your explanations but I also agree with the OP about being confused over his release from prison.
If, on the one hand, the movie wanted to make a statement about the judiciary's inequalities of treatment along class lines then they failed and really missed a great chance to bring that out. Most viewers apparently gave no thought to how he was released.
On the other hand, if that wasn't their intent and it was just a way to arrive at a happy ending then how ironic it is that the story is premised on a character who wants to leave the privileged class and learn about the downtrodden. He ends up using his wealth and notoriety to get released from a 6 year sentence for almost killing a guy.
Remember the railroad guard, or what ever he was, attacked Sullivan first. Any semi competent lawyer would have pleaded self defense that is if his client didn't apparently have a concussion which prevented him from clearly remembering the incident or even his name. Was he tried a few hours after it all happened?
The victim had a bandage around his head but wasn't in as bad shape as Sullivan.
Certainly there was noting that would warrant six years of hard labor. If the guard had attacked someone in a clean suit and tie he would have been the one on trail, but since he attacked a bum there was no question he was the victim.
Given all this the studio lawyers would have no problem appealing Sullivan conviction and getting him released.
TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.
You must remember that this was in America and even worse in the 40's. Nobody were equal mate. I mean you send in a tramp, give him a public defender who don't give a *beep* and give him his punishment.
Furthermore with fancy lawyers he could probably get the railroad guy to pay him. He pushed him remember.
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyleshare
Two words: Paris Hilton.
I didn't like this movie at all. The whole thing seemed to play up to Hollywood expectations, which is why the hype machine bally-hooed it into being such a great movie.
This whole idea here that he 'experienced' something was a lot of nonsense. I thought most of the movie was going to be with his having amnesia, but that was only like ten minutes.
To me this movie was made to pat Hollywood on the back over something, being a bleeding heart or something, that now they get it about the difficulties America is facing.
You seem to have missed the point of the film completely. The film wasn't pro Hollywood, in fact quite the opposite. Preston Sturges had long had Hollywood in his sights. Hollywood represented satirical pickings as ripe as politics had been in The Great McGinty the year before.The film is a rich, gloriously well-judged comic compendium of every aspect of Hollywood, on screen and off.
Six years for a punch that caused no permanent damage--what they call assault? Or Battery? Six years is more a manslaughter sentence.
Just because a poor man without influence or good lawyers would suffer something does not make it right! Better to gett Sullivan out and publicize the judge's abuse of discretion. He heard the man say his heard hurt, he didn't know what his plea was...many things that should have triggered the court to have asked for an examination, not a six year sentence of hard labor.
Sullivan was a victim of crime himself after all. That ought to trigger some sympathy in viewers. Are you a Republican? Like those who thought the kid ought to die in the hypothetical in the 2012 primary question?
No, he "gets out," of the labor camp because he had "confessed" to being the murderer of John L. Sullivan.
shareHe didn't get out because he's a famous director. He read in the newspaper that he was missing, presumed dead, and confessed to killing himself. All he needed was a chance to stand before a judge and plead his case. His fame had nothing to do with his release.
Recall that when he was first tried, he was suffering from a concussion, and couldn't remember anything, or barely speak. He was convicted because he offered no defense. Once he was able to face a judge, with a lawyer by his side, it would be easy to get his sentence overturned.