What did Crossman do? - Boomerang! (1947) Discussion

[–] hobnob53 17 years ago

I agree with your take -- it must certainly have been something of a sexual nature. Remember even the minister couldn't bear hearing about it any longer -- didn't he call Crossman's problem "disgusting" or something similar? (I haven't seen it recently.) I always leaned toward the pedophile theory -- his being a homosexual is also quite possible, but even in the 40s, molesting kids would have been considered far worse than being gay.

But I think it's better they left whatever it was to the imagination -- the fact that the guy's problem remains unidentified, but is clearly some serious perversion, both leaves the question to the viewer's imagination while at the same time robbing Crossman of the possiblity of receiving any sympathy from the audience. That's why I don't think it was an issue of homosexuality: people in 1947 might have disdained a man like that, but more likely they would have made cruel fun of him, not seen him as a real threat; whereas being a pedophile would in any circumstances not only be unforgivable but an active threat to the community.

But I think Kazan & Co. tried way too hard to make the audience realize that Crossman was also the obviously guilty party. Wonder why the cops never interviewed him -- they should have combed through the minister's appointments records to root out possible suspects, and he acted like such a nut job even those cops might have realized he was a likely perp.

reply

[–] Druxy 16 years ago

Crossman was a fictional character. The actual case was never solved.

reply

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Yes, we know. But we're talking about the movie, not the actual crime. The film's epilogue states the real case was never solved -- which, some 85 years on, it's unlikely ever to be.

Everything in the film was fictionalized -- even the city. The real murder occurred in Bridgeport, CT, but filming took place in Stamford because of continued sensitivity about the case in Bridgeport, more than 20 years later.

reply

[–] boarding_angel 16 years ago

I agree that the murderer in the movie was a homosexual or a pedophile, however I think it is most likely that he was a homosexual, and what disgusted the priest was his insistance that people in general should accept him as a homosexual and the priest said that it wasn't the puplic who had the problem.. I think that if he had or intended to harm children the priest would not have hesitated to report him. Afterall the conversations were not in the context of a confession...just fatherly advice from the priest..

reply

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

But remember that the priest WAS going to report him (presumably to the cops, but this was left unstated), which is presumably what triggered Crossman's decision to shoot him. (Assuming, as we all do, that the killer was Crossman.) Being gay was something people would try to keep under cover in those days, although if that was his "problem" Crossman might have been caught soliciting someone in the park -- doesn't the priest say something to the effect that, fortunately, no one was hurt this time? Obviously there's a recurrent behavior problem there. I agree that molesting a child would have more likely to have made the priest turn Crossman in right away, but if so, why did the conversation shown even take place? Since whatever it was had apparently happened before, if it was pedophilia, you'd think the priest would have turned him in the first time, not kept waiting. Maybe it was a combination -- a pedophilic homosexual. Whatever. I kind of like the idea that it's left up to the audience's imaginations to figure out what Crossman was doing. As for the priest's "fatherly advice", the guy was pretty judgmental!

reply

[–] gjampol 15 years ago

What we have here are a bunch of armchair psychiatrists who seems to be obsessed by, as one reviewer put it, "... some kind of pathological sexuality. Homosexuality? Paedophilia?"

Unless you're still living in the 19th Century, homosexuality is no longer regarded as pathological. Furthermore, to jump to conclusions that Crossman's problems were even sexual is facetious.

Crossman -- and the character was a dramatic device-- could have been dealing with any of a number of issues. How about sado-masochism, coprophilia, homicidal tendencies, eating rats, paranoia?

Because one can easily infer that Crossman was indeed the guilty party, his accidental-on-purpose death may have been made necessary by the Production Code, under which all criminals must pay.

By the way, the police officer who suggested the use of more forceful methods to get a confession from Arthur Kennedy's character might have been a sadist. Is there anyone who wants to take this possibility on?

reply

[–] jpseacadets 15 years ago

Drunkenness could, in 1947, could be cause enough to get sent to a sanitarium.
Crossman's death by speeding suggests his past may have included a DUI. So the
gay thing may not be what the priest was referring to.

- - SoundTrak

reply

[–] vinsane 12 years ago

I admit to considering both of the other possibilities mentioned before as the secret shame for the character, but, on fuller consideration, neither homosexual actions nor child molesting makes sense in the context of the film really. Consider that he'd clearly done something on at least one previous occasion and the priest was only then about to tell this man's mother, it hardly seems believable that any upstanding clergyman would hold back to that degree if a child's safety was even possibly at stake.

The case against homosexuality being involved is in the phrase about thank goodness nobody was hurt or something like that. I simply don't see how that fits with a guy being caught out doing anything like soliciting or even a peeping tom or public indecency kind of incident. Clearly the priest meant some kind of traditional bodily harm rather than moral or emotional harm.

For these reasons I think Crossman was perhaps an opium fiend of something along those lines. Again, in the context of the era, there were some folks who felt it should have been socially alright to partake of the drug. Similar ideas were portrayed in Sherlock Holmes and other period dramas. Remember he was trying to tell the priest that "if only society would...". In light of his demise in a car wreck soon after, I think his being on of some kind of narcotic or other substance makes sense.

There's not a lot too mysterious about a secret drunk but I also discredit that choice because it seemed a bit over-dramatized for that to have been his secret.

Eeek!!! I'm getting dressed.

reply

[–] greenaum-46239 9 years ago

Nah, everybody drove drunk in the 1940s. Up to the 1980s when governments got serious about it, and started making serious prosecutions, along with lots of advertisements oh what morally wrong, selfish idiots drunk-drivers were. Where d'ya think "one for the road" came from?

As for paedophilia, just NO! Back then nobody wanted to know that existed. It'd be beyond the pale to even HINT at it. It was never discussed, most people didn't think it existed. Even up to the 70s, it was "incest" and treated as a family problem, rather than a legal one. Things are very, very different now.

It pretty much must be gayness. in 1961, the film "Victim" was about a man blackmailing gay men. The gay men were shown sympathetically, although still "wrong", more in a "they can't help it" kind of way. It was shocking at the time. But a current was leading up to it. Prior films wouldn't be as explicit, but homosexuality was in some films, as a dark secret, hinted at.

The guy was kindof feminine-looking, pathetic and nervy. He maintained other people were the problem (and they were!), which would be a justification people might have heard before (and denied). The sort of pathetic victim of his own sexuality that's as progressive as films got about gay men back then. Getting him to a sanitorium to "cure" him would have been the kind and progressive thing to do. Most other men in films were conspicuously "manly" and "decent", including this film.

If only he'd chosen a Catholic priest and kept it in the confessional, this would never have happened. Damn proddy dog!

reply

[–] John-367 14 years ago

"Unless you're still living in the 19th Century, homosexuality is no longer regarded as pathological. Furthermore, to jump to conclusions that Crossman's problems were even sexual is facetious."

---------------------------------------

The point is not what anyone might think NOW but what was generally thought in 1947. In the context of a small US city in the 1940s it's entirely possible that homosexuality was what was being suggested.

Again, it's not about whether or not a man of the fictional Crossman's age apparently not being married and being so close to his mother proves an "unusual" sexuality, it's what the film makers intended the audience of the time to assume from this information. They could have made him married with children and made no mention of his mother at all but they chose to highlight these elements knowing very well that the audience would assume from this information that his sexuality was, by the standards of the time, "abnormal" and that it was relevant to the behaviour which so repulsed the priest.
As late as 1950 a US Senate investigation grouped homosexuals with "other moral perverts" and there were many men still in asylums purely for homosexual acts.

The film makers may or may not have had something else in mind, but these were not stupid people and would have known that the majority of the audience would assume a sexual "misbehaviour" and probably with a homosexual element.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gribfritz2 12 years ago

1. Lambert calls him a "sick man".

This largely discounts communism and many other 1947 bugaboos.

2. He seems to try to convince Lambert that society had the problem, not him.

So far, in 1947, I would be leaning towards homosexuality.

3. This time, fortunately, no great harm has been done.

This makes me change direction and believe it is pedophelia.

The bigger question is why did they frame it so obviously to make him the killer when it's an unsolved case? It's more like it's based on a true story with a few wackos thrown in for fun (this guy and Ed Begley).

Also interesting is in the scene right before Crossman's first scene there is a short scene with Lambert and Waldron. Was there any mention of Waldron knowing or even meeting Lambert anywhere else in the film? I assume it was thrown in just to make us wonder; show Lambert with 3 suspects. But to not mention anything about that angle was odd. To me, it seemed like Waldron was suspected of killing Lambert just because of the gun and clothing. There was no motive mentioned at all. A motive may have made it a bit more interesting.

reply

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

Was there any mention of Waldron knowing or even meeting Lambert anywhere else in the film?

Yes, it was brought out during the intense police interrogation they inflicted on Waldron. He claimed he had never seen or met Lambert before, but there was that woman who came in briefly to identify Waldron as precisely the man whom she had seen speaking to Lambert. It was another one of many lies they caught him telling during the interrogation.

reply

[–] viaggio1 12 years ago

Strange --- Crossman kept popping up at various times, especially in the trial scenes --- obviously, the priest never had the time to have him sent away.

I too found it strange that the police never searched the priest's room, diary, or appointment book --- trying to determine possible suspects or motives in the case !

"J'ai l'oeil AMÉRICAIN !"

reply

[–] Ozu_Teapot 10 years ago

I've just watched this and tend to agree with those here who think paedophelia is most likely to be Crossman's "problem", although as has been noted everything is left very vague.

As to why the film frames him as the killer, well I think that's just to give the audience a satisfying denouement. A more modern film would be happy to present a story closer to the known facts, with all the courtroom drama but leaving the identity of the killer a mystery to the audience as it was in real life. Back in 1947 I expect the film makers (perhaps at the insistence of the studio) felt the audience "needed" to see that the priest's murder didn't go unpunished, and to have the case solved, even if it was only for their eyes.

reply

[–] greenaum-46239 9 years ago

I think "no harm has been done" means Crossman was caught, in a park or public toilet or some such, but fortunately he was caught before he was able to commit any of that harmful gay sex.

Which was morally harmful, mentally corrupting, and probably physically unhealthy as well. 1947 isn't too far along from the times everyone knew masturbating depleted your body, caused insanity and weakness, and ultimately DEATH!

You have to look at this from the point of view at the time it was made. Some really wierd, outrageous ideas about sexuality were common back then. This was before even Kinsey, and he caused a massive uproar of his own.

It's really not a stretch to imagine the "harm" caused by homosexuality back then. They couldn't even mention the "crime" Crossman was guilty of! Not even a hint, beyond those that a knowing audience would get.

Paedophilia just didn't exist in the public mind back then. And even then, I think homosexuality would have been considered worse! Homosexuality is a bad enough "crime" for Crossman. It would certainly disgust clergymen. There's no need to go worse, and there were no hints you could drop to a 1947 audience to imply paedophilia. They'd just never draw that conclusion.

I wonder who here is aware of gay history? Even through the 1980s, gay slurs, and jokes about queers were common on mainstream television. The modern attitude only really came in the early 1990s.

reply

[–] Echo_in_big_sky 12 years ago

I know the comments are written based on the movie. But the first thing I thought when the priest was gunned down was this: Maybe he was shot down by a former choir boy who was a victim of the priest's own tendency toward pedophilia?

The true story was never solved. It's possible. I'm thinking pedophile priests is nothing new.

reply

[–] greenaum-46239 9 years ago

It very much IS something new! Well, awareness of it. Look at the massive uproar a few years ago. And that's not even 20 years past! People here are really judging all this from a modern viewpoint. People 70 years ago were really different! You'd all benefit from knowing a bit of social history. Being queer myself means I have an interest in this. You have to judge the film's messages and meaning, by what a 1947 director would say to a 1947 audience.

Back then clergymen were pillars of the community and examples of moral correctness. No 1947 priest would have been thought of as abusing his altar boys. To even hint it would have been impossible.

reply

[–] Echo_in_big_sky 9 years ago

I know a man who was molested by a priest in the 40s. It happened and people knew about it. It wasn't reported, but it did happen and it isn't anything new.

reply

[–] greenaum-46239 9 years ago

Yeah, I'm sure it's happened throughout history. But as you say, nobody would talk about it, I'm sure people would rather not know about it. They just convinced themselves it wasn't real. You certainly couldn't allude to it in a film.

reply

[–] CaperGuy 9 years ago

Since the actual murder was and still is unsolved, I think Crossman's character was used to show a likely motive for the priest's murder. Namely, the motive is that someone had a personal grudge against the priest for some reason. The reason was probably related to the priest's occupation. In the context of the movie, I think it is clear that the producers are alluding to deviant criminal behavior of a sexual nature on the part of Crossman. We don't know the exact nature of Crossman's crimes but we know that the behavior was sufficiently bad that it could not be mentioned. If it was robbery, alcoholism, embezzlement, violence against women or children or car theft, those crimes could have been mentioned in 1947. As viewers, we are left to use our imaginations to consider just how unmentionable and deviant Crossman's behavior might have been.

Probable motives are that someone felt that they had been wronged by the priest or they felt threatened that the priest would expose their own wrongdoing. The facts of the case indicate that the murder was not a random act because the priest was shot execution style.

It is interesting that in the actual case, a witness came forward in 1954, thirty years after the crime, to state that he witnessed the murder and that he was threatened with death if he ever talked about it. The witness stated that the accused was not the actual murderer.

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

CaperGuy says > Since the actual murder was and still is unsolved, I think Crossman's character was used to show a likely motive for the priest's murder. Namely, the motive is that someone had a personal grudge against the priest for some reason.

I think you're right. The murder was unsolved so there's no way to know who did it or why. However, since this is a movie we're given a number of possible motives and culprits to consider. Crossman is one possibility; the accused, Waldron, is another; and the guy who shot himself in court, Harris, is another. As we see early in the movie, all three of these men had associated with the victim in some way.

These aren't three possible suspects to the crime per se; they're just composites for the unknown killer. As such, one, Waldron, was cleared (though, we're told, some still doubted his innocence; which is not surprising). The other two, who may not have been guilty of murder, were guilty of something, so they had to pay for their sins. At the end of the movie, even though we're told the crime remained unsolved, it feels like we've gotten a complete story.

It's not clear what Crossman was actually guilty of, but based on the things Father Lambert said said to him, we know if was nothing minor; at least in his eyes. I tend to agree with the OP and others who say it sounds like homosexuality. All the pieces fit and it's something someone would kill to keep hidden; especially in those days.

I think it's an interesting movie. It's based on a true story but known, unknown, and fictitious elements are interwoven to create something new that resembles actual events but also differs from those events significantly. The narration gives us the sense we, the audience, are in the place of the towns people. The 'facts' are presented in a somewhat objective way, like the news, but, ultimately, we're left to form our own opinions. It's an example of very clever writing.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply