Best high drama of the '50's - Split Second (1953) Discussion

[–] MystMoonstruck 13 years ago

This is the first time I've seen this movie, and I truly was blown away by it! There are such great lines in this, a very capable cast, and a finale that gave me goosebumps. I was a child of the Fifties, and this definitely hit home. When I started grade school, there were posters on the walls of Kruschev proclaiming, "We will bury you!", and, yes, we took part in "duck and cover" drills. I was 10 during the Cuban Missile Crisis and recall that, when I was in the hospital, a doctor was out in the hall talking to a nurse, telling her about how short a time there would be between a missile launch and striking our state. My mother was staying with me and became so angry about him talking about this in the pediatrics ward that she confronted him, giving him a lecture about how he could be frightening the children. My mom is not the type to tear into people like that, so this really was something she felt strongly about. Another time, I remember us being near the downtown area and a siren going off; I remember how pale my parents looked, the stricken look on their faces as we heard the wail. It wasn't until we got to a shelter that they told us that the city had switched siren signals; the dreaded sound was now the fire department's alarm!

I'm just amazed by how calm everyone was except Alexis Smith's character, who seemed to have a complete grasp of the situation. She wasn't being histrionic as much as properly terrified! However, that character behavior didn't hurt this, as a bunch of hysterical people would have been tiring after a while. So, Alexis was tagged for token screamer. Her terror certainly added to the countdown scene!

One reviewer was right: The public really wasn't filled in on the effects of fallout. It wasn't until I was in high school in the mid-Sixties that they began giving courses on what to do after The Bomb. We took these classes as part of Physical Education. Imagine studying about how to be sure water was potable and canned goods were safe; what to do if there was radiation poisoning; and how much (or little) iodine would help. Then, there were quizzes about naming the city's bomb shelters; the library basement was one. When I think of it, I'm surprised we weren't as hysterical as Alexis' character instead of taking it all in stride~though I know it was a constant concern for us for a very long time.

Wow! I'm sorry I rambled on for so long! This movie really evokes the period with its fears and threats. Nothing like a bomb to overshadow armed escaped convicts.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

[–] Ralph Monroe 13 years ago

I love the part where McNally et al are trying to escape and they drive up to a huge tower and McNally screams, "The bomb!" That's just such a terrifying scene because it so stark and cold. And the film does a pretty damn good representation of a nuclear denotation. I'm one of those people who used to have nightmares about atomic bomb obliteration. The movie was really good because McNally was such an incredibly despicable villain. The scene where he slapped around Arthur Hunnicutt, Jan Sterling and the male good guy was very realistic. If you enjoy movies like this, I suggest you watch the 1980's made-for-TV flick: The Day After

So, to sum it up in legal terminology: Get lost, you bum.

reply

[–] MystMoonstruck 13 years ago

I watched "The Day After" in its debut then a couple of times after. What a haunting movie! That scene of the missiles seeming to rise out of the wheatfields; the detonation and ensuing destruction; the dying old man trying to roust people from the wreckage of his house then weeping: This miniseries is more powerful than any theatrical film though "Threads" and "Testament" are worthy in addressing the issue.

I thought the detonation scene was AMAZING! I swear I heard their screams as the car was sent tumbling, then you can make out figures (dummies, of course) in the burning automobile. *shiver*

You're so right about that moment when they drive into the clearing and see the tower. I'll bet that made the audience *GASP*!

I definitely want to see this again and likely will videotape it. Sadly, YouTube doesn't seem to have it.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

[–] dannieboy20906 9 years ago

The Day After was a disgusting bit of fear mongering agitprop. Fallout, as well as nuclear weapons effects are little understood by the general public. They are repeatedly underestimated, but much more often grossly overestimated by the public, the media, and especially by film makers. They all routinely demonstrate their lack of knowledge about weapon yields, sizes, effects, and the effective of self protection efforts.

Suffice it to say, running to hide in the mine shaft was a smart move and would probably provide pretty good protection under the circumstances displayed in the movie.

reply

[–] irvberg2002 11 years ago

I believe it was well known at he time this film was shown that the radiation fallout from an atomic detonation was deadly; there were many deaths from radiation after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The four who took shelter in the mine left and went out into the open while the mushroom cloud was still building. They would certainly have died from radiation poisoning. But it's still a damn good film.

reply

[–] idcook 11 years ago

I’m watching Split Second now on TCM. So far as I can remember this is my first time seeing it.

A truly tense story with all the actors performances on mark without a hint of overacting by any of them. Including Arthur Hunnicut’s tall tale telling prospector routine.

The setting made me think of Key Largo, but this has tension flowing through every character along with the danger they all face just being where they are.

Considering the time it was made, even the special effects are nicely done.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

reply

[–] wtl471629 11 years ago

I can't add much to the positive things already written about this magnificient movie. Don't miss it if you haven't seen it and catch it when TCM shows it again.

reply

[–] John-367 11 years ago

I agree with the praise here for an underrated gem.

Incidentally, another film along similar lines which repays a viewing is SOS Pacific (1959). In the UK it runs occasionally on the movies4men channel.

reply

[–] Fred-333 9 years ago

This is a very good B movie.

reply

[–] eholzapfel26 9 years ago

Just watched it on TCM. It really held my interest. Some good performances and you really weren't sure how it was going to play out.
The guy playing Asa (the miner) was so familiar... then I looked him up on IMDB and found he played an old hunter with his dog on a great episode of the Twilight Zone where the old hunter has died and discovers he can go to one of two places - only one will let his dog in - so that place, of course, was Heaven.

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

Arthur Hunnicutt, a highly respected character actor, especially in westerns. He had prominent roles in several well regarded westerns including The Big Sky, The Lusty Men, El Dorado and Cat Ballou.

reply

[–] greendahlias 9 years ago

In The Last Command, Hunnicutt played Davy Crockett at the Alamo, an interpretation shall we say more rustic than either Fess Parker's or John Wayne's.

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

I've not seen "The Last Command", but it looks interesting. Sort of a poor man's "The Alamo" perhaps?

Would you say Hunnicutt's take on the role was effective?

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

John Wayne had been badgering Republic Pictures owner Herbert J. Yates about making an Alamo movie for years. But they were never able to agree on a script and Yates thought Wayne's version would cost too much. Wayne finally left Republic and not long after Yates turned around and made The Last Command (1955), for which Wayne never forgave him!

Actually many people think the film is much better and more honest than Wayne's overstuffed epic -- closer to the truth, without the clichéd, unrealistic touches (heroic and nationalistic dialogue, one-dimensional characters) Wayne insisted his script be crammed with. The people are much more human and real. The film is exciting without being overdone. The actors don't dwarf the story. The final battle is well handled.

Arthur Hunnicutt in particular was singled out for praise as a different kind of Davy Crockett from the way Crockett is usually portrayed.

Hunnicutt had just come off an Oscar-nominated performance in Howard Hawks's The Big Sky (1952) when he made Split Second. The Hawks film was I believe the first time Hunnicutt sported a beard and he decided to keep it from then on. This gave him an "older" look and made him even more of a "rustic" character than he had been, and from then on he played a legion of backwoods old-timers. It's interesting to hear him say in Split Second that he was in World War I, remembered a bar fight in the saloon in 1902, and so on, which would make his character between 65 and 70. In fact, in 1953 Arthur Hunnicutt was just 42!

This is a very good, suspenseful, underrated film. A couple of years ago I showed it at a classic film forum I run and the audience loved it. One man still talks about that climax with the car!

Trivia note: for several months in late 1952 and early 1953, Split Second was the only film in production at the once-massive RKO Radio Pictures, which was in the midst of a corporate shake-up and at the beginning of its death throes.

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

An interesting post. I agree with your criticisms of "The Alamo". It is overlong and overblown. There is a certain epic sweep to it however and the ending is moving.

I've always admired Hunnicutt's performances. While he tends to portray a certain "type", he does so without engaging in self-indulgence or caricature.

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I've been hoping Olive Films, which has the rights to produce DVDs of the Republic library (now owned by Paramount), will one day release The Last Command. Overall it is much better than The Alamo.

You're right, the 1960 film certainly has sweep, and a great score by Dimitri Tiomkin. The visuals are fine, the battle climax pretty good, but it's overstuffed and that script is just terrible.

Agree with you about Arthur Hunnicutt. If you've never seen The Big Sky, try to catch it. You'll see why his Oscar nomination was so well deserved.

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

I saw "The Alamo" 1960, in a theater when I was a little kid. I may have seen the uncut version which I think is well over three hours. At the time, it seemed more like eight! Still, its depiction of the event was something of a revelation. Seeing a movie where all the heroes died was a unique experience to say the least.

I think many agree the film bogs down with numerous asides which seem to be irrelevant. Overstuffing? Well put. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the inherent difficulty of editing down such a massive undertaking. As the film stands now, I think continuity is a significant issue.

It's ironic that I'm posting on the "Split Second" board and have never been able to see the entire film. It was on TCM the other day but It was on rather late for me and I only managed about 20 minutes.

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, first about Split Second: the film is available on DVD from Warner Archive. You can usually find some good prices on their stuff. SS was one of the first films ever released on that label. Well recommended.

I liked your remark that at the time the three-hour version of The Alamo seemed like eight! You're quite right that editing it down was very difficult. But then that was only a function of making it so huge in the first place. Wayne was trying to make a lot of rather pompous political statements amid the action -- hence the characters all taking prolonged time-outs to deliver unreal soliloquies on freedom, democracy, the meaning of the word "republic", their willingness to sacrifice and die, and so on. Add to this that the characters are all stock types who speak in wince-worthy clichés, and that so much of the film's running time is devoted to such prolonged passages. Its continuity and editing issues could have been solved by making a tighter film to begin with. But the Duke was intent on making an epic.

Frankly I never understood his obsession with the Alamo. He always said he thought of it as the story of America. I never figured that out, since the battle ended in a rout for the Americans, all of whom were killed. That's not exactly the fate I envision for my country.

What I like about The Last Command is that its characters are three-dimensional, real people who speak like real people, not early 19th-century frontiersmen spontaneously spouting political philosophies at great length like backwoods Alexis de Toquevilles.

I know what it's like to be a kid seeing all the heroes die at the end. I remember the first time I saw Rocketship X-M, where the entire crew dies. (And of course there are films like On the Beach, where everybody dies.) Obviously, this ending is unavoidable when it comes to any film about the Alamo. But for some reason I always took such things in my stride. I was always more worked up about the wrong people dying than having all of them go!

reply

[–] eholzapfel26 9 years ago

I picked up on Asa's comment about WWI & the fight in 1902 also.
I thought, "So this character is supposed to be much older than he looks or the actor playing him." ...considering the story took place in 1953.

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

It's fascinating to consider how often character actors portray characters that are much older than themselves.

Lee J. Cobb was only about twenty-seven when he portrayed William Holden's father in "Golden Boy" (1939). At 37, Cobb was the original Willy Loman (a stxty-three year old character), in the stage production of "Death of a Salesman". Ernest Borgnine (b.1917), played the father of both Kirk Douglas (b.1916) and Tony Curtis (b.1925) in "The Vikings" (1958).

This attribute isn't limited to male performers. Angela Lansbury (b.1925), famously portrayed Laurence Harvey's mother in the "Manchurian Candidate" (1962) despite being only three years older than he.

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

That's very true, hammer. (And we're not talking about actors who "age" during the course of the film, like Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson in Giant.)

Lee J. Cobb seemed to spend half his career playing people older than himself. Angela Lansbury too -- such as playing Hedy Lamarr's older sister in Samson and Delilah even though Hedy (born 1913) was twelve years older! There are many other examples. What's most amazing is when the "older" performer doesn't even need to be made up to look older, as with Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate.

All of which serves to mystify me as to why so many people single out Lorne Greene's playing Ava Gardner's father in Earthquake as ludicrous casting. Maybe, but no more so than the examples you cite and many others.

While Arthur Hunnicutt's character's age in The Big Sky is never stated, it's clear he's supposed to be about the actor's real age, 41; not an old man in any case. But beginning with Split Second he seemed to be regularly cast in older roles. In fact I'm not sure he ever played someone his actual age again!

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

Good point about Greene/Gardner in "Earthquake". Perhaps that was more a matter of Gardner being too old for her role.

I can't recall many details from "Earthquake". With all due respect to those that really like it, it's not a film that I seek out. I don't know if the filmmakers attempted to make the Gardner character appear to be 15-20 years younger so Greene would seem appropriate as her father. To the best of my knowledge there was no attempt to make Greene appear to be 15-20 years older than his actual age.

It's kind of fun thinking of examples like this. One could spend hours if not days trying to compile a complete list. Maybe someone has tried? If so and they tried to send the list in an IMDB message, it'd probably exceed the maximum limit.

reply

[–] eholzapfel26 9 years ago

Along the same lines is actors who've played teenagers when in their 20's & 30's. Again, a list of such people would be extensive, but just about any teen movie will contain actors playing teens who are long past that age.

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

An excellent point. Seeing overaged actors and actresses attempting to play teen roles has always been one of my pet peeves.

I can quickly come up with one particularly egregious example of what you reference. In the admittedly not well known film, "Lord Love a Duck" (1966), Roddy McDowell portrayed a high school student infatuated with Tuesday Weld. He was about 37 at the time.

reply

[–] eholzapfel26 9 years ago

This post prompted me to go watch "Lord Love a Duck."
What a WEIRD film! (Now I will never forget the simultaneously disturbing & hilarious Daddy / Daughter sweater shopping scene with Max Showalter & Tuesday Weld!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXdUNZUP_os
Thanks for turning me on to it!

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

Yes, the vision of Showalter (who was earlier billed as Casey Adams) laughing idiotically and with those ridiculous facial expressions will forever be imbedded in my consciousness. I also enjoyed Lola Albright as Ms Weld's mother, a middle-aged coctail bunny.

What did you think of the rather "mature" Roddy McDowall as the somewhat unhinged high school student. And last but not least those immortal lyrics, "down on my lucko, stuck in the mucko,etc".

reply

[–] eholzapfel26 9 years ago

Roddy's age didn't really bother me - although it was very apparent he was not a teenager. I've always enjoyed him, so I didn't mind him in the part especially when I saw what a weird direction the entire film takes - a middle-aged man playing a high-school senior becomes the least of the film's problems. (I know this is the wrong board to discuss the film but...)

What really threw me was the not-very-funny lampooning of teen beach movies suddenly taking a nose-dive with the mother's suicide drama as the film instantly turns very dark & serious. Only to later resume its comedic tone, but with a macabre murder twist! On top of that throw Harvey Corman in to play a delightfully zany school principal! The film is a concoction of incongruities.

I did like reading the theories on the "Lord Love a Duck" discussion boards about Roddy's character's motives (he was a voyeur, he was a-sexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, homosexual, he was willing to commit murder because he could not have a normal emotional relationship, he could feel infatuation but couldn't feel real love, etc., etc.)

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

In line with this, it is generally acknowledged that many actresses have fudged on their age. If they were "discovered" at 23 better to claim to be about 17. That way, when they were really 35, they could claim to be 29ish.

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, first to Earthquake (a fairly terrible film overall, though with a few okay moments). We're never told Gardner's character's age but I should think she was supposed to be more or less her actual age (about 51 when filming), and though in real life she looked awful (appropriately so for her character), I wouldn't mistake her for much older, and certainly not younger. Charlton Heston, who played her husband, was a year younger than Gardner (about 50 in the film), but he looked about 8-10 years younger!

Anyway, Lorne Greene was seven years older than Gardner, and you're right, I don't think they did much of anything to make him look older (maybe a few "age" touches). But by Hollywood standards seven years is hardly an egregious difference. I think their age discrepancy is singled out because, since the film came in for so much criticism, this is just one more thing to pile on about.

Good points about the opposite: actors playing characters much too young for them to get away with. Coming onto IMDb today I saw that it's Micheal J. Fox's birthday (54), and reflected on how he played Marty McFly in the first Back to the Future film 30 years ago -- a high school kid at age 24.

But that was nothing compared to, say, Sidney Poitier playing a high school student in Blackboard Jungle (1955) at age 28. (Most of the "kids" in that class were past college age!) There is a very good but little-known film called Take Care of My Little Girl (1951), about college sororities, in which the lead, Jeanne Crain, was 26, as was the "bad boy" (Jeffrey Hunter) she briefly takes up with, and most of the students were in their late 20s or even older. Yet another college-set film, the 1947 musical Good News, starred June Allyson (30) and Peter Lawford (24) as students. And so on and so on.

I know of but never saw Lord Love a Duck but didn't realize the age discrepancy regarding Roddy McDowall. Unfortunately lots of actors have unconvincingly been cast in roles in which their characters are supposed to be many years younger. In Mr. Belvedere Rings the Bell (1951), Clifton Webb is repeatedly said to be 45 when in fact he was nearly 62 -- and he looked no younger than his late 50s at best.

Some classic actresses, or their studios, always fudged their age. Irene Dunne was always said to have been born in 1901 (which still made her older than many of her leading men) when in fact she was born in 1898. Jean Arthur was born in 1901 but for decades was listed as having been born in 1905. Of course, years back some actresses actually added years to their age in order to get work. Alice Faye listed her birth year as 1912 when in fact it was 1915. Linda Darnell's birth year was claimed to be 1921 when in fact it was 1923. In both cases the studios had to make sure they could play romantic leads even though in reality they were underage.

As to Arthur Hunnicutt, I recall a 1961 Twilight Zone in which he played a 70-year-old backwoodsman. He was in fact barely 50 but not only did he pass for 70, he did so without any old-age make-up!

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

You've noted some interesting examples. Sidney Poitier portrays a resident physician in "No Way Out" (1950) and five years later finds himself back in high school in "Blackboard Jungle". Even Vic Morrow (a good actor who at 53 was killed in a horific accident while filming "Twilight Zone:The Movie"), playing the knife wielding "punk" in "Blackboard Jungle" was 25 and looked way too mature, in my opinion (as did Poitier as you point out).

To a degree I can understand why older actors are frequently cast as juveniles. It can be difficult to find good, experienced performers for many of the young parts. Occasionally a studio will take a chance on a brand new "unknown", but not often. I think generally the public will accept a performer playing older more often than when they play a much younger part.

I'm glad you brought up Irene Dunne. One of her more prominent roles was in the 1936 version of "Show Boat". I know many will disagree, but I feel at roughly 37 she was simply too old for the lead role of Magnolia. She simply cannot be convincing portraying a 17 year old girl, which was Magnolia's age for about the first half of the film. There is a span of more than 30 years from beginning to end in the film. This is an example where, I feel, a performer can be more convincing adding age as opposed to taking it off. Especially when trying to play a teenager.

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

You make some very good observations about why older actors are often chosen to play much younger characters. Sometimes they can get away with it but it depends on the role, and of course the actor's appearance.

A really egregious example is James Stewart playing Charles Lindbergh in The Spirit of St. Louis in 1957. Stewart was 49 that year while Lindbergh at the time of his flight was 25 -- and in some of the film Stewart was required to play an even younger Lindbergh. I happen to think this was one of Stewart's worst performances -- he seemed like James Stewart playing himself playing Lindbergh. There was nothing whatever of the real Lindy's personality in Stewart's characterization. But what also hurt was the age problem. They did a pretty good job, all things considered, making Stewart up to look a quarter-century younger than he actually was, but the problem was that everyone knew Stewart was 20+ years too old for the role. It simply wasn't the least convincing.

I've never liked Irene Dunne (though I appreciate her talents, I simply dislike her), but I think she was all right in Show Boat. You're right about the age problem but she did manage to look younger than her age for a long time -- not 20 years younger, granted, but not too bad. Of course, aging her later on helps take some of the glare off her "younger" self.

One other amazing transformation (this one making someone look older) had to do with Jo Van Fleet in Wild River. At 45, she played an old woman of 80. To this day I have never seen a better old-age make-up job. No one I know who's seen this film, and doesn't know the actress's true age, thinks she's anything but 80 in real life. But more than the make-up: her performance, body language, and the rest convey an elderly woman. An astonishing performance, abetted by uncanny make-up. Van Fleet was another performer who was usually cast as someone older than herself, though never so convincingly.

Toshiro Mifune, at 35, played a 70-year-old in I Live in Fear (1955), doing nothing more than graying his crew-cut hairstyle, and employing "aged" body movements. Here too, if you didn't know the actor's true age -- half his character's age -- you'd never guess he was anything but an old man.

We're getting way away from Split Second here, but the topic is fascinating!

reply

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

I was able to borrow the Warner Bros Archive DVD and finally got to see "Split Second" complete.

I found the film to be generally suspenseful and attention holding. The small ensemble cast acquits itself well. At eighty-five minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and it deserves plaudits for its originality and uniqueness. The film's climax is indeed powerful, even allowing for credibility issues.

I assume the release is a DVD-R. I have no complaints, as the picture quality is fine.

reply

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Hey, glad you finally saw the whole film! I think your take on it is as solid as it is succinct. Well said.

Yes, all WA releases are DVD-Rs, but their quality is always high. Warner pioneered releasing their library on MODs, using improved technology, the result of which is our getting hundreds of titles which otherwise would never have seen the light of DVD day. They have a lot of great films available, with more being added all the time, some even on Blu-ray.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

... but the topic is fascinating!

Toni Collette has frequently clearly played older character roles than her real life self, while someone like Jennifer Jason Leigh has often played younger. I have to say I enjoyed seeing a very 50 year old John Wayne faking playing a 20 something naval pilot in the Wings of Eagles. In the same vein what possessed the studio concerned to cast a 50 year old Henry Fonda as a young Russian count, opposite Audrey Hepburn who was admittedly more convincing and better equipped physically to play a Russian teenager, in War and Peace? A reverse example here would be Wilfred Brimley who frequently has taken roles where he was obviously (and frequently very successfully) playing older than his true self.🐭

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Some actors can get away with playing a vastly different age and some just can't. A lot of factors go into whether it comes off or not. I thought Wayne in The Wings of Eagles was terrible, and not the least convincing as a 20-something. But then the whole movie was awful, with no sense whatsoever of time or place.

But 41-year-old Arthur Hunnicut was quite convincing as a 70-year-old in Split Second. I think it was the beard!

reply

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

I thought Wayne in The Wings of Eagles was terrible, and not the least convincing as a 20-something.

Yes, I was being facetious. It was bizarre casting akin to when he was cast as Genghis Khan. I never thought of Hunnicut as being 70 years old, but it wasn't a huge support role, so it was relatively easy to accept him in the role, beard and all.🐭

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Yes, I was being facetious.

Yeah, knowing you, spook, I hoped you weren't being serious!

Actually I liked Wayne better as Genghis Khan, which at least was amusing. A biography of "Spig" Wead could have been good had Ford stuck to the man's dramatic true-life story and cut out his usual slapstick horseplay, and also made the movie seem like a period piece instead of looking as artificial as it did. Of course, the real Wead was a wife-beater and drunk, so not all of his real life would have been suitable for Ford's whitewashed but insipid biography.

At the time he was filming Split Second Hunnicutt had just made Howard Hawks's The Big Sky, for which he grew his beard. He would soon receive an Oscar nomination for his performance in that film (in which it's never stated how old he is, but he appears to be about his actual age, around 40). After that he kept the beard but found himself being cast in "old codger" roles, playing 60- and 70-year olds in his 40s, and as I said, usually without any make-up. He played a 70-year-old hillbilly in a Twilight Zone episode in the early 60s, as a backwoodsman who dies while out hunting, and who's saved from being lured into Hell by his faithful hound dog, who had died with him.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

After that he kept the beard but found himself being cast in "old codger" roles, playing 60- and 70-year olds in his 40s, and as I said, usually without any make-up.

I wonder. Did he laugh or cry? The Twilight Zone episode sounds interesting Hobnob. Plenty of zombies and vampires to be seen onscreen these days, but they don't always make'em like the Twilight Zone any more.🐭

reply

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

I don't know if Mr. Hunnicutt laughed or cried, but if the latter it was all the way to the bank.

That TZ episode is called "The Hunt" and was first broadcast in January 1962, during the show's third season. It's a gentle, bittersweet tale, somewhat sad but ultimately fairly happy, written by Earl Hamner, Jr., later of The Waltons fame, and as usual reflecting his preference for rustic characters and settings.

Yeah, zombies and vampires have become a dime-a-dozen bore, but Zone appealed to your intellect as well as your emotions. It had something to say, a moral if you will, in addition to the spooky stuff.

reply