SPOILERS AHEAD
It sure is fun. I just watched the movie for the second time in a week and couldn't take my eyes of the screen. The greatest film ever made? No, but a fascinating one due to a number of factors:
(i) Jerry Barker may be cold blooded in the way he kidnapped the boy, handled the ransom, obviously thought highly of himself (he signed his ransom notes "Egotist! Egotist! Egotist!"); has probably, being a youngish guy, and, outwardly, unlike his future cellmates, good looking, middle class respectable in manner and appearance, had,--and this is confirmed during the investigation--a rather "light" criminal career (no murders, no kidnapping). In other words, this, and the way he handled the boy suggests he he didn't want him to die. His treatment of the child was gentle, and he even brought food for him. One gets no sense that he intended to do serious harm to the boy.
(ii) Yet once the boy was dead Jerry had no compunctions about tossing his dead body into the canyon, continuing with his kidnap scheme; and he showed no remorse, or if he felt any he kept it to himself. My sense is that Jerry Barker's iceman act was his need to put forward and maintain an unbreakable facade, an enigmatic indifference to the crimes he committed, as he knew he was between a (literal) rock and a hard place as he was attempting to leave the park. Even his possession of a handgun wasn't so stupid. Guns cost money; Barker was engaged in criminal activity, had to be on the lookout for snoopy people, honest and criminal; and, needless to say, officers of the law. As to the Comanche Lake lie, I suppose one has to chalk it up to Barker's being only human.
(iii) Once apprehended, and in ice man mode, the good fortune of the boy's body not being found, made Jerry an extortionist in the eyes of the law, but not a kidnapper; not yet anyway. In his performance as Jerry Barker Raph Meeker, while no charmer, was well mannered, moderately refined,--a far cry from the rough trade he had to bunk with at Cascabel--all of whose behavior, manner of speech and attitude suggested that they were true criminal types, while Jerry Barker is presented, by comparison, as a sort of junior criminal with no real cruelty, not much pathology or sociopathy aside from his fondness for extortion (and maybe money laundering). There's real moral ambiguity once Jerry arrives at Cascabel (an island prison, sort of a mini-Alcatraz).
(iv) Yet there's no ambiguity as to Barker's conduct after the boy's acidental death. He could have given up on the kidnap scheme, changed horses in mid-stream, as it were, said he knew where the boy was, gone to the child's father and to the police, ("this is where I found the child. I told him to stay put"), with an added "hey, I was looking for the kid, too", came out of it with some thank yous, maybe a little reward money for his "efforts", but better this than prison; all this is assuming that he could change his strategy quickly and credibly. And assuming he didn't muck up, he might come out of it all looking like a hero who found the boy's body just a little too late. I think Barker had it in him to change his plans that way but he went for all or nothing at sll.
(v) If one is of a religious bent, one might believe that Jerry Barker got what he deserved. He should never have gone into a life of crime in the first place; and if he was going to engage in criminal activity he ought to have mastered the tricks of the trade before leaping into the big time. Once he was stuck in that cell at Cascabel I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. It's like he was incarcerated in Hell, not prison. Aside from keeping his cool throghout his ordeal in prison and afterward, he had no real power; he was at the mercy of a gang of cut-throats. Jerry was, by conrast, a civilized criminal who just happened to be responsible for the death of a child, a child with a very wealthy father.
(vi) Then there's the moral ambiguity of others, notably the boy's father, who ought to have contacted the authorities as soon as he read the ransom note, talked to Jerry Barker over the phone. Although the father couldn't have known it I think it's fair to say the odds were in favor of Jerry leaving the boy in a safe place if he didn't get what he wanted. Barker was a seasoned and rather young criminal, albeit one with a record, and she showed no inclinations to violence or personal cruelty. Once the boy was in a safe place, an anonymous phone tip would have got him off the hook if he got out of state fast. He could have chalked if off to a bad day. It was the boy's father insistence on going it alone,--making him a kind of crazy mirror image of Barker--whose refusal to work with the officers of the law that sealed the child's fate.
(vii) The issue of whether Jerry Barker deserved the death penalty is something I've pondered. It doesn't feel right to me. The others maybe deserved to die,--Rollo for sure--but Barker bungled a kidnap plan, got in over his head in crime, certainly deserved to have the book thrown at him, but the gas chamber? Instead of that, I can envision him as a model prisoner, and a low maintenance one. Given the nature of his crime it's unlikely he'd ever get paroled, but he would have been in all likelihood an easy convict to deal with; and if so inclined, agreed to be a sort of human guinea pig, a kind of gift that keeps on giving: to psychologists, psychiatrists, penologists, criminologists, among many others interested in crime, criminals. While he could never be forgiven (by the law) for the role he played in the death of a child, he could have given something back to society: insight into the working of a criminal's mind, which maybe in the long run could help society understand why and how people take that path. Criminal he may have been, I found Jerry Barker by far the most fasinating, intriguing and, needless to say, the mot enigmatic character in Big House, USA
reply
share
essex9999
9 years ago
Nice, thoughtful post, telegonus.
n his performance as Jerry Barker Raph Meeker, while no charmer, was well mannered, moderately refined,
Ralph Meeker played a lot of tough guys (as well as heroic types), but, while being completely masculine, he's never overtly rough or crude. It's one of the things I enjoy about his acting.
Barker is not really refined. He looks refined, if that's the right word, compared to his cellmates. The contrast was probably intentional, but it suited Meeker's appearance anyway. His fine features and tall, lean build gave him a certain preppy (not that word was known at the time) quality. It emphasizes how out of place he must have felt in a cell full of violent thugs with vaguely Neanderthal looks.
However, as much as I like Meeker and always root for his characters no matter bad they are, I have to say that Jerry was probably a sociopath. I don't think he was naturally violent, but he feels no remorse for what he does and doesn't mind who gets hurt in the process.
Yet there's no ambiguity as to Barker's conduct after the boy's acidental death. He could have given up on the kidnap scheme,
Hmmm. But hadn't he already made the first ransom call when the boy fell to his death? The die was already cast at that point. As the person finding the body, with his criminal background, he would immediately have been suspected and eventually found out. The boy's death during the kidnapping would have meant the gas chamber for him. It was too late for poor Jerry the moment that kid fell out of the tower.
The issue of whether Jerry Barker deserved the death penalty is something I've pondered. It doesn't feel right to me.
I don't believe in the death penalty, so it's an academic question for me. Looking at it from that POV, but knowing the boy's death was accidental, I don't think the death penalty is warranted, but the law disagrees. So, morally, no. Legally, in 1955, yes. Today, Jerry would probably be sentenced to death, just as he was back then, but, in most states, he'd die of old age before actually being executed. [Editorializing]: It's so obvious that, except in a few bloodthirsty states, we really have no stomach for killing criminals in the name of the people. I wonder how long it will be before we join the rest of the civilized world and abolish capital punishment. Probably depends on the 2016 election. If a Democrat is elected, new appointments to the Supreme Court will trend more liberal and it will probably abolish capital punishment in the United States for good. [End editorializing]
reply
share
telegonus
9 years ago
Thanks, Essex. The timing as to what happened when in Big House, USA is difficult to keep track of even for someone who's seen the movie at least a half-dozen times! There's an ambiguity in the movie from the start, what with the sick kid, the nurse, good guy seeming Meeker's "gentle" kidnapping which is so well done Barker doesn't seem like a kidnapper at all. This is where excellent acting and sharp writing and directing are essential.
It's not clear to me despite my frequent viewings what Barker knows when sending the kidnap notes, making the phone calls. As I remember it, he had already set the deal up, with the kid in the tower, then went about his business with the boy's father. When he returned to the tower, the child had just recently fallen to his death. Again, maybe my memory's failing, but my sense is that this is the case and it's one of the many reasons why I use words like ambiguous and ambiguity regarding the film.
This is why Barker's between a rock and a hard place (so to speak ). He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't,--do the right thing, I mean--as he's in deep doodoo no matter what he does. He's already done the wrong thing, thus was indirectly responsible for the boy's death, any right thing would have ruined him, as he guessed quickly, intuitively, when he tossed the boy's body into the canyon. This looks perhaps colder than it is, was probably a Plan B or C for Barker, as in what to do if the worst case scenario happens and the kid dies.
Since he didn't appear to intend to do any harm to the boy aside from kidnapping him, in Barker's mind the best thing to do would be to go ahead with what's now extortion at least get paid for his efforts (and meticulous planning) rather than just drive away empty handed. As Meeker was a good looking guy, had behaved borderline "sympathetically" prior to his disposal of the kid's body, he rather retains at least a scintilla of anti-hero potential (as in, maybe he'll "redeem himself" later on, die saving another child, turn in his cellmates, kill Rollo,--something, anything).
One of the reasons I like the movie so much is how it unfolds. It's made quite clear by the authorities that once at Cascabel Barker will have to share a cell with three guys even worse than he is, and ugly and menacing looking guys to boot! Now he's with criminals of a far lower class, in all senses of that word. Worse, he has almost no power to defy Rollo, betrary his cellmates, as the consequences would be too dire to contemplate. Still, he does offer resistance a couple of times. Under the circumstances, Barker behaves well,--if they had an IQ for behavior Barker would be a genius--and watching him and how he interacts with his thuggish captors is fascinating in itself.
The ending comes as no surprise. That the viewer is denied a chance to view Barker, even briefly, in prison again, on trial, he essentially vanishes from the picture, yet leaving doubts as to what kind of defense he would offer at his trial, how his lawyer would handle the case. This lends the movie an air of mystery as to what we have actually seen, and this is emphasized in the closing narration.
reply
share