MovieChat Forums > Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Discussion > Brutal Film for 1955

Brutal Film for 1955

posted 17 years ago by Devans00
7 replies | jump to latest

There were several cringe worthy moments I was very surprised to see in a 1950s film. Mainly because the film makers don't over do things by showing you every last detail, so your brain fills in the blanks. Which is probably worse than they could show you on the screen.

- When Danny was forced to climb up the ladder ahead of the Iceman. I was afraid it would turn into a molester situation.

- When Danny fell off the tower and they showed him crumpled on the rocks below, that was an alarming scene

- When the Iceman casually inspected the boy, picks him up and throws him down was so alarming

- When Dipsy got caught in the boiler, that was too much

- When beautiful Charles Bronson got whacked in his sleep was so savage. Especially after saving the life of the person who ordered the hit.

I suppose if they remade this film today, each of those scenes would be even more graphic than the 1955 version.

Did this movie seem more brutal than you expect for 1950s movies to you?

>>Oh, well that's different. Nevermind!<<

[–] wtl471629 17 years ago

I know what you mean Devan and it is more brutal than you would expect from the 50s and I was alive during that time. What was surprising is that apparently the boat Captain and assistant who aided the criminals appearantly were never caught which was unusual for Hollywood in those times.

[–] Devans00 17 years ago

Yeah, that's right!

Another point that seemed weird. The boat crew did get away with helping the inmates and abetting two murders on their boat.

The vibe totally reminded me of the Sopranos or the Shield at times.

>>Oh, well that's different. Nevermind!<<

[–] dustinthewind25 15 years ago

I caught this movie on tv when I was just a kid, I think around 4th grade, and I was spellbound, I thought it was a pretty amazing piece of storytelling. I'm really glad TCM shows it every once in a while, it's on right now (11/15/08) as a matter of fact.

[–] Belialtwin 15 years ago

I missed the first half hour or so. (With the voice overs, at first I thought I was watching a movie version of "Dragnet"). I caught the movie from the beginning of the prison scenes and the script seemed well written, very tight and hard-boiled and the supporting cast was excellent (especially Broderick Crawford). It was very shocking given the time it was made, I kept thinking about the old saw "No honor among thieves", especially when the Charles Bronson character gets whacked. Ralph Meeker was a good actor, and TCM's tribute was long overdue.

Greta Garbo: I vant so much to be alone.
Edward G. Robinson: Okay, babe. You asked for it. [Gets off see-saw, Garbo falls down]

[–] lschwartz106 13 years ago

Indeed! I coudn't belive how graphically violent this film was for the year in which it was released. My guess is that Hollywood allowed it because this was the time when the FBI was becoming more sohpisticated in its tactics. So I suppose Hollywood wanted to be in the good graces of the FBI(reaction to McCarthyism?)and at the same time, show how brutal the criminal element could be that the FBI faced.

[–] bradford-1 9 years ago

The odd thing is that Crawford didn't mind ordering the killing and maiming of Bronson, but he was afraid to take the fish off the hook when he caught one!
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] telegonus 9 years ago

I think Crawford's response was to William Talman's character's comment "this fish has teeth". Great line, right in tune with the movie and its characters. It could be rephrased "this movie has teeth". Crawford's Rollo was a typical bully coward who persuaded others to do the dirty work, the hard work, for him. He swaggered like a big shot, was capable of murder, held himself above the others, but in the end he folded.