MovieChat Forums > Compulsion (1959) Discussion > Intellectually dishonest, well acted, bu...

Intellectually dishonest, well acted, but yes, very shallow.

posted 17 years ago by TiminPhoenix
16 replies | jump to latest

Even Law & Order, a show that I have grown to loathe, is more honest than this movie was.

Did we see the crime being conducted in this movie? No of course not. We can't be bothered with that little detail. Perhaps seeing two grown men taking a child, killing him for the purpose basically of FUN, and then discarding his little body as so much garbage, why that make a viewer think less of the two poor lads who go to trial.

Note how the little boy is treated more as a mentioned aside, that as a real little boy. Do we see the huge impact that murder has upon his family? Does the film maker have the honesty to show the body? Even in today's more free standards, would the same type of liberal minded director show what a 9 year old's face looks like when killers have poured acid on it? No, they would not if they were wanting to guide the audience down the anti-capital punishment track. Also note the subtle basically unchallenged references to him as a brat. Putting a little negative spin in the viewer's mind that the boy brought upon himself, to a small degree, the attention of his killers.

And just how many times does Orson refer to the 18 and 19 year old defendants as "boys?" Yes, that's what a defense lawyer would and still does, but to do that is to say that someone at that age has less responsibilities for their actions. So once can vote now at that age, enlist in the military, live on their own, and so forth, but should be treated as mere boys who made a mistake.

And do we hear any type of closing argument from the Prosecutor? Nope...matter of fact, everyone, even the judge looks shamed by Orson's wonderful speech about love, mercy, apple pie, and a good cheap cigar...

What a cop out. Talk about setting up a strawman. The writers, the director, and the stars that trotted out this bit of liberal propaganda didn't have the guts to face up to the honesty argument a prosecutor could have put forth for their execution.

It is thus a very shallow film.

There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and ........

[–] HillieBoliday 17 years ago

Thank you for such an honest and direct review of this disheartening film.

I loathe anything and anybody who perpetrates crimes of any sort against
children. I will not even mention in this dialogue how I feel such vile and
evil demons should be treated!

The original story made me sick to my stomach and angry at a Nation such as
ours who let those guys get away with murder.!!

I totally agree with you...how could they not treat the family and the victim with more reverence and respect. I cannot even begin to try to imagine the pain they suffered!

They might have gotten away with serving life in prison; BUT YOU CAN REST
ASSURED THAT THEIR SOULS ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL!!!

"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

[–] abcdefghijklmno_987 17 years ago

You know, this film's refusal to show the horrific crime could be construed as respect to the family of the boy.

I think the fact that the original poster wanted the crime to be shown is a little bit disturbing. Is it not enough that such a horrible thing happened to a young boy for no reason at all? No, the blood-thirsty movie going public need to see the act to be sure that it actually happened. As if that's some type of ode to the memory of a young murder victim!

I think that the film's decision to omit the victim's family was a good choice for what the film (and the book it was based upon) wanted to do: profile the murderers and try to figure out why they did what they did. Why did these spoiled men who had everything callously commit a disgusting murder? It was an examination of the psychology of murderers, so of course the film is one-sided.

I'm not really sure how depicting the Loeb and Leopald case AS IT WAS is shallow. Did you ever consider that the case itself was shallow? The murderers were shallow? I think that's more likely than the movie being shallow.

Of course there is the obviously political message that using the death penalty is hypocrisy, but political messages don't necessarily make a movie shallow.

In the actual case, the judge sentenced Loeb and Leopald to life in prison not because of the moving closing statement of the defense, but rather because he felt that the "boys" were too young to get the death sentence.

[–] Altho73 17 years ago

'The original story made me sick to my stomach and angry at a Nation such as
ours who let those guys get away with murder.!! '

What makes you think that they got away with murder? The sentence of the judge was - for the crime of murder to be detained in Joilet penitentiary for 99 years, for the crime of kidnap for a ransom to be detained in Joilet penitentiary for a further 99 years. The two sentences to be consecutive.
So the punishment for their crimes were 198 years in the hardly pleasant environment of a penitentiary where they would be certain to have a hard time. In any case Loeb was beaten to death in 1938 so he got the death penalty after all.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitelion43 11 years ago

and remember these are RICH kids living in the lap of Luxury suddenly thrust to live in the worst of conditions for the rest of their lives, Some might say that the Death Penalty would be kinder

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

"Some might say that the Death Penalty would be kinder."

They (the defendants), apparently, were not among them.

[–] jnatch 15 years ago

It always amazes me that bloodthirsty conservatives like yourself want people hung or to get the electric chair. You have such knee jerk, goosestepping, swarm mentalities that if you stop to think for one second you would want them instead to suffer in jail for life where they can wake every day knowing they have no freedom, being punished for what they did. But no you want to put them out of their misery just because thats what like minded people say they want. Its completely illogical. You "pro life" people are obsessed with death when it comes to crime & punishment because you are war-loving people who are for capital punishment.

You people are just odd.

[–] cwente2 15 years ago

A curious post.

"But no you want to put them out of their misery just because..."

So . . . you're saying the "bloodthirsty conservatives" are the more compassionate? A seemingly "illogical" (to use your term) conclusion to draw in describing "goosestepping", "war-loving people" with "swarm mentalities" -- like us. . . Seems to me "You people are just odd."

[–] chuckleberryfinn21 15 years ago

'Did we see the crime being conducted in this movie? No of course not.'

No kidding. But neither would the jury or the judge. I think the director was trying to convey the issue of objectivity and justice on heinous crimes. They did it remarkably well.

[–] DeadKennedys 15 years ago

Also, OP, you have to remember this movie is 50 years old. Back then, they couldn't be quite as daring.

Watch Swoon if you want to see a more modern adaptation of the crime.

Or, hell, go watch a Steven Segal movie.

[–] FrameXFrame 15 years ago

While the original post seems a tad emotional and "ranty," I agree that we should have heard more of prosecuting attorney Crowe's speech. It was quite good, and it's a lack of the movie not to present it.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Also note the subtle basically unchallenged references to him as a brat".

I think it was only Dillman, one of the murderers, who referred to him as a "brat". The film does nothing to excuse the murder in any way, to any degree.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Akira-Takahashi 8 years ago

I think you're mistaking a film's attempt at tact as dishonesty. This was based off a true story, mind you, and some of the people involved were still alive at the time of filming. Not showing a brutal child murder is not part of some conspiracy to trick people into humanizing killers, but a way to respect the families of those involved as well as keep the focus on the film's message.

Now, as someone who opposes the death penalty myself and advocates radical prison reform, I don't think it's to the film's credit to not humanize the victim as much as possible. Part of following in the paths of figures such as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, your parents, or even modern psychological science (or whomever or whatever it is that has led you to your creed) is that you don't come to your conclusions by tossing aside the true victims of these crimes. I believe the film should have spoken more about the victim, but not showing the crime wasn't a terrible thing.

Now, I don't recall them ever defaming the victim, either. I think he's called a brat by one of the killers, but never by any of the protagonists. Again, I think he's minimized out of respect, not out of dishonesty.

This movie, in fact, doesn't seem to be pushing an agenda. It's a look back at one of the most memorable trials of the early part of the century, and a surprising one in that Darrow actually managed to spare two very guilty boys from the death penalty in a time when many states still sanctioned and carried out death sentences with near glee. That's what makes this trial so interesting.

Also, if you look at what happened to the killers later, at least with Leopold, you may change your mind. He was a model prisoner, offered himself up as a human guinea pig to attempt to cure malaria, and, after he successfully appealed for parole, worked at a church-run hospital until his fatal heart attack. He was apparently well-liked by the community.

[–] canada22 7 years ago

I believe this movie is about the killers and not the crime. The movie is about how their thoughts of superiority caused them to think they were 'untouchable', but a mistake such as losing a pair of glasses helped them get caught. Unlike most crime movies, this story was not about the victim. I think that since the movie was made in 1959 could be the reason why they did not show the actual murder.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

They were legally boys then.