MovieChat Forums > The Incident (1968) Discussion > This movie is about apathy, BUT...

This movie is about apathy, BUT...



we are supposed to assume that when YOU are picked on, then YOU would do or say something for yourself, NOT your fellow man, right? What kept frustrating and baffling me, was that when the one guy was touching Donna Mills (her hair), and the other lady, AND the gay man, I certainly didn't expect a Rambo reaction, but, isn't it an instinctive reaction to say at least, "Stop it or get off me or don't do that" or something. Anything. If you all noticed 98% of the time the only movement, the only ones standing in the train were the thugs. Every passenger just sat there. Isn't it an instinct to at least get up? Especially by the time Beau Bridges got to them... but still the whole train just sat there. I was amazed by all the lack of movement. Everyone looked down. I'm talking instinctually; not utilizing courage or an unfamiliar trait.

I THINK a lot of the point was perhaps, some of the folks being "all talk, no action" like the sexually harassing boyfriend of Donna Mills and Brock Peters and Ed McMhan. They could intimidate people who were EASY to intimidate.

I really liked the movie a lot, and I thought the backstory of each person was necessary to show the contrast to how they behaved on the subway. But, do you all think EVERYONE'S passivity (save for Beau Bridges) was a little TOO extreme?

Having said all that, what was the director/writer trying to tell us? He could have started the movie on the train, but we got to know how they behaved in regular life prior to this; why was that in there? I'd love some theories. Thanks!!!!

reply

I'm not certain, but it seems to me that the screenwriter and director may have been using the fictional story to comment on a real life event that had recently and infamously taken place in NYC: a woman was raped and killed while screaming for help and an entire apartment house full of people overheard what was happening and did nothing--I think they didn't even telephone the police until it was too late. The shock of their inaction gripped and saddened the rest of the country, where many people were outraged by their inaction and insisted that THEY would surely have done something if they'd been involved. Except, of course--they weren't. This is why, at the very end--after everything has happened and these people have been traumatized by their mutual experience, they pointedly ignore the "bum" passed out on the floor of the car and simply walk out without even trying to see if he is okay or even notifying the police or someone at the station.

And, to reply to your point about the inertia among the passengers: there is more movement than you seem to recall (I just watched it tonight so it's fresh in my mind) but, yes--overall, the passengers seem mostly to behave as if minding their own business and not confronting (or even challenging) the hoodlums will save their skins. Instead, from today's vantage point, they seem almost impossibly passive and cowardly. The one sequence that really disturbed me (I had seen it years ago but did not recall this part) is when Jan Sterling (the blonde woman with the hat & veil) has finally had enough and stands up to Tony Musante, only to have the tension turned on her by her weak husband, whom she slaps--and HE SLAPS HER BACK, to the sadistic delight of the hoodlums.

It's still a very powerful and thought-provoking film that asks us to consider how we might all react under such circumstances.

"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."

reply

It's still a very powerful and thought-provoking film that asks us to consider how we might all react under such circumstances.

At first I thought to myself I would never take that. But then I started to think what if someone stood up but then no one else backed them up. The people didn't have an opportunity to get together. the thugs went at them one person or one couple at a time to divide and conquer. I agree that from today's perspective they seem too passive but at that time the city was really bad and I think the general consensus was just mind your own business and be glad it's not you.

reply

"I agree that from today's perspective they seem too passive."

I don't get it, what makes you think people today would be any less passive? Did people magically evolve more courage and more desire to help others in 45 years? It all depends on the group of people and the unique circumstances of the moment. There could just as easily been non-passive people at that time too that would have done something about it, but the punks got lucky (besides, that's not what the movie was about anyway). Likewise, today there can just as easily be passive people towards modern day thugs on a train. It all just depends. One thing that would be different today is more security/police and more and faster ways to contact them (with cell phones, etc).

reply


I'm not certain, but it seems to me that the screenwriter and director may have been using the fictional story to comment on a real life event that had recently and infamously taken place in NYC: a woman was raped and killed while screaming for help and an entire apartment house full of people overheard what was happening and did nothing--






Actually, newspaper reporters exaggerated that case. Only a couple of residents heard screaming that night but chocked it off to something trivial. Most of the residents were asleep and never even heard anything as the victim was attacked in the back of the building, inside the main entry, very late.


What this movie brilliantly demonstrated is that people will always predict what they would do in any given situation until they are actually in that situation. For example, when the "Night Stalker" was killing women, and then couples in southern California during the late '70s, he often made the husband/male partner lay in the kitchen floor with dishes on his back (to assure he wouldn't intervene) while the wife was assaulted and killed in another room. The husband was then killed shortly after. One man swore that he'd never allow that to happen to he and his wife during a town hall meeting. The very next night, he and his wife met the same fate. This man was like so many others who are certain they would handle a situation much differently if they were in it, only to do exactly what they said they wouldn't when they are.








The truth is mightier than the sword.

reply

That was really great, you think YAY finally someone is standing up to them! Now her husband and others will back her up! Errr......wrong!

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.

reply

"and HE SLAPS HER BACK"

Why are you screaming this in all caps, who cares, she was a total callous a$$hole to her husband for no reason at all basically because he's just a mere teacher, just an everyday normal man and not some kind of superman. And she smacked him twice FIRST like he was nothing just because he wasn't superman and wouldn't put his a$$ on the line when she decided to get all up in the maniac's face and just expect him to jump in and rescue her for her stupid behaviour, screw her.

Btw, I think the most disturbing part was the drawn out harassment of the poor gay guy, and the callous reaction of one of the passengers who said, "ah it just looks like they caught a queer." Also at the end when the cops show up and the stupid racist idiots go right for the black man and start to arrest him before even realizing what was going on or who did what.

reply

But, do you all think EVERYONE'S passivity (save for Beau Bridges) was a little TOO extreme?


Not necessarily. I think most people that watch this film say to themselves "No way would I ever let that happen". However, that's what makes it a very interesting film -- because until we are really in that situation, we don't know how we would react.

I can actually see how that situation might really play out. If several people stood up and said "This is enough" then it would likely make others feel more confident to help as well. However, if you feel like you are the only person that is willing to make a stand, it could be quite scary. I can see how one might have a tendancy to say "well, they are not really messing with me, and if I say something, what if one of them has a knife or gun?". You might weigh the situation and think it's not something you are going to risk your life over. Just play it cool and at some point the guys will leave, or maybe get arrested.

This actually happened on 9/11, on three of those planes. The terrorists were outnumbered, but the people on board thought that if they just waited it out, everything would be okay.

reply

WOW. Not only did I get immediate responses, but good ones as well. I like BigEasy1203's take on it: the "waiting it out theory": that is something that I can get my head around: we all think SOMEONE ELSE will take care of it.

Yes, as was mentioned several times, I do believe this movie was a commentary on the Kitty Genovese tragedy: that incident became such a benchmark for human behavior that I never forgot learning about it in my psych classes in college, it became part of psych history. What I was referring to, however, w/ the inertia, and perhaps this was the director's choice, that except for Jan Sterling (hat lady) and then Beau Bridges, there was virtually no physical movement from anyone else. I watched it last nite too, and that really stood out. Especially considering the intense physicality of the the thugs (running up and down the car, getting in everyone's face, spinning around those poles etc). Maybe the contrast made the passengers seem "extra" passive?

reply

But then I started to think what if someone stood up but then no one else backed them up.

I was thinking about a couple things. In the beginning the thugs were waiting to mug someone. At first two people walked down the street together and the thugs hid in the shadows. Then when the guy came alone they jumped him. In the end when Beau Bridges character really stood up to Musante's character Sheen's character didn't back him but cowered in the corner.

reply

I agree...we learned from 9/11 that sitting back & waiting for someone else to act is a major part of the terrorist's plan. The passengers on the 2 planes that hit the World Trade Center knew they were in trouble, but they probably expected to survive, so they played it safe & didn’t act. They couldn’t conceive anything as horrible & destructive as what the terrorists had planned. In contrast, many passengers on the 3rd plane were aware of the first 2 plane crashes, so they acted. They took measures to change their situation, because they could perceive the threat. Most of us would like to think we would be courageous & heroic if we were put into a similar position, but the question is, would we perceive the threat? Would we understand what was happening in front of us, considering how stealthy & beguiling our enemy can be? Would we hear with our ears & see with our eyes?

reply

Sorry, Iamunder, but you, and every person here who has said that the passengers did nothing on the planes that went into the towers on September 11th, expecting someone else to act are mistaken!

Unfortunately, a lot of the media reporting at the time mischaracterized what happened on those flights, which is probably why you, Puplover and BigEasy got this mistaken impression.

The majority of the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were NOT even aware that the planes had been hijacked. The Flight Attendants kept that information from passengers to avoid panic; they used cover stories that the planes had been diverted due to a sick passenger.

This cover story was to buy time, while these same Flight Attendants valiantly tried to raise the Flight Crew in the cockpit, and when they could not, they used the in-flight phones to report the hijackings and seek advice from their respective airlines.

All this is based on the subsequent investigation of the tragic incident.

No way can the situation in this movie be compared to what happened on the Flights that were tragically crashed into the Twin Towers.

reply

I guess the makers of this film were trying to say something about those times but I found this to be one of the most ridiculous movies I ever watched. There were enough able bodied men to take the two hoodlums but everybody just sat there and waited their turn to be verbally abused. It was like they were cued when it was their turn.

And the army guy who didn't help Beau Bridges character should have been ashamed of himself. Maybe that was part of the point of this movie what with Vietnam and all happening at that time.

If any of you remember Bernhard Goetz, you will understand why he did what he did. At least he didn't sit there like a sniveling coward, he acted!

reply

THe most ridiculous thing to me was when the thug picked on the black guy. That guy could have wiped the floor with him. I thought the crying was the silliest thing. I would have thought once he was up, the other men would get up too.

reply

Yeah the crying and whining was as annoying as the punks. Even when the soldier got up and kicked the guy's ass the others stood by and cringed in the corner...Pathetic!

reply

Then again, you'd have to consider the time period. Black people had barely gotten their rights and many people still had that segregation mindset. Say he had spanked those thugs, only God knows what would have happened to him after. I wouldn't be surprised if he had been arrested for battery, despite saving everyone in the car.

reply

Good point. In fact, when the police finally arrived at the end, the first person they went for was him! Just because he was black, of course.

reply

[deleted]

It was revealing a part of the black man's character, that he wasn't as tough aginst "the white man" as he thought he was back when he was yelling at the ticket vendor. Plus you have to place it in the context of the time, there was a lot of emotion and hurt going on in the black community during the tumultuous civil rights era, with the race riots going on and everything else. A lot of drama.

reply

"If any of you remember Bernhard Goetz, you will understand why he did what he did. At least he didn't sit there like a sniveling coward, he acted!"

-True! BUT...that was because he had a weapon. The average person going to work or even home late at night on a subway doesn't have a gun on them. That said, I always applauded what Bernie Gotez did and I DO agree we need more guys like him.

reply

The world is falling apart before our eyes.. As well as the movies (since we're on imdb) - can I ask if you've done something to help the world, or are you waiting for someone else to act for you?

reply

You hit the nail on the head, and that's why this film didn't really work for me. It wasn't their just their passivity. When the two thugs began to misbehave, several of them spoke up individually and were cowed when they were threatened in return. In particular, the black man was quite ready to get physical and only backed down when he realized that he'd almost certainly cause his wife to be injured.

When the little girl was being harassed, it finally crossed the line for Beau Bridges, but I found it hard to believe that the others would have allowed it to continue. Even the older women had shown enough backbone to make it more likely that they would have walloped one of them with her purse. I don't think it would have been unrealistic to expect an "I am Spartacus" moment.

I didn't mind the lack of heroics in the earlier part of the movie. No one wants to be singled out as a target by two unpredictable sociopaths, but once it turned physical and with numbers clearly in favor of the good guys, having everyone remain seated was just silly. At the very least, the guy who had to watch his girlfriend fondled and the black man who was mercilessly insulted would have wanted to get a shot in.

reply

Well, to think that basically, all it would have taken to solve the problem, was two guys making a simultaneous, resolute move... wouldn`t even have required any particularly advanced fighting skill.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

i see this happening on a daily basis, never to the same degree, but close enough. i've had to crack a guy's skull open once but it was self defense.

people are scared *beep* it's pathetic.

reply

You see an innocent nation being slaughtered all the time and no one does anything. Even after we find out the reasons for going were lies.

reply

matt from five years ago, you self-righteous little dope. There are no innocent nations being slaughtered--what an absurd statement. But let's just say it was true. What would you have me do, put on my superhero suit and fly over there to save them from the entire U.S. and European military?

reply

I was in a couple of situations like this, just not in NYC metro. And guess what? Exactly the same reaction. No one wants do deal with scums because no one wants troubles, to be beaten or got a knife in your belly. What for? Because of couple of minutes mostly harmless stuff? Especially when guys drunk it's pointless to say something reasonable, no one wants attracts attention. And i am not an exclusion myself.

reply