William Wyler
1951
Detective Story was written by Sidney Kingsley in 1949 and played on Broadway for some 581 performances. Also wrote Dead End which was also made into a film by Wyler, Wyler also directed the 1959 Ben Hur The film version starts Kirk Douglas (Jim McLeod, Eleanor Parker (Mary McLeod and William Bendix (Lou Brody) KIRK DOUGLAS (Father of Michael) Douglas had already made a number of films including (1951) Along the Great Divide , (1950) The Glass Menagerie , (1950) Young Man with a Horn , (1949) Champion , (1949) A Letter to Three Wives , (1947) Mourning Becomes Electra (1947) Out of the Past , (1946) The Strange Love of Martha Ivers
. He was nominated for an academy award for Champion so he was a well known actor at the time.
Douglas was also the star of Spartacus, the Stanley Kubrick film Kubrick rejected. In 1996 Douglas got an honorary award for 50 years as a creative and moral force in the motion picture community
Eleanor Parker was also well known and had already been nominated in 1951 by the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences fpr her performance in Caged (!950) and would be again for Detective Story (1951) and later for Interrupted Melody (1955).
William Bendix was a well known character actor and had been nominated for an Oscar in 1942 for Wake Island. Like And Then There Were None, the film has the problem of dealing with the staginess of a play. How can a film open up a play (see West Side Story). How successful is this film in getting rid of the feeling that we are watching a staged play
There are a few concepts needed to talk about the this film (and some of those that follow):
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism ar often confused the moral absolutism and moral relativism. Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism deal with the problems of analyzing a culture> In ethnocentrism the rules (or organizational principles) in one's own culture are applied to another culture. In cultural relativism the attempt is to use the rules or organizational principles of the culture being analyzed in order to get some understanding of how the culture works. It says nothing about the analysts feelings about the culture. Moral relativism and moral absolutism have more to do with value judgments and whether or not moral behavior is absolute, and applicable anywhere and anytime. Moral relativism holds that under different circumstances behaviors change their moral status..
In film criticism and analysis the first two terms, ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are more important. Do we use the aesthetic rules from our culture when we see a film from another culture, or do we try to use the aesthetic rules found in the film maker's culture. Both approaches have some validity although the results may be different. For example. one might explain what an American audience will "get" out of a Japanese film, while the other will explain what a Japanese audience will "get" out of the film.
Emic-etic theory (which takes its name from the endings on "phonemic" and "phonetic") holds that specific events (etics) may be seen differently by different cultures (and indeed even by different individuals). So people from 2 cultures may see the same events quite differently. This has some explanatory force for the problems of cultural relativism and ethnocentrism.
A final question that needs to be considered deals with the relationship between morals vs. law:
The Film Itself
The film sets up a number of events which are seen differently by different people (The famous example of this is Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon). In this film the differences are not overtly the focus of the film as directly as they are in Rashomon.
Parallel mental illnesses appear: The shoplifter who is a kleptomaniac (and can not resist stealing) and the "self righteousness" - which cannot be controlled by McLeod. (compare this with both M and also Anatomy of a Murder) What are the implications of these "irresistible forces" in the films as they move from being seen outside the legal area into the legal area?,
Parallel which se up two criminal acts. Embezzlement (Arthur Kindred) vs. the illegal abortions (Dr. Karl Schneider).
The film also sets up oppositions about compassion or mercy and lack of compassion.:
This is part of what makes the story complex, Is the job to be taken personally (go after people who are committing crimes) or be compassionate. How can they be distinguished?
Is it self righteousness if the act involved (illegal abortions) are illegal?
These raise questions about where one draws lines on a continuum. If totally compassionate is at one end and no compassion is at the other, how do you decide where to draw the line?
The film's position
Many aspects of attitudes to the law are seen as either liberal or conservative. The liberal position is generally take and being more interested in protecting rights, whereas the conservative position is more concerned with punishing the guilty and protecting the general public.
McLeod represents a kind of conservative attitude. People like Schneider need to be locked up and put away. (Aside from the question of Schneider's competency, one can easily see in here the questions of "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" which are still in effect in this culture). The root of McLeod's concerns are not shown (i.e. is his hostility based on an anti-abortion stand - unwanted babies should not have been conceived in the first place). What led up to Mary's visit to Dr, Schneider is, however made clear. This is the first indication which side the film favors. It clarifies the motivation for one character (sympathetic) but not the other. They only thing that is said is that McLeod hated his father who drove his mother to a mental institution where she died. There is for MacLeod a kind of epiphany at the end where he realizes his father may have been as unable to control himself as McLeod himself is.
McLeod is clearly in the conservative role. Mary on the other hand tries to explain how things happened that led her to go there and looks for some kind of compassion for the situation - a much more liberal position.
McLeod, in keeping with the conservative position, is hostile to a system which he views as treating criminals with kid gloves and judges who let the "bad guys" go over technicalities. His positions are foregrounded and made somewhat understandable. Maintaining these positions however, loses everything for him . One can ask if the principles should be held onto no matter what the cost.
Mary (a sainted name) is seen as "pure" by McLeod and later as "dirty". She remains however the same person. Is it reasonable for him to see her suddenly as different when some aspect of her past life is revealed? Consider the same question about parole and prisoners? If people can change how do we know whether they have or not? How can you decide is a person is really different know than they were? Has Mary really changed? Has a criminal up for parole?
There is on the conservative side a set of premises:
Notice the contrast between the shop lifter (criminal) with an "obsession" and McLeod (law enforcement) with an obsession. How are the characters treated (how do you feel toward) each one with their obsession?
How is the "public" treated? (The "public" constitutes another status in these films?) What does McLeod say about them - what is his attitude to them in general and in specific Mr. Pritchett?
Another new status or role is introduced: the lawyer, in the form of Sims. How is his character treated by the writer?
Who shows (or comes down on the same side with) compassion
Brody: sympathizes with fellow Navy guy (same as his own son)
Arrival of burglars Joseph Wisemen (Charlie Gennini) , Louis Abbott (Michael Strong). Physical treatment of prisoners.
Interrogation techniques (playing crooks against one another) (notice the differential treatment by Brodie of the two crooks and of Arthur. How does McLeod behave?
Where does the film come down? Does the fim imply an epiphany for McLeod at the end?
Compare the position of this film with Dirty Harry, Magnun Force etc.
Does the film deal with the issues raised by MacLeod - say about the responsibility of the person who releases someone and then they go on to commit worse crimes?
The Film's Origen as a Play
How does the film attempt to be less "stagey" ?
moral absolutism - moral relativism
emics -etics
Physical persuasion Hostility to law; own background
Hostility to law; own background
With crooks with girl
MacLeod knows the “truth” Film makes this bad
In Dirty Harry it is positive
McLeod's position seen as "God-like" - he "knows" the truth (about what is right and what is wrong both morally and legally). Some religious statements and images. The images relate to some parts of the right being religious and often fundamentalist