Fury

... because you have this typical Depression era love story with a young couple in love but not enough money to get married at a time when married women were not expected to work after marriage. The guy, Joe WIlson (Spencer Tracy) is an optimistic fellow, living with his pseudo gangster brother and his baby brother that the gangster brother is trying to influence.

Joe quits a dead end job and buys a gas station and starts to make plenty of money. His fiancee (Sylvia Sidney) has been away from him a year working as a teacher to also save money. And then the day comes for them to reunite - there finally is enough money. He drives a car across country to meet up with her. And she waits and waits for him. Joe is never late. But little does she know that things have gone terribly wrong. That's where this tale goes to a very dark place.

Without giving away too much, a chain of events are set off that rips all optimism away from Joe and leaves him a changed and bitter guy, and he sets off on a really terrible yet understandable road of revenge.

This is probably the first real meaty role at MGM that Spencer Tracy got, and others followed soon after. It's also a rare 1930s message picture from that studio, dealing with mob mentality and violence. Although most mob violence was directed at African Americans during that time, so it does not quite have the courage of its convictions, it is still engaging.

Famed German director Fritz Lang's first American film, Fury, is loosely based on a story by Norman Krasna, "Mob Rule", which itself was based on the tale of California's last public lynching, in 1933, of Thomas Harold Thurmond and John M. Holmes, the kidnappers and murderers of Brooke Hart, the "son" in San Jose's L. Hart and Son Department Store. Fury is a fine exploration (although not an analysis) of the mentality of vengeance, whether from a mob, as in the first half of the film, or from an individual, as in the latter half. It is loaded with fine acting and an unusually constructed script by Lang and co-writer Bartlett Cormack, although it is not without flaws.

Joe Wilson (Spencer Tracy) is deeply in love with Katherine Grant (Sylvia Sidney). Wilson lives in the Chicago area in a small apartment with his two brothers, Charlie (Frank Albertson) and Tom (George Walcott). Wilson wants to marry Grant, but they're short on money. Despite the relationship hardships it will entail, Grant returns to Texas to work--she'll be making good money there, while Wilson tries to improve his lot in Illinois. Wilson finally manages to buy a gas station with his brothers, and earns enough to buy a car and take a road trip, with his dog Rainbow in tow, to meet Grant so they can get married. When he's almost there, Wilson is suddenly stopped by a sheriff's deputy in the small town of Strand. They question him about a kidnapping. Two minor details make him more suspicious, and so they decide to hold him in the town jail while the D.A. looks into his background. Rumors makes their way around the town and things go horribly wrong, bringing us to mob mentality, lynchings and vengeance.

Lynchings were an emerging social problem in the early 1930s. There were 60 known lynchings in the U.S. between 1930 and 1934. Beginning in 1934, the earliest of the "anti-lynching" bills was presented to the U.S. Congress, and that number grew to 140 different bills by 1940. The visual arts also voiced in on the issue--one museum held "An Art Commentary on Lynching" exhibition in 1934. So Fury was certainly pertinent to our culture at the time, and was one of many films to come, such as Mervyn LeRoy's They Won't Forget (1937) that centered on strong anti-lynching sentiments (believe it or not, there were also pro-lynching films, such as Cecil B. DeMille's This Day and Age, 1933).

It's interesting to note that although lynching was primarily a "racial"-oriented phenomenon, Lang was not allowed to comment on that very much. There are a couple shots of blacks in the film, but they are extremely innocuous. Anything even more slightly controversial was excised at MGM's (and specifically Louis B. Mayer's) behest.

Fury's structure is very unusual, contributing even more to its unpredictable, captivating nature. It begins as an almost bland romance while Lang sets up the characters and their slightly exaggerated innocence, turns into an interesting hardship film, briefly becomes a road movie, switches gears again when Wilson is arrested, and actually presents a profoundly impactful climax at the midway point--it seems as if the film could end there. The second half makes a major u-turn as what could be seen as an extended tag/dénouement becomes an in-depth courtroom drama that builds to a second climax. The second half allows Lang to explore the same vengeance mentality as the first half, except from an individual rather than the previous mob perspective.

Although the second climax denotes a fine work of art on its own--there are some very moving performances and developments towards the end of the courtroom stuff, the star attraction is the gradually building mob material in the middle. What begins as an annoyance for Wilson turns into widespread tragedy as the rumor mill gears up and easygoing conformism rears its ugly head. Of course it is well known that Lang came to America to escape Nazi Germany, where he had been asked to act as Hitler's minister of film, so Fury, although sometimes criticized as a commercial film for Lang, certainly had personal poignancy for him. Lang shows rumors gradually distending in a game of "Telephone" with serious consequences, and inserts a humorous shot of chickens to symbolize "clucking women". He shows how easily a situation can go from those kinds of increasingly misreported claims to dangerous action due to conformism. Most folks are shown as all too eager to go along with the crowd and avoid local conflict.

For a few moments, the mob mentality leads to a situation that presages John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). And overall, Fury is sometimes said to have anticipated film noir. However, despite some highly stylistic shots, such as the early, shimmering reflections of rain soaked windows on opposing walls, or the almost comically exaggerated action/reaction shots of the mob in full force (some of the more poignant material in the film), much of Fury's cinematography is more pedestrian. In his interview with Peter Bogdanovich that serves as the bulk of the DVD's "director's commentary", Lang states that he prefers simple, straightforward cinematography, to emphasize realism, or "truth". That may sound odd coming from the man who gave us Metropolis (1927), but at least for Fury, it is consistent.

But this isn't a flawless film. A few dramatic transitions are awkward, including two very important ones--the initial "capture" of Wilson, which is fairly inexplicable, and the final scene of the film, which leaves a significant dangling thread. But the underlying concepts, the performances and more often than not the technical aspects of the film work extremely well, making Fury an important film to watch.

Fritz Lang's first US film is arguably the best he made there,containing elements of his most celebrated film,M,though this time here the mentality of mob violence does not have a genuinely evil monster (so brilliantly portrayed in M by Peter Lorre) as it's point of retribution,but a decent,ordinary man in the shape of an equally superb Spencer Tracy.The first reel or so of FURY is somewhat dull,with Tracy and his fiancé Sylvia Sidney struggling to raise money for their wedding in what seems a straight-forward domestic story.But the film soon gets into gear when Tracy is mistaken for a kidnapper and held in a small town jail,and is lynched by most of the town's population,led by waster and bad boy Bruce Cabot.Or it seems he is lynched......Tracy somehow escapes,and totally hardened by the experience,is determined on exacting revenge against the perpetrators.

The film wasn't a particular critical or box-office triumph in it's day,maybe because it told some unpalatable truths in aspects of American life at the time.While not necessarily Hollywood's best-loved or most effective leading man,Tracy was arguably it's best actor from a technical viewpoint,and his performance is outstanding here.His transformation from an innocuous everyman to vicious criminal is totally convincing.After he makes his way back home to his brother's apartment,his speech detailing his ordeal and his thirst for vengeance is a quite brilliant piece of screen acting.Tracy had this and other memorable big screen monologues to his credit in a distinguished career (watch other fine examples in such films as STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE,STATE OF THE UNION,INHERIT THE WIND and GUESS WHO'S COMING HOME TO DINNER),and there were few,if any,that could equal him in similar circumstances.There are no forced histrionics,no exaggerated hand or facial gestures,no bellowing out of words,just a careful and believable building up of rage until he explodes on the final word he comes to.......,DEATH!

Aside from Tracy's excellence,the film is at it's most effective in the setting up and brief aftermath of the lynching itself.Lang's penchant for Germanic expressionism and moody lighting is very effective here,especially in the scene where the converging of the mob on the police station is represented by a subjective tracking shot,a remarkably powerful scene which is the film's highpoint.

The film goes slightly downhill in the courtroom sequence,which although has interesting elements (the use of newsreel footage as evidence),tends to get over-melodramatic and obviously contrived(Tracy's peanut habit and word misspelling are not too convincing plot devices),and Lang was reportedly very opposed to the somewhat sappy ending tagged on by MGM(as Hollywood's moral code demanded in the 30's).That aside,fine support performances(Ms Sidney,Walter Brennan,Edward Ellis,Walter Abel,etc.),a good musical score(Franz Waxman),stylish visuals(Joesph Ruttenberg)and bravura direction by Lang still make FURY,despite dated elements,a powerful and effective essay on lynch mob rule seven decades later,which most of it's contemporaries can certainly not boast.

RATING:7 and a half out of 10

The hard worker Joseph "Joe" Wilson (Spencer Tracy) and the teacher Katherine Grant (Sylvia Sidney) are in love with each other, but they do not have enough money to get married. Katherine gets a better job in Washington and together with Joe, they save money to get married one year later. Joe quits his job in the factory and uses his savings to buy a gas station, working with his brothers Charlie (Frank Albertson) and Tom (George Walcott). He makes enough money to get married with Katherine and buys a car. While driving with his dog Rainbow to meet his fiancée, Joe is stopped in Strand by the redneck Deputy "Bugs" Meyers (Walter Brennan) as suspect of kidnapping a boy in the Peabody Case. When they find peanuts in his pocket and a five-dollar bill in his pocket with the numeration of the money paid for ransom, Joe is arrested in jail for investigation.

"Bugs" Meyers makes a comment in the barbershop about the prisoner and sooner the gossip is spread in the little town. As a tale never loses in the telling, Joe is accused by the population of kidnapper and they try to invade the police station to lynch him. For political reason, Governor Burt (Howard Hickman) does not send the National Guard to help Sheriff Tad Hummel to protect Joe and the Police Station is burnt down by the vigilantes. Katherine witnesses the action and has a breakdown.

Joe is presumed dead but out of the blue he appears at his brothers' apartment seeking justice. He had learnt that in accordance with the laws, Lynch Law is murder in the first degree and his brothers open a case against twenty-two dwellers of Strand. The prosecutor Mr. Adams accepts the case and Katherine Grant is the prime witness. Joe's revenge is set in motion.

"Fury" tells the heartbreaking story of dehumanization of a good man and hard worker that believes in the justice and loves his country through the imprisonment and subsequent lynching by despicable people moved by gossip. Fritz Lang makes another excellent feature in his first American work, and I enjoyed the gossip sequence that ends in a brood of hens.

The story is engaging with a great revenge of the bitter Joe. I would love to see the twenty-two defendants going to the gallows, but the moralist conclusion works perfectly in the story. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Fúria" ("Fury")

"When a mob takes it upon itself to identify, try, condemn, and punish, it is a destroyer of a government that patriots have died to establish and defend."

A couple of blowhards without moral compasses whip a crowd up into a frenzy of hate, leading to an institution of government being stormed and destroyed. The mob is more willing to believe an unsubstantiated rumor than let the facts play out in a court of law. Thank god there was video evidence that could be used to help identify the culprits. It's trite to ask whether that sounds familiar, but it's impossible not to see the similarity to the real-life events of 1/6/21.

The script for this film was based on the 1933 lynching of two suspects being held in a San Jose jail for the kidnapping and murder of Brooke Hart. What was horrifying about it was that California Governor James Rolph actually endorsed the lynching, saying he would pardon anyone who was convicted. It's particularly onerous when those in positions of power subvert the rule of law so blatantly - and we see a representation of Rolph in a character who stops the National Guard from being sent out to protect the jail. (Again, ringing any bells?) It's a little unfortunate that this wasn't an African-American lynching case given the statistics spouted in the courtroom scene had to be stilted in that direction, but I don't fault the film for that because it was 1936, and the case selected was itself compelling.

Warning, spoilers from here on.

It's all very riveting, but I think where the film missteps is when it has the victim of this violence (Spencer Tracy) secretly survive, and then attempt to get mob members tried for murder anyway. The intention was likely to show his own lust for revenge getting the better of dispassionate rule of law, but it defies belief, and undercuts the power of the film. It would have been far more artistically truthful had he died, and his fiancée (Sylvia Sidney) used to carry on the prosecution of the thugs responsible. It doesn't ring true at all when she points out to him how the members of the mob probably regret their actions of that day. Ha! The film seems to want to take a little left turn into happy-land, with Tracy and Sidney ending up smooching, the townsfolk all having learned some lesson (you know, rather than being tried for attempted murder), and our faith in humanity restored because Tracy didn't let these people get convicted. It's all ridiculous.