Spencer Tracy did not get an academy award for this film but he was compensated with a more important award--the Cannes Film festival award. It is always interesting that Europe recognizes the better Hollywood works than the Academy ("Thin Red Line" got the top award in Berlin, "Scarecrow" in Cannes--two geat American films ignored at the Oscar ceremonies).
I read a review of the film on IMDB pointing out the flaws in the script. They are all correct, if we go by rational thinking. But the merits of this film are the superb editing, the beautiful cinemascope photography and the arresting performances. Every time I see this film I am reminded of Spielberg's little known film "Duel" that had similar thrilling tension packed into less than 24 hours of screen time--a film I admire much more as good cinema than the recent box office outputs of Spielberg.
Compare this film with Sturges' "The Magnificent Seven." Sturges like King Vidor, seemed to pick up stories to film that looked at the oppressed and tried to present a world that could be better. "The Magnificent Seven," like this film, had a predominantly male cast. It appealed to most viewers. And some could see a social and even a political layer beneath these films.
What I find most appealing is the the ability of Sturges, Vidor, and the early unsung Spielberg's ability to use cinema to combine thrills, human values and craft in say 81 minutes as in this film. Spencer Tracy is not to be admired for the way he delivers his lines, but his body movements which remind you of majestic caged animal that can be deadly if provoked. Sturges brings to the fore evil in different ways--the dead buck strapped on the front of a vehicle, menace on empty roads by big vehicles (used in "Duel" to great effect), evil women when you expect them to be good, laws used in illegal ways (the hotel registration scene), etc. Sergio Leone made similar films in Europe--the famous spaghetti westerns--with laconic dialogues and emphasis on body movements and photography
In spite of its flaws, it is a film Hollywood can be proud of. I only hope TV reruns show the film in its original cinemascope grandeur, which grabbed me the first time I saw it decades ago.
I read a review of the film on IMDB pointing out the flaws in the script. They are all correct, if we go by rational thinking. But the merits of this film are the superb editing, the beautiful cinemascope photography and the arresting performances. Every time I see this film I am reminded of Spielberg's little known film "Duel" that had similar thrilling tension packed into less than 24 hours of screen time--a film I admire much more as good cinema than the recent box office outputs of Spielberg.
Compare this film with Sturges' "The Magnificent Seven." Sturges like King Vidor, seemed to pick up stories to film that looked at the oppressed and tried to present a world that could be better. "The Magnificent Seven," like this film, had a predominantly male cast. It appealed to most viewers. And some could see a social and even a political layer beneath these films.
What I find most appealing is the the ability of Sturges, Vidor, and the early unsung Spielberg's ability to use cinema to combine thrills, human values and craft in say 81 minutes as in this film. Spencer Tracy is not to be admired for the way he delivers his lines, but his body movements which remind you of majestic caged animal that can be deadly if provoked. Sturges brings to the fore evil in different ways--the dead buck strapped on the front of a vehicle, menace on empty roads by big vehicles (used in "Duel" to great effect), evil women when you expect them to be good, laws used in illegal ways (the hotel registration scene), etc. Sergio Leone made similar films in Europe--the famous spaghetti westerns--with laconic dialogues and emphasis on body movements and photography
In spite of its flaws, it is a film Hollywood can be proud of. I only hope TV reruns show the film in its original cinemascope grandeur, which grabbed me the first time I saw it decades ago.