A relatively forgotten film, both now and apparently in 1956, the year of it's release. The Academy continues to receive black mark after black mark for recognizing crap like The King And I and not powerful films like Ransom. For noticing embarrasing performances by Yul Brenner and Deborah Kerr and not the performances of Glenn Ford and Donna Reed.
The early to mid fifties saw the films of Hollywood attempting to become more and more realistic, with films like Ransom, The Blackboard Jungle and The Desperate Hours. These stories were grittier than they would have been if they had been made 5-10 years earlier, as are the performances. Glenn Ford and Donna Reed have the chance to play everyday American parents (albeit rich) who have their son kidnapped, and the results are not pretty or glamorized. Ford does not play the sappy or insane father who will do (sterotypically) anything to get his son back. As important as it is to get his son back, it's just as important to take a stand against the kidnappers. Reed is not the beautiful rock of stability you might expect during the goings-on. She becomes manic, and LOOKS like the train wreck that she would be in real life.
Juano Hernandez and Leslie Nielsen are supporting players who provide the same depth and unexpected realism that Reed and Ford do. Early on, I liked neither character, and expected these two to give standard cardboard butler and reporter performances, but they both show real heart.
Ransom is a great film. The Ransom that was made with Mel Gibson really isn't even the same story, so it's pointless to compare them. It is a performance driven film, one that would have faltered in the hands of actors not willing to play on the same level as the screenplay. Great entertainment, and one of the 50s best.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Ransom could easily have made my greatest films of all time list, were it not for the ending. I found myself praying that the boy would not come back. That the film would just end with Ford walking back into his den, or him standing over the unfinished fort. That would have been much more synonomous with the rest of the realistic story and would have made a much more powerful statement. But then, almost as an afterthought, the kid is just there again and a tearful reunion ensues with his parents. While I don't think it's a bad ending (I got a little choked up), the other way would have been better. Bringing the kid back not only defies the symettry of the rest of the film, it opens a whole can of questions. Questions that we the audience had put aside earlier, like "What happened to the kid?", "Who are the kidnappers?", and "Why and How did they let him go?". I had realized earlier in the film that the film isn't about the kidapping of the boy as much as it is the reaction of his parents, particularly his father.
So it was almost a disappointment that the kid came back and made me think about those questions again. A slightly unsatisfied feeling is left with the viewer. While the end was good and finely acted, it wasn't the right ending for this particular film. Regardless, it's still a great film with brilliant performances by Reed, Hernandez, and one of the all time most underrated actors, Glenn Ford.
The early to mid fifties saw the films of Hollywood attempting to become more and more realistic, with films like Ransom, The Blackboard Jungle and The Desperate Hours. These stories were grittier than they would have been if they had been made 5-10 years earlier, as are the performances. Glenn Ford and Donna Reed have the chance to play everyday American parents (albeit rich) who have their son kidnapped, and the results are not pretty or glamorized. Ford does not play the sappy or insane father who will do (sterotypically) anything to get his son back. As important as it is to get his son back, it's just as important to take a stand against the kidnappers. Reed is not the beautiful rock of stability you might expect during the goings-on. She becomes manic, and LOOKS like the train wreck that she would be in real life.
Juano Hernandez and Leslie Nielsen are supporting players who provide the same depth and unexpected realism that Reed and Ford do. Early on, I liked neither character, and expected these two to give standard cardboard butler and reporter performances, but they both show real heart.
Ransom is a great film. The Ransom that was made with Mel Gibson really isn't even the same story, so it's pointless to compare them. It is a performance driven film, one that would have faltered in the hands of actors not willing to play on the same level as the screenplay. Great entertainment, and one of the 50s best.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Ransom could easily have made my greatest films of all time list, were it not for the ending. I found myself praying that the boy would not come back. That the film would just end with Ford walking back into his den, or him standing over the unfinished fort. That would have been much more synonomous with the rest of the realistic story and would have made a much more powerful statement. But then, almost as an afterthought, the kid is just there again and a tearful reunion ensues with his parents. While I don't think it's a bad ending (I got a little choked up), the other way would have been better. Bringing the kid back not only defies the symettry of the rest of the film, it opens a whole can of questions. Questions that we the audience had put aside earlier, like "What happened to the kid?", "Who are the kidnappers?", and "Why and How did they let him go?". I had realized earlier in the film that the film isn't about the kidapping of the boy as much as it is the reaction of his parents, particularly his father.
So it was almost a disappointment that the kid came back and made me think about those questions again. A slightly unsatisfied feeling is left with the viewer. While the end was good and finely acted, it wasn't the right ending for this particular film. Regardless, it's still a great film with brilliant performances by Reed, Hernandez, and one of the all time most underrated actors, Glenn Ford.