This film has many wonderful layers of focus and interest built into it for the viewer to reflect on both during, and more importantly, after viewing it.
1. The era: Released in 1954, after the end of the Korean War, the focus of the story was on the war, prisoners held by the N. Koreans and Chinese, and the issue of brainwashing, of which Americans and others were beginning to learn. 2. The characters: The lead character, Capt Ed Hall, Jr., a decorated infantryman, has just returned after being released by the N. Koreans. His father is a senior Army Col (played by Walter Pidgeon), a cold and distant figure; his brother was an Army officer killed in Korea; the brother's widow (played by Angie Dickenson) still lives in the house with Ed's father; his mother had died when he was 12. 3. The situation: Ed was identified as an alleged collaborator with the N. Koreans/Chinese during his captivity, and the Army takes steps to prosecute him for aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war. The plot revolves around the court martial. 4. The trial: Ed's father engages a "friendly" military lawyer to represent his son, presumably to keep things from reflecting badly on him and the family. A skeptic at first, his lawyer gains more and more empathy for Ed and his experiences and represents him masterfully. During the trial, the prosecuting attorney appears to hold Ed in contempt and makes snide and caustic remarks. 5. The witnesses: A SSGT who testifies that he witnessed Ed slapping a sick soldier-prisoner when he wouldn't go along with his efforts at getting the men to stand up and back the jailers; a fellow captain (played by Lee Marvin) who attempted an escape and because of papers Ed had signed, was foiled, captured and tortured. 6. Ed himself: Ed admitted to his attorney that he had, in fact, collaborated with the enemy jailers for a dirty blanket, some bad soup and a dry place to sleep. His comment was that it seemed like a very good exchange at the time. However, it was not until Ed himself took the stand to testify as to what happened to him that the clearer picture emerged. 7. Family relationships: It was revealed over the course of testimony how estranged Ed and his father were after his mother had passed away. He felt no empathy, comfort or caring from his father -- just the stern reality of a military officer whose devotion was to the Army rather than his family. The trial was the venue where Ed's father first came to understand how his behavior had impacted his son and his son's decision while in the pit of despair. 8. The military's slow recognition of the impact of prisoner treatment by nations that do not ascribe to western notions of rules of combat or treatment of prisoners. This lack of realization of those realities made for immense suffering of our American POWs at the hands of others like them and the testing of all human endurance. It was not until after our Vietnam POWs' experiences that the US military began to accept the idea that each person has a breaking point and that it can be reached. Eventually, the Code of Conduct added language that took those facts into consideration. This film illustrates the fact that a person can be "broken" without ever having had any physical abuse, and to some degree, spotlights the Army (of the early 1950s) of their unwillingness to accept that reality we now take for granted.
This film threads these various components together in ways that no one single aspect supersedes any of the others, and all contribute to the whole. It leaves the viewer to decide whether there are actually "bad guys" in the play and if so, who they really are. Further, the film acknowledges that there are forms of treatment that men can subject one another to which do not include physical torture. It also shows that the breaking point of a human being differs between each human. And finally, there's a glimpse of redemption for those individuals going through the ordeal.
One final thought -- many have commented about the acting (all excellent portrayals), the intensity (both in the courtroom and in the car), the screenplay (by Rod Serling) and above all, the "ambiguous" ending. In that ending, the verdict is rendered by the court president, guilty on all charges but one. Ed takes the stand and articulates the denouement -- and then the film ends without us knowing what the sentence will be. Many other reviewers expressed frustration and annoyance at that ending, but I don't feel that at all -- instead, it was clear what the verdict had to be, because of the skilled examination by the prosecutor, Ed confessed that he believes he could have held out longer and not committed the betrayal. It was a confession that clinched the case. While it's a difficult and complex feat to create sympathy for someone who has betrayed his country while in captivity, Ed's character (and Paul Newman as the actor) succeeds beyond all expectation. Rendering a sentence at the end would have cheapened all the elegant acting, messaging and direction -- and frankly, it wasn't needed at all.
1. The era: Released in 1954, after the end of the Korean War, the focus of the story was on the war, prisoners held by the N. Koreans and Chinese, and the issue of brainwashing, of which Americans and others were beginning to learn. 2. The characters: The lead character, Capt Ed Hall, Jr., a decorated infantryman, has just returned after being released by the N. Koreans. His father is a senior Army Col (played by Walter Pidgeon), a cold and distant figure; his brother was an Army officer killed in Korea; the brother's widow (played by Angie Dickenson) still lives in the house with Ed's father; his mother had died when he was 12. 3. The situation: Ed was identified as an alleged collaborator with the N. Koreans/Chinese during his captivity, and the Army takes steps to prosecute him for aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war. The plot revolves around the court martial. 4. The trial: Ed's father engages a "friendly" military lawyer to represent his son, presumably to keep things from reflecting badly on him and the family. A skeptic at first, his lawyer gains more and more empathy for Ed and his experiences and represents him masterfully. During the trial, the prosecuting attorney appears to hold Ed in contempt and makes snide and caustic remarks. 5. The witnesses: A SSGT who testifies that he witnessed Ed slapping a sick soldier-prisoner when he wouldn't go along with his efforts at getting the men to stand up and back the jailers; a fellow captain (played by Lee Marvin) who attempted an escape and because of papers Ed had signed, was foiled, captured and tortured. 6. Ed himself: Ed admitted to his attorney that he had, in fact, collaborated with the enemy jailers for a dirty blanket, some bad soup and a dry place to sleep. His comment was that it seemed like a very good exchange at the time. However, it was not until Ed himself took the stand to testify as to what happened to him that the clearer picture emerged. 7. Family relationships: It was revealed over the course of testimony how estranged Ed and his father were after his mother had passed away. He felt no empathy, comfort or caring from his father -- just the stern reality of a military officer whose devotion was to the Army rather than his family. The trial was the venue where Ed's father first came to understand how his behavior had impacted his son and his son's decision while in the pit of despair. 8. The military's slow recognition of the impact of prisoner treatment by nations that do not ascribe to western notions of rules of combat or treatment of prisoners. This lack of realization of those realities made for immense suffering of our American POWs at the hands of others like them and the testing of all human endurance. It was not until after our Vietnam POWs' experiences that the US military began to accept the idea that each person has a breaking point and that it can be reached. Eventually, the Code of Conduct added language that took those facts into consideration. This film illustrates the fact that a person can be "broken" without ever having had any physical abuse, and to some degree, spotlights the Army (of the early 1950s) of their unwillingness to accept that reality we now take for granted.
This film threads these various components together in ways that no one single aspect supersedes any of the others, and all contribute to the whole. It leaves the viewer to decide whether there are actually "bad guys" in the play and if so, who they really are. Further, the film acknowledges that there are forms of treatment that men can subject one another to which do not include physical torture. It also shows that the breaking point of a human being differs between each human. And finally, there's a glimpse of redemption for those individuals going through the ordeal.
One final thought -- many have commented about the acting (all excellent portrayals), the intensity (both in the courtroom and in the car), the screenplay (by Rod Serling) and above all, the "ambiguous" ending. In that ending, the verdict is rendered by the court president, guilty on all charges but one. Ed takes the stand and articulates the denouement -- and then the film ends without us knowing what the sentence will be. Many other reviewers expressed frustration and annoyance at that ending, but I don't feel that at all -- instead, it was clear what the verdict had to be, because of the skilled examination by the prosecutor, Ed confessed that he believes he could have held out longer and not committed the betrayal. It was a confession that clinched the case. While it's a difficult and complex feat to create sympathy for someone who has betrayed his country while in captivity, Ed's character (and Paul Newman as the actor) succeeds beyond all expectation. Rendering a sentence at the end would have cheapened all the elegant acting, messaging and direction -- and frankly, it wasn't needed at all.