A self-doubting law professor wants to prove himself by defending a Mexican boy accused of murder. In the process, however, he gets mixed up with powerful political forces seeking to use him and the trial for their own narrow purposes.
As I recall, the movie got a spread in Life magazine, probably because of its topical theme and serious intent. In the mid-1950's, race was becoming a major political topic, 1954's de-segregation ruling being a chief catalyst. Clearly, the movie wants to frame the emerging issue in generally liberal terms, vilifying both bigots and McCarthyites on the political right and communists on the left. In contrast, Glenn Ford's idealistic attorney stands in for what the movie hopes will be an emerging consensus, one that endorses a principled justice for all races. Making the judge (Hernandez) a Black man also suggests that our institutions can work well regardless of skin color.
Now these are worthy topics, but even the best screenplay would have difficulty blending them into an effective 100-minutes. Unfortunately the result here tries to cover too much and ends in little more than an awkward dramatic mix. Also, the usually low-key Ford is too low-key in the movie's pivotal role. Thus the many disparate elements lack a unifying center, drifting more or less from one thread to the next without needed coherence. Notably, however, the film manages to avoid the cartoonish communist stereotypes of the period, making that key Cold War element more believable than most. For example, Kennedy's attorney (Barney) may be a schemer but he's also recognizably human, along with his boisterous fund- raising crowd. And when he admonishes the crowd to not trust anyone, I had to re-run to make sure I'd heard the un-Stalinist sentiment correctly.
All in all, it's a well-intentioned film, but lacks the dramatic impact, for example, of the similarly themed 12 Angry Men (1957). Moreover, the sprawl is simply too loose to provide an effective "think piece" platform.
As I recall, the movie got a spread in Life magazine, probably because of its topical theme and serious intent. In the mid-1950's, race was becoming a major political topic, 1954's de-segregation ruling being a chief catalyst. Clearly, the movie wants to frame the emerging issue in generally liberal terms, vilifying both bigots and McCarthyites on the political right and communists on the left. In contrast, Glenn Ford's idealistic attorney stands in for what the movie hopes will be an emerging consensus, one that endorses a principled justice for all races. Making the judge (Hernandez) a Black man also suggests that our institutions can work well regardless of skin color.
Now these are worthy topics, but even the best screenplay would have difficulty blending them into an effective 100-minutes. Unfortunately the result here tries to cover too much and ends in little more than an awkward dramatic mix. Also, the usually low-key Ford is too low-key in the movie's pivotal role. Thus the many disparate elements lack a unifying center, drifting more or less from one thread to the next without needed coherence. Notably, however, the film manages to avoid the cartoonish communist stereotypes of the period, making that key Cold War element more believable than most. For example, Kennedy's attorney (Barney) may be a schemer but he's also recognizably human, along with his boisterous fund- raising crowd. And when he admonishes the crowd to not trust anyone, I had to re-run to make sure I'd heard the un-Stalinist sentiment correctly.
All in all, it's a well-intentioned film, but lacks the dramatic impact, for example, of the similarly themed 12 Angry Men (1957). Moreover, the sprawl is simply too loose to provide an effective "think piece" platform.