Oscar Wilde was one of the great wits of his age, but he was allegedly not averse to appropriating other people's bons mots. It is said that after his friend and rival James Whistler had made a particularly apposite remark, Wilde sighed and said "I wish I had said that!". Whistler's reply was "You will, Oscar, you will". The American film industry has a similar attitude to other people's films to the one that Wilde had to other people's conversation. When some other country's industry comes up with a particularly admired film, Hollywood gives a collective sigh and says "We wish we had made that!" You will, Hollywood, you will!
This penchant for plagiarising foreign movies is older than one might think. The British "Gaslight" from 1940 was followed by an American remake four years later. In the sixties Hollywood discovered the Japanese cinema, in particular the work of Akira Kurosawa. In 1960 his "The Seven Samurai" was remade as "The Magnificent Seven", and four years later it was the turn of "Rashomon". "The Outrage" was the result. Like "The Magnificent Seven" it turns the original into a Western. Although by 1964 colour was becoming the default option for American films, this one is in black-and-white, as "Rashomon" had been.
Three travellers meet in a rainstorm at an isolated railway station in the American Southwest. They are a preacher, a gold prospector and a dishonest travelling salesman. The first two were witnesses at the recent trial of Juan Carrasco, a Mexican bandit, who was convicted and hanged for murdering a Southern gentleman, Colonel Wakefield, and raping his wife Nina. As in "Rashomon", several people give contradictory accounts of the events leading up to Carrasco's trial. Carrasco himself admits killing Wakefield, but claims he did so in a duel. His account is contradicted, however, by Nina herself and by another witness, an old Indian shaman, who claims to have spoken to the dying Wakefield. It turns out that there was a fourth witness who might be able to cast fresh light on the incident.
The film was directed by Martin Ritt and stars Paul Newman; the previous year Ritt and Newman had also worked together on "Hud", one of the greatest Westerns- indeed, one of the greatest films- of the sixties, but "The Outrage" is not in the same class. Newman seems miscast as Carrasco. In saying that I am not (unlike some reviewers on this board) motivated by any considerations of political correctness, as I have never been an adherent of the view that characters can only be played by an actor of the same ethnicity. The reviewers who object to Newman's casting on these grounds, moreover, seem to overlook the fact that Laurence Harvey, a Lithuanian-born South African, was not the most obvious choice to play a native of Kentucky. Newman's interpretation of the role, however, is stereotyped and one-dimensional, making Carrasco more of a cartoonish villain than a character in a supposedly serious drama. This matters, because at least two accounts of his encounter with the Wakefields suggest that he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Newman's character, however, is too unpleasant for us to really care.
Of the other acting performances, the best is probably that of Edward G. Robinson as the rascally peddler of patent medicines. The preacher is played by a pre-"Star Trek" William Shatner as a cynical, disillusioned, angst-ridden figure losing his religious faith, which makes him seem like something out of Ingmar Bergman. (That bleak, rain-swept opening also seemed a Bergmanesque touch).
Remaking a film, even one originating in a very different culture, is not in itself a bad thing, and does not automatically lead to an inferior copy. "The Magnificent Seven", for example, is today considered a classic of the Western genre, even though it was not a great critical or commercial success when first released. I doubt, however, if "The Outrage" will ever achieve classic status. Ritt and his cast (apart perhaps from Newman) try hard, but never succeed in arousing much interest in any of the versions of the story or in making us care which is the true one. It is a long time since I last saw "Rashomon", but from what I can remember it was considerably better than this. 6/10.
This penchant for plagiarising foreign movies is older than one might think. The British "Gaslight" from 1940 was followed by an American remake four years later. In the sixties Hollywood discovered the Japanese cinema, in particular the work of Akira Kurosawa. In 1960 his "The Seven Samurai" was remade as "The Magnificent Seven", and four years later it was the turn of "Rashomon". "The Outrage" was the result. Like "The Magnificent Seven" it turns the original into a Western. Although by 1964 colour was becoming the default option for American films, this one is in black-and-white, as "Rashomon" had been.
Three travellers meet in a rainstorm at an isolated railway station in the American Southwest. They are a preacher, a gold prospector and a dishonest travelling salesman. The first two were witnesses at the recent trial of Juan Carrasco, a Mexican bandit, who was convicted and hanged for murdering a Southern gentleman, Colonel Wakefield, and raping his wife Nina. As in "Rashomon", several people give contradictory accounts of the events leading up to Carrasco's trial. Carrasco himself admits killing Wakefield, but claims he did so in a duel. His account is contradicted, however, by Nina herself and by another witness, an old Indian shaman, who claims to have spoken to the dying Wakefield. It turns out that there was a fourth witness who might be able to cast fresh light on the incident.
The film was directed by Martin Ritt and stars Paul Newman; the previous year Ritt and Newman had also worked together on "Hud", one of the greatest Westerns- indeed, one of the greatest films- of the sixties, but "The Outrage" is not in the same class. Newman seems miscast as Carrasco. In saying that I am not (unlike some reviewers on this board) motivated by any considerations of political correctness, as I have never been an adherent of the view that characters can only be played by an actor of the same ethnicity. The reviewers who object to Newman's casting on these grounds, moreover, seem to overlook the fact that Laurence Harvey, a Lithuanian-born South African, was not the most obvious choice to play a native of Kentucky. Newman's interpretation of the role, however, is stereotyped and one-dimensional, making Carrasco more of a cartoonish villain than a character in a supposedly serious drama. This matters, because at least two accounts of his encounter with the Wakefields suggest that he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Newman's character, however, is too unpleasant for us to really care.
Of the other acting performances, the best is probably that of Edward G. Robinson as the rascally peddler of patent medicines. The preacher is played by a pre-"Star Trek" William Shatner as a cynical, disillusioned, angst-ridden figure losing his religious faith, which makes him seem like something out of Ingmar Bergman. (That bleak, rain-swept opening also seemed a Bergmanesque touch).
Remaking a film, even one originating in a very different culture, is not in itself a bad thing, and does not automatically lead to an inferior copy. "The Magnificent Seven", for example, is today considered a classic of the Western genre, even though it was not a great critical or commercial success when first released. I doubt, however, if "The Outrage" will ever achieve classic status. Ritt and his cast (apart perhaps from Newman) try hard, but never succeed in arousing much interest in any of the versions of the story or in making us care which is the true one. It is a long time since I last saw "Rashomon", but from what I can remember it was considerably better than this. 6/10.