User Reviews

The subject of this film, which is pedophilia, is still extremely uncomfortable for many moviegoers, even in this day when it seems, at least to this old man, that "anything goes" on the screen and everywhere else. In 1961, the subject of child molestation was so controversial that this film could not even be made in the United Kingdom, the locale of its original setting, and was exiled to Ireland.

From the very start, the "no frills" and low gloss look of this stark black and white feature force the viewer to focus on the acting, which is first-rate, especially the role of the psychologically tormented lead character, Jim Fuller, who is played with great depth by Stuart Whitman. Fuller was convicted of the "intent" to commit child molestation. In my view, "intent" is critical in this case because we never witness him actually carrying through with the act. In fact, once he gains control of his repressed desire, he becomes sick to his stomach with his own dreaded, inner thoughts. Should this by itself make us more sympathetic to him than we would be if he actually fulfilled his sexual fantasies?

Fuller serves his time in prison and participates in a rehabilitation program that provides him with a roof over his head and an excellent position with a wonderful company, where he works for an unusually understanding boss. It just so happens that the boss has a beautiful assistant, Ruth Leighton (Maria Schell), a young widow with whom Fuller very quickly becomes romantically involved. Not having been in a government sponsored prisoner rehab program, now I understand what I've been missing for all of these years. And, yes, considering many of my dreary past work environments, I AM terribly jealous of Fuller. To make life all the more challenging for Fuller, Ruth just happens to have an adorable, blonde young daughter, Janie (Amanda Black--not Amanda Blake!), so we watch helplessly as Fuller is hopelessly set up for really big trouble. All that's missing is a scoundrel of a tabloid writer who is hungry for a scandal in order to prove his worth to the human race, which, of course, is zero. Ms. Schell, by the way, gives a very seamless, natural performance as the non-threatening, easy going solution to Fuller's basic problem. Considering her brother Max's phenomenal acting ability, I think that talent does sometimes run in the veins.

Whenever Rod Steiger appears in a film, I know that the man will deliver as promised. He never disappoints me, no matter how peculiar or even unbelievable his character is as written, and his portrayal here as Dr. McNally is no exception. As a guy out of the West Side of Newark, New Jersey he must have had a real blast working on that Irish accent. I never engaged the services of a psychiatrist, probably to my own detriment and that of the people closest to me, but do psychiatrists usually invite their clients to their own engagement parties? Do they encourage convicted pedophiles to spend time with the young daughters of their dates? Do they generally encourage them to drink straight whiskey? And, most of all, do they always keep 24/7 office hours and make themselves available as the client requires, regardless of the lateness or any other commitments that they may have? No medical doctor of mine ever did.

Brenda de Banzie should also be commended for her usually skillful performance ("The Entertainer", "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1956)) as the meddlesome, intrusive landlady who takes an unsolicited, physical interest in Fuller, her boarding house tenant. Did the rehab program require Fuller to live with these disagreeable, intrusive Cartwrights? As in the case of Humbert Humbert during Charlotte's initial grand tour in "Lolita", I would have fled the premises even before I had the opportunity to see the backyard. But that is a review for another day.

Regardless of the nature of the actual crime and the statistics on pedophile recidivism, which have been mentioned in other reviews, an important issue here involves the many, formidable obstacles that prevent released prisoners from the ability to rehabilitate themselves when they re-enter society. And how many released prisoners in reality have the good fortune to find the compassion of a Ruth Leighton or a Dr. Edmund McNally readily awaiting them on the other side? I seriously wonder.

Yes, this movie may have a few Swiss cheese holes, but the subject is a very important one and the superb acting alone must be seen and appreciated.

Guy Green and Samuel Fuller ("the naked kiss" ,1964) were the first directors to tackle a hot topic : pedophilia ; the word is not mentioned in both movies at a time it was a taboo word ;whereas Fuller's movie dealt with a wealthy man who attracted a little girl in his luxury mansion , Guy Green 's movie is about redemption ,what happens AFTER the hero committed child molestation and spent five years in jail .

Now out of jail ,the hero looks self-conscious , Stuart Whitman underplays his role,quite rightly so . He knows that his past can resurface. Although he's helped by a psychiatrist (Rod Steiger) and a colleague (Maria Schell) , he has to fight two enemies: himself and the medias : a hateful journalist , looking for a scoop , uses the photographs of the hero and Schell's daughter at the fair to sell his gossip paper ;overnight people turn their back (the once maternal landlady who came to comfort him when he is panick -stricken in his nightmares) .The rumor which spreads around town (today think of what the net can do!)can definitively ruin a man's life .

The weakest link of the movie is the hero's job :it remains too vague. But the subject was courageous. And unlike too many of today's movies , it tries to explain why the man became a child molester.

Outstanding film with Stuart Whitman giving an Oscar nominated performance as a man convicted of intent to molest a young child.

With the help of psychiatrist, Rod Steiger in a memorable supporting performance, the Whitman character is deemed cured and ready to rejoin society.

He seems to do well, with his landlord, at his job, romantic involvement-everything going for him until a vicious reporter destroys him by innuendo. Whitman was able to survive the accusation made against him in a similar molestation leading to the death of the victim, but the pictures of him with his lady friend's daughter are just too much for people, especially those idled by gossip and those vicious enough to invent more things beyond anyone's imagination.

Maria Schell is terrific as his lady friend and Brenda de Banzie offers a lot as a kindly landlady who is eventually swayed to think as others do.

As Steiger explains to Whitman: "You have to work things out on your own." The picture does that for you.

****SPOILERS**** Cleaned up version of the Charles E. Israel novel about a convicted child molester who's released from prison and tries to fit back into society has Stuart Whitman as Jim Fuller confront his demons head on and almost end up being institutionalized for it as well as shunned by everyone he comes in contact with in the movie. Convicted of attempted not actual, like in Charles Israel's novel, child molestation Fuller is after three years released from prison and put under the care of his prison appointed psychiatrist Dr. Edmund McNally, Rod Steiger, who despite his English surname speaks with a heavy German or Viennese accent. At first Fuller does fit into society and with Dr. McNally's help gets a job as an accountant for a major firm as well as a place to stay at the Carwright's Gertrude and Arnold, Brenda de Banzie & Maurice Denham, residence.

Despite his sexual attraction to under aged girls, he has trouble connecting to adult women, Fuller soon gets friendly with a woman working at the firm he's employed in the recently widowed Mrs. Ruth Leighton, Maria Schell, who has a ten year old daughter Janie, Amanda Black,who soon looks up to the very nervous, in being alone with her, Fuller as her surrogate father. As Fuller starts to get the hang of it, living a normal life, a young girl is abducted and murdered in the neighborhood and he's, in being just released from prison, picked up and questioned by the police. Found innocent of any crimes, he was in fact with Ruth at the time of the murder, Fuller is spotted by the "Daily Reporter" tabloid crime reported Austin, Donald Houston,who knowing his backgrounds and smelling a big story starts to hound Fuller day and night. It's when Austin spots Fuller at a local carnival with little Janie buying her an ice cream cone he sees his big chance of getting the "scoop of the century". Austin by plastering Fuller and Janie's photo all over the front page of his newspaper the cat is now out of the bag in what Fuller was convicted of as well as him being seen and photographed with a little girl that has the provable you know what hit the fan.

***SPOILERS*** Fired form his job and kicked out of his apartment Fuller homeless and unemployed now on the skids is on the verge of a complete mental & physical breakdown. It's Dr. McNally who come to Fuller's rescue by giving him the confidence that he so badly needs to feel that he's in fact normal and be able to put his shattered life back together again for the second time. Hard as it seemed it was also Ruth as well as little Janie who knowing that he isn't the fiend that the papers make him out to be who also help Fuller get back on his feet by showing him that his past is his past and keeping it that way. Strong performances by both Stuart Whitman & Maria Schell that in a ground breaking film tackles a subject, pedophilia, that was never , with the possible exception of Fritz Lang's 1931 movie "M", seen by the movie going public.

P.S ironically Stuart Whitman lost out in winning the Academy Award for best actor in 1961 to Maximilian Schell who won it for his performance in the movie "Judgment at Nuremburg". Schell just happened to be the brother of Whitman's co-star in the movie "The Mark" Maria Schell.

Well, I guess somewhere in an underground bunker a cabal gathered around a table discussing where they were going to take society after divorces were passe. Interestingly, about 3:45 into the movie, a character opens a window complaining about the heat stating, "I'm sure the climate is changing. They say it's due to the..." she doesn't complete her sentence - I guess they hadn't concocted a reason yet. But that's nothing. Brace yourself for a deeply sympathetic take on pedos.

The main character is recently released from prison for attempted r*p* of a 10 year old and is on probation after 3 yrs. This apparently was before the psychiatric arena understood it is the only incurable, non-treatable mental illnesses on planet earth. (maybe because their victims have their childhood violently eradicated for life (just my op having witnessed its horrific effects)).

Somehow, a simple call from the psychologist to a mega-corp CEO was all that was necessary to land a high-paying job with infinite upward mobility. Yah doan't say! Despite the fact he hasn't practiced in his field for 3 yrs, he's somehow a wizard at facts/figures. Manages in the blink of an eye to get the CEO's attention, affection, gratitude, despite the boss knowing the nature of his crime. In fact he's sooo good at his new role, the previous quasi-partner of several decades gets the boot for the newb. Yah doan't say!

The single, 42 y.o. Irish psychologist, who likes to drink and uses it to relax patients, believes he's cured after some group therapy amongst other criminals. These sessions are disgustingly portrayed. Apparently the doc never instructed the pt. To reveal criminal background to dating partners even with under-aged children. In a session the character/pt admits to stopping at a playground to look at kids - doesn't seem to bother doc at all - cause he's 'cured'! In fact, the only reason he's stuck going to sessions is because its mandated for parolees.

They actually dramatize the crime - and GET THIS!! -the doc lays part of the blame on the kid! Making the claim "Even a 10 year old girl can seduce a man." Of course the kid they show did not, and was traumatized by the attempted crime. But the poor guy threw up (vomitted), threw himself on the mercy of the court, and was really, really sorry.

Anyway, after convincing himself he's not a homosexual, he earnestly dates a co-worker with an 11 y.o., who - you guessed it - is absolutely crazy over mom's new love interest! Anyway, a nasty journalist snaps a pic of him holding hands with the kid, despite the fact no law is mentioned that forbade him close contact. Needless to say - he's SOL, or is he? Girlfriend finds out his crime - eventually feels he's worth the risk, despite the fact he hid it from her to begin with.

There is no coincidence that Lolita came out the following year to glowing reviews. Well, 60 yrs later and 17/17 reviews are great! In fact in 1961 thee lead Mr. Whitman was nominated for an Oscar - Yah doan't say!!! Out of the four raving reviews on the poster - 3 are from NYC outlets - Yah doan't say! There's a reason they let this one sneak out now. The day is coming.

Images of child abuse,Mr Whitman's character got off rather lightly. After all he had admitted intending to "interfere with" as they delicately put it in those days, a very young girl. Three years later he is back out on the streets. We now presume paedophilia is a permanent condition,but perhaps naively,the received wisdom art the time was that it could be cured. No Sex offenders Register back then. Whilst undergoing psychiatric treatment(the frankly frightening Mr Steiger) Mr Whitman in a slightly unlikely plot development falls in love with Maria Schell. As his "cure" progresses he is seen buying an ice cream for a young girl and exposed by the media(you would expect no less) and is a prime suspect for her disappearance. Cue the metaphorical flaming torches and pitchforks. I would suggest most people today might lack sympathy with Mr Whitman as it appears from reading the papers that sexual abuse of children is the new black. Back in 1961 it barely registered on the National Conscience and "The Mark" was a terrible shock at least to the British cinema audience who stayed away in their droves except in those rather odd cinemas in the West End where the patrons tended to wear dirty macs even in the most clement weather. But as an attempt to address a very difficult subject that even now,nearly sixty years later is still virtually taboo it is a courageous work and remarkably free of judgemental attitudes. Together with the rather different role of M.Paul Regret this is Stuart Whitman's best film performance and certainly deserved its Oscar nomination..