The Rack (1956) User Reviews

The film's focus is the alienation between child and parent...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 23 June 2005]

Newman is an Army captain who returns to the U. S. after having been a POW for over two years in Korea, and is promptly charged with collaboration… Most of the film centers on his court-martial, which reveals that he did indeed cooperate with his captors after intensive psychological torture… Since he admits that he never reached the breaking point, he is found guilty, but the film suggests that society is responsible in not better preparing soldiers for the new methods of torture…

From the moment he first appears in a wheelchair to be interviewed by a psychiatrist (evoking memories of Brando in "The Men"), through intense scenes with his father (Walter Pigeon), a cold, stern career officer, to the climactic confession, Newman projects the brooding, nervous, introverted quality of a man still in a state of emotional shock…

Method mannerisms that Newman carries from film to film first appear here, and although sometimes overdone, they are generally effective: his glistening eyes, nervously moving lips and rapid blinking; his habits of rubbing his head, looking away from people and putting his hand over his mouth while speaking… All of these suggest a man burdened with guilt, withdrawn into his own world of shame and bitter memories…

Newman is at his best during the trial, when he describes the prison camp horrors… Staring straight ahead, he recites his experience in a cool, deliberate manner, to prevent himself from breaking down… But he finally cries when recounting the fear of loneliness that led him to give in—a fear that was born, in his childhood, when his mother died and his father never had time for him… He cries out: "My father never kissed me!"

Thus ultimately the film's focus is the alienation between child and parent, which places it in the tradition of many mid-fifties movies, including Dean's "Rebel Without a Cause" and "East of Eden."

That theme would continue in Newman's films: from "Somebody Up There Likes Me," through "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and others, to "Hud," he plays men with serious problems in relating to a father or father-figure… In that context, "The Rack's" central scene, which follows the confession, has the father attempting a reconciliation… The two sit in a car, with Newman again staring straight ahead, maintaining the barrier between them… He stiffens as his father puts his arm around him, but finally gives in as the old man does kiss him… It's the film's most poignant moment—a personal victory for the soldier, who loses everywhere else

The Breaking Point

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 21 August 2010]

The Rack casts Paul Newman in his third film as a returning prisoner of war who is put on trial for collaborating with the enemy during the Korean War. After the disaster of The Silver Chalice and his subsequent success in Somebody Up There Like Me, Newman's performance in The Rack assured his future stardom.

Making things triply worse is the fact that Newman comes from a military family. His father Walter Pidgeon is in the service, his brother was killed in Korea, and the brother's wife Anne Francis has stayed with Pidgeon. It was after a welcome home party for Newman that Pidgeon receives the word about Newman's court martial. Walter Pidgeon gives the best performance in the film, his scenes with Newman after he gets the news are what great acting is all about.

Prosecuting Newman is Wendell Corey and his defense counsel is Edmond O'Brien a good pair of cinematic legal adversaries if there ever was one. Also in the film is Lee Marvin who was a fellow prisoner and who is the original accusatory witness against Newman. Marvin's scene in the witness stand is also classic.

The Pacific Theater of World War II and later the Korean War put us against enemies of an oriental culture and the second one flavored with Marxism. Their view of prisoners was one radically different from the western one. Someone who didn't die at his duty and allowed himself to be captured was one worthy of contempt. It's why the atrocities that happened and more important the fact that the prison keepers never viewed what they did as atrocities. These were all new issues for the American public to face. It would come even closer to home during the Vietnam War.

The Rack is the story of one man who reached a breaking point while in captivity. Those points are not the same with every individual. That fact is brought out quite clearly in this fine film.

A word in defense of the ending.

[Irie212 · 7/10 · 13 December 2009]

Paul Newman gives perhaps his most powerful performance as Captain Hall. He is restrained, moving, and with just enough wit and comedy (those hiccups) to let us know that an honorable and decent man has survived inside that devastated soldier. He stands out in a truly sterling cast led by Wendell Corey, Edmund O'Brien, Walter Pidgeon, and, holding her own with admirable grace, Anne Francis.

Most IMDb reviewers seem disappointed in the film's ending, either because it's sad or because it's ambiguous (it's both: the film ends after the guilty verdict but before sentencing). But I credit the ending with intelligence, complexity, and dignity. It was persuasively real and it delivers a moment of redemption all the more moving for being underplayed. After the guilty verdict, we learn that a key witness against him has forgiven Hall after hearing his testimony about the months of torture. I found the ending both satisfying and believable-- not only that a military court would have ruled against Hall given the army's code during the Korean War, but that Hall would find true redemption not in the verdict of army judges, but in the forgiveness from a comrade in arms-- especially a comrade who had also been imprisoned and tortured in that Korean prison.

By the way, although it's essentially a courtroom drama, the scenes of soldiers coming home are strongly flavored, reminiscent of "The Best Years of our Lives", and praise for coming-home pictures doesn't get higher than that.

Fascinating Drama

[Graeme Robert Sutherland · 23 November 2001]

Newman is very assured, in this only his second feature. He plays the POW home from Korea accused of selling out his country to the Reds.

This is a compassionate film which explores all sides of the argument with understanding and restraint. The prosecution aren't hysterical witch-hunters, and the defence aren't wet-eyed bleeding-hearts. A serious set of issues is explored in an evenhanded but yet passionate manner.

This is fascinating drama - very much of its time and it has dated but that only seems to add to its value.

The ending is ambiguous and may well lead to a heated debate in your family.

I recommend it highly.

rarely seen film that's well above average

[rupie · 7/10 · 7 January 2003]

Caught this rarity on TCM. Much heavy duty talent is involved in this production - Rod Serling as writer, and the acting talents of Paul Newman (his second screen appearance), Edmund O'Brien, Walter Pigeon, and Anne Francis, with bits by Lee Marvin and Chloris Leachman, even! The effort must be marked as a success, with an even-handed treatment of the issue of "breaking point" in a war when the Koreans openly sought to crush their POW's thru "brainwashing", a term that came into currency at that particular time. The cut and dried atmosphere of the courtroom proceedings are balanced by portrayals of the personal effects of the tragedy on the principals, especially the searing scenes between Newman/Hall and his father. A thoughtful film dealing with a major issue of the day, that is well worth seeing.

Memorable performance by Paul Newman

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 31 January 2002]

Paul Newman has impressed me in "Cool Hand Luke" and in this film his performance ranges from the "cool" to the frail man in the duration of the movie.

Among films based on courtroom trials this one is remarkable. It rates alongside Bruce Beresford's Australian film "Breaker Morant" and the British film "Term of Trial."

A major feather in the cap is the ending, which is a clever touch by the director Arnold Laven. Any other ending would have made the film less poignant.

The development of the relationship between Newman's character and that of Annie Francis' Aggie is again worthy of note. Lee Marvin's small role catches your attention though it is not his finest by any measure.

All in all this film should be given more publicity, as the theme is relevant today as it was when it was made.

Good film, good acting, great theme.

[jimhorne · 7/10 · 20 August 2006]

I had never even heard of this film when I caught it on TCM this morning. It is a well acted, well written drama that showcases the early, developing talent of Paul Newman in a very becoming light. Edmund O'Brien and Ann Francis are also particularly engaging, as is the conflicted prosecutor played by Wendell Corey. Probably the highlight of the movie is a fantastic scene between Newman and his father, played by Walter Pigeon. All in all, a very good movie dealing with the trauma of war and the dysfunction of family life. 7 stars may be a little low for this one. It is extremely entertaining and thought provoking.

Excellent and Superb

[artzau · 10/10 · 17 March 2001]

I'm always shocked that so few people know or have seen this film. This is an excellent movie by any standard: story by Rod Serling, cast with Ann Francis, Paul Newman, Lee Marvin, Wendell Corey, Walter Pigeon, Edmund O'Brian and others. The setting is the Korean and this a court martial trial of an officer that capitulated with the enemy while a prisoner-of-war. The drama is tense, the acting superb and the depth of feelings portrayed in a (then) controversial subject is intense. This film is one of my favorites of all time. I'm shocked there is no video or DVD and that it has appeared only rarely on the late shows.

Why Didn't You Die! Why Didn't You Die Like Your Brother Did!

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 26 January 2007]

(Some Spoilers) Arriving back home from Korea highly decorated US Army Captain Ed W.Hall Jr, Paul Newman, is broken in both mind and body from the two years he spent in a brutal Communist Chinese prison camp. What Captain Hall went through in Korea in combat and in a POW prison will be nothing to what's awaiting him back in the states. It's there where he'll soon be charged with high treason in collaborating with the enemy, that may have lead to the deaths and torture of a number of his fellow GI's. For selling out his country Capt. Hill got nothing more from his communist captors then a soiled and warm blanket and hot bowl of rice soup.

Highly emotional motion picture adopted from a Rod Serling TV screenplay about collaboration with the enemy during wartime that goes into the mechanics of brainwashing by the Red Chinese that was far more effective then the torture and threats, as well as carrying them out, of death on captured allied POW's by both the Germans and Japanese during the Second World War. Capt. Hall not telling anyone of what he's to be accused of has his father Col. Edward W. Hall Sr, Walter Pidgeon, get the shocking story about his boy from a friend of his Col. Dudley "Smitty" Smith, Fay Roupe, at a party thrown in Ed Jr honor after he came back from Korea.

Captain Hall doesn't at all try to avoid the issue of his collaboration with the Red Chinese when he's put on trial before a military court-martial. Capt. Hill tries through his court appointed lawyer Lt. Col. Frank Wesnick, Edmond O'Brien, to explain how his mind was manipulated and destroyed by the Reds, or Chinese Commies, who played on his alienation from his strict gong-ho military father, Col. Ed Hall Sr, when he was a boy growing up in San Francisco. If the Reds tried to torture or even kill Captain Hall like they did to his friend and now bitter enemy Captain Miller, Lee Marvin, it wouldn't have worked since he, like Capt. Miller, was conditioned by the US military for that type of treatment while in enemy hands.

The mind is a very delicate instrument that can be easily twisted and shaped into what a maniacal bunch of scoundrels like the Red Chinese want it to be. By playing on Capt. Hall's loneliness and feelings of being deserted by his country and unloved and unwanted by his dad coupled with the shocking news, that he got while in captivity, that both his mother passed away and younger brother Pete was killed in action in Korea that in effect got the already zombie-like Capt. Hall to play right into their hands.

At his trial Capt. Hall didn't at all try to defend his actions but only tried to explain them. Even Capt. Miller, who was brutally tortured by the Reds because of Capt. Hall's collaboration with them, came to fully realize what brainwashing can do and how the person whom it's preformed on has no will or mind left to even know what he's doing.

The movie "The Rack" and its star Paul Newman as the guilt-ridden and mentally tortured Capt. Ed Hall Jr is very hard to like in it making a traitor to his country look sympathetic. Yet you begin to realize at the end of the film after a heart-wrenching speech to the court, as well as movie audience, by a tearful and utterly remorseful Capt. Hall that even the strongest and bravest of us do have our weak points. That's what the Chinese Reds counted on by getting captured GI's, and there was in the war in Korea hundreds of them, like Capt.Hall to go against everything that they loved and were willing to both fight and die for. The Communist Chinese achieved all that by putting US POW's in a cold and lonely cell and then after months of brainwashing having them do their bidding like a bunch of trained seals in a aquarium.

Some may dislike the ending, but it's still a powerful film

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 2 February 2007]

This was Paul Newman's third movie. His first, THE SILVER CHALICE, he later described as one of the worst movies ever made. His second, SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME was an excellent film and finally gave Newman some recognition, but some people must have thought that his success could have been a fluke--especially after his first film. However, his excellent and relatively restrained performance in THE RACK helped him be a genuine star.

The film begins with Newman and other soldiers returning from North Korean prisons after the war. At first, his father the Colonel (Walter Pidgeon) is ecstatic to see his return, but this revelry comes to a halt when just a short time later Newman is up on charges at a court martial for being a collaborator. How much he assisted his captors, what they did to break him and what demons Newman was struggling with make this all a very interesting and unusual. So unusual, in fact, that you have to admire the producers and writer (Rod Serling) for taking a bit of a risk.

The acting is exceptional as are the writing. About the only potentially disappointing aspect of the film is the ending. While I didn't mind how ambiguous it was, I am sure many will feel disappointed that the film seems to end prematurely. Still, it's an excellent film and well worth your time.

Fantastic Film with Outstanding Acting

[whpratt1 · 7/10 · 26 January 2007]

Never viewed this film until I noticed it was going to be shown on TCM and was very surprised to see that Paul Newman starred in this film. This story is about the treatment of American Soldiers during the Korean War and how their captives tortured our men with mental punishments in order to brainwash their thinking and find their weakness in order to take complete control over their mental thinking. Paul Newman, (Capt. Edward Worthington Hall Jr.,) played the role of an Army Officer under investigation and also a trial to determine what actually happened in the prisoner of war camp. Wendell Corey, (Maj. Sam Moulton), is the Army Prosecuting Attorney and Edmond O'Brien, (Lt. Col. Frank Wasnick) the Army Defense Attorney who both did outstanding acting defending their clients. Walter Pidgeon,(Col. Edward W. Hall,Sr.,) was the father to Capt. Edward Worthington Hall, Jr. who gave a great supporting role along with Anne Frances (Aggie Hall) who lost her husband in the Korean War. This is a great film to view and it clearly showed how many people who are tortured have breaking points when in captivity and questions everyone how they would be able to endure such treatment and whether they would be able to hold up.

Underrated gem

[arbarnes · 9/10 · 8 April 2009]

Paul Newman's second film (but released after "Somebody Up There Likes Me") demonstrates that, even then, he was the truly finest screen performer around. But the very nature of his style has always placed him behind –or to the side of– more "bravura" actors of the time. Unlike Brando and Clift and Dean- he is much less self-centered; in other words he is a sharing actor. This puts the SCENE in focus more than the performance, and in this extremely underrated (and almost forgotten) courtroom drama you have one of the best scenes I have ever come across - a simple dialogue between Newman and his father, played by Walter Pidgeon (who gives one of HIS best performances here). The short scene takes place towards the end of the film and is pivotal to the story. It is a miniature master-class in technique, communication (or lack of it) and truth. There are clear parallels to "East of Eden" but somehow the shading here is less stark, which makes the confrontation so much more -real. Courtroom dramas, especially American ones, almost always work as on screen. The inbuilt tension and clear pattern of procedure, with gradual unraveling of facts and insights, is compelling, no matter what the case or period. This one is no exception. There are many cadences and moral issues are raised that one sometimes wishes could have gone even further. Otherwise the screenplay (based on a tele-play) is taut, careful and intriguing. So are the characters: Wendell Corey and Edmond O Brien as defense and prosecuting counsel respectively are particularly noteworthy, and utterly believable in parts that could easily have been stereotypes. If one must criticize, I would have to say that the first part of the film, before the court case begins, could have been curtailed slightly. Not because it is in any way uninteresting, but because it seems somehow rather unnecessary -as if just placed in to flesh out the film. But this is a minor criticism of a film that really deserves to be better known.

A wake up call, one ignored for 64 years

[uscmd · 7/10 · 11 November 2021]

Please god. Let the decision makers, stop charging into wars at the behest of those who'll make outrageous profits. Ignoring the thousands of young men and women that come home smashed into pieces, for many irreprably..

If theres a conflict that threatens the security, of the U. S., thats different. But no more 3rd world esoteric, thinly constructed conflicts, in which the ones deciding are future employees of the weapons industry (read Eisenhower on the military industrial complex, and its threats to America).

Way too cozy, classic conflict of interest, having those who'll gain, personally opting to jump in.

This movie, is set on that back drop....tangentially, with a young man (boy), no mom, military dad, trotted down the path to glory. Only his "glory" is in a courtroom, where his behavior is judged by many who never faced what he did,

It was trials like this one that led to a reexamination of the expectations, of a soldiers behavior once hes taken prisoner.

Unforgiving portrait of the "fortunes of war"

[evening1 · 5/10 · 23 May 2021]

How many of us think about the US POW's of the Korean War? How many of us even remember the war itself?

The 1950-1953 conflict seems seldom-mentioned, and yet it produced 36,574 US dead and missing. According to Wikipedia, North Korea routinely tortured and starved our POWS, and two-thirds of them didn't survive the ordeal.

Paul Newman is believable here as Capt. Edward W. Hall, Jr., a Silver Star with cluster recipient who is tried as a traitor. The movie thrusts the viewer into conflict -- we cringe at the horrors Hall endured, and understand what would happen without the rules.

There's no escaping that being a soldier is an unspeakably huge gamble.

Hall suffers from PTSD, and the movie shows its toll. We also sense the gap that exists between combat veteran and civilian life. Family and friends want a happy face.

Ann Francis breaks that mold as Hall's sister-in-law, Aggi, a war widow who urges him to plead his case. (One kept expecting that something romantic would happen, but writer Rod Serling, a WWII vet himself, never quite tosses that bone.)

This is a troubling film, a reminder that our soldiers risk their lives for a shallow citizenry seemingly only focused on ordering up the next bourbon.

I agree its greatly underated

[suzykeen · 22 January 2002]

I have to agree this is one of Pauls best movies and it never seems to come up when he is mentioned, the cast is also terriffic. I am sorry it has gone so unnoticed I can only think that it may have been set about the Korean War and that doesnt seem to get much attention.. I thought the acting was sincere and I was draw to this character that seemed to feel he lost his way by being human..

Watch it for a young Paul Newman's performance...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 20 May 2021]

... because even though it explores what was a new subject at that time, in the end it pulls all of its punches. I was particularly surprised when I found out that Rod Serling wrote the screenplay, but maybe it was so early in his career that he had to do what the suits told him to do. This was initially a TV broadcast, part of the United States Steel Hour, and made into a theatrical production.

Captain Ed Hall (Paul Newman) has just returned home from two years in a North Korean prison camp. However, he is facing a court martial, charged with collaborating with the enemy. During the trial it turns out the facts of what he did and why he did certain acts are more complex than what is on the face of things. Wendell Corey is the poker faced strictly business prosecutor. He is much better in this kind of role than when Paramount was trying to make him the romantic leading man a few years earlier. Lee Marvin plays a soldier who believes Hall has betrayed him. Edmund O'Brien is the sympathetic defense attorney. Complicating factors - Ed's dad (Walter Pidgeon) is a career military man with a strict code of conduct.

I just watched The Rack for the first time and was amazed to see that after having made a very good case to show that psychological manipulation was more painful and effective than physical torture - a modern version of "the rack" - the film made a complete turnaround and capitulated to the old moralism that if you love your country enough you can choose to be tough and and not give in.

When I hear Paul Newman admit that he did not actually mentally "break" and saw that Edmond O'Brien did not redirect and challenge his "confession" I couldn't believe it. That "error" lost the case. I knew he would be convicted. I also wondered why was no psychiatric expert testimony called to explain the use of psychological tactics.

But then, at the end of the film when Newman gives his "magnificent moment" speech you realize that the film's point of view is traditional military. Literally --- unbelievable . By the mid 1950s people were ready to examine WWII and the individuals involved in a different way - "The Enemy Below" for example. Because the foe had been vanquished and no longer existed. But the Communists were a clear and present danger, so no such nuances in films on that subject at the time.

A Kinder, Gentler Torture

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 11 May 2008]

Paul Newman (as Captain Edward W. Hall Jr.) returns home from the Korean War, on a stretcher, after being held in an enemy prison camp. At first, Mr. Newman is treated as a recovering war hero. After evidence surfaces to reveal he collaborated with the enemy, Wendell Corey (as Major Sam Moulton) serves Newman with court-martial papers. This doesn't sit well with military-minded father Walter Pidgeon (as Colonel Edward W. Hall Sr.). Newman's widowed sister-in-law, Anne Francis (as Aggie Hall) is more understanding...

A re-make of the Rod Serling's television version "The Rack" (1955), with Mr. Corey reprising his thankless prosecutorial role; this is a very well-acted, thought-provoking drama. It is also one of Newman's best early feature film performances. Smaller parts, like those essayed by Cloris Leachman (as Caroline) and James Best (as Cassidy), provide an added incentive to watch. However, the ending, whatever the filmmakers' intentions, is not very well-handled.

****** The Rack (11/2/56) Arnold Laven ~ Paul Newman, Walter Pidgeon, Wendell Corey, Anne Francis

A great film lies hidden here

[mik-19 · 7/10 · 22 July 2004]

There lies a great film hidden in the depths of 'The Rack', one that honestly and unflinchingly dares pronounce its indictment of the American way of life, of a people uninformed about the democratic traditions of their country as well as of the exact nature of Communism.

But 'The Rack' is not quite that film, although in long stretches it is pretty good. Paul Newman in his second starring role plays Captain Ed Hall, being court martialed for betraying his country when he was a prisoner of war in Korea by collaborating with his captors. It turns out he was mentally tortured, brainwashed as it were, and there is an emotional forthrightness of the scenes concerning the captain's breakdown that are engaging, and the central between Newman and Walter Pidgeon as his staunch colonel father will draw tears, although Newman is not yet the acute and instinctively brilliant actor he would become.

So, see it by all means next time it is aired on TCM, it's not half bad. Only, it ought to have been better.

"Did you collaborate with the enemy?"

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 21 August 2010]

Based on some of the other reviews on this board, I'd have to say it's a good thing there's a Turner Classics Movie Channel out there. I had never heard of this Paul Newman starring vehicle before either. Once under way, the story of Captain Edward Hall Jr. becomes a compelling drama, as the courtroom scenes reveal the nuanced complexity in determining what constitutes 'collaboration with the enemy'. In an even handed way, the film allows the prosecuting and defense attorneys both build convincing arguments that make it difficult for the viewer to determine how the story will end. I have to say, I felt exactly the same as Lt. Col Wasnick (Edmond O'Brien) did when Captain Hall admitted that he may not have reached the breaking point while prisoner. Suddenly, the tension is drained from Hall's ordeal, and there's an acknowledgment and acceptance of a guilty verdict even before the decision is announced.

Though others find Newman's scene in the car with the father (Walter Pidgeon) of his character to be emotionally charged, my own favorite scene was the brilliant opening argument by Edmond O'Brien in defense of his client. Now that I think about it, I'm intrigued by how highly competent both opposing attorneys were in their respective arguments, leading me to consider how successful they might have been if O'Brien and Wendell Corey were cast in each other's role. Would Wasnick have used the same argument to determine Hall's 'breaking point' if he were on the other side? Quite interesting to consider.

One odd observation, and I don't know why this bothers me but it does. Remember the scene when Captain Hall asks for a glass of water while on the stand? Prosecuting attorney Sam Moulton (Corey) hands him the glass, and when Hall is finished taking a sip, hands it back to Moulton. Moulton then refills it and drinks from the same glass! Why?

And finally, getting back to my original point about TMC. If I didn't watch Turner Classics so regularly, I would never have known the name of the movie the rehabilitating soldiers were watching in the military hospital. That was Debbie Reynolds on screen in a scene from 1953's "The Affairs of Dobie Gillis".

Great set up, weaker execution

[Pro Jury · 7/10 · 15 July 2020]

The story idea here affords the opportunity for intense drama and ample raw nerve emotion. But there are weaknesses that prevent THE RACK from being a masterpiece. Many weaknesses.

One is that the foundation of the story is never seen. All we have here is the 3 quarters of a PERRY MASON episode with no peek at the actual crime being committed. Paul Newman looks like movie star Paul Newman rather than a recently released POW. Too often through the movie, people speak to each other without pause as if each always knows what the other person will say. This can sometimes add to a movie, showing the viewer that two characters share a special close connection. But here, it just happens with most everyone we see.

Instead of hinging the story on raw nerve emotions, the deep personal feelings all become removed to a remote location, wrapped up in a tight bundle, as we are asked to ponder does an emotional breaking point really exist, or do we only think it exists. Does a person really know they cannot go on, or do they only think that they cannot go on? If a person who once thought they could not go on is asked to imagine that they did go on for 30 additional seconds, because they can imagine it now at a calm easy comfy time, did any breaking point ever really be proven? The possible answers are so intransitive that if a viewer decides that it is all only a word game, then why is no one in the movie voicing a challenge?

The movie ends with easy defeatism. It is unsatisfying. That said, this movie is still easy to watch. It moves along okay as said in the beginning, the story idea is very interesting.

Well-acted overlooked gem

[HotToastyRag · 8/10 · 13 November 2020]

The Rack is a nearly flawless movie, but up until recently, I'd never even heard of it! I'd always remembered 1956 fondly as the year Paul Newman made Somebody Up There Likes Me, and I had no idea he'd made another movie, a far heavier drama. In this one, he plays a soldier returned from a POW camp in Korea. Shortly after his physical rehabilitation, he's placed under arrest for the treasonous charge of collaborating with the enemy. Unlike the following year's Time Limit, this movie contains no flashbacks. You're exposed to little truths as the movie unfolds linearly, and you have to make up your own mind along the way.

There is one fly in the ointment, in the form of Lee Marvin. He plays a soldier in the same camp who witnessed Paul's collaboration. During his testimony, he describes the extensive physical torture he endured, proving the point that he knew far worse pain than Paul and didn't crack. When you hear what he went through, it's clear he could not possibly have swaggered up to the witness box, crossed his legs, and smiled as he recounted how "good" they worked him over. If it wasn't included in the script to give him a limp or other physical deformities, he should have insisted on silent additions to his character, like nervous tics or winces in pain. It would have made his testimony against Paul so much more effective, and it would have been more realistic to his own character.

Besides Lee Marvin, everyone does a fantastic job. Anne Francis effectively shows her confused emotions, and she knows that it would be selfish to steal the spotlight away from the returning soldier, so she tries her best to hide her feelings. Walter Pidgeon (Paul's dad) is strong and proud until the charges are brought against his son. Shame, fear, and coldness take their place, and he's hardly loyal to Paul. Even Edmond O'Brien and Wendell Corey, whom I normally don't like very much, are very good as opposing judge advocates.

Paul Newman is wonderful, showing range and depth he wasn't allowed to show again once Hollywood typecast him as "sexy bad boy". In his first scene, his distrust and pain are evident when American soldiers question him. He doesn't want them to light his cigarette because he'll feel he owes them something, and he asks for the door to be left open lest it feel like an interrogation. When he's on the witness stand, he tries not to cry, and his attempt at strength is truly heartbreaking. If you've never heard of The Rack, rent it. Pop in a comedy for a palate cleanser, then rent the similarly themed Time Limit with Richard Basehart.

Further information, background for understanding.

[uscmd · 7/10 · 11 November 2021]

Addendum to part 1.

Theres a scene where Paul Newman confronts his son. It brought to mind, an experience that brings home the costs of war. 1966, I had complete my combat medic training, and was waiting for my next class, pharmacology and compounding meds.

I was loaned out to the burn center, at Brook. Army medical center, Ft Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas.

Daily planes would arrive bringing young men, pilots whose planes had crashed, soldiers, marines who were engulfed in napalm, a jellied gasoline. And by far the worst, white phosphorous grenades, with faulty fuses that at times exploded as it left the throwers hand.

What was left looked more like 150 pounds of clay, then a human. All facial features, arms, hands vaporized.

I know how dreadful this sounds....but its the reality combat soldiers face, that I believe makes them more vulnerable to coercion.

I'm 74, and if I live to 174 I'll never forget the young wives, 19-24, thrilled to finally see their husbands, only to stare wide eyed, mouthing the right words, and only when they left the room....would they drop to the ground sobbing. The reality that a part of their psyche was just as horribly disfigured.

Yes, see this movie. Know, none of the gore is in the movie, but offered to help explain the movie. One other movie you must see is, "Johnny got his gun" directed by Dalton Trumbo.

Wars aren't just pork. Not a way to pay back, the folks in your district for getting you elected. They are dirty rotten nightmares, in which our sons and daughters will be ground into hamburger. Rember how gay the mood was as the south, sent their boys off for a 2 week war. Remember the depth of their disillusion?

Fight if we must. Only if we must.

A Must-Watch For Many Reasons

[hagan_family · 8/10 · 14 July 2020]

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.

Good, but never realizes its full potential

[bandw · 7/10 · 22 August 2006]

This movie is well worth watching. It concerns a Korean war POW who returns home and is subject to a court-martial on charges of collaborating with the enemy. Paul Newman, as war veteran Capt. Edward Worthington Hall Jr., shows signs of the powerful actor he would later become, and the supporting cast is excellent. I particularly liked Wendell Corey as the somewhat reluctant but duty-bound prosecutor.

The Korean War seems to have been a particularly grizzly affair where torture was common and the Geneva Convention flouted. In post Abu Ghraib 2006, torture is of current interest and gives "The Rack" added relevance. In showing that a strong and decorated officer like Captain Worthington can be broken, the unfortunate message is that torture does work on occasion.

We all know that each of us has a breaking point, but the concept explored here is what makes some people, Captain Worthington in this case, succumb before that point is reached. The emphasis is on mental torture - trying to figure out just what the crucial vulnerability is in a personality and exploiting that. For Worthington it was loneliness, his mother having died young and his father being a martinet. The thing that pushed him over the edge was losing his brother in the war. But, by his own admission, he never felt that he had reached his breaking point. The message is that most of us are stronger than we think and we rarely get pushed, or push ourselves, to our limits and beyond.

The issues are argued in detail in the court-martial and one conclusion posited by the defense is that maybe the country was in some part responsible for what happened to Captain Worthington - the soldiers were never trained for what they encountered in the war and the populace was pretty much ignorant about who we were fighting and the reason for it. As the Iraq war grinds on Santayana's quote comes to mind, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

With such strong themes and excellent performances, why is this only a good and not a great movie? For me it was a lot of little things. Like when Lee Marvin comes into a room in the hospital where the patients are watching a movie and he comes up behind Newman and hangs a noose around his neck with a "Traitor" sign attached. When Newman pursues Marvin to talk with him, Marvin flees down the hallway. Some bothersome things here. How did Marvin make this item? Being on crutches it seems unlikely he was carrying this thing around with him at all times just waiting for the right moment. And Marvin was presented as an aggressive macho man, so his flight in the face of potential confrontation was out of character. This scene could have been much more effective. A pivotal point Newman makes in his defense is "My father never kissed me." To single that out as a way a saying that his father was remote and unaffectionate seemed odd to me. There are a lot of loving and affectionate fathers who never kissed their sons. That line just seemed in there to set up the scene in the car where Newman's father does kiss him, but that awkward out-of-character part of the scene in the car seemed forced to me. Just as actors should never seem to be acting, screenplays should never have such obvious plot devices.

All told, this is an admirable film coming so soon after the Korean war and forcing consideration of issues that I'm sure the country was eager to forget.

Sorry but this one should have endeared Paul Newman to Richard Nixon!

[zacdawac · 4/10 · 1 August 2022]

The great, generous, charitable, humble and magnanimous liberal Paul Newman once said that his proudest moment was when he was put on Richard Nixon's "enemy list." I would imagine that Rod Serling, one of the writers of this screenplay, wouldn't have been a favorite of Nixon, either. This film seemed to share at least some of the sensibilities of commie baiting Nixon and his sacred House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

Yes, we see both sides, but the characters are so cold and barely sympathetic that it's hard to care or to have an opinion. We don't fully understand exactly what Paul did, what information he revealed or how his actions hurt his fellow soldiers. Were actual veterans tried for the same "high crimes" after the Korean war? Both Paul and Rod were young and relatively new to success in the industry, when this one was made. If it had been done ten years later, when both writer and star were major names and had far more control of their output, I'm guessing the film might have had an entirely different perspective.

And we don't find out the sentence Paul is given, after being found guilty of three treason related crimes. Because of that, we don't know how severe the authorities considered his actions or what might have happened to actual soldiers who were put on trial for similar acts. Was Paul's character given three years in prison with a suspended sentence or was he executed? The film doesn't give a clue. And again, it doesn't tell you exactly what his character said or did or how his words or actions led to other soldiers being hurt. And I don't really understand his defense or have much sympathy for him.

I give it four stars because of Paul Newman, Rod Serling and intelligent, well written dialogue. I didn't think Paul could play a character that I didn't care about or have any feelings about one way or another, though. I didn't care if he went to prison, I didn't care if he went free, I didn't care if he was executed. I didn't care much about his father or sister in law, either. And I didn't know that Rod could write a script that essentially went along with the Commie bashing sentiments of the McCarthy era. Again, Paul's character puts up a defense but not in any way that convinced me.

Sorry Paul and Rod. This was probably the only thing that either of you did that didn't stir any emotions and left me totally indifferent.