Powerful early racial drama with a surprisingly effective William Shatner
Added 10/8/2009
Due to my overall ignorance of both Roger Corman's career outside of his usual horror/exploitation stuff, and William Shatner's outside of Captain Kirk, I'd never seen this 1962 racial drama, nor really even heard much about it until recently. But it's a film that seems to be growing in stature with the years, and after finally watching it recently, I can see why.
Shatner is Adam Cramer, apparently a member of the Patrick Henry Society and a hard-core racist who shows up in a small Southern town that has quite recently been compelled by court order to integrate its high school. Cramer is, from his very first scene as he gets off a bus and takes a hotel room, here to sow the seeds of discord. The white townspeople of Caxton don't want integration, but they're more-or-less resigned to it, until Cramer shows up and tries to motivate them into resisting, apparently in as violent a way as they can without bringing the Feds down on them.
Shatner is actually quite good in this role, relative low-key for the first quarter hour or so until he has made his presence known and makes an impassioned declamation from the courthouse steps to most of the whites about how their town, and eventually their state and the whole South will be delivered into the hands of the negroes if they don't resist - at this point and for most of the rest of the film he becomes the over-the-top Shat that we know and love, but it's probably appropriate here to the not-too-subtle screenplay and his rather strangely put together character. We get intimations throughout that he's mentally ill or at least emotionally unstable, and his wooing of both a very underage high school girl and his married neighbor shows that this is just as much a pleasure trip for him as anything else. We never really see any evidence in fact that he is who he says he is, and it might be wondered whether or not he's a member of the group he claims is funding him, or acting on his own. He seems to exhort violence, yet be upset when the townspeople resort to it without his say-so.
It's not just in Cramer's psychology but also in that of the town as a whole that the film has problems, painting its citizens as essentially a mindless mob hell-bent on violence but able to just as easily be swayed by a couple of more rational voices (Frank Maxwell as newspaperman Tom McDaniel and Leo Gordon as cuckolded husband Sam Griffin) as by Cramer. Though the finale, where one of the black high school students seems about to be lynched through a deliberate smear on Cramer's part, is directed with punch and works on an emotional level, much of the story falls apart if you think too much about it.
Still, all in all, this is one of the better racial dramas of the 1960s, fluidly and starkly directed by Corman in crisp black and white, with a very realistic feel and generally at least decent performances out of the large supporting cast, many of whom I'm guessing were nonprofessionals. Though the politics are blunt as a hammer, the blows are delivered more forcefully and articulately for my money than in most of the bigger films from later in the decade like IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. It's really a shame this film didn't have more of an impact when it was released. I guess we weren't ready for it...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Not Captain Kirk
Added 8/8/2009
I cannot believe that Roger Corman lost money on this film. It is absolutely first rate in all categories. The black and white photography add to the semi-documentary approach to give us an almost newsreal-like film. This picture is years ahead of it's time in its approach to its subject matter - school desegregation and every character in the film rings true. The film looks and feels marvellous and packs a wallop. And William Shatner has never been better. Don't miss this one.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
NICE JOB BY CORMAN TACKLING THEN BOILING THEME
Added 5/25/2009
Surprisingly good and bold film by king of the "so bad ya gotta see them" low-budget B-movies of the late 50's/early 60's, Roger Corman. Simple storyline but sensitive topic and fine performances by the main guys. Captain Kirk---sorry, William Shatner plays an outsider [Adam Cramer] who comes to a small southern town to rebuke desegregation. He is very good as the young, handsome, well-groomed, white-suited proselytizer who uses his subjects' experiential misconceptions, inertia and fears to his advantage. And he has all the tools to do so: looks, glibness, back-up. While business-like on the outside Cramer is a creepy and predatory figure having prurient as well as political interests. ELMER GANTRY [1960] probabily the impetus for this persona. Shatner, an excellent actor [how can we forget Kirk + those two classic Twilight Zone episodes NICK OF TIME ,1960 and NIGHTMARE AT 20,000 feet, 1963 !] is wonderful here too, complete with his unique Devo-like [montonone + robotic] articulation and arm movement when angered that we all came to identify with in STAR TREK. The show, though, is almost stolen by a kick-butt performance by vet Leo Gordon who has a memorable one-on-one verbal joust with Cramer in a hotel room. Gordon plays a cheesy but streetsmart + 'people-smart' salesman who confronts Cramer after the latter has slept with his wife. He exposes Cramer for the demagogue and narcissistic social leech that he is. There is a very sensitive and poignant scene bedside in a hospital room involving a pro-integration newspaper man who was brutalized and his pro-segregation wife. Very nice touch, here, as Corman makes it clear that among the segregationists were some good and decent people who were simply misguided by upbringing, false beliefs and false prophets and that they needed just a little time to accept change.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Intruder
Added 5/31/2008
Adam Cramer arrives in a southern town with one purpose in mind, to gather the white residents to rally against forced school integration. The white residents seem resigned to the fact that 10 Black students will be attending the local school, but Cramer is determined to change that. Once he starts to stir things up, his efforts snowball and the viewer can see how this will likely end.
Watching this film reminds me of how much things have changed and how much they've remained the same. I must admit, I chuckled when 'Captain Kirk' and 'Katherine Chancellor' were having an intimate moment. I found this to be one of those films that did a decent job of exploring racism in the south, but the ending is highly unbelievable.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
WARNING --- WRONG ASPECT RATIO for Special Edition!
Added 5/31/2008
Corman fans have been waiting for this DVD for a long time, and I am thrilled that we will be able to see it in a (hopefully) sharp new DVD transfer.
***HOWEVER***, according to the specifications listed, this "Special Edition" DVD from Buena Vista Home Video is presented in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which is the wrong ratio for this film.
The earlier, 2001, "40th Anniversary" DVD release (from Corman's own company New Concorde, not Buena Vista!) shows a listing as *widescreen* format.
Therefore, this "Special Edition" in 1.33:1 is evidently a cropped, "pan-and-scan" transfer.
How sad!
For viewers familiar with Buena Vista Home Video this probably comes as no suprise, for BVHV is notorious for releasing many of the Disney classics in cropped pan-and-scan versions (often mistakenly called "full screen"), instead of in their proper, original widescreen theatrical aspect ratios.
According to one user, the back of this Special Edition ADMITS the error by the usual disclaimer: "This film has been modified from its original version." (Some have said it is an open-matte transfer rather than pan-and-scan; however, others have said that the framing seems too tight and close, which suggests pan-and-scan. Open-matte would "loosen" the framing, not tighten it).
HOW CAN A DVD CLAIM TO BE A "SPECIAL EDITION" WHEN IT BOTCHES THE ASPECT RATIO?
Bottom line: for those who want to see THE INTRUDER in it's original widescreen ratio, do a search on amazon and find the 2001 "40th Anniversary" DVD release, in it's proper widescreen ratio, available from several Amazon sellers.
Please note that another review below for the "Special Edition" states the DVD is in "widescreen" --however--- that review is copied in it's entirety from the **2001 EDITION's** Amazon page, and therefore it's mention of "widescreen" is assumed to be inaccurate for this "Special Edition".
Again, Amazon's own specifications indicate an improper 1.33:1 ratio (see "Product Details" above: "Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1").
Buena Vista Home Video should be ashamed!
Instead of ordering this "Special Edition", I've just ordered the 2001 "40th Anniversary" version, and evidently, according to the ratio listed in "Product Details" above, if you want to see the whole film, you will have to order the 2001 edition too, instead of this one. Just a friendly word of warning.
7 out of 9 people found this helpful.
|
Powerful early racial drama with a surprisingly effective William Shatner
Added 10/8/2009
Due to my overall ignorance of both Roger Corman's career outside of his usual horror/exploitation stuff, and William Shatner's outside of Captain Kirk, I'd never seen this 1962 racial drama, nor really even heard much about it until recently. But it's a film that seems to be growing in stature with the years, and after finally watching it recently, I can see why.
Shatner is Adam Cramer, apparently a member of the Patrick Henry Society and a hard-core racist who shows up in a small Southern town that has quite recently been compelled by court order to integrate its high school. Cramer is, from his very first scene as he gets off a bus and takes a hotel room, here to sow the seeds of discord. The white townspeople of Caxton don't want integration, but they're more-or-less resigned to it, until Cramer shows up and tries to motivate them into resisting, apparently in as violent a way as they can without bringing the Feds down on them.
Shatner is actually quite good in this role, relative low-key for the first quarter hour or so until he has made his presence known and makes an impassioned declamation from the courthouse steps to most of the whites about how their town, and eventually their state and the whole South will be delivered into the hands of the negroes if they don't resist - at this point and for most of the rest of the film he becomes the over-the-top Shat that we know and love, but it's probably appropriate here to the not-too-subtle screenplay and his rather strangely put together character. We get intimations throughout that he's mentally ill or at least emotionally unstable, and his wooing of both a very underage high school girl and his married neighbor shows that this is just as much a pleasure trip for him as anything else. We never really see any evidence in fact that he is who he says he is, and it might be wondered whether or not he's a member of the group he claims is funding him, or acting on his own. He seems to exhort violence, yet be upset when the townspeople resort to it without his say-so.
It's not just in Cramer's psychology but also in that of the town as a whole that the film has problems, painting its citizens as essentially a mindless mob hell-bent on violence but able to just as easily be swayed by a couple of more rational voices (Frank Maxwell as newspaperman Tom McDaniel and Leo Gordon as cuckolded husband Sam Griffin) as by Cramer. Though the finale, where one of the black high school students seems about to be lynched through a deliberate smear on Cramer's part, is directed with punch and works on an emotional level, much of the story falls apart if you think too much about it.
Still, all in all, this is one of the better racial dramas of the 1960s, fluidly and starkly directed by Corman in crisp black and white, with a very realistic feel and generally at least decent performances out of the large supporting cast, many of whom I'm guessing were nonprofessionals. Though the politics are blunt as a hammer, the blows are delivered more forcefully and articulately for my money than in most of the bigger films from later in the decade like IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. It's really a shame this film didn't have more of an impact when it was released. I guess we weren't ready for it...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Not Captain Kirk
Added 8/8/2009
I cannot believe that Roger Corman lost money on this film. It is absolutely first rate in all categories. The black and white photography add to the semi-documentary approach to give us an almost newsreal-like film. This picture is years ahead of it's time in its approach to its subject matter - school desegregation and every character in the film rings true. The film looks and feels marvellous and packs a wallop. And William Shatner has never been better. Don't miss this one.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
NICE JOB BY CORMAN TACKLING THEN BOILING THEME
Added 5/25/2009
Surprisingly good and bold film by king of the "so bad ya gotta see them" low-budget B-movies of the late 50's/early 60's, Roger Corman. Simple storyline but sensitive topic and fine performances by the main guys. Captain Kirk---sorry, William Shatner plays an outsider [Adam Cramer] who comes to a small southern town to rebuke desegregation. He is very good as the young, handsome, well-groomed, white-suited proselytizer who uses his subjects' experiential misconceptions, inertia and fears to his advantage. And he has all the tools to do so: looks, glibness, back-up. While business-like on the outside Cramer is a creepy and predatory figure having prurient as well as political interests. ELMER GANTRY [1960] probabily the impetus for this persona. Shatner, an excellent actor [how can we forget Kirk + those two classic Twilight Zone episodes NICK OF TIME ,1960 and NIGHTMARE AT 20,000 feet, 1963 !] is wonderful here too, complete with his unique Devo-like [montonone + robotic] articulation and arm movement when angered that we all came to identify with in STAR TREK. The show, though, is almost stolen by a kick-butt performance by vet Leo Gordon who has a memorable one-on-one verbal joust with Cramer in a hotel room. Gordon plays a cheesy but streetsmart + 'people-smart' salesman who confronts Cramer after the latter has slept with his wife. He exposes Cramer for the demagogue and narcissistic social leech that he is. There is a very sensitive and poignant scene bedside in a hospital room involving a pro-integration newspaper man who was brutalized and his pro-segregation wife. Very nice touch, here, as Corman makes it clear that among the segregationists were some good and decent people who were simply misguided by upbringing, false beliefs and false prophets and that they needed just a little time to accept change.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
