Intruder in the Dust
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Taken on its own merits, Intruder in the Dust is the best movie yet made from a Faulkner novel."—Bruce Kawin
..but the best reason what I think is, in a malicious and white southern racist society a black man Lucas Beauchamp was wrongly accused of murdering a white man. In Mississippi, white controlled southern area racist whites were ready to lynch him, but young boy Chick Mallison from southern white family helped to find the real murderer and save Lucas life from death sentences. As Chick Mallison got rescued from icy creek during rabbit hunting by Lucas and treated him as guest in his own house. Chick knew that Lucas was a good man. Besides, Chick wasn’t racist enough as others. Since, nobody wanted to save a black man where a white young boy Chick’s endeavor helped to reveal the truth and established equal justice.
As Chick Mallison was practicing law with his uncle, so he had helped himself helping convicted Lucas from lynch and learnt the rules and law should work for everyone equally. It could be his best practice while working with his uncle.
This was the best movie because it shows the time of the past of how racist this country was. In addition, these events were real time. The white people always used the black people make them lower than what they are. Or it would always be the black person fault if there was no one else to blame. This film shows justice that it can’t be the black man fault everytime. Good thing the boy’s family saved him for his innocent.
Perhaps what makes this the best movie yet is just the overall completeness of the cast and aesthetics of the story. There is a cast of characters ranging ages and ethnicities, the use of aesthetically pleasing and involving camera angles refresh the audiences senses, and in the end it is a feel good story in terms of todays morals. I would be interested to see if this film did well in parts of the country that still had predominant racism during the time it was released.
Seeing what modern film can do with setting it would be interesting to do a comparison of the costs today of CGI vs shooting on location. For example Peter Jackson has used his hometown in New Zealand as a stand in for New York City in his 2005 King Kong remake, but I would like to see if it could be done in actual New York City and what it would cost in comparison with the authenticity of each option.
To ad to that idea, the fact that it does not look “fake” makes the story line seem more realistic and appealing and less “corny” like other films we have watched. For example in To Have and Have Not, filming boat seems not even in the ocean makes it not very believable. Being that we were first exposed to higher level film making in terms of technology we instantly judge some films, but this is done in the best and most realistic way seeing shots of the town and outside of the town.
Intruder in the Dust is without a doubt a brilliant and well crafted film. As for why it is called the best movie ever there are a variety of reasons to elaborate on. Films such as this one work on so many levers because it is actually about something. It dives into the world itself . Dealing with issues that were relevant to the time period. Also camera techniques used throughout the film were just astounding. Especially in the beginning of the film when Lucas is being escorted out the car and you see that shot of everyone looking. Plus near the end of the film when all the twins folk walk away when realizing Lucas did I not commit the crime. Plus the quest for justice in such a racial situation resonated quite well .
Indeed. Much of what you said is spot on. Also its the fact that its the most overt of all the adaptations with regards to condemnation of racial discrimination. It was a bold move by both studio and director. In its day, it stood as a prime example of a “message film”.
I believe it was the best movie because it was true to the time period. Also the movie was made in a Oxford which was very segregated that helps to stay true to the times. I enjoyed the movie a lot. The actors mesh well with each other, the dialog, it just all kept me very intrigue.
Charles Brown spared no context when producing this movie. From the beginning he gave the viewer a look into separation and racism. But the irony of the movie is Miss Habersham, because the order generation was usually set in their way of racism. I believe this was the best movie because it did not focus only on the hate towards African Americans, it also should the aspect of justice for a human being Lucas Beauchamp.
This movie is one of the best because it is a time capsule. It touches on the hateful social issues at the time but its almost 70 years later, the issues are different but just as hateful. I also think the cinematography in this film was one of the first of its kind and it just really enhances the film.
I believe Bruce Kawin called intruder in the dust best Faulkner movie, is because how complete it is. The film is so authentically made creating a suspense throughout the entire film and capturing the audiences interest. For me as a viewer, i felt there was not one false note. Two important characteristics of the film were the shooting on location, and delivery of a strong message that was important.
Intruders in the dust can be considered a best movie because it does not distort Faulkner’s novel. The film is true to Faulkner’s novel because the film follows the same plot. The movie was also very ahead of its time. The movie portrays a black character in a positive light. Lucas was innocent and the town people were exposed as racist.
This could also be because how the book relies a lot on descriptions and narrative rather than dialogue. The movie was very authentic to the novel and the novel in turn was very authentic to it’s era.
This movie is the best because of the plot; it includes different contents related to racism, injustice and accusiations. But also includes help, support and understanding. These things together catch the attention of the public and the effective way it was recorded helped to get different recognitions.
Intruder in the Dust is the best movie because of the use of the actual people in the south. Using locals makes the movie feel more authentic even though their parts were voiced over and they were just there to show face and allow the movie to be filmed on location they really contribute to the film. Furthermore, the story in this movie is timeless. As we mentioned in class Faulkner had an understanding of the world and the history of the US. Although this film and novel are only telling one story it is actually telling the story of the racism and is pointing out issues that we still face today. Its incredible.
I think it is a good story that makes it best. It is one of the few works that Faulkner did not use ambiguous hints or metaphors to talk about social problems, but a very clearly and bluntly way to reveal the real South racial society. Besides that, the role of black people was not only a victim but also a discoverer of the truth make it different from any other detective novels. Although the theme was not accepted by the film companies and most of the public, it is a good story anyway.
The novel itself was a great read. I was able to picture Lucas Beauchamp as this very intense character that always presented himself as calm and controlled. The actor that played Lucas in the film perfectly captured this. My favorite part, and in my opinion the best part, was when Lucas entered the crossroads store and bought a ginger snap. In the novel there was a verbal encounter between Lucas and the white man but the film didn’t include that. It didn’t take away from anything but in fact I believe the choice of not including that verbal encounter and skipping to the white man about to attack Lucas was more effective to the story. The acting and the cinematography of the piece is also quite distinct and wonderful.
It's remarkable that a film like Intruder in the Dust (1949) could have been made by a major Hollywood studio of that era. Based on the 1948 novel by William Faulkner, it's the story of a dignified black man, Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernandez), in the South who refuses to be deferential to the community's whites. When he is falsely accused of murdering a white man, he is too proud to make any attempt to prove his innocence when he knows he won't be believed. Chick Mallison (Claude Jarman, Jr.), a white teenager whom Lucas once helped, sets out to prove that Lucas is not the murderer, with the help of his lawyer uncle (David Brian) and a feisty old woman (Elizabeth Patterson).
To me, this statement accurately represents Beauchamp’s character both in the novel and film. Beauchamp would rather risk being executed than acquiesce to the white man. He would rather appeal to the white man’s supposed logic and reason rather than beg and beseech and appear small.
The driving force behind Intruder in the Dust was Clarence Brown, who had been one of MGM's top directors since the mid-1920s. In the 1930s, he had become acquainted with Faulkner, who worked briefly as a screenwriter at MGM. Although born in Massachusetts, Brown had grown up in Tennessee, and considered himself a Southerner. As a teenager, he had witnessed the bloody 1906 race riots in Atlanta, and had never forgotten them. Brown was an admirer of Faulkner's books, and when he read Intruder in the Dust before it was published, it resonated for him. He asked MGM studio head Louis B. Mayer to buy it. Mayer was convinced it would be a failure and refused. But when the liberal producer Dore Schary, who had made several "message" pictures, took over as head of production at MGM in 1948, he persuaded Mayer to approve the project. MGM bought the rights for $50,000, to the delight of the perennially cash-strapped Faulkner.
The picture here is racism which has been passed through video messaging or movie to every people. In the novel or movie Intruder in the Dust is mainly about racism and its cause and effect which has been depicted well through movie.
yes I agree. it is true that Chick was a growing up boy which will help to educate himself about social racism and reflect himself considering equal rights and justice for all people as superior human beings.
I agree. This film is about social racism and a boy growing up to make decisions for himself. I also believe that this film was about doing what is morally right. For Chick and his family to defend a black person when the rest of the town is against him was huge. I believe this film was probably eye opening to a whole of people during this time in the south and made a big step in the right direction for society.
I absolutely agree. Racism is the message that the movie is visualizing through message picture. Through the different shots and imagery presented within the film adaptation. That’s why films such as this work because it dwells into the world itself and the issues such as racism one may face within that era.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The movie touches on racism but the overall message of the film is to do what is morally right.
A picture message is a film that its plan is to communicate a certain message,mainly about society and its usually very serious. Intruder fits in with this definition because that is exactly what the movie does. Intruder focuses on a racism, which was the huge social issue at the time.
A message picture is a film on morality. Instead of being for entertainment purposes only, it intends to communicate a message or ideal about society. Intruder fits the description because in 1948 Oxford racism was very much alive. It also shows that while there was racism there were also white people with moral that helped when things went wrong.
This film does a good job at showing how there was racism in the south and also shows how there were some white people with morals. To make it better I like the way the story used a young man in Chick and an older female in Miss Habersham to be the ones doing the morally right thing. This shows that age nor sex matters when it comes to making the right decision.
Absolutely. This also reminds me of the example you gave in class about Twain and Huckleberry Finn, when Finn reads the letter and decides “Alright then, i’ll go to hell.” rather than turn in his back friend.
This movie would be considered a message movie. The statement of showing a free black man that walked with confidence as any free white man in 1948. The message resonated with African Americans because they were usually portrayed in film to be the comedic figure. Chicks’ uncle John Steven, gave a message in the end when he said e"This is a lesson for us". I believe this movie was a great lesson all on the perception we put on people due innate nature to be frightened of the unknown.
I know that we have talked about character actors sort of being stuck playing the same role over and over again, but wasn’t there also the same thing with races? Actors that take on the roles like we see Samuel L Jackson take on today that sometimes put his choices under scrutiny, particularly in Django Unchained.
The more i watched the film the more i realized a part of this film is a coming of age film. We see Chick a child taking control over the situation and believing Lucas is innocent when nobody else wanted to. The message for me was that the hope to a change relies on the new generations.
A message picture is a film with a strong message. Intruders in the dust show that racism can influence the way you think. In the film, Lucas was innocent but the people of oxford automatically believed that a black man had to be guilty. However when Lucas was proven to be innocent it opened the eyes of the people of Oxford.
yes their eyes are opened. In the ending of the film while Lucas walks away from the law office with his head held high. His lawyer says, “they see him, they always will as long as he lives.” Lucas is a permanent reminder how racism almost convicted an innocent man.
Intruder in the dust is a message picture because it posted a race trusted problem to audiences and try to deliver the solution through the story of a white boy helping a black man to approve his innocent. Yet it is also a classical hollywood narratives depicting the boy’s inner struggles.
Content that is produce to say something in specific. A photo can communicates a message, scenes of a movie can communicates a message too but a movie as a whole envolve different messages depending on the scene. Intruder communicates a lot of messages like being supportive, always find the true, etc. But the main one for me is racism.Because the white community pointed as guilty (without evidence) a black man
A message picture is a film that tries to teach the audience about an issue or idea that is often overlooked or not spoken about. The message of the picture is racism and its affects on not only the black people, but the rest of the community. The community in the picture has a mob-mentality and does not sway their opinion and the young boy in the film has to make the conscious choice to get against his community, the things he has learned, and the way he is taught to act and treat others.
The film shows racist and would want the people to know. In additions it teaches everyone to find out the answer if the person is guilty or not. The boy makes a good decision to give everyone an equal chance to prove themselves of the action taken.
To play Chick, Brown chose Claude Jarman, Jr., whom he had discovered and cast in The Yearling (1946) when Jarman was a 12 year-old Nashville schoolboy. Following the success of that film, Jarman moved to Hollywood and attended the MGM studio school. His performance in Intruder in the Dust was one of his best, and one of his personal favorites.
Intruder in the Dust was also a milestone in the film career of Juano Hernandez. A black man of Puerto Rican and Brazilian parentage, he had been a boxer, a vaudevillian, a radio scriptwriter, and a radio and stage actor in New York. His first film role was as a drug lord in The Girl from Chicago (1932), directed by black independent producer Oscar Micheaux. After several small parts in Micheaux films, Intruder in the Dust was Hernandez's first film for a major Hollywood studio, and the beginning of a distinguished mainstream film career. The film earned him a Golden Globe nomination as "Most Promising Newcomer" in 1950.
The cabin scene after Lucas saved Chick was a great scene as one can immediately note how Lucas’s decision of not taking the money from the boy shows what kind of a man he is. The expression of his face gives it away. The best scene was when he entered the store and quite calmingly exited it as a white man was about to assault him.
And the fact that he worked with the legendary Oscar Micheaux certainly prepared him for this role as well, as Micheaux lived and breathed black message films – including but not limited to the film Within Our Gates (1920) which was produced as a response to D.W Griffiths Birth of a Nation – the film which brought about the resurgence of the KKK.
MGM agreed to Brown's request to shoot much of Intruder in the Dust on location in Faulkner's home town of Oxford, Mississippi, provided that lodging could be found for a company of 100 people. The University of Mississippi agreed to house and feed the white cast and crew, but what about the black actors? The Chamber of Commerce said lodgings would be provided "in the homes of Oxford's colored leaders." Juano Hernandez would stay at the home of a prominent black undertaker.
How ironic is it that MGM is seen to make this bold and heroic move by collaborating with Brown in making a message picture, which, in part, highlights the ills of racial and social prejudice, and yet in MGM’s very own camp, blacks were not allowed to be housed with whites. Well…we can’t ask for too much now can we? Baby steps, I suppose.
Some members of the community objected to the story, and Faulkner helped to smooth things over with them. He also helped find locations, and discussed the script with Brown, but because he was under contract to Warner Bros., he could not contribute to it. However, according to Faulkner's biographer Joseph Blotner, he approved most of the scenes, made suggestions for changes to others, and revised the last scene "considerably in an effort to make it less sentimental." Faulkner even coached Hernandez in the local dialect, feeling that Hernandez's "clear and precise enunciation made him sound like a Shakespearean" rather than a Mississippi black man. (from Faulkner: A Biography by Joseph Blotner)
Oxford enthusiastically embraced the film company. Many of the townsfolk appeared as extras in Intruder in the Dust, and even those who didn't turned out at the Lyric Theatre every night to join the film crew watching dailies. The film had its world premiere at the Lyric in October of 1949, with Jarman riding one of Faulkner's own horses in a parade. Although Faulkner hated the hoopla surrounding the premiere, and attended only grudgingly, he liked the final film. "I don't know much about movies, but I thought it was one of the best I've ever seen," he said. "Mr. Brown knows his medium, and he's made a fine picture. I wish I had made it." And proving that he had the observational abilities to make a fine movie critic, Faulkner added, "I like the way Mr. Brown used bird calls and saddle squeaks and footsteps in place of a lot of loud music telling you what emotion you should be experiencing."
I think that the role of Hollywood in America at that time was a distraction from the global happenings of the country. The extravagant film premieres and films themselves provided a few hours in which the American public could escape whatever issues they faced in their lives to watch the film. Because of the “hoopla” it seems like many people who were keen in the art of film making may have been reserved in putting their knowledge on display because of possible negative connotations that would come with it.
It is definitely interesting to see what movies were popular at the time they were released versus which ones took time to be appreciated due to changes in the social norms. For example films about the war may have been like beating a dead horse at the time but in todays world we can be engrossed in the topic because we have no concept of what it was like to live during that time.
I see. Valid points you are making though. It is quite possible that it allowed the general public to escape from the reality they lived in. Especially considering how such issues were still relevant and present during that time period. Perhaps through the power of cinema it could also be used as a means to convert and portray the issues at hand to those who did not fully grasp the issues in the world.
Oxford response tells me that Hollywood have a big influence on American culture. when the people of Oxford first learned of the film they were not happy with the idea. Until the director persuaded them by putting them in the film.
the people in the South and Oxford. I feel more like they are being played.
I agree the people of oxford were probably so exited about a big film crew coming in they didn’t realize the message behind the film. While I’m sure this upset some people I believe it probably helped open the eyes of a lot more people in the south.
Oxford’s was eventually welcoming once the “Hollywood” evaded with their money and promises of fame. Oxford was hesitant because this Faulkner’s books was like holding a mirror up so the city could see their racist reflection, which the did not approve of until the Hollywood change their minds. Therefore, I believe that Hollywood in America can bring out the greed in us all.
I think the response from oxford demonstrates the power of a picture message. If the director does a great job at conveying the message, it can change the way people feel. Hollywood has the power to make an impact on americans. If audiences like what they see, that feeling will stay with them forever.
Oxford’s response tells me that Hollywood had a big influence on American culture. There were not too many forms of entertainment in the 40’s so Hollywood filled that need. Many townfolks came to watch the filmimg for a chance to star in the film or just watch from afar.
Often times people are “star-struck” by the idea of Hollywood. If someone from Hollywood said they would be in a film they would not pass the opportunity because they want to be seen on the big screen. That is why they were not concerned with who they would be or what they would portray in the film but rather just cared about being in it. Every person craves to be known or acknowledged what better way to be known or acknowledged than being on a big screen in front of the entire country?
This speaks volumes about American culture. People can do crazy things to try to be on TV now-adays and they don’t care what they do to get their minute of screentime. This is something I dont think has changed very much or will change.
And still today it is painfully obvious as to the role that Hollywood plays in American culture. Americans have this insatiable need to be entertained, so much so that they would elect to the highest office a man whose only merit is his ability to entertain. That to me says it all.
I think it shows that the general American public hold Hollywood in a high regard. It is something that people dream of being a part of and only a select few ever make it there, but for Oxford, being a part of Hollywood is typical and mundane. The only redeeming quality is the great films produced.
As Mayer had predicted, Intruder in the Dust was a box-office failure. Although the film was a critical success, 1949 audiences were not ready for a nuanced portrayal of a complex and unapologetic black man. Dore Schary writes in his autobiography, "I predicted it would be viewed in years to come as one of our best. We were both proven right."
What I think is, a novel brings out every aspects of a scenario in details, when people read novels they feel the different scenarios from their hearts. In contrast, in late 40s most likely people knew the story of the movie and people especially white people did not go to theater to watch the movie. There could be an issue about insulting or hurting sense of humor where the movie is about racism of white people. That could be the reason flopping the movie in the box office.
This plays into one of my previous comments where I was wondering if the predominantly racist parts of the country would react negatively to a film in which a young white boy ends up helping an elder black man accused of shooting a white man. The fact that the whole story takes place in a southern state may have been insulting to the southern white population whos belief go against everything that happened in the movie.
There are a variety of reasons for box office failure. For one it is possible audiences were unsure to see the film due to the sensitive issues the film presented such as racism. Especially in relation to parts within the country that were still considered primarily racist, so as a result would of initially have negative reaction to the film.
I see similarity in this film to that of “To Kill a Mockingbird”. I wonder how the box office sales were for that film when it was release in the 60’s? I know it received much awards but not when it was initially released.
I believe it was a failure because it was a message picture and America just wasn’t ready at the time to hear or learn the message it sent.
We can still see things like this today where if a movie doesn’t have a big star it can be seen as uninteresting if character actors are using the project to try to break their typical roles and expand. Trying to break the notion of being background character in other films can be difficult especially if you jump right to the lead role.
People usually went to see movies to “escape reality”. Kind of like a nice night out with the family with some good quality entertainment. This movie was far from escaping reality. It delved right into reality and on some level gave a factual representation of it.
The novel Intruder in the dusk gives a more degrading view of African Americans, which I believe the readers who purchased the novel at that time indulged in the imagination. From calling the dog a “nigger dog” to making Alexander sound like a idiot when he was the one that new how to get to the grave. More over, the movie due to censorship did not focus on the racism as much but showed more of the injustice. In 1949 The division is still high in the South. The failure of the movie shows could also be accounted to the portrayal of the Lucas as an strong black man, America was not ready to show that whites and blacks as equal.
I think this movie didn’t do well in the box office because this movie made people uncomfortable. The message the movie was not on every american’s radar. They didn’t want to learn about it nor did they care to.
Maybe more educated people read the book while everyone included the less educated would see the movie. The people that read the book probably saw how ground breaking and ahead of it’s time the novel was while some ignorant racist people thought the movie was bad and inaccurate.
The movie was ahead of its time. A movie portraying a black actor in a positive light and a white actor in a negative light was not a desirable to moviegoers. Racism was still strong in the 40’s.
Its message conveying extents way more than the community could afford to understand. Also, the function of serious movies as transmission of information had been unable to replace the role of classical hollywood narrative as tools for entertainment for a long time.
I believe it was a box office failure because the budget was not enough to spread the word in order to get more recognition. And probably a well known group of actors could have made the message behind being accepted in a less difficult way. Especilly in that time were making a change or go try something new is something not common
I think the film was expected to be a failure because it has a strong message about something that would probably make people of that time uncomfortable. They were not ready for just a strong message about racism. Even today there are many people who are not ready to deal with a strong message about racism. I think that people who read books especially if they read a lot of books develop a different perspective of the world, compared to those who exclusively watch just the popular movies. Those who read the book were ready for the strong message about racism but those who went to see the film were hoping for an escape from their reality rather than a reality check.
This film was essentially about an African American man who has been wrongfully accused of killing a white man and a white boy with some help strives to prove his innocence. This film was mainly about racism and I think on some level even though people knew racism was of such prevalence and that it as wrong, people didn’t want to go see a film that showcased that. They knew the truth but weren’t ready to confront it. Racism is always a controversial topic of discussion but at the time this film was released, people weren’t as open about it as we are today.
Perhaps it also had to do with the fact that people could buy a book and read it in the confines of their own homes. They’re faced with the indignation that Faulkner weaves into his novels, but at least they’re forced to grapple with it in private. Sharing that experience as a collective group in a theater, however; is a different thing entirely. I’m not so certain that 1940’s white America was willing to subject themselves to that sort of visual condemnation. I am reminded of a certain scene towards the end of the film, wherein Mallison and his uncle are standing on the balcony overlooking the sea of cars “fleeing” from the jailhouse, after everyone has now learned that Beauchamp is innocent. It is here that Mallison so famously exclaims “They’re running away” To which his uncle replies “Its much worst than that, they’re running away from themselves.” Racist white America hates to be faced with the fact that their racism is unfounded and unjust, they’d rather run away before having to answer for it.
In his essay about the "problem pictures" of 1949, novelist Richard Wright wrote, "Intruder in the Dust is the only film that could be shown in Harlem without arousing unintended laughter. For it is the only one ...in which Negroes can make complete identification with their screen image. Interestingly, the factors that make this identification possible lie in its depiction not of racial but of human quality."
Chick has been rescued by his black friend and Lucas. Lucas took Chick to his own house and offer food and dry clothes. Chick offered money for offering food but Lucas did not accept for his hospitality, because Chick was his guest. In the movie, it was almost same treatment of race. Chick Mallison got little angry for not accepting his payment and left the house with his coins.
It does take a while for Chick to realize what Lucas done for him and he seem relentless on paying him back. Lucus didn’t act like the typical black man in that time, he didn’t use Mr. when addressing white people and he wasnt fazed by their racism. Chick however was aware and fazed he says something to the effect of “they’ll going to make a n—— out of him now” when eating dinner and running upstairs
As Chick was growing in a white family where black people are considered as salve and inferior in the society. So, Chick had no idea about generosity, hospitality which could have among black community. He had always thought if someone offers or helps with something, it has to be exchanged by money all the time. But it is true that he got his best education through Lucas hospitality at his home.
At the time the film was made race and racism was a topic that wasn’t really acknowledged as a major problem even though among the races it was evident. The comment Richard Wright makes paints a picture in my head that the Harlem movie audience realize that things like this happen everyday with the exception that Lucas would not have been saved. A white audience may chuckle at the goofy men running out of the barber shop at the beginning because they have no perception of the circumstances at which the town is gathering.
Well to address right off the bat, race is a major factor in both adaptions. Standard relationships between whites and blacks can be seen in the films first act when Chick is at home with his family and how his father interacts and speaks to their servants. Another comparison comes from the first encounter between Lucas and chick when lucas brings him to his home. In the film adaptation chick becomes upset and angry due to the fact Lucas refused to accept his money since he brought him as a guest. Although within the novel this was not present.
And Chick throws the money on the ground and tells Lucas to pick it up. Although Lucas does not and tell his family member to pick it up.
I think one aspect lost in all of the analysis is the fact that Chick may have some innocence and simply does not know any better than to try and thank an individual for helping him. Child characters tend to be able to break color and gender barriers in films because of their innocence.
I think that Chick is conflicted. He realizes later on that Lucus saved his life and that he should be greatful to him but his is giving into the mob-mentality of the community around him. The community and his family teaches him to believe that white is power, so even though he is greatful to Lucus he tries to fit into the mob by making him pick the coins off the ground.
are raised. Another interesting apect would possibly be the familiarity and support for Juano Hernandez who was popular in the New York City theater scene.
Racism is deeply ingrained in the town of oxford. Everyone in the town assumes that Lucas, a black man is guilty of murder. Lucas also does not tell his lawyer the full truth as he knows that a grown man will not believe him. However, Lucas tells Chick the truth as he is still young and racism has not fully tainted his beliefs.
The way the book shows racial problems is less effective than the film because talking about race means talking about color, physical figure, etc. And the novel made you imagine that instead of show you how everything actually is like the film does and i found that more effective.
Evident is the fact that novel were more widespread at the time the film was released and not every town had a movie theatre. Not everyone could afford to go to the movies at that time and I think as time passed people lose interest in going back to watch certain movies because of remakes and spinoffs when the original novel tends to stay exactly the same throughout time.
Producer/Director: Clarence Brown
Screenplay: Ben Maddow, William Faulkner (novel)
Cinematography: Robert Surtees
Film Editing: Robert Kern
Art Direction: Randall Duell, Cedric Gibbons
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Cast: David Brian (John Gavin Stevens), Claude Jarman, Jr. (Chick Mallison), Juano Hernandez (Lucas Beauchamp), Porter Hall (Nub Gowrie), Elizabeth Patterson (Eunice Habersham), Charles Kemper (Crawford Gowrie).
BW-88m.
by Margarita Landazuri
Out of the mordant material of William Faulkner's "Intruder in the Dust," which told a savage story of an averted lynching in a sleepy Southern town, Producer-Director Clarence Brown has made a brilliant stirring film. Under the title of the novel, it opened at the Mayfair yesterday. And without one moment's hesitation, this corner, still shaking, proclaims that it is probably this year's pre-eminent picture and one of the great cinema dramas of our times.
Intruder in the dust, Faulkner’s novel illustrates about racism, hatred to minorities, justice, hospitality and so forth which is very critical issues he talked about, and also sarcastic and sharp to some people who are against Faulkner’s writing. He not only Intruder in the Dust but also The Story of Temple Drake, The Reivers, The Big Sleep wrote about distinguished issues which is very mordant.
Perhaps his novel is called mordant due to the sarcastic humor and irony it may present. It’s hard to describe for be exact in what sense. Perhaps to the critical acclaim or response it received from such a savage topic.
Mordant means expressing harsh criticism especially in a way that is funny. He used what was happening at the time and made a picture to show America how they were sort of like tough love. how they were “running from themselves” to quote the ending of the film.
Faulkner’s novels lays a blueprints for people who are not afraid to say whatever they want. His novels gave a nail biting truth to what was his reality at the time. His vivid, detailed view was funny and heartbreaking at times but it keeps you glued by saying things that others would want to say but can’t out of fear.
I didn’t know this word and had to look it up. Mordant means being sharply caustic or sarcastic. I believe that not just this novel but all of Faulkner’s writing could be considered Mordant. He has a way with his words. He can get a serious message across without doing it in a serious tone. He is one of the wittiest writers I have ever read.
Because, metaphorically speaking, his novel can be a sharp knife that either people use it to cut theirselves and suffer internally or to make something productive with it to make their live easy.In other words this novel can make the reader hate the author and feel bad of their actions or realize their mistakes love the author.
The novel is called mordant because it brings up the topic of racism. The novel blatantly points out the “roles” of black people vs. white people. Often Lucas is told “if you’d only behave like a black man” however he refuses and the novel exemplifies what happens when people do not play their part in that society at the time. Everyone always wants things to be perfect and in their places so the film and the novel show what happens when it is not, so it made audiences uncomfortable. Therefore they called it mordant.
For here, at last, is a picture that slashes right down to the core of the complex of racial resentments and social divisions in the South—which cosmically mocks the hollow pretense of "white supremacy"—and does it in terms of visual action and realistic drama at its best. As a matter of fact, the deeper meanings might be utterly missed by some who should still find this film a creeping "thriller" that will turn them, temporarily, to stone.
And this is because the story Ben Maddow has expertly derived from Mr. Faulkner's novel and which Mr. Brown has put upon the screen is as solemn and spooky a mystery as you'll ever want to see, powerfully pieced together out of incidents of the most electric sort. On the surface, it is a story of a desperate and courageous attempt to save an innocent Negro from lynching at the hands of a mob—a story of how three people, an old lady and two frightened boys, open a grave at midnight and find the evidence that helps to save the man. And it is also, strictly on the surface, a story of shrewd detective work by a young Southern lawyer and a Sheriff in tracing a callous murderer.
Intruder in the dust succeeds, for me, for this very reason. On the one hand, it’s entertainment value as a “thriller” is undeniable. Very well written (of course) and very well represented on screen. However, it is also much more than that.it is also a profoundly impactful message film which deals with the rotten core of social inequality, while at the same time, the audience gets to witness a boy discovering himself, having to think and fend for himself in certain instances. They essentially watch this scared little boy become a man.
But, essentially, this is a drama of the merciless wrench and strain of attitudes and emotions in a handful of people in a Southern town who react to the terrible dilemma that the crisis of the Negro presents. It is a drama of the torturing tensions within a 16-year-old white boy who hates, yet admires, the doughty Negro whose innocent life is at stake. It is a drama of fateful decisions by a young lawyer in the town, a drama of the quiet determination of an old lady who believes in doing "right." And particularly, it is the drama of a proud, noble, arrogant Negro man who would rather be lynched in fiery torture than surrender his stolid dignity.
Intruder in the dust also succeeds in the fact that it has protagonists as opposed to “a” main protagonist, and we can identify with each one. Each character is fully fleshed out and plays a significant role in the world Faulkner creates (or recreates, depending on how you look at it.)
If these sound like large illuminations to be accomplished upon the screen in the course of a ninety-minute picture that is also action-crammed, you may find the attesting explanation in Mr. Brown's brilliant techniques. Taking his cast and his cameras down to Oxford, Miss., itself—the town frankly acknowledged as the "Jefferson" of Mr. Faulkner's book—he has photographed most of his picture right there in that genuine locale with a sharpness of realistic detail that has staggering fidelity. He has placed his principal characters in stunning relation to crowds, and he has searched their expressive faces in striking close-ups for key effects. Most conspicuously, the director has shunned "mood music" throughout his films. The sounds, which are full of minor drama, are intrinsic to the action and the place.
Since, it was not huge development in the decade of thirty’s and forty’s in the setting where the two movie shooting took place. The Oxford was more likely suburbs area like Court and Lawyer’s offices, small stores presence especially in Intruder in the dust, and concrete houses and street in The Reivers, but most places were looked like small village and there are green trees, muddy roads and ponds and so forth.
In the beginning of both movies its setting was in Town. And it seems like the Town was where they shot a lot of the films material.
Through both films presented they both composed of settings and locations within town. Such as in the beginning of intruder in the dust with that big wide open shot of the town and the various stores and offices it is composed of.
Both The Reivers and Intruder in the Dust are in rural settings. Both films I believe are taken place in rustic areas. With dirt roads, small towns and country type homes.
Both films had a similar setting. Intruder in the Dust was mostly shot at interior space, for example Jailhouse, lawyers office, barber shot etc. The Reivers had many scenes shot in the exterior in rural areas, until they arrive in Memphis.
Both films Intruder in the dust and Reivers were set in small towns in the south. Both had scenes inside the actual town and scenes shot out in the country. Both films did a great job at giving you a real life feel of the south.
The exposition of Reivers and the story of Intruder in the Dust are set in southern towns. The towns have a lot of similarities. Both have grit and grime, and farm land not to far away. Both films try to portray as accurately as possible life in a small town in the south.
The effect in such eerie moments as the opening of the grave or the passage of whispered conversation between the boy and the Negro in the jail cannot be expressed in mere language. There is a virtue in the realism of sound to which this remarkable picture will stand as a monument. And the shocking explosion of tinny music from loudspeakers in the crowded square when the mob is gathering for the lynching is as vivid as the vulgar scene itself.
With his cast, Mr. Brown has also accomplished some real creative art, especially with Juano Hernandez, who plays the condemned Negro. The stanch and magnificent integrity that Mr. Hernandez displays in his carriage, his manner and expression, with never a flinch in his great self-command, is the bulwark of all the deep compassion and ironic comment in this film.
Excellent, too, are David Brian as the lawyer who involves him-self and Claude Jarman Jr. as the youngster who first inspires a defense of the innocent man. Likewise, Elizabeth Patterson is a moving symbol of Southern delicacy and strength as the elderly, insignificant lady who coolly defies a lynch mob. Charles Kemper is porcine and brutal as the stubborn leader of the mob, Porter Hall is stark as his old father and Will Geer plays the sheriff manfully.
The crowds and flavor of this picture are as Southern as side-meat and greens. Mr. Brown has truly created for M-G-M a triumphantly honest, adult film.—Bosley Crowther
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments