The life of a family struggling to survive
TopBilled:
This is such a powerful movie. It bring deep emotions to the surface. Like two of Basil Dearden’s previous social message dramas, SAPPHIRE (1959) which was about racism; and VICTIM (1961) which was about the threat of blackmail against a closeted homosexual; these stories require the viewer to practice a certain amount of patience, to see all the sides presented. Then once you’ve taken it all in, you realize just how powerfully emotional it is.
Patrick McGoohan plays a physician who has a God complex, which is ironic. He claims he should have been able to save the life of a young girl (Lynn Taylor) whose parents refused to allow her to receive a blood transfusion due to their religion.
McGoohan doesn’t have anything against Jehovah’s Witnesses per se; but his ego has been attacked because he is unable to save the child and prove to the world what a great doctor he is.
When he goes to the police to file charges, he insists is not motivated to bring charges against the father (Michael Craig) for publicity, but for the sanctity of what he believes. McGoohan, however, does lack some sympathy for Craig and Craig’s wife (played with aching despair by Janet Munro).
In the final analysis McGoohan is driven by the fact he couldn’t save a life, he failed, and he blames that failure directly on Craig. So in a way, McGoohan is using the court system as a vengeful god to smash and punish Craig. It’s all quite fascinating. One thing the film does admirably is that it lets us look at the internal conflicts the mother is experiencing after the death of the child.
Not only is Munro’s character struggling with where she stands in terms of her daughter’s life and the family’s religion, reconciling her faith with her husband’s faith, she also has to deal with whether or not she wants to remain married. Plus there is the unspoken fact that members of their faith would have publicly shunned them if she had pushed for the transfusion.
A very good scene has Munro realizing that if she goes back to Craig and continues the marriage, they will undoubtedly have another child. But she doesn’t exactly want to replace Ruth, the lost daughter. Her scenes are intriguing, with so many complex emotions reverberating.
The first time I watched the film I wondered how it would end. By this, I mean I figured Craig would be exonerated. I didn’t think it would be so bleak as to have him convicted and jailed. But I wondered if it would end with the verdict of him being freed, and if he would really reconcile with his wife. The last scene actually has him revisit the beach area where Ruth’s accident had occurred at the beginning of the movie.
There are other children at the site playing in the background. We sense how profound his pain is, but yet he will be able to go on. It’s the perfect ending with Craig’s character— and viewers— contemplating the enormity of what had happened.
I suppose it might have been different for Janet Munro’s character to go back to her husband, if they had other children besides Ruth…since she wouldn’t want to break up the family. But in this case, Ruth was the first born and so-far only child for them…which means she will sacrifice part of her own belief system to facilitate the reconciliation.
***
Jlewis:
This 1962 indy is one of Bail Dearden’s more obscure offerings, but dealing with a topic not often covered in movie entertainment. It was not a success for Dearden, Michael Relph and Sydney Box’s short-lived Allied Film Makers, which had scored well with two of our previously discussed offerings. Watching it today, I kinda can understand why since, despite its well meaning intentions as social commentary, it is rather depressing as entertainment.
The title character is played by child actress Lynn Taylor, her life cut short by a boating accident. Her life could have been saved by a blood transfusion but her parents object to such procedures due to religious beliefs. The Brits, like a good many Europeans these days, are not as passionate about religion as so many in the United States are (which is why abortion rights, subtly discussed on screen here as well, will never be settled despite the experimental five decades of Roe vs. Wade that went kaput after the U.S. supreme court changed in its political influence).
This was especially true back in the socially changing sixties. However, passionate conservatives watching this today will have a different perspective on the central characters of John and Pat Harris (featuring Michael Craig from SAPPHIRE, who is still doing well today in his nineties, and Janet Munro, a Disney familiar back then fresh from her successes in DARBY O’GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE and SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON).
Actually John, rather than Pat, is the one who is the steadfast one here (maybe read as stubborn by some) as Pat’s maternal instinct kicks in as she gets upset seeing her daughter die. Patrick McGoohan (another familiar in Dearden’s films) plays Doctor Brown who disagrees with John in his spiritual reasons for refusing to save his daughter’s life; he being as stubborn as John in his crusade to “save” every life regardless of whether they want to be saved or not. All of this leads to a debate in the courts as to whether or not such incidents be viewed as manslaughter with the Counsel for the Crown (Norman Wooland ) getting involved and John requiring a counsel (Michael Bryant).
Many of these Allied Film Makers productions have subtle musical scores but William Alwyn, a veteran of many Rank-backed classics, really pushes the melodrama like one pounding a heavy anvil. Fortunately it all gets silent when Pat battles her husband about their previously shared faith as she no longer feels she must subscribe to his views of “eternal life.” What unites the couple in the end is the prospect of John going to prison for taking his stand since she knows he loved Ruth as much as she did.
If I had to take sides, I would probably support the Harrises, especially after seeing how members of their town scorn them in angry protest. It is like forcing passionate objectors to join a war effort when one must ask: do we have enough already serving their country now that it doesn’t matter if a few drop out based on their religious beliefs? Should everybody be forced to be the same by society demands?
Unfortunately we don’t get Ruth’s opinion here since she is merely a child who isn’t aware of the causes of her death. No doubt she is “at rest” regardless of the battles involving the living over her case. I wish we earlier saw her talk religion with Daddy. Really she, more than her parents, is the one who really matters in this story and she has no voice. Many of these questions are actually asked in the climactic court scenes, which make up for the questionable and often rather slow parts earlier, giving this obscure offering a nice thought-provoking ending.
Of or Involving Motion Pictures 