The People vs O'Hara (1951)
Posted: July 18th, 2008, 10:24 am
After having read about this movie and the troubles director John Sturges allegedly
had with Spencer Tracy's drinking during filming I finally got to see the man in
the role that mirrored himself so closely (after all, defense lawyers and actors have
very much in common ). The performance was nothing less than I could expect from
Tracy---excellent---but the movie itself I felt did not make the most of his character.
The ending became predictable too soon in the story, slackening much of the tension
that had been carefully built.
Tracy's character is a former criminal defense lawyer whose highly successful
career became derailed due to his alcoholism. Apparently most of his cases
had been for clients accused of capital crimes, and having the responsiblity of
defending a person for their life became so much of an emotional burden for
the counsellor that he turned to the bottle. The movie opens with he and his
daughter seemingly happily living with all that turmoil behind them, he is
"dry" and building up a no-pressure civil defense practice and the daughter,
played sympathetically by the wonderful Diana Lynn, may finally be able to
move on with her own life after caring for her father for so long. Until the phone
rings and old friends plead with Tracy to defend their son (James Arness) who
has been arrested for murder. After that, you can figure out the rest and it becomes
merely a matter of sitting back and watching an incredible professional grapple
with a juicy part. And that's the shame of it! He's so good as the initially confident
defender about to prove to everyone he's still a winner whose confidence gradually
erodes as roadblocks and dead ends meet with his defense preparations. But the
scope he's given to show all this gets so severely curtailed by the plot that I
have to wonder if it simply became a matter of Tracy being unable to film all the
scenes so they just deleted them from the script? It's one of those cases
of a movie that had the potential to be something really great but just falls a little
flat. I guess not even having old pals like the wonderful Pat O'Brien and Arthur
Shields around did not help Tracy enough. But I don't really know all the circumstances,
and I don't want to make more of this issue than was the truth. It's just a shame
because he's that good in it.
I might as well mention John Hodiak, an actor I like, plays the ambitious younger
district attorney who Tracy is up against in the trial. I almost didn't recognize him
because his hair is lighter than usual (not flattering, he looks so striking with black
hair) and his performance is so wooden and rigid he brings absolutely nothing to
the character. He's never been one for much range but he usually is quite effective;
this is the worst I've seen him.
A word about the cinematography which is by John Alton---there are only
really two sequences where he gets to show off: the opening and ending. That
is where we are taken into very familiar Alton territory: gritty, dark and dank city
streets full of sinister shadows and miraculous lighting. There are also a few
scenes shot with Spencer Tracy somewhere along the wharfs in Brooklyn (?)
during the day that are beautifully done and which break up the interior scenes
somewhat.
I can recommend it for real fans of Tracy but if you are hoping for something
as tightly directed and ultimately satisfying as Lumet's The Verdict, you
may be disappointed.
had with Spencer Tracy's drinking during filming I finally got to see the man in
the role that mirrored himself so closely (after all, defense lawyers and actors have
very much in common ). The performance was nothing less than I could expect from
Tracy---excellent---but the movie itself I felt did not make the most of his character.
The ending became predictable too soon in the story, slackening much of the tension
that had been carefully built.
Tracy's character is a former criminal defense lawyer whose highly successful
career became derailed due to his alcoholism. Apparently most of his cases
had been for clients accused of capital crimes, and having the responsiblity of
defending a person for their life became so much of an emotional burden for
the counsellor that he turned to the bottle. The movie opens with he and his
daughter seemingly happily living with all that turmoil behind them, he is
"dry" and building up a no-pressure civil defense practice and the daughter,
played sympathetically by the wonderful Diana Lynn, may finally be able to
move on with her own life after caring for her father for so long. Until the phone
rings and old friends plead with Tracy to defend their son (James Arness) who
has been arrested for murder. After that, you can figure out the rest and it becomes
merely a matter of sitting back and watching an incredible professional grapple
with a juicy part. And that's the shame of it! He's so good as the initially confident
defender about to prove to everyone he's still a winner whose confidence gradually
erodes as roadblocks and dead ends meet with his defense preparations. But the
scope he's given to show all this gets so severely curtailed by the plot that I
have to wonder if it simply became a matter of Tracy being unable to film all the
scenes so they just deleted them from the script? It's one of those cases
of a movie that had the potential to be something really great but just falls a little
flat. I guess not even having old pals like the wonderful Pat O'Brien and Arthur
Shields around did not help Tracy enough. But I don't really know all the circumstances,
and I don't want to make more of this issue than was the truth. It's just a shame
because he's that good in it.
I might as well mention John Hodiak, an actor I like, plays the ambitious younger
district attorney who Tracy is up against in the trial. I almost didn't recognize him
because his hair is lighter than usual (not flattering, he looks so striking with black
hair) and his performance is so wooden and rigid he brings absolutely nothing to
the character. He's never been one for much range but he usually is quite effective;
this is the worst I've seen him.
A word about the cinematography which is by John Alton---there are only
really two sequences where he gets to show off: the opening and ending. That
is where we are taken into very familiar Alton territory: gritty, dark and dank city
streets full of sinister shadows and miraculous lighting. There are also a few
scenes shot with Spencer Tracy somewhere along the wharfs in Brooklyn (?)
during the day that are beautifully done and which break up the interior scenes
somewhat.
I can recommend it for real fans of Tracy but if you are hoping for something
as tightly directed and ultimately satisfying as Lumet's The Verdict, you
may be disappointed.