User reviews

Famed German director Fritz Lang's first American film, Fury, is loosely based on a story by Norman Krasna, "Mob Rule", which itself was based on the tale of California's last public lynching, in 1933, of Thomas Harold Thurmond and John M. Holmes, the kidnappers and murderers of Brooke Hart, the "son" in San Jose's L. Hart and Son Department Store. Fury is a fine exploration (although not an analysis) of the mentality of vengeance, whether from a mob, as in the first half of the film, or from an individual, as in the latter half. It is loaded with fine acting and an unusually constructed script by Lang and co-writer Bartlett Cormack, although it is not without flaws.

Joe Wilson (Spencer Tracy) is deeply in love with Katherine Grant (Sylvia Sidney). Wilson lives in the Chicago area in a small apartment with his two brothers, Charlie (Frank Albertson) and Tom (George Walcott). Wilson wants to marry Grant, but they're short on money. Despite the relationship hardships it will entail, Grant returns to Texas to work--she'll be making good money there, while Wilson tries to improve his lot in Illinois. Wilson finally manages to buy a gas station with his brothers, and earns enough to buy a car and take a road trip, with his dog Rainbow in tow, to meet Grant so they can get married. When he's almost there, Wilson is suddenly stopped by a sheriff's deputy in the small town of Strand. They question him about a kidnapping. Two minor details make him more suspicious, and so they decide to hold him in the town jail while the D.A. looks into his background. Rumors makes their way around the town and things go horribly wrong, bringing us to mob mentality, lynchings and vengeance.

Lynchings were an emerging social problem in the early 1930s. There were 60 known lynchings in the U.S. between 1930 and 1934. Beginning in 1934, the earliest of the "anti-lynching" bills was presented to the U.S. Congress, and that number grew to 140 different bills by 1940. The visual arts also voiced in on the issue--one museum held "An Art Commentary on Lynching" exhibition in 1934. So Fury was certainly pertinent to our culture at the time, and was one of many films to come, such as Mervyn LeRoy's They Won't Forget (1937) that centered on strong anti-lynching sentiments (believe it or not, there were also pro-lynching films, such as Cecil B. DeMille's This Day and Age, 1933).

It's interesting to note that although lynching was primarily a "racial"-oriented phenomenon, Lang was not allowed to comment on that very much. There are a couple shots of blacks in the film, but they are extremely innocuous. Anything even more slightly controversial was excised at MGM's (and specifically Louis B. Mayer's) behest.

Fury's structure is very unusual, contributing even more to its unpredictable, captivating nature. It begins as an almost bland romance while Lang sets up the characters and their slightly exaggerated innocence, turns into an interesting hardship film, briefly becomes a road movie, switches gears again when Wilson is arrested, and actually presents a profoundly impactful climax at the midway point--it seems as if the film could end there. The second half makes a major u-turn as what could be seen as an extended tag/dénouement becomes an in-depth courtroom drama that builds to a second climax. The second half allows Lang to explore the same vengeance mentality as the first half, except from an individual rather than the previous mob perspective.

Although the second climax denotes a fine work of art on its own--there are some very moving performances and developments towards the end of the courtroom stuff, the star attraction is the gradually building mob material in the middle. What begins as an annoyance for Wilson turns into widespread tragedy as the rumor mill gears up and easygoing conformism rears its ugly head. Of course it is well known that Lang came to America to escape Nazi Germany, where he had been asked to act as Hitler's minister of film, so Fury, although sometimes criticized as a commercial film for Lang, certainly had personal poignancy for him. Lang shows rumors gradually distending in a game of "Telephone" with serious consequences, and inserts a humorous shot of chickens to symbolize "clucking women". He shows how easily a situation can go from those kinds of increasingly misreported claims to dangerous action due to conformism. Most folks are shown as all too eager to go along with the crowd and avoid local conflict.

For a few moments, the mob mentality leads to a situation that presages John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). And overall, Fury is sometimes said to have anticipated film noir. However, despite some highly stylistic shots, such as the early, shimmering reflections of rain soaked windows on opposing walls, or the almost comically exaggerated action/reaction shots of the mob in full force (some of the more poignant material in the film), much of Fury's cinematography is more pedestrian. In his interview with Peter Bogdanovich that serves as the bulk of the DVD's "director's commentary", Lang states that he prefers simple, straightforward cinematography, to emphasize realism, or "truth". That may sound odd coming from the man who gave us Metropolis (1927), but at least for Fury, it is consistent.

But this isn't a flawless film. A few dramatic transitions are awkward, including two very important ones--the initial "capture" of Wilson, which is fairly inexplicable, and the final scene of the film, which leaves a significant dangling thread. But the underlying concepts, the performances and more often than not the technical aspects of the film work extremely well, making Fury an important film to watch.

Out of MGM, Fury is directed by Fritz Lang and stars Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sidney and features Walter Abel, Bruce Cabot, Edward Ellis and Walter Brennan in support. It's adapted by Lang and Bartlett Cormack from the story "Mob Rule" written by Norman Krasna. Loosely based around the events that surrounded both the "Brooke Hart" murder in 1933 and the "Lindbergh" kidnapping/murder case in 1932, the story sees Tracy as Joe Wilson, an innocent man who is jailed and apparently killed in a fire started by a rampaging lynch mob. However, as the lynch mob go on trial for his murder, Joe surfaces but is twisted by thoughts of revenge on those who happily watched him burn.

Widely and rightly considered a classic, this first Hollywood outing from director Fritz Lang is a remarkable look at mob violence and one man's limit pushed to its breaking point - and then some. That Lang survived studio interference to craft such a penetrating study of injustice is a minor miracle. Fury is neatly put together as a story, the calm before the storm as Joe & Kath are brought to us as the happy face of Americana. Then it's the middle section as rumours run out of control, the dangers of idle prattling rammed home as things start to escalate out of control - culminating in the savage assault on the jail (a gusto infused action sequence indeed). Then the fall out of mob rule actions, the court case and Joe's malevolent force of vengeance, that in turn comes under scrutiny.

The film was said to have been Lang's favourite American film, which is understandable given it bares all his trademarks. The expressionistic touches, shadow play dalliances and supreme cross-cutting between tormentors and the tormented, for sure this is prime Lang, with no frame wasted. While it's no stretch of the imagination to think that Lang, having fled Nazi Germany, was pondering what he left behind as he moulded the picture together. Of the cast, Tracy is majestic as our main protagonist, while Sidney is brightly big eyed and hugely effective as the moral centre of Joe's universe.

Controversial at the time, the film has naturally lost some of that controversial power over the decades. However, as the film points out with the lynching statistics, there was once a time when inhumanity was able to rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. Fury serves to remind two-fold that not only is it a potent social commentary, but also that it's a damn fine piece of skilled cinema. 9/10

If Fritz Lang had died or been killed by the Nazis (whom he detested and opposed)in 1933 or 1934, it is stunning to realize that his position as a great film director would have been assured. He would have already had METROPOLIS, SPIES, DR. MABUSE, and M down to establish his credentials as a master of cinematic art. But he left Germany to escape the real villains who were coming to power. And he ended up, after briefly staying in France, coming to the U.S. Most of his later films would be made in the U.S. FURY is his first American masterpiece - a study of mob violence, and the destructive forces it unleases in even the most decent people. Here, it is Spencer Tracy, the erstwhile victim of a lynch mob, who becomes demonic in retaliation for his own mistreatment at their hands. It would be a theme Lang would return to again and again in later films - Edward G. Robinson turning on Joan Bennett and Dan Duryea in SCARLET STREET is a good example.

Like many great crime films it is based on an actual incident that occurred in San Jose, California in 1933. Brooke Harte, the son of a wealthy department store owner, was kidnapped by two rather stupid men, Harold Thurmond and Jack Holmes, for a ransom, and drowned when they collected the money. Brooke had been a very popular young man, and when the men were caught a mob attacked the jail, and killed them (hanging at least Thurmond when he was still alive - Holmes was beaten to death in the jail). The incident gained notoriety around the globe (the Nazis had the nerve to use it to suggest Americans were violent degenerates - and frequently republished photos of the dead men as propaganda in World War II). It was hard to hide the story - the mobs were filmed attacking the jail, and (as mentioned above) the swinging bodies of the two kidnappers were photographed. Most people in America were appalled by the incident, but it had defenders. Governor James Rolph (former Mayor of San Francisco) defended the lynch mob beyond any reasonable point (Rolph was running for re-election, and in ill health - he would die before the reelection was held).

A fine account of the crime, SWIFT JUSTICE by Harry Farrell, only touches lightly on the Lang movie. The similarities with the newsreel trucks and even a Rolph-clone (Clarence Kolb, in a small but sinister role as a powerful man trying to convince the Sheriff - Edward Ellis - to leave the jail underprotected from the mob)are there. But Lang allows Tracy to survive, unlike Thurmond and Holmes. Also, in reality the newsreel footage was not clear enough (like that in the film) to be used against the defendants in their trial. In fact, nobody was ever indicted for the lynch murders of Thurmond and Holmes.

... because you have this typical Depression era love story with a young couple in love but not enough money to get married at a time when married women were not expected to work after marriage. The guy, Joe WIlson (Spencer Tracy) is an optimistic fellow, living with his pseudo gangster brother and his baby brother that the gangster brother is trying to influence.

Joe quits a dead end job and buys a gas station and starts to make plenty of money. His fiancee (Sylvia Sidney) has been away from him a year working as a teacher to also save money. And then the day comes for them to reunite - there finally is enough money. He drives a car across country to meet up with her. And she waits and waits for him. Joe is never late. But little does she know that things have gone terribly wrong. That's where this tale goes to a very dark place.

Without giving away too much, a chain of events are set off that rips all optimism away from Joe and leaves him a changed and bitter guy, and he sets off on a really terrible yet understandable road of revenge.

This is probably the first real meaty role at MGM that Spencer Tracy got, and others followed soon after. It's also a rare 1930s message picture from that studio, dealing with mob mentality and violence. Although most mob violence was directed at African Americans during that time, so it does not quite have the courage of its convictions, it is still engaging.

Fritz Lang's first US film is arguably the best he made there,containing elements of his most celebrated film,M,though this time here the mentality of mob violence does not have a genuinely evil monster (so brilliantly portrayed in M by Peter Lorre) as it's point of retribution,but a decent,ordinary man in the shape of an equally superb Spencer Tracy.The first reel or so of FURY is somewhat dull,with Tracy and his fiancé Sylvia Sidney struggling to raise money for their wedding in what seems a straight-forward domestic story.But the film soon gets into gear when Tracy is mistaken for a kidnapper and held in a small town jail,and is lynched by most of the town's population,led by waster and bad boy Bruce Cabot.Or it seems he is lynched......Tracy somehow escapes,and totally hardened by the experience,is determined on exacting revenge against the perpetrators.

The film wasn't a particular critical or box-office triumph in it's day,maybe because it told some unpalatable truths in aspects of American life at the time.While not necessarily Hollywood's best-loved or most effective leading man,Tracy was arguably it's best actor from a technical viewpoint,and his performance is outstanding here.His transformation from an innocuous everyman to vicious criminal is totally convincing.After he makes his way back home to his brother's apartment,his speech detailing his ordeal and his thirst for vengeance is a quite brilliant piece of screen acting.Tracy had this and other memorable big screen monologues to his credit in a distinguished career (watch other fine examples in such films as STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE,STATE OF THE UNION,INHERIT THE WIND and GUESS WHO'S COMING HOME TO DINNER),and there were few,if any,that could equal him in similar circumstances.There are no forced histrionics,no exaggerated hand or facial gestures,no bellowing out of words,just a careful and believable building up of rage until he explodes on the final word he comes to.......,DEATH!

Aside from Tracy's excellence,the film is at it's most effective in the setting up and brief aftermath of the lynching itself.Lang's penchant for Germanic expressionism and moody lighting is very effective here,especially in the scene where the converging of the mob on the police station is represented by a subjective tracking shot,a remarkably powerful scene which is the film's highpoint.

The film goes slightly downhill in the courtroom sequence,which although has interesting elements (the use of newsreel footage as evidence),tends to get over-melodramatic and obviously contrived(Tracy's peanut habit and word misspelling are not too convincing plot devices),and Lang was reportedly very opposed to the somewhat sappy ending tagged on by MGM(as Hollywood's moral code demanded in the 30's).That aside,fine support performances(Ms Sidney,Walter Brennan,Edward Ellis,Walter Abel,etc.),a good musical score(Franz Waxman),stylish visuals(Joesph Ruttenberg)and bravura direction by Lang still make FURY,despite dated elements,a powerful and effective essay on lynch mob rule seven decades later,which most of it's contemporaries can certainly not boast.

RATING:7 and a half out of 10

An idealist sets out to visit his girlfriend, whom he hasn't seen for a year, but he is picked up by the cops for no real reason and thrown into a cell because a flimsy piece of evidence hints that he might be the kidnapper of a young woman. A rumor flares in the small town and soon most of the populace is standing outside the police office demanding retribution.

I won't outline the plot any further, because there are many twists and turns to come. Fury is basically a study in justice, guilt, revenge, and mindless fury. Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sydney star and are exceptional. The supporting cast is excellent also. Lang's direction is often amazing. It is always stylistic, expressionistic and it challenges you every step of the way. Watch for one scene near the center of the film where Lang cuts together a series of close-ups. His timing is incredible here. The script is imperfect. In fact, there are a lot of instances of unbelievability and silliness in the film. It is a testament to the rest of the script (and the other aspects of the film, too) that Fury ends up being such a great film. I like it nearly as much as M. It may not be quite as good, but it moves at a brisker pace and is thus often more exciting and suspenseful. 9/10.

A compelling "message picture" with good performances from both Sylvia Sidney and Spencer Tracy and deft direction from Fritz Lang. 'Fury' is tautly dramatic and not without lessons for a modern audience, but it still falls just a little short of masterpiece status.

This was Lang's first American film, the studios were presumably in fierce competition to sign him to a contract and seems clear that MGM was quite proud of itself and thought they could safely fit the Austrian master into their mold while also revisiting some of his past successes. 'Fury' is by no means a remake of 'M' but it does share some key themes. However, the style is a marked departure from the director's German work and the Hollywood treatment keeps this film from being as compelling as its older brother.

Hailing from the Midwest as I do, the Hooterville Junction take on small-town America rankled with me a bit. Gossipy housewives and self-important businessmen are played for laughs and then suddenly turn into a howling mob bent on the death of a man against whom the "evidence" is literally peanuts. It's a serious matter, as we're later reminded by the prosecutor's speech about the number of lynchings in America's then recent history, it should never have been treated lightly.

Do watch it though, and keep an eye out for a very familiar Cairn terrier. Also, early on when Joe and Katherine are looking at bedroom furniture there's a distinct chuckle at the expense of the Hays Code (which was enforced starting in '34).

Tracy is fantastic as salt-of-the-earth whose soul is incinerated by fiery destruction of lynch mob. In the wake of the kidnaping of the Lindbergh baby, this was an especially emotional topic in 1936. Tracy's performance is riveting and even more-worthy of the Oscar than his Oscar winning performance that year in Captains Courageous.

Sylvia Sydney is excellent as Tracy's love interest, and Frank Albertson is superb as his hard-edged brother. Edward Ellis (title star of the Thin Man) does a good turn as the reasonable Sheriff. And Walter Brennan does an excellent job as a deputy. There are also two contrastingly poignant scenes in bars. Overall, score a home run for Fritz Lang in his first US film.

"When a mob takes it upon itself to identify, try, condemn, and punish, it is a destroyer of a government that patriots have died to establish and defend."

A couple of blowhards without moral compasses whip a crowd up into a frenzy of hate, leading to an institution of government being stormed and destroyed. The mob is more willing to believe an unsubstantiated rumor than let the facts play out in a court of law. Thank god there was video evidence that could be used to help identify the culprits. It's trite to ask whether that sounds familiar, but it's impossible not to see the similarity to the real-life events of 1/6/21.

The script for this film was based on the 1933 lynching of two suspects being held in a San Jose jail for the kidnapping and murder of Brooke Hart. What was horrifying about it was that California Governor James Rolph actually endorsed the lynching, saying he would pardon anyone who was convicted. It's particularly onerous when those in positions of power subvert the rule of law so blatantly - and we see a representation of Rolph in a character who stops the National Guard from being sent out to protect the jail. (Again, ringing any bells?) It's a little unfortunate that this wasn't an African-American lynching case given the statistics spouted in the courtroom scene had to be stilted in that direction, but I don't fault the film for that because it was 1936, and the case selected was itself compelling.

Warning, spoilers from here on.

It's all very riveting, but I think where the film missteps is when it has the victim of this violence (Spencer Tracy) secretly survive, and then attempt to get mob members tried for murder anyway. The intention was likely to show his own lust for revenge getting the better of dispassionate rule of law, but it defies belief, and undercuts the power of the film. It would have been far more artistically truthful had he died, and his fiancée (Sylvia Sidney) used to carry on the prosecution of the thugs responsible. It doesn't ring true at all when she points out to him how the members of the mob probably regret their actions of that day. Ha! The film seems to want to take a little left turn into happy-land, with Tracy and Sidney ending up smooching, the townsfolk all having learned some lesson (you know, rather than being tried for attempted murder), and our faith in humanity restored because Tracy didn't let these people get convicted. It's all ridiculous.

Eighty years after its first release, this story of mob violence in USA is a savage indictment of the American system of mob "justice" from the 1880s to the 1960s. The fictional events of this movie, based upon a true incident, took place in the 1930s. Produced by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, directed by Fritz Lang, it stars Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sidney in the key roles; with an excellent supporting cast, this is a story that stands the test of time.

I won't comment much on the plot and the story, both of which have been adequately addressed by the storyline on the main IMDb page, and a ton of detailed reviews here.

However, without Lang and Mankiewicz on this production, the dramatic irony would not, I think, have been as effectively portrayed - for two reasons. First, Lang coming from a Germany where Nazism was ascendant, knew all too well what injustice was all about and how people can prostitute their principles for what is perceived as justifiable retribution. Second, Mankiewicz was a highly experienced actor/producer/director who has shown, throughout his career, that injustice in all its forms must be shown for the evil it is. With such a combination at the reel wheel, this movie was guaranteed to be hard-hitting.

Lang's direction is very much on form, using lighting and shadow for full effect; using close up, quick editing in mob scenes; using the camera in extreme close up to ensure viewers note a particular item; and cross-cutting and inter-cutting scenes to heighten suspense. Not the first director to use those techniques, but Lang was a master at it.

For the most part, the script and dialog are excellent. My only critique centers upon the courtroom scenes and dialog which, by today's standards, are somewhat stagy; the repartee, between the prosecution and defense counsels, is particularly so, too often for this viewer. And the very last scene, seemingly preachy and even corny, which involves a long verbal exchange between the judge (Burton) and one of the main characters, can only be fully appreciated in the context of the times: a long history of lynching across the USA, an economy in the midst of a Great Depression and a nation on the cusp of another world war.

For Lang enthusiasts, Fury is a must see movie, despite the presence of a couple of handy coincidences, an improbable result with the use of dynamite and a glaring loose end - at the very end. Still, this is a movie that should be seen by all, and one I heartily recommend. Eight out of ten.

April 24, 2015

Curiously titled, there are two lots of "fury" to consider in this film as an angry mob burn down the jail where an innocent stranger is being held on circumstantial evidence, while subsequently the stranger survives and in a fit of anger decides to keep his survival a secret in order that the lynch mob can be prosecuted for first degree murder. It is an interesting premise and Spencer Tracy is superb in the lead role, playing a character who becomes ever-so-slowly less sympathetic with his increasingly bloodthirsty desire for revenge. Walter Abel also provides good support as the district attorney in charge of the case who maintains a sense of humour in court, while Sylvia Sidney is effective as Tracy's girlfriend, shown in striking close-up at several key points. The completely silent scene in which she rushes to see the jail alight is an utterly breathtaking sequence and with Fritz Lang at the helm the film looks as good as one would expect. For all its virtues, 'Fury' is not a subtle film though, and it is hard to say what comes off as more detrimental: the loud thunderstorms that only start up as Tracy argues with his brothers near the end, or Tracy's preachy speech in the final scene. The plot is also a little hard to buy at times (would Tracy really be locked up over such sketchy evidence?), but if nothing else, 'Fury' will definitely make you think twice about carrying salted peanuts in your pocket. The intense scenes of the angry mob in action also offer a stark reminder of just how irrational we, as human beings, can be in the wrong set of circumstances.

I watched this because of the presence of Spencer Tracy, and learned only after the fact that this was Fritz Lang's first American film. I found the whole thing to be an exercise in contrivance. Nothing in the film seems really believable. Further, a movie that deals with mob violence (the jail burning is treated as a "lynching") and that avoids putting it in a racial context seems to be making a calculated exercise in avoidance. The Tracy character's change in character from a nice guy to, after his traumatic experience, a vicious and cynical man thirsting for revenge is just too pat to be believable. And then there is the business of those hugely unsubtle plot hints to the viewer. On the whole I found the film worth watching only for its historical value, not for any inherent virtues.

It was interesting to catch Walter Brennan in what I thought was an early role, until I learned via IMDB that he had made 120 movies in the eleven years he was working in Hollywood prior to this flick!

One other Lang movie I have seen - the excellent Woman in the Window - shows that he had vastly sharpened his skills for the American audience by 1946.

The hard worker Joseph "Joe" Wilson (Spencer Tracy) and the teacher Katherine Grant (Sylvia Sidney) are in love with each other, but they do not have enough money to get married. Katherine gets a better job in Washington and together with Joe, they save money to get married one year later. Joe quits his job in the factory and uses his savings to buy a gas station, working with his brothers Charlie (Frank Albertson) and Tom (George Walcott). He makes enough money to get married with Katherine and buys a car. While driving with his dog Rainbow to meet his fiancée, Joe is stopped in Strand by the redneck Deputy "Bugs" Meyers (Walter Brennan) as suspect of kidnapping a boy in the Peabody Case. When they find peanuts in his pocket and a five-dollar bill in his pocket with the numeration of the money paid for ransom, Joe is arrested in jail for investigation.

"Bugs" Meyers makes a comment in the barbershop about the prisoner and sooner the gossip is spread in the little town. As a tale never loses in the telling, Joe is accused by the population of kidnapper and they try to invade the police station to lynch him. For political reason, Governor Burt (Howard Hickman) does not send the National Guard to help Sheriff Tad Hummel to protect Joe and the Police Station is burnt down by the vigilantes. Katherine witnesses the action and has a breakdown.

Joe is presumed dead but out of the blue he appears at his brothers' apartment seeking justice. He had learnt that in accordance with the laws, Lynch Law is murder in the first degree and his brothers open a case against twenty-two dwellers of Strand. The prosecutor Mr. Adams accepts the case and Katherine Grant is the prime witness. Joe's revenge is set in motion.

"Fury" tells the heartbreaking story of dehumanization of a good man and hard worker that believes in the justice and loves his country through the imprisonment and subsequent lynching by despicable people moved by gossip. Fritz Lang makes another excellent feature in his first American work, and I enjoyed the gossip sequence that ends in a brood of hens.

The story is engaging with a great revenge of the bitter Joe. I would love to see the twenty-two defendants going to the gallows, but the moralist conclusion works perfectly in the story. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Fúria" ("Fury")

Oh, human nature- how can it stand side-by-side with the Law, which is exacting, unforgiving, but always on the side of fact? Human beings tend to be impulsive, and very easily led along when becoming followers of the pack. Is this more to truth or fiction, writer/director Fritz Lang might be asking. This film, for it's time, is a rather complex kind of moral drama, swerving into (good) melodrama at times, but also with the ideal of an early film-noir. What's the Joe Nobody who minds his own business got going for him in the world? While one could even go as far as to look at the philosophical nature behind the film, it's really a simple story that dwells in the dark times of the depression. At the same time, it has that incredible pull of Lang's best German-set films (and what a magnificently raging use of crowds).

It starts off even more deceptively simple, with its curve-balls getting warmed up. It's got the love story element right away, with Spencer Tracy as the lead Joe and as his love and fiancé the notable Sylvia Sydney in one of her earliest roles as Katherine. They'll get married soon, once Joe's got enough money. But he gets spotted out in the midst of a kidnapping investigation by the police and thrown into jail. Then in a virtuoso kind of brick-by-brick storytelling, we see how the town grows into its frenzy. Not only is it realistic for its time, but it crosses past those imaginary boundaries by the current kind of dramatic film-making that says more elaborately 'emotional' music and overtly big and slow-motion angles get the job done. That it just lays down its medium shots and brief pans works up the momentum. But then a certain twist keeps the second half of the film- following the burning of the jail-house- into a tight suspension.

In a way I found an immense pull into the film because I realized what Lang took forth with the subject matter. This is the opposite of the town and man-in-question scenario in M- this time the story brings together the Law not as a procedural, but as something to gnaw on hard. Where's the humanity in vengeance, one might ask? The courtroom scenes are fantastic in the duality of it- who do you side with more, defense or prosecution, and how will Lang's (solid) manipulation of the story work out? It comes down to an ending that was possibly expectable, maybe not as well written as other parts of the script, but it is a strong one. And through this the emotional drive in the host of character actors is on the note, even for its early sound times. Tracy, as well, seems to somehow show if not layers then at least some soul in his performance. He makes this man, who reveals just as the mob does the split between good and evil, and their calculating extremes, all the more human.

And like M there are some good twists that work in favor of the crises facing both lead and supporting characters; I felt the same rush in some scenes as I did in that great moment when the blind balloon vendor comes into play again. Again, possibilities for manipulation. But Lang controls it into something potent and unsentimental at the same time. It's a kind of 'social' drama, reflective of issues that are possibly closer than one may think in its period, and makes points that are universal, and rather important. It also doesn't pander to its crowd wanting a good Hollywood story of love in times of peril. It's lean, memorable Golden-age cinema.

When Fritz Lang moved to America, he did his best to understand the place in all its diversity, riding trains, hobnobbing with taxi-drivers and even spending six weeks with a group of Navajos. With Fury, his first Hollywood picture and one of the few for which he took a writing credit, you can see he is doing his damndedest to speak about American society in the way he spoke of German society in M or the Mabuse films.

Unfortunately Lang no longer had the input of Thea von Harbou, who despite being a nazi stooge was very good at shaping Lang's more fantastical ideas into coherent stories. Instead he gets Bartlett Cormack, who rose to some sort of prominence penning several of Cecil B. DeMille's worst-written features. Oddly, the original story is by the comedy-writer Norman Krasna (who was Oscar-nominated for it), and while structurally it's fairly tight it is marred by Cormack's trite dialogue and Lang's simplistic characterisation.

But really, it wasn't Lang's business to be a great screenwriter. He was an incredibly powerful and expressive visual director, and surprisingly much of his formal style has survived intact. He may no longer be able to have the nightmare architecture and cast of uber-hams that make his German films so unique, but Fury is still recognizably Langian. The picture actually begins in fairly typical Hollywood style, with plenty of conventional camera angles and straight acting. Once the story moves out to the hick town however we are suddenly transported into Lang country, with shot compositions of bold diagonals, actors playing straight into the camera and a rogues gallery of bizarre characters. The switch in style is fairly effective, although as with M the hysterical tone doesn't fit with the real world subject matter. One very effective bit of Lang technique though comes in the form of two lengthy point-of-view shots, one from the perspective of Tracy when he is stopped in his car, the second from that of the mob as it approaches the jail. Putting the audience into these two opposing positions at such crucial moments elicits sympathy for both parties.

Where the movie really falls apart is in the second act, and all the business with the trial and Tracy's revenge. It's full of plot holes and stretches of credibility. For example, we know the footage used as court evidence was shot by amateurs from a balcony, yet it impossibly features low angles. Tracy becomes a huffing and puffing caricature, both as written and as played, with the only example of bad acting I have ever seen from him. This exaggerated sketch of a man mad with revenge may make a good point but it makes weak drama.

Lang's tendency towards over-the-top performances may have harmed his more serious pictures, but at least here he gets a good line-up to do the job. Highlights include Walter Brennan as the shotgun-toting deputy, and silent star Raymond Hatton as the "muderous impulses" barber. Edward Ellis (the sheriff) is great too. He reminds me of Victor Meldrew from One Foot in the Grave. Fury has its share of bad hams as well though, such as those two jokers playing Tracy's brothers. Sylvia Sidney is the only member of the cast who is really allowed to play it straight all the way through, and she does a fine job, although I have seen her do much better still (in Dead End, for example).

After this, Lang made a few more attempts at writing and producing in Hollywood, it seems in the genuine hope of creating something of profound meaning for the American people, for which I admire him. In the end though he was passed from studio to studio and lumbered with b-pictures, in which he simply retreated into his personal style of shot composition. These efforts tend to be poorly scripted and appallingly acted, but at least you can play "spot the diagonal shadow". And it was also touching to see the innocent enthusiasm with which he approached genres like the western or the war flick. Fury on the other hand, for all its good intentions, is a mediocre mishmash, and a very disappointing watch.

Fritz Lang left Germany in 1934 although his exit was neither as speedy nor as perilous as he later recounted. One learnt to take everything he said with a barrelful of salt. He arrived in Hollywood via Paris and for a while it looked as though he might suffer the same fate as many of his fellow exiles but thanks to Joseph L. Mankiewicz he was assigned the task of directing 'Fury', a story written by Norman Krasna based upon an actual lynching. It was adapted by Lang and Bartlett Cormack. Eighty-five years on this film still packs a punch. Grahame Greene, never too liberal with his compliments, called it 'great' and singled out for praise Sylvia Sidney. She liked and admired Lang and was to make two more films with him. The same could not be said for Spencer Tracy who developed for the director a visceral loathing. Lang only bullied those who couldn't fight back but with the 'stars' he simply threw his weight about. His constant demand for retakes was anathema to an instinctive actor like Tracy. It cannot be denied however that this film and his performance in it did Tracy's career no harm at all. Lang found it tough to adjust to the fact that in Hollywood the producer was king and he bitterly resented the films happy ending imposed by Mankiewicz. His subsequent battles with producers have become part of Hollywood folklore. This brilliant, timeless film ensured that Lang was on his way but it was to be a bumpy road. The greatest line in the film goes to Sidney:'The mob doesn't think; it doesn't have time to think'. History can certainly testify to that!

Tracy escapes from the mob's attempt to burn down the prison he's being kept in and seeks revenge. An interesting study of mob mentality from Lang, making his first American film. It starts off well but takes a turn for the worse after the prison escape. It becomes melodramatic and preachy. Tracy is understandably bitter but the sudden change in his behavior is not believable. Tracy portrays this change in his character with really bad overacting. Brennan is fun to watch as a sheriff's deputy. Revisiting many of the themes from this film in his next, "You Only Live Once," Lang cut down on the melodrama and the overacting, producing a better film.

Right out of the 2021 headlines...disinformation spreads and destruction occurs and criminals deny being there...Trump would be proud. Politics come into play, as the governor caves to his consultant. Must have been nice to be able to drive and camp out next to your car...

There's no doubting that this is a very good film but its position, perched atop of Hollywood's tallest ivory tower isn't justified. The slight problem with this is that it's more worthy than it is entertaining.

Because this film has such a glowing reputation I expected something marvellous so my hopes for this were possibly too high. Being made by Fritz Lang, it goes without saying that it looks fantastic and the acting is outstanding but it didn't really connect on an emotional level. Other films from the thirties about injustice such as Archie Mayo's BLACK LEGION with Humphrey Bogart or Woody Van Dyke's NIGHT COURT really instil a sense of moral outrage whereas this doesn't. We certainly develop empathy for the sweet young couple thanks to the first section and will definitely feel sympathy for 'Joe' when he's falsely arrested but it doesn't quite stir the soul.

Maybe if MGM had allowed Lang to make the film he wanted to make it may have been the classic which Lang fans seem to think this is. As it stands, it feels a little sanitised, a little Hays Code and a lot MGM. Up to 'the lynching' it does start to set your innards swirling, you start to feel for 'Joe,' you start to become indignant and angry but it doesn't really carry this through to you becoming emotionally invested. Whereas the first half feels real, like a nightmare which could happen to you, the second part feels contrived and disconnected.

If I could, I'd give 8 starts to the first half and 4 to the last half.