This Is Why I Hate Gossips | FURY (1936) | Movie Reaction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2024
- First time watching and reacting to FURY (1936) movie.
🤗 Thanks for tuning in! Leave a LIKE so our community can grow! 🤗
SUBSCRIBE BY CLICKING HERE ⬇️
/ @henryellow
👇 My Reactions to other Fritz Lang Movies! 👇
• Fritz Lang
Support me on Patreon! Full Reaction available (watch along with me~)
/ henryellow 👈
✨ Movie Reactions Playlist ✨
• Movie Reacts
Intro 0:00
React 1:48
Thoughts 24:54
#moviereaction #moviereactions #moviereview #moviereviews #firsttimewatching #fury #fritzlang - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
To paraphrase the late, great Terry Pratchett "The intelligence of that creature known as a mob is the square root of the number of people in it."
Henry, this is awesome, I haven't seen this one yet! I'm going to watch this today or tomorrow and will jump on your reaction afterwards! Thanks for turning ME onto a movie!
THIS is a deep dive film. I didn't see this - wasn't aware of it - for a good decade into seeing Spencer Tracy's other films. I'd seen all of his Tracy-Hepburn films, and I remain in awe of this tale. I can't help but spend the last half of the film wondering, "What would I do?" I certainly understand the vengeful motivation and his innocence was REALLY what the town 'killed'. There are other films of vengeance coming out of Hollywood (the DEATH WISH 'genre' even) but nothing captures my attention like FURY.
When Joe's brothers were discussing revenge, I thought it would turn into a "kill the entire town for revenge" story. I won't deny I kind of looked forward to seeing that.
When you decide to watch more Fritz Lang films I would definitely recommend that you watch 'The Woman in the Window' the storyline moves at breakneck speed from the beginning and thruout, then watch its sister film 'Scarlet Street' which is slower but much darker.
I've got them in queue for my Fritz Lang reactions. Look forward to it 😉
@@henryellow You will enjoy them, they are two of the best thrillers.
Even though no murder was committed those people would still be charged for assault, damage to property, threatening behaviour, arson, attempted murder etc and all those who lied in court charged with perjury.
"The mob doesn't think. It has no mind of its own."
Fun Fact: Theatrical movie debut of Fay Helm.
Slang Fact: "Bugs" is an old slang term for insanity. So the character "Bugs" Meyers (Walter Brennan) was given a nickname indicating he was insane.
Canine Wrangler Fact: Terry, better known as Toto from The Wizard of Oz (1939), appears in this film as Rainbow, the dog that Joe Wilson (Spencer Tracy) takes in from the rain.
Historical Fact: The script was based upon the 1933 kidnapping and murder of Brooke Hart, the son of the owner of Hart's Department Store in San Jose, CA. The two suspects were pulled from jail by a group of vigilantes, who dragged them across the street to St. James Park and lynched them.
Taskmaster Director Fact: This was Fritz Lang's first film in Hollywood, and he wasn't accustomed to labor laws that require meal breaks. Shortly after filming began, Lang ate a quick lunch between set-ups and resumed filming. Some of the crew members wondering about their lunch break asked Spencer Tracy, who said it's "1 : 30 pm and the crew had yet to take their break" he pointed out to Lang. Lang replied "I will call lunch when I think it should be called" and that it was his set. Tracy then smeared his make-up with his hand, knowing that it would take at least 90 minutes to fix it, yelled "Lunch!" and promptly walked off the set with the crew. Director Fritz Lang threw smoke bombs into the riot scene to rile up his actors. One of them struck Bruce Cabot, who had to be physically restrained from punching the director. Spencer Tracy got on so badly with Fritz Lang that he vowed he would never work with the director again.
Spencer Tracy had problems with most directors, the only ones that he got on well with were John Sturgees and Stanley Kramer with whom he made most of his latter films. Director 'Wild Bill' Wellman once cracked a fist in Tracy's face leaving him with a massive shiner.
Cbcw76 ...Thanks! 😄
Go in Peace and Walk with God. 😎 👍
@@BigGator5 Gotcha... if only we had more 'editors' and proofreaders - especially for me.
Terry is one of the great dog actors of all time.
Brooke Hart's case in 1933 was horrifying. Two men kidnapped and killed Hart in cold blood. They even tried to plead for insanity.
The lynching that happened afterwards was encouraged by the newspapers, radio, and even the governor! In the end, no one was convicted for the the lynching.
_____
I like that Tracy stood up for the rest of the crew! 👏🏻👏🏻
Thanks for sharing 😊
You can see a lot of similar elements and principles used here and "M". Basically the same movie, but this time the accused isn't guilty of the crime
I always preferred Sylvia as an older character actress. In things Like Damien: Omen 2 or Beetlejuice.
Just want to give you a 👍🏻 for watching an old movie. So many good ones out there but unfortunately not enough reactors are interested. Best wishes
Thank you! Hope you enjoyed the reaction 😊
Hi Henry! You wondered if swearing the oath did much good. By showing rather than saying it, this movie demonstrates what the actual purpose of swearing an oath to tell the truth in a court of law is. Since a witness doesn't know what the prosecution has as evidence, when you swear to tell the truth, there pre-exists the threat that the prosecution has evidence of the true answer to the question being asked of you. They might not, but attorneys have a maxim; "never ask a question (at trial) that you don't already know the (true) answer to."
These witnesses were pretty foolish, since it apparently never occurred to any of them that the prosecution may have already had proof of the evidence. On what basis the witnesses believed this, who knows? It's movie fiction. But when witnesses are asked a question after swearing the oath, they're usually expected to assume that the right answer is already in evidence‐-and that they'll get slapped with perjury (of which there are penalties of jail and/or fines for) if they lie.
The only answers by a witness that, theoretically, cannot be perjurious are those which were made without having sworn the oath first.
I would think that very few trials in the last two hundred years have ever had such oathless testimony in them, but I can envision a peculiar scenario wherein the oath gets interrupted for some reason or other, never finishes being fully carried out, and then, with the general impression that the swearing in was completed when, in fact, it wasn't. The witness perjures themselves, their testimony is taken in as evidence, a person is wrongly convicted or aquitted, and then it's subsequently found that the witness lied. But then, when the court stenographer's record is consulted, it shows that the oath wasn't completed after all, so the lie of the perjurer cannot be prosecuted.
Seems far fetched, I'll admit, but I'm trying to imagine such a scenario in furtherence of making a point; that without the oath you can't have perjury, and that's the purpose of swearing it.
Sorry for my (usual) wordiness. Being succinct isn't my strong suit, and someone with greater writing skills would do better, but I hope I helped make sense of why this practise is considered vital in the law.
I see. What you say makes sense 👍🏻. Without the oath, the person cannot be charged for perjury.
No worries about wordiness. Thanks for clarifying 😉