Mississippi Burning

[Bakunin]

quick on the uptake, you're not in the fbi are you?

cracking film btw...hackman is exellent

Gene Hackman has always been a favourite of mine, I can't think, offhand anyway, of any really bad films that he's been in. Even if he has made the odd dodgy one (that one with Dan Aykroyd in which he looks plain embarassed springs to mind) he's always watchable and, in his best work, he he's spellbinding.

I remember when he made 'The Chamber' playing, coincidentally enough, a KKK member condemned to death in Mississippi for a fatal bombing, he seemed to be quite happy to let the younger cast members make most of the effort while, he, not really seeming to need much effort, simply blew everyone else off the screen.

The sad thing is, I've heard that he's considering retiring from acting as he's said to think that he's not really got much else to do in the business. Which is a shame, if true, as he has the raw talent to steal a whole film even when he's trying really hard not to.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I rarely watch films twice, but it was just on again and I couldn't stop watching it. Great film, and a fantastic performance from Gene Hackman.

Have you seen it yet, JC2?

No, not yet. Maybe one of these days.

 

[Gingerman]

Gene Hackman has always been a favourite of mine, I can't think, offhand anyway, of any really bad films that he's been in. Even if he has made the odd dodgy one (that one with Dan Aykroyd in which he looks plain embarassed springs to mind) he's always watchable and, in his best work, he he's spellbinding.

QUOTE]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100053/
One of those "what the fuck were they thinking of " movies,a great actor who makes even the most mundane of filums watchable,lucky enough to make his breakthrough at a time when an actor did'nt have to be pretty or handsome to be a big star.

 

[Bakunin]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100053/[/url]
One of those "what the fuck were they thinking of " movies,a great actor who makes even the most mundane of filums watchable,lucky enough to make his breakthrough at a time when an actor did'nt have to be pretty or handsome to be a big star.

Yep, that's the one.

Hackman came from a time when many actors were hired on the basis of possessing genuine (and in his case, immense) talent. Nowadays there are probably thousands of very talented actors in Hollywood alone, wo will probably never get a break because either they aren't pretty or handsome enough, or because they turned in an absolutely stellar performance, but the studio's bloody focus group didn't like their face or some other bullshit reason.

That's not to say that actors can't be good-looking as well as talented, to be fair. Steve McQueen, for example, was a decent actor as well as looking good on camera, and I defy ANYONE to watch his performance in 'Papillon' and say he didn't do a brilliant job.

 

[mhendo]

Great movie; awful piece of history.

I think Brad Dourif is fantastic as Clinton Pell. Did Wire fans notice the appearance by Frankie Faison (Chief Burrell) as the eulogist at the funeral.

 

[gnoriac]

I think Brad Dourif is fantastic as Clinton Pell.

I don't believe anyone can watch this film without wanting to punch him; as bad guys go you can't play it better than that. If it wasn't for the film having such strong leads in Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe, he would have got a lot more recognition.

 

[gnoriac]

BTW has anyone reported this thread for being in the wrong forum?

 

[colbhoy]

I stumbled across this on the TV last night - we have just got home from a week in Spain and I really wanted to go to bed but I kept thinking, "I'll just watch this scene and then go" for a quite a while before I eventually switched off and went to bed.

I mean, I've got it on DVD and have watched it loads of times...

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

One hell of a thread bump

I watched it again. Told b/f we weren't watching it as we'd seen it dozens of times. Ended up watching it again

 

[tar1984]

I watched this, i'd never seen it before. Excellent film.

 

[krtek a houby]

I remember seeing this in Streatham at the time. The audience really reacted to it.

I also remember the film being slated from the uber-left because it took liberties with the truth and the film dared imply that it was the white man who came to the rescue...

 

[YouSir]

I remember seeing this in Streatham at the time. The audience really reacted to it.

I also remember the film being slated from the uber-left because it took liberties with the truth and the film dared imply that it was the white man who came to the rescue...

I did find the near total passivity and lack of charactertization for any of the black characters, if there could be said to be any, a bit weird, especially when mixed with the loving up of the FBI. Excellent acting though and a decent film, just wouldn't pay much attention to it as anything more than entertaining fluff.

 

[krtek a houby]

I did find the near total passivity and lack of charactertization for any of the black characters, if there could be said to be any, a bit weird, especially when mixed with the loving up of the FBI. Excellent acting though and a decent film, just wouldn't pay much attention to it as anything more than entertaining fluff.

Entertaining yes but fluff?

Put it this way, if it got people to think about such issues of intolerance, that can only be a good thing.

 

[YouSir]

Entertaining yes but fluff?

Put it this way, if it got people to think about such issues of intolerance, that can only be a good thing.

Sure it's not just preaching to the choir? The white Southern characters weren't exactly deep either were they? Just cliches of what a Redneck Racist should be, so beyond disliking them there's not much to actually think about there. The only moments I found which really looked beyond the storytelling were the soundbites that were interspersed with the rest and even they didn't delve in too far even if they had a more honest, deeper feel to them.

 

[paulhackett]

Sure it's not just preaching to the choir? The white Southern characters weren't exactly deep either were they? Just cliches of what a Redneck Racist should be, so beyond disliking them there's not much to actually think about there. The only moments I found which really looked beyond the storytelling were the soundbites that were interspersed with the rest and even they didn't delve in too far even if they had a more honest, deeper feel to them.

For a film made in the late 80s, tackling that subject matter as 'mainstream' entertainment, I thought it did well? I think raising the issue itself was enough for the film?

 

[detective-boy]

... but satisfying to see them brought to justice, and the obstacles that were faced.

They were brought to justice by serious breaches of due process (torture, in fact ...) - what has been referred to here as "just cause corruption" - do you think that the result justifies the means?

 

[Bakunin]

They were brought to justice by serious breaches of due process (torture, in fact ...) - what has been referred to here as "just cause corruption" - do you think that the result justifies the means?

It wasn't the first time that FBI agents either bent or blatantly broke the rules either, to be honest.

I recall one associate of legendary bank robber and escape artist John Dillinger being shot by FBI agents, Eddie Green IIRC, who having been brought into hospital with a bullet lodged in his head, was refused pain relief by FBI agents until he gave them Dillinger's location. The agents even threatened to arrest the doctor when the doctor complained about their methods.

 

[Gingerman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders

 

[detective-boy]

It wasn't the first time that FBI agents either bent or blatantly broke the rules either, to be honest.

Indeed. I was just interested in what people felt about the use of illegal methods to achieve a conviction (in a case where they "knew" the suspects were guilty of something horrible) where lawful methods had simply failed (and would be expected to continue to fail).

The film neatly illustrated the moral dilemma which faces police officers all the time.

 

[Voley]

I love the scene where Gene Hackman goes into the bar singing the KKK songs.

Great movie.

 

[1927]

They were brought to justice by serious breaches of due process (torture, in fact ...) - what has been referred to here as "just cause corruption" - do you think that the result justifies the means?

I wa sthinking just this last night watching it, and wondered what the reaction would be of urbanites to these methods!

 

[Bakunin]

Indeed. I was just interested in what people felt about the use of illegal methods to achieve a conviction (in a case where they "knew" the suspects were guilty of something horrible) where lawful methods had simply failed (and would be expected to continue to fail).

The film neatly illustrated the moral dilemma which faces police officers all the time.

I've read that there are two main sorts of bent cops in the job.

The first kind are 'bent for themselves' in that they take bribes to drop cases, lose evidence, give perjured testimony either for or against a defendant, fabricate evidence and even trump up an entire case against a suspect before demanding a (usually large) bribe to make that case go away.

Then there are cops who are 'bent for the job.' They don't take bribes, lose evdience or get cases dropped, or shake people down by constructing false cases against them and demanding a bribe to drop them. They do, however, if they are convinced of a suspect's guilt, fabricate evidence that will convict the suspect, withhold from the defence evidence likely to help the suspect, attempt (by whatever means they can get away with) to force a confession and do those things based on a belief that they are right in what they're doing and are, in fact, performing a public service by doing so.

Looking at the attitudes of many FBI agents of the period, although we must bear in mind that the rules were very different and much more lax than they are now, that many FBI agents of the time could be said to fall into the second category.

To borrow an example from TV for a second Detective Sergeant Beech (from the ITV series 'The Bill') would be described as 'bent for himself' while the formidable Detective Inspector Jack Regan of the Flying Squad (from the classic ITV cop series 'The Sweeney') could perhaps be considered as sometimes being 'bent for the job.'

 

[YouSir]

McNulty, bent for the job.

But I digress. I don't think this film can raise too many questions about police tactics over such matters, too idealised a scenario where the viewer possesses omnipotence in viewing the situation and the lines between good and bad are almost comically pronounced. In reality even a policemen as convinced of his case as Defoe and Hackman are of theres wouldn't be absolutely reliable and their motivations wouldn't be absolutely defined and clear in a Hollywood manner. Extrapolating using the film as a base point doesn't work for me, you can't bring it down to any realistic sort of discussion so it stays too simplified.

 

[detective-boy]

I've read that there are two main sorts of bent cops in the job.

The first kind are 'bent for themselves' in that they take bribes to drop cases, lose evidence, give perjured testimony either for or against a defendant, fabricate evidence and even trump up an entire case against a suspect before demanding a (usually large) bribe to make that case go away.

Then there are cops who are 'bent for the job.' They don't take bribes, lose evdience or get cases dropped, or shake people down by constructing false cases against them and demanding a bribe to drop them. They do, however, if they are convinced of a suspect's guilt, fabricate evidence that will convict the suspect, withhold from the defence evidence likely to help the suspect, attempt (by whatever means they can get away with) to force a confession and do those things based on a belief that they are right in what they're doing and are, in fact, performing a public service by doing so.

Indeed there are. Numbers in second category significantly higher than those in the first (which is very small indeed in the UK). Sir Kenneth Newman referred to the second category as "just cause corruption". It is what was stopped to a very significant extent by PACE in 1984 ... with the result that the numbers of convictions plummeted.

 

[Azrael]

I don't think this film can raise too many questions about police tactics over such matters, too idealised a scenario where the viewer possesses omnipotence in viewing the situation and the lines between good and bad are almost comically pronounced.

Exactly. Police aren't omniscient. Their belief in a suspect's guilt might be wrong. That's what courts are there for.

The coppers who break the rules in a good cause clearly have better motives than men on the take, but I suspect the "ends justify means" corruption is just as corrosive in the long run. Perhaps worse, because the policeman has the approval of his own conscience. I see a slippery slope beckoning. Once you've fitted up a few out-and-out scumbags, it must be tempting to shift the goalposts a bit and frame someone lower down on the evilometer. Once you've broken the rules, it's hard to stop.

And of course, a system that tolerates rule breaking in a good cause gives cover to coppers who are in it for themselves.

It's a bugbear of mine that Hollywood tends to applaud rule breaking. People aren't reminded that rules exist for a reason. I'm pleasantly surprised on occasion when shows like The Wire and even the mainstream Cold Case show police thumping confessions out of innocent people they believe are guilty. Such scenes are, however, rare.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've read that there are two main sorts of bent cops in the job.

The first kind are 'bent for themselves' in that they take bribes to drop cases, lose evidence, give perjured testimony either for or against a defendant, fabricate evidence and even trump up an entire case against a suspect before demanding a (usually large) bribe to make that case go away.

Then there are cops who are 'bent for the job.' They don't take bribes, lose evdience or get cases dropped, or shake people down by constructing false cases against them and demanding a bribe to drop them. They do, however, if they are convinced of a suspect's guilt, fabricate evidence that will convict the suspect, withhold from the defence evidence likely to help the suspect, attempt (by whatever means they can get away with) to force a confession and do those things based on a belief that they are right in what they're doing and are, in fact, performing a public service by doing so..'

It's an assumption on my part, but I would expect that promotions, pay raises etc, are at least partly dependent on perfomance, in the police force. That being the case, the officer with lots of arrests, the detective with lots of closed files, will be viewed favourably. So by falsifying evidence etc in order to get convictions and close files, the police officer is enhancing his own chances at promotion and pay raise.

So maybe the line between bent for himself and bent for the job is blurred. Maybe bent is just bent.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, perhaps a little, but I'm sure that just like any other job in a bureaucracy, your best investment in time and effort if you wish to get promoted and a pay rise is in arse-licking the appropriate people, stepping on competitors, making sure your name is on the right reports and heard in the right committees, sticking close to the latest trends in management jargon and so on. Fitting people up would not have a very good cost-benefit ratio. In fact you'd probably be better off staying away from actual police work as much as possible.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, perhaps a little, but I'm sure that just like any other job in a bureaucracy, your best investment in time and effort if you wish to get promoted and a pay rise is in arse-licking the appropriate people, stepping on competitors, making sure your name is on the right reports and heard in the right committees, sticking close to the latest trends in management jargon and so on. Fitting people up would not have a very good cost-benefit ratio. In fact you'd probably be better off staying away from actual police work as much as possible.

Maybe; but I still have difficulty distinguishing between 'good bent' and 'bad bent' when it comes to cops.

The guys hired to enforce the rules, shouldn't be breaking the rules.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't imagine that the rules are real then

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Don't imagine that the rules are real then

They're real enough when the cops are busting you for breaking them.