A film so heavily cast with hard hitting screen warping actors that it bends the audiences sense of dramatic plausibility, 'Bad day at Black Rock' is so well made and so well cast, that the dramatic holes are not visible. I don't mean plot holes as such, although there are decisions and actions made by some characters which can't stand serious scrutiny, but dramatic holes: effectively this film is so dramatically unlikely that it has to explain to it's audience what the crux of the issue is because the audience, being only human, wouldn't otherwise be able to believe it.
The direction, the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the sound mix, and the production design are so good that they make convincing salves for this issue of unlikely suspension of disbelief, but ultimately the film has to spell it out because an ordinary audience wouldn't believe it.
The initial problem is that the tiny town is bottled up with the terrible secret of murder: half the townsfolk are implicated and the other half are dragged into the conspiracy of silence because the killing faction is led by the local boss man/rich man/big man who controls the town lawman for starters.
Spencer Tracey's stranger on a mission pricks both factions until their hidden ills explode into the open by his arrival in town looking for the murder victim.
The films character drama, it's suspense, tension, jeopardy and it's storyline and narrative beat, plus its theme of ethics against racism and bigotry all run from the interaction of these two factors: the baleful silently divided town of Black Rock, and Spencer Tracey's newcomer/intruder.
But this isn't believable. It isn't sunk by plot holes but rather by dramatic holes. This place really isn't real, it's so far from creditably real, that it all has to be explained so that the audience gets the dramatic sense of the film.
Therefore characters behave as if they've been living in complete isolation from anyone and absolutely everyone else ever since the date of the murder which divided the town and incriminated half with murder and the other half with complicity in covering it up.
It also seems unlikely now, and I'm sure it must have to audiences in 1955, that such a town would be bothered by the murder of a newcomer Japanese-American farmer after Pearl Harbour to the necessary extent required by the films plot. Why would it tax almost everyone's conscience so much? They didn't even know him enough to know he had a son. He was a nobody, newcomer farmer, in the middle of nowhere, Japanese-American immediately after Pearl Harbour. The filmmakers obviously understand that this isn't dramatically believable and they have to use expositional dialogue to carry the piece by sheer filmmaking willpower. The shortness of the runtime probably helps in this too: it doesn't leave scope for any off piste wanderings by the audience because it's in, out, wam, bam; every second of every scene counts, so don't deselect watching and engage thinking too to much.
This film is therefore undramatic unless you are willingly donating that suspension of disbelief for it's incredible set up.
The fact that it is so well made makes this donation easier. Far easier. The casting of such reputable actors lends credence that such characters might be in that town. Less known actors and the trick may not have worked.
I guardedly loan the film my belief and as such I have been rewarded with three different and enjoyable viewings of a memorable film. It helps that I am a fan of almost the entire credited cast.
I rate at 7/10 and I recommend to fans of social issue films, problem picture purists, and to fans of the director and cast. It is a mightily well made film but with such high undramatic potential due to audience unbelievability it had to be really well made in order to bring across it's ethical theme. And it still has to paint it's message in wide capital letters before the audience will believe it's set up.
The direction, the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the sound mix, and the production design are so good that they make convincing salves for this issue of unlikely suspension of disbelief, but ultimately the film has to spell it out because an ordinary audience wouldn't believe it.
The initial problem is that the tiny town is bottled up with the terrible secret of murder: half the townsfolk are implicated and the other half are dragged into the conspiracy of silence because the killing faction is led by the local boss man/rich man/big man who controls the town lawman for starters.
Spencer Tracey's stranger on a mission pricks both factions until their hidden ills explode into the open by his arrival in town looking for the murder victim.
The films character drama, it's suspense, tension, jeopardy and it's storyline and narrative beat, plus its theme of ethics against racism and bigotry all run from the interaction of these two factors: the baleful silently divided town of Black Rock, and Spencer Tracey's newcomer/intruder.
But this isn't believable. It isn't sunk by plot holes but rather by dramatic holes. This place really isn't real, it's so far from creditably real, that it all has to be explained so that the audience gets the dramatic sense of the film.
Therefore characters behave as if they've been living in complete isolation from anyone and absolutely everyone else ever since the date of the murder which divided the town and incriminated half with murder and the other half with complicity in covering it up.
It also seems unlikely now, and I'm sure it must have to audiences in 1955, that such a town would be bothered by the murder of a newcomer Japanese-American farmer after Pearl Harbour to the necessary extent required by the films plot. Why would it tax almost everyone's conscience so much? They didn't even know him enough to know he had a son. He was a nobody, newcomer farmer, in the middle of nowhere, Japanese-American immediately after Pearl Harbour. The filmmakers obviously understand that this isn't dramatically believable and they have to use expositional dialogue to carry the piece by sheer filmmaking willpower. The shortness of the runtime probably helps in this too: it doesn't leave scope for any off piste wanderings by the audience because it's in, out, wam, bam; every second of every scene counts, so don't deselect watching and engage thinking too to much.
This film is therefore undramatic unless you are willingly donating that suspension of disbelief for it's incredible set up.
The fact that it is so well made makes this donation easier. Far easier. The casting of such reputable actors lends credence that such characters might be in that town. Less known actors and the trick may not have worked.
I guardedly loan the film my belief and as such I have been rewarded with three different and enjoyable viewings of a memorable film. It helps that I am a fan of almost the entire credited cast.
I rate at 7/10 and I recommend to fans of social issue films, problem picture purists, and to fans of the director and cast. It is a mightily well made film but with such high undramatic potential due to audience unbelievability it had to be really well made in order to bring across it's ethical theme. And it still has to paint it's message in wide capital letters before the audience will believe it's set up.
Tell Your Friends