May 7, 2012

18 The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936)

***
Country: US
Director: John Ford


After President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre in 1865, Booth was pursued by Union soldiers and shot twelve days later. Eight people were later charged with conspiring with or assisting Booth. Found guilty by a military tribunal, four of these were hanged, one received a six-year prison sentence, and three more were sentenced to life in prison. Among the last group was a Maryland physician, Dr. Samuel Mudd, who had treated the broken leg Booth received when he jumped from Lincoln's box to the stage after shooting the president. The Prisoner of Shark Island is the story of Dr. Mudd as told by director John Ford based on an original screenplay by his longtime collaborator, Nunnally Johnson.

In the film, Mudd (Warner Baxter) is portrayed as an innocent victim of circumstance unjustly accused and railroaded into a hasty conviction. When we first meet him, he is a contented country doctor living on a Maryland farm with his wife (Gloria Stuart), young daughter, and feisty father-in-law. When he treats Booth, he has no idea who Booth is or even that Lincoln is dead. After soldiers pursuing Booth find that Mudd has treated the fugitive, they arrest him as a conspirator and take him back to Washington for trial. From the first, he is mistreated and his family kept uninformed about what is happening to him. The tribunal is depicted as a kangaroo court which ignores the basic tenets of criminal justice, such as the rules of evidence, the presumption of innocence, and even the right to defend oneself.

Mudd is convicted not on the evidence, but because of his Southern background and his pro-Confederacy political beliefs during the Civil War. Transferred to a federal prison on Dry Tortugas, an island in the Florida Keys, Mudd is systematically bullied and abused. Chief among his tormentors is a sadistic officer named Rankin, played by a feral-looking John Carradine in the first of twelve films he would make with John Ford. Before finally being released and reunited with his family several years later, Mudd endures among other ordeals an abortive escape attempt, solitary confinement in an underground pit, and a yellow fever epidemic.

John Ford is a director who inspires both admiration and loathing in film critics. "A storyteller and poet of images," says Andrew Sarris of Ford. "The glorification of Ford . . . as an artist should not conceal the fact that his message is trite, callous, and evasive," counters David Thomson. One could easily find enough evidence in The Prisoner of Shark Island to support either of these views.

Like most film directors who got their start directing silents (he directed dozens of silent films between 1917 and 1929), Ford had a highly refined sense of the visual, and The Prisoner of Shark Island contains many of the imaginative visual touches that make a Ford film special. Working with the cinematographer Bert Glennon, who shot several of Ford's films including Stagecoach, Ford gets in a number of darkly lit passages that are highly atmospheric. The dim gaslight of interiors and the cavern-like corridors and medieval gloom of the prison create scenes which in style are almost expressionistic. The trial sequence, with the hooded prisoners roughly dragged into the courtroom and the disheveled Dr. Mudd making an impassioned plea for his innocence, is particularly memorable. So is the long, expertly staged, and nearly silent nighttime action sequence when Mudd attempts to escape, with Baxter doing many of his own stunts.

"He could dispose of a plot quickly and efficiently when he had to, but he could always spare a shot or two for a mood that belonged to him and not to the plot," writes Sarris about Ford, and you can find plenty of examples here. The most startling single shot in the film, coming right after Booth shoots Lincoln, is one of those mood shots Sarris describes. Ford lingers on a close-up of the wounded president seen through a lace curtain being comforted by his wife, then suddenly pulls focus so that it's the curtain in the foreground, not Lincoln's face behind it, that briefly comes into focus before the scene fades out. You can sense both the life receding from the dying president and Ford's reticence to intrude on such an intimate moment.


So what's not to like about The Prisoner of Shark Island? Well, the usual things that bother me about many of Ford's movies. For one thing, there are the misplaced attempts at humor, thankfully limited mostly to Mudd's father-in-law, an incongruously comical character who comes across as a cornball Kentucky colonel. Then there's the Ford sentimentality, expressed here through Mudd's idealized family. It's not as maudlin as in some of Ford's work, but in this context the sentimentality seems as jarringly antiquated as something from a D. W. Griffith silent of twenty years earlier. Then in his attempts to be even-handed about the South in the Civil War, Ford makes Southerners seem almost victims of oppression in the style of Margaret Mitchell. Finally, as in too many of Ford's films set in the nineteenth-century South, African Americans are portrayed in a manner that comes precariously close to Uncle Tom stereotyping, not as offensive as in some of Ford's films, but close enough that this viewer was not entirely comfortable with it.

In spite of its mixture of strengths and flaws, The Prisoner of Shark Island has one undeniable asset, the heartfelt performance of Warner Baxter as Dr. Mudd. This is an actor I'm not all that familiar with. I have seen him give a handful of noteworthy performances in the early 1930s—as a mob lawyer in the pre-Code mystery Penthouse (1933) costarring Myrna Loy as a prostitute who helps him solve a murder, as the harried director in the Warners backstage musical 42nd Street (1933), and, also with Loy, as a lovable racehorse-obsessed scoundrel thumbing his nose at rich snobs in the other screwball comedy Frank Capra made in 1934, Broadway Bill. But his work here outdoes those other performances. He avoids the melodramatics of suffering or the self-pity of victimhood that actors so often indulge in with roles of this nature. Baxter's modulation of his facial expressions alone as Mudd undergoes horrendous physical and psychological anguish is a marvel of expressive control. Equally impressive is the way Baxter quietly conveys the nobility of Mudd's belief in his duty as a doctor and his unyielding determination to be proven innocent and be reunited with his family. The main reason I watched this movie was to see if Baxter is as good as I'd heard. He is.

A final observation I have about The Prisoner of Shark Island is that aside from his conviction and imprisonment, practically nothing about Dr. Mudd in the movie  has any historical reality, an example of what David Thomson condemns as Ford's "adherence to legend at the expense of facts." I have no blanket objection to filmmakers playing loose with the facts to create a good tale—filmmakers have been doing this for as long as there have been movies—so long as they acknowledge that their films are fictional and not historical, the "based on a true story" disclaimer seen so often nowadays. In the case of The Prisoner of Shark Island, I would not have known about the creative liberties taken in the film if I hadn't made a point of finding out how much truth there was to Dr. Mudd's story as told here. Still, if you accept the film as a largely fictional work set in the context of historical events, you can appreciate it as Ford's version of one of the great subjects of cinema—the plight of a person wrongfully accused of a crime and his heroic efforts to deal with injustice—made especially compelling by Warner Baxter's expertise at subtly drawing us into Dr. Mudd's emotions.

You might also like:

18 comments:

  1. R.D., your wonderful description of the camera movement in the Ford Theater sequence is one of the many reasons I enjoy visiting your site. I learn so much from you.

    John Carradine made a superb villain, as seen here and in a similar role in another Ford movie, "The Hurricane." If he hadn't appeared in so many schlock horror movies late in his career, I think his standing may be higher in the pantheon of screen villainy.

    I understand where you are coming from in your views on this film, and in Ford in particular, but I think it is these contrasting viewpoints that make Ford so compelling. Some times a film's themes are at odds with each other within the same film ("Fort Apache", for example) or from film to film.

    But it is the imagery in Shark Island which has haunted me for years. That and Baxter's performance, which is one of the most underrated in the Ford canon.

    I don't want to indulge in gossip, but I've always wondered why Ford didn't use him again. We know Ford has his stock company of actors - both lead and supporting - that he used throughout his career. I can't believe he was displeased with Baxter's performance here, so why didn't Ford use him again? Maybe a Ford scholar knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin, I've always had ambivalent feelings about Ford. He is undeniably a great screen storyteller and a tremendously talented visual artist. With some of his films I have no problem with the subject or his treatment of it. With others I have reservations. I've never liked his cornball sense of humor, and his sentimentality can at times be quite cloying. Also, I've always been uncomfortable with his depiction of African Americans. I find his scenes with Stepin Fethcit unbearable.

      Some of his films avoid these problems; in some it's so minimal that it doesn't overly bother me. I personally find Thomson's views on Ford quite doctrinaire, but I understand what he means even if he way overstates his case. I think that some of the objections I've read don't distinguish between the views of a character and Ford's own views. This can be a real dilemma when an opinionated director is dealing with an opinionated character. How do you distinguish between the thoughts of the two? I think it's important to realize that sometimes Ford's just reporting objectively what a certain character thought, not using the character as a mouthpiece for his own opinions.

      A good example of this is "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" and the famous legend-fact dichotomy. Many condemn Ford for advocating mythology over historical accuracy in the film. But I never got the impression he was doing this, but simply reporting that it's true that over time legend replaces fact in the popular imagination. In that movie his depiction of the press preferring a good narrative over historical accuracy seems prescient considering the way media today select and distort facts for a good "story."

      I actually wondered the same thing about Ford and Baxter. Baxter was one of those actors of the early 30s who made several pictures a year (and an early Oscar winner), yet by the end of the decade his career had tailed off considerably. One role in a Ford film I think he would have been perfect for was the George Bancroft part (the sheriff who rides "shotgun") in "Stagecoach." Not a lead role but a good character part that might have led to more such assignments.

      Delete
    2. R.D. and Kevin, just to say that I've just looked at the background to the making of this film in a couple of biographies of Ford. It seems there was trouble on set surrounding Baxter's determination to play the part of Mudd with a Southern accent which he felt was vital to the role - I won't go into chapter and verse, but, according to the biographies, this eventually led to a big bust-up between Zanuck and Ford. Baxter was forced to drop the accent and did a fantastic job with his own voice, I'd say, but the whole saga probably damaged the working relationship between him and Ford.

      Delete
  2. I recently read "Manhunt: The Twelve Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer" by James L. Swanson and to say the least, Ford and his screenwriters play loose with the facts. When they say 'based on a true story" that may be the only fact in the entire film. The story happened but not necessarily like it appears on screen. That said, I always liked this film but like you, I find Ford problematic. His sentimentality sticks in my gut like milk gone sour and there is a bit of racism in some of his films though that just may be a product of the times. I definitely agree about Warren Baxter, he gives a sensitive performance that draws much sympathy.

    Like Kevin, I love you description of the assassination and Ford's handling of it and your mention of some of Ford's "visual touches" are also what make this film so interesting. Glad to see this film get some attention

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, actually the film doesn't say anything one way or the other about its authenticity. I checked this out only because I know that films of the time routinely adjusted the facts to fit the narrative without the disclaimers we see today. It's so easy just to accept that what we're seeing is true that I understand why people can get upset over this and why there is greater pressure today for historical accuracy. It was easy to verify that only the most basic outlines of this film are factual. But the story IS expertly told, there IS clearly a very artistic sense of the visual at work here, and Baxter DOES deliver a sincere, understated performance that compares well with the best of the time.

      Delete
  3. I agree with all your points in your excellent post on Ford and on this film, particularly about Baxter's performance, which he seems to pull out of a deeply anguished part of his psyche. One thing I like about Ford's 30s films is his sense of the pastoral, how he captures a way of living that he associates with the rural and with nature - movies like Prisoner of Shark Island or Steamboat 'Round the Bend can give a sense of timelessness and yet of longing for something lost in their depiction of a past way of American life.

    Like you, I find myself conflicted about Ford's work, especially his later movies. His late-40s Cavalry trilogy is magnificent; yet I start wincing at the heavy-handed 'Irish' humor (there are only so many times you can watch Victor McLaglen swigging a drink); movies like Two Rode Together or The Searchers contain long, unbelievably bad stretches of self-indulgent cornball humor or sometimes even look as if done on automatic pilot. But then there'll be such gorgeously lyrical passages as the ballroom sequences from Fort Apache or Ben Johnson's horse ride in She Wore A Yellow Ribbon or just about all of My Darling Clementine, and I can forgive Ford anything. He's an endlessly fascinating, puzzling, frustrating, and rewarding artist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GOM, I could have written your comments myself, so closely do they mirror my own feelings about Ford. Along with many films that contain mixed blessings, he did make several films that I like unreservedly. I would count among these many of his Westerns--"Stagecoach," "My Darling Clementine" (my two favorite Westerns), the first two films of the Cavalry trilogy, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"-- "The Grapes of Wrath," "They Were Expendable," and I recall being very impressed with "The Informer" although it's been many years since I saw it. "The Searchers" comes close but for me is compromised by its broad and weirdly anomalous attempts at humor. I can't think of another director of such clearly prodigious talent--whatever his shortcomings, they're not artistic or technical--that I have such mixed feelings about.

      Delete
  4. R.D., so glad to read your piece on this film, which I remember really liking, especially Warner Baxter's performance. I wasn't all that worried about it not being true to historical events - as you say towards the end of your review, "you can appreciate it as Ford's version of one of the great subjects of cinema — the plight of a person wrongfully accused of a crime and his heroic efforts to deal with injustice". I do find some other aspects of Ford's work hard to take at times, in particular the heavy-handed humour at times, but, again as you say, that is low-key in this film.

    On Warner Baxter, he's an actor I'd like to know more about - he made almost 100 films, but, sadly, many of them are now lost or unavailable. There doesn't seem to be a biography of him, either. He had health problems, including severe arthritis in his later years, and had a nervous breakdown in the early 1940s, but 1936 seems to have been the peak of his career - from what I've managed to read about him, he was the highest-paid actor in Hollywood that year, and he made six films in all. I've seen three of them, this one, Hawks' 'The Road to Glory' and Wellman's 'The Robin Hood of El Dorado', and he gives fine performances in all of them. But it is also notable that all three are harrowing roles.

    I've just read an article which was published under his byline in 1939 (I only found this online in German, which I can just about read), which is a very intense piece about how actors must devote themselves to their art like a monk in medieval times, and reach deep inside themselves to make a part real - it ends, roughly translated "You will not be able to create the reflection of shadows and lights in a film unless you have a flame burning inside you." The article doesn't mention Ford, but Baxter is slightly dismissive about Westerns in general (it could be by a studio ghost writer but he would have had to approve it, one assumes!) Also the imdb says he was said to have a fear of horses - but also I think his box office appeal dropped off after the late 1930s, as he hit 50 and his handsome looks started to fade. But anyway, sorry to go off at a tangent here... I should probably try to find out more about Baxter and maybe do a full posting about him at my blog, and translate that article if I can't find an English version!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judy, thanks for your thoughtful and informative comments. You are actually one of those who inspired me finally to take a look at this film when you recently named Baxter's performance the best of 1936 by an actor, against some formidable competition. I liked him in the three other films I named in the post, but I wasn't prepared for the subtlety and power of his performance here. I found his dismissal of Westerns interesting, since the film he won that Oscar for was a Western, "In Old Arizona." I haven't seen it, but I've read that his performance is stilted and stereotyped (he played a Mexican bandit). Of the many films he made, a lot of them do seem to be lost, as are so many of the early 30s. Others have the reputation of being stinkers, so if I do run across him in other films, I'll be very selective about which I watch. Haven't seen any of his Crime Doctor series of B-movies from the 40s but they might be worth a look.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, R.D - I'm flattered that you took notice of my vote. I haven't seen 'In Old Arizona' as yet - though Baxter actually mentions that film in the article and says he tried to play the character as if he was Hamlet, so I'm sorry to hear it is said to be stilted and stereotyped! He does also play a Mexican bandit in 'The Robin Hood of El Dorado', and also has to play a character 20 years younger than he was in the early scenes, but I think he really overcomes the miscasting with the power of his performance in that too. However, 'The Prisoner of Shark Island' is the best of the handful of his films that I've seen. I've heard the Crime Doctor films are supposed to be pretty good, but haven't ever seen them either.

      Delete
  5. RD, I've only seen this once and I found it a bit plodding. You are right about Baxter being quite good in it, though. I'm a fan of John Ford, so I'll ignore all the things you said about him for which I disagree. Ah, but I don't recall reading in your post this one thing: the saying My/Your name is mud(d) comes from this very Dr. Mudd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kim, Ford's one of those directors who divide viewers into two camps, and I'd say that--typically for me, I suppose--I'm somewhere in the middle. Those auteur critics like Andrew Sarris who cite him as a rare example of the complete filmmaker working in the Hollywood studio system are right, I think. He does put his personal stamp on his work, and that gives each film and all the films in his filmography a unity you don't find in less personal directors. But with that always comes a greater risk of people reacting negatively than in the case of a director with a less personal style who doesn't have a unique tone or thematic interest that carries over from film to film.

      I do respect Ford as an artist and like quite a few of his films a great deal. He is in my directors' pantheon and several of his movies are in my Hall of Fame (and several more come close).

      Delete
  6. R.D., I haven't seen "The Prisoner of Shark Island," but I enjoyed your account of it and found your comments on John Ford's work perceptive and very interesting. I came a bit late to appreciation of Ford most likely because when I was young I had an impression of him as an old-line director whose work was sentimental (even somewhat reactionary) – things that put me off then. I came around eventually (and thankfully) though some ambivalence remains for the same reasons you mention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eve, I came late to an appreciation of Ford also, partly because although I knew of his reputation among auteurist film scholars, I didn't see many of his films until the last few years. It was really "Stagecoach" that caused me to take a closer look at his work.

      I mentioned in the post how I thought his experience making silent movies gave him a strong sense of the importance of visuals in telling a story on film. But I think this might also be partly responsible for what many of us perceive as a certain lack of subtlety in his films. The addition of dialogue made possible a degree of nuance that wouldn't have worked in silent film, where character and situation had to be conveyed in broad strokes. This tendency to obviousness is something that stayed with him and can make certain things about his films seen simplistic or even trite. But when everything comes together, as it does in his best work, he's one of the greats of American film.

      Delete
  7. Very much enjoyed reading about this film (which I haven't seen), especially because of your even-handed approach to writing about Ford: respecting his skill as a director while acknowledging your personal reservations concerning his style.
    I have seen very few of John Ford's films, but your in-depth analysis of "The Prisoner of Shark Island" has inspired me to seek this one out on future TCM schedules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, thank you for your comment. I tried to give a fair idea of the film so that those who haven't seen it can judge how they might respond to its particular strengths and weaknesses as I saw them and predict whether it's worth watching. That's the way I read reviews of films I haven't seen--for the particulars more than the general opinion.

      Delete
  8. Wonderful historical and thematic analysis R.D. of a Ford film that has both greatly impressed some and derided others. I am glad you mentioned David Thomson in the discussion, as his bizarre disdain for Ford (and Kubrick for that matter) has never failed to perplex me, not only for the almost trite dismissals, but in the divergence of taste. But every major director has a dissenter somewhere, and Thomson has always been on Ford's tail. Baxter turns in an impressive performance, and the film is beautifully crafted and mounted. The big problem of course as you note is the matter of historical accuracy. Outside of the few irrefutable essentials the film is a major fabrication, which may not mean all that much for some, but it cheapens the drama that made this one of history's most unforgettable episodes. I don't consider this remotely among Ford's greatest films, but neither do I see it as negligible as others do. As always you have written with sterling authority and great insight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam, thanks for your most welcome comments. I'd forgotten how posts about Ford films invariably lead to a discussion of Ford as a director, and I sure found it a stimulating experience to frame responses to all the thoughtful comments left by readers of the post. Such intelligent comments tend to focus my own thoughts wonderfully! I suppose that in a way it's something in Ford's favor that most serious film fans are familiar with his work and have formed an opinion about him. This wouldn't be the case with a lesser or less distinctive director so argues for his importance in the history of cinema.

      As for this film, I've seen less palatable films by Ford but also films of his that for me are indisputable masterpieces. Like you I see this one as falling somewhere between those two extremes. But the things about it that are strong--Ford's visual style, the pull of its subject, and Baxter's impressive embodiment of the main character--are very good indeed.

      Delete