It was a hot theme in postwar 40s-50s cinema due to many factors, probably because filmmakers were revisiting Neitzche's ubermensch with the hindsight of the holocaust. My fave treatments of the subject are Hitchcock's Rope (1948), Bresson's Pickpocket (1959) and of course Compulsion (1959). Compulsion gave it an original spin by first showing us the horror of amorality but suddenly in the last half making us sympathetic toward the murderers by pointing out that the death penalty is an equally flawed Neitzschian ideal--giving a judge (ubermensch) the right to kill. It ties in nicely with the scene in the beginning where Dean Stockwell alleges that Moses was above the law ("thou shalt not kill" and all that). Complex and thought provoking if you take it at that level.

So it's hard for me to group this as just a rich kid crime story; that's just the tease. Once Orson Welles shows up it goes into totally different territory, more along the lines of Fritz Lang's M or Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder - films that expose the hypocrisy of human "eye for an eye" justice. Fantastic film with exceptional performances by Orson Welles & Dean Stockwell.

@rooprect said:

It was a hot theme in postwar 40s-50s cinema due to many factors, probably because filmmakers were revisiting Neitzche's ubermensch with the hindsight of the holocaust. My fave treatments of the subject are Hitchcock's Rope (1948), Bresson's Pickpocket (1959) and of course Compulsion (1959). Compulsion gave it an original spin by first showing us the horror of amorality but suddenly in the last half making us sympathetic toward the murderers by pointing out that the death penalty is an equally flawed Neitzschian ideal--giving a judge (ubermensch) the right to kill. It ties in nicely with the scene in the beginning where Dean Stockwell alleges that Moses was above the law ("thou shalt not kill" and all that). Complex and thought provoking if you take it at that level.

So it's hard for me to group this as just a rich kid crime story; that's just the tease. Once Orson Welles shows up it goes into totally different territory, more along the lines of Fritz Lang's M or Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder - films that expose the hypocrisy of human "eye for an eye" justice. Fantastic film with exceptional performances by Orson Welles & Dean Stockwell.

I personally started to lose interest in the film once they enterted into the courtroom. Do lawyers really go on such long rants/ramblings about these philosophies? (I wouldnt know Im not a lawyer. I've always imagined a lot of the speeches lawyers are shown to give in movies and tv shows are exaggerations and are mostly misleading to what trials are actually like in real life but maybe Im wrong) It dragged a bit for me. I was personally much more interested in exploring the two leads, their relationship with each other and their relationship with the other college students. Its too bad they get caught so quickly in the film. The two leads in this film imo are really compelling characters, they did a superb job in their roles imo.

@softpillow said:

@rooprect said:

It was a hot theme in postwar 40s-50s cinema due to many factors, probably because filmmakers were revisiting Neitzche's ubermensch with the hindsight of the holocaust. My fave treatments of the subject are Hitchcock's Rope (1948), Bresson's Pickpocket (1959) and of course Compulsion (1959). Compulsion gave it an original spin by first showing us the horror of amorality but suddenly in the last half making us sympathetic toward the murderers by pointing out that the death penalty is an equally flawed Neitzschian ideal--giving a judge (ubermensch) the right to kill. It ties in nicely with the scene in the beginning where Dean Stockwell alleges that Moses was above the law ("thou shalt not kill" and all that). Complex and thought provoking if you take it at that level.

So it's hard for me to group this as just a rich kid crime story; that's just the tease. Once Orson Welles shows up it goes into totally different territory, more along the lines of Fritz Lang's M or Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder - films that expose the hypocrisy of human "eye for an eye" justice. Fantastic film with exceptional performances by Orson Welles & Dean Stockwell.

I personally started to lose interest in the film once they enterted into the courtroom. Do lawyers really go on such long rants/ramblings about these philosophies? (I wouldnt know Im not a lawyer. I've always imagined a lot of the speeches lawyers are shown to give in movies and tv shows are exaggerations and are mostly misleading to what trials are actually like in real life but maybe Im wrong) It dragged a bit for me. I was personally much more interested in exploring the two leads, their relationship with each other and their relationship with the other college students. Its too bad they get caught so quickly in the film. The two leads in this film imo are really compelling characters, they did a superb job in their roles imo.

As far as I know, real lawyers are nothing like what we see here. They're not professional writers, philosophers or actors. But it's worth noting that I was introduced to this film by a law student friend who said it was required watching for a class.

Compulsion isn't about legalities or crime as much as it's about dissecting Nietzsche's flawed philosophies that led to the Holocaust. He presented the idea of ubermensch being above the law in the late 1880s and it was a very popular & charged subject throughout the entire first half of the 20th century. But it hit a brick wall when Hitler showed how wrong it is when any humans deem themselves above the law.

With that in mind, it wouldn't be relevant to explore the murderers' minds because they're here to present the Neitzschian archetype, and that remains static. Notice how up to the end Judd is unrepentant, arrogant and cold. He's like a textbook; his character has no dynamic arc. So with that approach, a lengthy courtroom drama makes sense because the movie isn't showing any dynamics of character. The crime is incidental. The aftermath is what's important. We get 2 sides of a discussion, and it's up to us to decide who's right (or in this case, to see the flaws in Judd's philosophy).

In terms of reality, this movie is way more insightful & analytical than anything we'd ever see in a courtroom. The real justice system doesn't have the patience or intelligence to get into philosophy or any sort of enlightenment. Real courtrooms are about manipulating truth in order to win the law's favor. Anatomy of a Murder is a great example of that. But Compulsion isn't about law. Much like Fritz Lang's M it almost doesn't matter what the judges decide. The point of the film is to show that no one, neither the murderer nor the judge, has the right to kill based on righteous beliefs.

@rooprect said:

@softpillow said:

@rooprect said:

As far as I know, real lawyers are nothing like what we see here. They're not professional writers, philosophers or actors. But it's worth noting that I was introduced to this film by a law student friend who said it was required watching for a class.

Compulsion isn't about legalities or crime as much as it's about dissecting Nietzsche's flawed philosophies that led to the Holocaust. He presented the idea of ubermensch being above the law in the late 1880s and it was a very popular & charged subject throughout the entire first half of the 20th century. But it hit a brick wall when Hitler showed how wrong it is when any humans deem themselves above the law.

With that in mind, it wouldn't be relevant to explore the murderers' minds because they're here to present the Neitzschian archetype, and that remains static. Notice how up to the end Judd is unrepentant, arrogant and cold. He's like a textbook; his character has no dynamic arc. So with that approach, a lengthy courtroom drama makes sense because the movie isn't showing any dynamics of character. The crime is incidental. The aftermath is what's important. We get 2 sides of a discussion, and it's up to us to decide who's right (or in this case, to see the flaws in Judd's philosophy).

In terms of reality, this movie is way more insightful & analytical than anything we'd ever see in a courtroom. The real justice system doesn't have the patience or intelligence to get into philosophy or any sort of enlightenment. Real courtrooms are about manipulating truth in order to win the law's favor. Anatomy of a Murder is a great example of that. But Compulsion isn't about law. Much like Fritz Lang's M it almost doesn't matter what the judges decide. The point of the film is to show that no one, neither the murderer nor the judge, has the right to kill based on righteous beliefs.

Regardless what the context or what the purpose of the film is supposed to be, the first half of the movie prior to the courtroom is still in my opinion a far superior ;), more interesting and more entertaining part of the movie. I disagree, Judd isnt at all shown to be unrepentant arrogant and cold (at least not completely as you describe). Actually you say up to the end he is all those three things, when I think the opposite is true. In the end that lawyer asks him that he will ask himself if God didnt make him drop those glasses, who did? Judd is unable to respond and seems taken aback and shaken the idea that perhaps there is a God that is judging him for his actions, or perhaps his subconscious guilt actually made him intentionally drop those glasses. That reaction from Judd shows yet another crack in his facade, and that he may not be so unrepentantly arrogant and cold as he has been.

He is given a dynamic arc. Judd throughout the film has inner conflicts about the morality of his actions- even if the darker side of his personality for the most part wins out, he is definitely not a one-sided stoic character. He's nervous, anxious, guilty, attention/approval seeking, lonely and even self pitying, and at times desperate, and also I think depressed and sad and angry at the world. Two very clear and obvious examples of what Im talking about is the beggining of the movie where he tries to stop and convince Artie not to kill the man on the road, and the other is when he breaks down when he is unable to commit to r*ping Ruth.

To me the courtroom scene is simply long-winded and a little one-sided. Its simply not as fascinating as the dynamics between Judd, Artie and their friends. I guess to me, its just very difficult to have an impactful message delivered in a movie in such a heavy handed and simplistic way as was the speech given by that lawyer. It just comes across like a preachy lecture. Obviously the message is valuable, but that doesnt mean the movie necessarily delivers it well imo. What I found more captivating was the message of the character of Ruth, who believes that someone like Judd deserves a certain amount of pity- I cant quiet find the words to describe the message exactly but anyway imo her character was much more impactful to me in delivering a message about people's humanity- of the capability of people being both good and evil and about being able to come to terms with the fact that that is the truth of human nature (something like that lol).

I could be wrong, but I feel like theres a good chance the purpose of this film isnt just to explore that stuff you explain about philosophy and post war stuff. As far as Im aware the real life murder this movie is based off of is one that became very infamous and so I would have imagined there would have been a great deal of interest from the public to understand why the murders happened (in a similar way that people still are interested in this topic today with modern day crimes). I think this film also serves to explore the psyche and psychological state of people who commit heinous crimes. So I do think it is relevant for the film to explore the two leads, their relationship and their lives.

@softpillow said:

@rooprect said:

@softpillow said:

@rooprect said:

As far as I know, real lawyers are nothing like what we see here. They're not professional writers, philosophers or actors. But it's worth noting that I was introduced to this film by a law student friend who said it was required watching for a class.

Compulsion isn't about legalities or crime as much as it's about dissecting Nietzsche's flawed philosophies that led to the Holocaust. He presented the idea of ubermensch being above the law in the late 1880s and it was a very popular & charged subject throughout the entire first half of the 20th century. But it hit a brick wall when Hitler showed how wrong it is when any humans deem themselves above the law.

With that in mind, it wouldn't be relevant to explore the murderers' minds because they're here to present the Neitzschian archetype, and that remains static. Notice how up to the end Judd is unrepentant, arrogant and cold. He's like a textbook; his character has no dynamic arc. So with that approach, a lengthy courtroom drama makes sense because the movie isn't showing any dynamics of character. The crime is incidental. The aftermath is what's important. We get 2 sides of a discussion, and it's up to us to decide who's right (or in this case, to see the flaws in Judd's philosophy).

In terms of reality, this movie is way more insightful & analytical than anything we'd ever see in a courtroom. The real justice system doesn't have the patience or intelligence to get into philosophy or any sort of enlightenment. Real courtrooms are about manipulating truth in order to win the law's favor. Anatomy of a Murder is a great example of that. But Compulsion isn't about law. Much like Fritz Lang's M it almost doesn't matter what the judges decide. The point of the film is to show that no one, neither the murderer nor the judge, has the right to kill based on righteous beliefs.

Regardless what the context or what the purpose of the film is supposed to be, the first half of the movie prior to the courtroom is still in my opinion a far superior ;), more interesting and more entertaining part of the movie. I disagree, Judd isnt at all shown to be unrepentant arrogant and cold (at least not completely as you describe). Actually you say up to the end he is all those three things, when I think the opposite is true. In the end that lawyer asks him that he will ask himself if God didnt make him drop those glasses, who did? Judd is unable to respond and seems taken aback and shaken the idea that perhaps there is a God that is judging him for his actions, or perhaps his subconscious guilt actually made him intentionally drop those glasses. That reaction from Judd shows yet another crack in his facade, and that he may not be so unrepentantly arrogant and cold as he has been.

He is given a dynamic arc. Judd throughout the film has inner conflicts about the morality of his actions- even if the darker side of his personality for the most part wins out, he is definitely not a one-sided stoic character. He's nervous, anxious, guilty, attention/approval seeking, lonely and even self pitying, and at times desperate, and also I think depressed and sad and angry at the world. Two very clear and obvious examples of what Im talking about is the beggining of the movie where he tries to stop and convince Artie not to kill the man on the road, and the other is when he breaks down when he is unable to commit to r*ping Ruth.

To me the courtroom scene is simply long-winded and a little one-sided. Its simply not as fascinating as the dynamics between Judd, Artie and their friends. I guess to me, its just very difficult to have an impactful message delivered in a movie in such a heavy handed and simplistic way as was the speech given by that lawyer. It just comes across like a preachy lecture. Obviously the message is valuable, but that doesnt mean the movie necessarily delivers it well imo. What I found more captivating was the message of the character of Ruth, who believes that someone like Judd deserves a certain amount of pity- I cant quiet find the words to describe the message exactly but anyway imo her character was much more impactful to me in delivering a message about people's humanity- of the capability of people being both good and evil and about being able to come to terms with the fact that that is the truth of human nature (something like that lol).

I could be wrong, but I feel like theres a good chance the purpose of this film isnt just to explore that stuff you explain about philosophy and post war stuff. As far as Im aware the real life murder this movie is based off of is one that became very infamous and so I would have imagined there would have been a great deal of interest from the public to understand why the murders happened (in a similar way that people still are interested in this topic today). I also think it serves to explore the psyche and psychological state of people who commit heinous crimes. So I do think it is relevant for the film to explore the two leads, their relationship and their lives.

If you're more interested in the characters themselves you might want to check out Bresson's Pickpocket which has a similar theme but focuses more on the murderer's inner morality. On that note it's more in line with Tolstoy's Crime and Punishment which came 20 years before Neitzsche. It presents the idea that no human is truly amoral but must answer to an inner conscience eventually.

Here I think the film's core statement is very different. If we take Orson Welles's closing monologue as the film's core statement, it's really saying that murderers will always exist--we can't do anything about that, but if we kill them then we're no different. Remember what he says at the end... he wonders if the death penalty will really dissuade other murderers from killing? No, he implies. There will always be bad eggs. What he (and the film) is saying is that the law should rise above the bloodlust. Hanging the murderers won't accomplish anything; it'll just perpetuate the cycle of righteous killing.

With that in mind I'll still go to my grave saying Judd didn't have any significant change of heart. If he had suddenly become a good guy, it would've detracted from the main point: whether a judge has the right to kill the bad guy, regardless of how bad he is. Judd's look of surprise at the end is definitely indicative of some surprise, but that's up to the viewer to interpret. If we take his words, to the very end he's still acting arrogant, privileged and superior. Notice how his whole reaction to 'winning' isn't humility or gratitude toward his lawyer; the first thing he says is, rudely, that the entire court process was for nothing because he'll end up in prison anyway. He obviously wanted to get away completely free with no punishment at all! Does that sound like someone who has evolved as a human being?

I totally get how you'd find the first half more interesting, and I'm sure most audiences would too. It's where all the action and suspense is, whereas the last half is just a discussion of what happened. In that sense it's a lot like 2001: A Space Odyssey where the interesting part is the battle between HAL and Bowman, and people generally dismiss or even hate the final act of the film where Kubrick gives us his abstract statement on what we've watched.

It's a matter of preference, whether you value a movie based on how interesting it is or whether you want to know what the filmmaker is saying beneath the story. With me it depends on what mood I'm in. But lately I've been finding that the filmmaker's message is what gives me something to think about.

@rooprect said:

If we take his words, to the very end he's still acting arrogant, privileged and superior. Notice how his whole reaction to 'winning' isn't humility or gratitude toward his lawyer; the first thing he says is, rudely, that the entire court process was for nothing because he'll end up in prison anyway. He obviously wanted to get away completely free with no punishment at all! Does that sound like someone who has evolved as a human being?

...Judd didn't win? He was sentenced to life in prison. So Im not sure you understand the movie. And what about everything else I said about how Judd is a complex character throughout the entire movie- not just his reaction in the final moment of the film? Its possible life in prison was the worst outcome Judd was expecting. I never said Judd was an evolved being, but that he is complex (not as simple as you describe him). Yes, he obviously wants to get away with murder for the most part- most people would! (sure, some people would be noble enough to genuinely want to be punished) but most people even if they know what they did is wrong would still want to have a life and not want to face something like life in prison?? I didnt say he was an angel or a good person, but a complex person.

I'm pretty sure what Judd and Arthur wanted was to avoid punishment or reduce the severity of their punishments. Their lawyer wasnt able to accomplish that- and actually didnt really even attempt to fight for what Judd and Arthur wanted. And so of course they werent thankful to their lawyer- its not surprising they were mad at him. Their lawyer basically went behind their back from Judd and Arthur's perspective- which has some validity tbh. It's obvious Judd and Arthur did not see eye to eye with their lawyer's strategy and/or intentions when it comes to their legal defense; their lawyers main goal was to avoid the death penalty, but to Judd and Arthur the death penalty isnt even better than life in prison (I believer Arthur even says its worse than the death penalty)- so its pretty obvious why they werent grateful and instead mad at the outcome!

It's a matter of preference, whether you value a movie based on how interesting it is or whether you want to know what the filmmaker is saying beneath the story. With me it depends on what mood I'm in. But lately I've been finding that the filmmaker's message is what gives me something to think about.

My issue isnt that Im not interested in what the filmmaker is saying, my issue is that imo the filmmaker did a bad job of saying what they wanted to say- at least with what they wanted to say with the second half of the movie (the courtroom scenes).

@rooprect said:

With that in mind I'll still go to my grave saying Judd didn't have any significant change of heart. If he had suddenly become a good guy, it would've detracted from the main point: whether a judge has the right to kill the bad guy, regardless of how bad he is.

I disagree it would simply be a slightly different discussion. Do we have the right to play God and make ultimate end of the road decisions in taking people's life, based on evil actions they committed, is it relevant whether or not that person has redeeming qualities or may become a better person or do good in the future- perhaps it isnt (which would be valid), do we ever truly know what's in a person's heart and mind and in their future- and is that truly relevant on the severity of their punishments? What should the goal of justice be- is it to deter and to bring a sense of balance into the world- is it a matter of principle, or is it a matter of what is most beneficial to a society- and can we or do we know what that may be?

In other words, no I think the conversation about morality would be just as meaningful if you view Judd as a more complex character. Perhaps it would be more meaningful, even- because it brings up more complexities that are the common objections and common areas of disscussion when it comes to justice and the death penalty. Which is why I think the first half of the movie (or the parts of the movie outside of the courtroom scene- particularly the lawyer's monologue) was more interesting, thats part of what I think the movie does well, is portraying Judd as a character with a level of complexity.

You're talking personal opinions and insights, which is fine but irresoluble. That's why I'm talking cinema. To fully understand this film and its message you really need to watch these classic films released the same year as Compulsion or earlier, because they create a cinematic discussion, playing off each other. Then all the references I made above will make sense.

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Pickpocket (1959)

Rope (1948)

M (1931)

All focus on the the Tolstoyian/Neitzscheian question of the amoral criminal/ubermensch--very topical in the early 20th century because of Nazis. The films have similar plots but varying statements. In context you'll see that Compulsion's statement is much like M but without any implied pity for the remorseless killer: the death penalty is the ultimate horror that we should focus on.

@rooprect said:

You're talking personal opinions and insights, which is fine but irresoluble. That's why I'm talking cinema. To fully understand this film and its message you really need to watch these classic films released the same year as Compulsion or earlier, because they create a cinematic discussion, playing off each other. Then all the references I made above will make sense.

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Pickpocket (1959)

Rope (1948)

M (1931)

What? I dont need to watch other films to know what happened in a film. Ive already seen Rope, which is imo a superior :) film (in my top 10 films of all time). What part of Judd being given a life sentence requires me watching another movie to understand that that wasnt what his character wanted?? What possible context I could gain from watching another movie could make me think that being charged with life in prison was a "win" for Judd?? If you disagree with that, imo thats just your failure to understand basic psychology and behaviour of people. Do you think people generally view "life in prison" as a win? Do you not believe that it is some people's opinion that a life in prison is a worse punishment than a death penality?

And what part of a character trying to stop his friend from commiting murder, and struggling to commit a crime, requires me to watch another movie to understand that that isnt actually what happened?

And if watching other movies would actually get me to understand these things, you could just in the spirit of a discussion just use your own words to describe a way in which watching those movies would change my mind.

It doesnt really matter if in the context of other films you have determined what this film is trying say as there is a difference between what the film is supposed to say and what an analysis of what the content of the movie itself says on its own (which is what Im talking about)- what the film is able to say on its own. Theyre two different topics- related, but separate things. And Im talking about the latter.

Also... no youre not (just) talking about cinema. Youre talking about your personal opinions and insights (which is most of what I have engaged with you in anyway). An example:

"With that in mind I'll still go to my grave saying Judd didn't have any significant change of heart. If he had suddenly become a good guy, it would've detracted from the main point: whether a judge has the right to kill the bad guy, regardless of how bad he is. Judd's look of surprise at the end is definitely indicative of some surprise, but that's up to the viewer to interpret. If we take his words, to the very end he's still acting arrogant, privileged and superior. Notice how his whole reaction to 'winning' isn't humility or gratitude toward his lawyer; the first thing he says is, rudely, that the entire court process was for nothing because he'll end up in prison anyway. He obviously wanted to get away completely free with no punishment at all! Does that sound like someone who has evolved as a human being?"

And honestly, looking back at your references to other films. You dont really make any compelling arguments about how other films affect the content and meaning of this movie. You just kind of randomly mention other films around the same era that are kinda similar/share themes to this film.