Exclusive“Castle on the Hudson” (1940): First Prison Film
Some people think that all movies from the Golden Era of Hollywood were very tame and even juvenile because of the moral restrictions imposed by the Motion Picture Production Code. However, a deeper look into classic movies from this period reveals that they were incredibly diverse, deep, and dramatic. In fact, Code films are often more powerful than different takes on the same story made during other time periods. A great example of this is “Castle on the Hudson” from 1940, an intense Warner Bros. film about a man who goes to Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Based on the memoirs of a longtime warden at the prison, this dramatic film was almost a shot-for-shot remake of the Pre-Code hit “20,000 Years in Sing Sing” (1932). However, the 1940 movie, which stars John Garfield, Pat O’Brien, and Burgess Meredith, managed to heighten the emotion and power of the story with very subtle changes. Although largely forgotten today, this movie is an emotional and stirring masterpiece which will appeal to anyone who appreciates good cinema.
#movies #talkshow #classicalmusic #Americantraditions #Hollywood #theater #cinema #entertainment #celebrity #famous #actors #drama #arts #performer #traditional
Still me, oh still this sweet thief,
Fought and tried, is still my youth.
And the cares of life still waiting time,
Still me thief, for life is brief
And full of theft and strife.
And then with fertile step,
Death comes and steals time and life.
Oh sweet thief, I'll break beneath
If you dare steal the breath.
Steal my lips, steal my heart,
Steal my cheeks, steal, oh steal my breath.
And make I before,
Just steal her breath, oh steal,
Fought and tried, is still my youth.
Have they reached a verdict?
They found him guilty.
Five to thirty years.
What am I gonna do without him?
Oh honey, don't cry.
I know it hurts now, but
Maybe you're better off without him.
Better off?
Oh no, there's nobody in the world for me but Tommy.
Oh, the power a mug like that can have over a swell girl like you.
Why, it's been nothing but trouble ever since you met him.
And even now that he's being sent up, you still can't get him out of your system.
You don't understand. You couldn't.
You don't know what it's like to love a man so much that you don't care what he is.
Oh, I understand all right.
But I'm not gonna let any man make a chump out of me.
So what are you gonna do for the next five to thirty years?
I'll wait, no matter how long it takes.
I'll be there when he gets out of that castle on the Hudson.
I'm Tiffany Brannan.
I'm Rebecca Brannan.
Welcome to Real Thoughts on Cinema.
There are a lot of movies about prison.
And most of them, I would say, were made in the latter half of the 20th century.
The really famous ones, like The Green Mile or The Shawshank Redemption.
There were, of course, movies from the golden era of Hollywood that were about crime.
But they usually didn't focus specifically on prison.
That's true. And the ones that did focus on prisons or reform schools
usually really showed a lot of corruption and undue brutality in the system
and really called for prison reform.
One exception to this is a movie which was based on the memoirs of a real warden at Sing Sing.
Castle on the Hudson from 1940.
The film follows this one criminal, Tommy Gordon, a real tough guy
who can't be swayed from his criminal path even by his sweet girl, Kay Manners.
When he gets caught and sent up to Sing Sing on a five to thirty year sentence
he and his lawyer think that he'll be a big shot there too.
But the warden will have none of it and throws the lawyer out of his office when he tries to bribe him.
Soon Tommy realizes that there's only one big shot at the prison and that's the warden
and he begins to show a softer side.
When Kay is injured seriously in a car accident
the warden allows Tommy to go free for one day to see her
promising that he'll come back that night.
But when he learns that the lawyer was responsible for the accident
will Tommy choose to do the right thing?
This is a Warner Brothers film.
Jack Warner was in charge of production.
It was directed by Anatole Litvak who also co-produced the film.
It was based on the book 20,000 Years in Sing Sing
and the screenplay was very similar to that of the film of the same name from 1932.
This movie stars John Garfield, Anne Sheridan and Pat O'Brien.
This film is a great study in what is known as the pre-code era versus the code era.
The original film 20,000 Years in Sing Sing was made in 1932
which was right in the middle of what is called the pre-code era.
In 1930 the Motion Picture Production Code
commonly misnomered the Hays Code
was instated under the jurisdiction of the SRC, the Studio Relations Committee.
But from 1930 to 1934 movies got less moral instead of more
and because the code was just horribly mismanaged
they really didn't have the power to enforce it.
But in 1934 the Production Code Administration or PCA
was put in place under the leadership of Joseph I. Breen.
So from 1934 to 1954 during his tenure the code was properly enforced.
The remake, Castle in the Hudson, was made in 1940
right there in that wonderful code era.
And so it's just such a fascinating study as historians of this era
comparing these two films.
There are a lot of movies which were pre-code films
and then were remade as code films
but these two films stand out in the fact
that it's almost a line-for-line remake.
Sometimes they would change the setting
they would change movies a lot when they remade them as code films
and oftentimes they'd wait longer
but this was only eight years later, same studio
there's even one or two of the same actors
looks like the same set in many cases.
Some same footage actually in certain montage sequences.
So it's a very similar remake yet from a completely different era
and of course a very different feel because they had
Spencer Tracy was replaced with John Garfield
and Betty Davis was replaced with Ann Sheridan
but there's an intangible quality
that I think really is the secret to this whole thing.
Just looking at it not from a code standpoint
the most noticeable change, I actually saw the remake first
and then watched the original
is that there's a probably 10...
between 10 and 15 minute opening sequence
showing the events leading up to Tommy's arrest
and his sentencing
which are not in the original film
it starts with him on the train to Sing Sing.
Yet in spite of adding that and a couple of other scenes
they somehow managed to have it be almost exactly the same runtime
which is amazing.
I think the pacing is just a bit faster
and they cut some extraneous details
but looking at it from the self-regulation or the code standpoint
it's fascinating, little changes
one word, a certain phrasing
or in some places adding something makes a big difference
and so much is delivery
the way the lines are said
it's amazing comparing two different actors
in two different settings
and especially with the moral field of Hollywood
being so different
how just showing the character of Tommy particularly
gradually softening a little more
really starting to see the good side of that character
and even though the words are the same
the delivery just makes all the difference
in showing a different side of the character
it's much more complex
and that's not a reflection on the actors
I mean Spencer Tracy is a fine actor
but just I think the way it was directed
that it was so important to give the character
more of an arc, honestly.
And Anatole Litvak was a very artistic director
now Michael Curtiz directed the first one
he was an amazing director
he directed Casablanca, some of the most famous films
but I think even he would have directed it very differently
if he had made the 1940 film
than he did in the 1932.
I think Anatole Litvak employs a bit more
subtlety in some places
not to say that Michael Curtiz lacked subtlety
but even in a great film like Casablanca
I feel like it's still a little bit more
heavy-handed symbolism
maybe a bit more heavy-handed
and I really think this film was handled
with such dexterity
it's him very gently
and it's really dealing with some
very very difficult topics
and they're handled excellently.
It's interesting that it comes from this
this huge book
20,000 Years in Sing Sing
to just focus on this one character
yes
a criminal
he's not an innocent man sent to prison
no
he is a criminal
and the book itself
would be basically impossible
to actually adapt into a film
because it's so anecdotal
and so much of it is just
his introspection on the workings of law
it actually isn't all about his time at Sing Sing
he starts by talking about
he ran this reform school at one point
which was a little bit like a boys town
which was like the prison without walls
just kind of being a mentor to these boys
and other prisons he worked at
and then he recounts
probably dozens if not hundreds of stories
of different prisoners
but he was actually a technical advisor
on the first film
and I understand he was very happy with it
and he said everything in it
was based on true events
and just I sort of skimmed over it
I read part of the book
and I could definitely see similarities
they really captured the spirit
of what he was trying to say
and he was very much anti-capital punishment
but he sent
I can't remember the number now
but so many men to their death
during his time as warden
he was warden of Sing Sing for 21 years
and he had to oversee their execution
in the electric chair
right
and he I think was the long
had the longest term as a warden
there of anyone up until that point
when he accepted the job
11 months was the standard length of time
that a warden could stay there
they just they couldn't handle it
and he really found a way to
both relate to the men
and really try to help them
but still stay removed enough
that he could do his job
because it's not an easy one
yes
I think the film
Castle on the Hudson
starts stronger because we see
what led to that point
we see the crime
we've met these other characters
of his lawyer and his girl
we get to know a little bit about him
and who he is
before he gets to Sing Sing
so that presents an interesting background
but to see how the film
could be so different
from its original
yet so similar
to feel that difference
and this is a Breen era film
versus a pre-code film
but most of the changes are so subtle
how did they do that
and I think that it's really
apropos to be talking about
this movie
about this great warden
played by Pat O'Brien
who was this Irish American
who incidentally looked a lot
like Joseph Breen
and was a good friend of his
because they both were
Irish Americans
so I think that
although again
the lines are so similar
Pat O'Brien's interpretation
of the warden
is so much stronger
than the original actor
who wasn't that noteworthy
of an actor
yes I found him a bit
forgettable in the part
he did the job
he seemed more like
just a character part
not like the central character
one of the most important roles
so Pat O'Brien brought
such subtlety to that
and you see in the way
he handles these men
he doesn't do that much
but the subtle things he does
makes them change
by having faith in them
and that's what Mr. Breen did
he didn't have to tell them
to shot for shot
do it differently
after having been
the warden of Hollywood
for six years
he had gained the trust
of these criminals
of the filmmakers
so that they didn't think of him
as this boss
or as this censor
this outsider
so true
he was like a friend
they saw he was a good guy
just like this criminal
Tommy
begins to see
that the warden
is a good guy
he's like how did you
ever become a copper
you ain't a bad guy
he's shocked to realize
that he might be
a decent person
decent whatever
the definition of decent is
sort of criminal
because he has such
a kind of hatred
for society
and the law
just because of having
a tough upbringing
very brilliant
it's the first scene
with Tommy and the warden
the dialogue is basically
the same
as in the original
and then they added
this little part
where he tells Tommy
what his life story is
he can figure out
like your parents
died when you were young
and you got knocked
around the east side
and worked your way up
until you were the lead man
and that's your goal
to be the lead man
and you can tell
from the way Tommy
is responding so defensively
he's absolutely right
and just adding that
it gives you
more of an insight
into why
why is this character
who he is
when referring to
his criminal background
in the original
they do mention
one juvenile charge
but we don't know
what happened to his parents
we don't know how young
he was exactly
so now we've set up
and John Garfield
was younger
when he played the role
that Spencer Tracy was
so automatically
the protagonist
of the film
could be someone
with whom he sympathized
especially when he's
a leading Maya man
type of actor
so you have to
be able to
allow the audience
to sympathize
if they want to
yet not with his crime
or to think
that what he did
was right
exactly
you have to
maybe feel sorry
that he ended up
in this bad situation
but realize
that he
brought himself there
and then of course
in direct
contrast to that
is
the other
prisoner
who's a really
important character
played by Burgess Meredith
in the remake
yes
he is an educated man
he tells the men
giving them
these intelligence tests
I have one of these
keys from a
college fraternity too
and
you can tell
he's so intelligent
and they never tell you
what he did
why he's there
how long he's
how long his sentence is
and you see
he has this wife
and he's so gentle
and sweet with her
she seems like
a beautiful woman
she's going to
have a baby
and it's kind of
astounding
it's like how did you
end up in prison
I feel like he's
probably a forager
or something
yeah
yeah it's such
a brilliant
juxtaposition
to
here's the fellow
who didn't really
get a chance in life
so that's why
he's here
but this man
had every advantage
but then
it's not
always people
from just
the kind of
criminal classes
but then when it comes
to the prison break
that both men
have planned together
the smart one
ends up going
through with it
and it costs him
his life
whereas the one
who's a thug
ends up
being more honest
now it's partly
out of superstition
because he thinks
bad things always
happen to him
on Saturday
and it happens
to be a Saturday
but it also
you think maybe
there's a little
bit of a change
in him
and the warden
sees that
and I think
that's what makes
him have the trust
in him to let him
go out on parole
by himself
for the day
going out on his
honor
it's always
very important
to look at
the actors
especially when
you're looking
at a remake
it's really
interesting to see
who are the
actors comparison
and this was
just the kind
of role that
John Garfield
was just kind
of born to play
it was kind
of a joke
around Hollywood
how much
he was almost
always playing
the same part
during his tenure
at Warner Brothers
but it's appropriate
because he grew up
on the east side
of New York
he was part
of childhood gangs
he said on the streets
he learned all
the toughness
and meanness
that is possible
for kids to acquire
he wanted to drop
out of school
so his father
and stepmother
sent him to this
school for sort
of problem children
and the principal
saw that he had
this ability
to like imitate
actors and he
had a little bit
of a tendency
to stutter
so he suggested
he take some
acting classes
and he ended up
doing this debate
this city wide
debate that was
sponsored by
the New York
Times which
he actually took
second place
and he ended up
going to an
acting school
it was called
the lab
they called
American Laboratory
Theater
this theater group
and Maria
Ouspenskaya
the famous
Russian actress
was part of it
and he started
to take acting
classes there
and paint scenery
and all sorts of
things and that
was when he
really started
as an actor
and he became
very sort of
good friends
with this playwright
Clifford Odets
who said he
was sort of
his discovery
he gave him
his first big
part and then
he said he
would write
a play for him
which was
Golden Boy
which ended up
going to a more
experienced actor
and after that
he got a contract
at Warner Brothers
and was a huge
success in his
first film
Four Daughters
and after that
he was changed
from a featured
player to a
starring player
and this was
pretty early on
in his career
only his third
year in Hollywood
and I think
what makes this
film feel so
real in a lot
of ways and I
have to say
I felt the
character was
much more
organic
coming from him
than Spencer
Tracy's character
it felt a little
maybe it's just
because I know
Spencer Tracy
more the parts
he played
during the
code era
he was like
the warden
character
or the priest
or usually a
nice guy
and so seeing
him playing
this very dark
character
it didn't
quite read
to me
it felt like
he was trying
to be a tough
guy
John Garfield
didn't have to
try he always
played a thug
like that
he had that
quality
he was
trying to be
himself
I think it's
easier for him
to find the
subtlety of
then if he
is showing
a soft
side
that's
more
going against
his nature
so this
character
feels so
real I
think because
of that
and then
I think this is
a very nuanced
role for
Anne Sheridan
who was
known as
the oomph girl
she was a
sweater girl
but here
she's not just
a glamour girl
or something
like that
she's deeper
than that
she's more
sensitive
she's a woman
who's really
willing to
risk her
own safety
for the
man she
loves
they built
up her
character
quite a bit
she has a
great deal more
screen time
and it's just
a more
complex and
nuanced character
than the
original and I
think it's a
really great
performance by
Anne Sheridan
and sort of
going back to
the differences
between the
original and
the code
remake
one of the
things that
struck me
the most
was how
immoral their
relationship
seemed to be
in the
original
nothing really
happens except
there's more
kissing
as a matter
of fact
we see less
of her like
you said
but most of
the time she's
on screen
they're kissing
it's something
in slight
difference of
the lines
the way
they're kissing
use of him
describing her
as hot
it's so weird
to hear a
man saying
a woman's
hot in a
1930s film
but that was
an expression in
the early 30s
that the code
kind of put
out of business
for a while
before it would
come back
even something as
subtle as when
he goes to
see her and
she's injured
in the remake
she's sort of
propped up in
the bed and
sort of
lounging
you're not
thinking about
the fact
oh she's
in bed
but in the
original she's
very much
lying there
and he's
kissing her
and all of a
sudden he's
thinking oh
she's in
bed
the poor woman
is almost
dead
stop kissing
her
it's very
clear that
Spencer Tracy's
version of
that character
only cares about
one thing
with that
woman
it's very
carnal
and as a
result the
ending feels
kind of
hard to believe
he doesn't
seem
it's not as
easy to believe
he'd be as
noble whereas
you believe
more when
the later
Tommy says
she's the only
thing I ever
had
and he seems
more respectful
of her
there's much
less kissing
between them
their relationship
is kind of
one of the
bright points
of the film
you see
that one
sort of
soft spot he
has
and their
relationship
gets better
at first he's
just being
a jerk
you can tell
he likes her
and he says
I kind of
like you
but you can
see once
they've been
separated
they actually
have a very
deep bond
and you don't
really know
how that
started
how they
met
why this
nice girl
is in love
with this
guy
I don't know
why
it just
happens
that way
sometimes
you talked
about
pat o'brien
he was
one of those
actors who
wasn't quite
a leading
man and
wasn't quite
a supporting
actor
he's like
in opera
the baritone
character
sometimes he
did play
the lead
or more
likely he'd
be one of
the two men
who's going
for the leading
lady and
sometimes doesn't
get her
or he'd be
the priest
character
the warden
the policeman
very strong
actor and one
of the key
warner brothers
players
and in this
film he
shows so much
subtlety and
nuance
he really
makes you feel
who that
warden is
yes that's
something I've
always noticed
about pat o'brien
like you said he
played a character
very similar to this
I think in a film
with james kegney
angels with dirty
faces in that case
he was a priest
but how
he can
display so much
emotion
without doing
a lot with his
facial expression
yeah he would have
kind of a more
calm expression
and I think that
is very
apropos for this
character
yes
because he has
to kind of
close himself
off or he
couldn't handle
this job
but you see
underneath
he feels it
like he's
grown kind of
close in a way
to every one of
these men so
it's a struggle
there is a bit of
an internal struggle
there and without
that many dialogue
changes he
brings out so much
more in the character
it's very
powerful in the
way it's filmed
with the lighting
and
you know you
could do a
even more in
depth comparison
of the two films
but basically
it's a powerful
story and
the original is
actually very
restrained and
very clean for
a pre-code film
but it shows you
so much in terms
of the
colour and the
quality
the style
and it's a
dark topic
it's like a
prison film
it's all about
some guy going
to prison
for all those
years
it doesn't sound
like the sort
of thing that
would be a good
subject for
anything other
than a really
dark film
but it's very
moving
it's very
emotional
it will surprise
you in that
regard
you don't have
to be a big
crime film
fan to enjoy
this movie
there isn't
really that much
crime in it
it's about the
inner workings
it's about people
it's a very
human story
how the
decisions you
make influence
what happens to
your life
and it is a
very short
film
it's only like
an hour and
fifteen minutes
and when it's
over you will
not believe it
was that short
that was two
hours worth of
movie they got
in there
but without it
ever feeling
rushed
the pacing is
beautiful
we usually
try not to
get too much
into spoilers
but I feel like
to really talk
about this
film you have
to talk about
the ending
because the
ending is so
important
especially
considering it
as a code
film
right
it's very
interesting we've
both read this
book that was
written by Mr.
Breen's
secretary
Miss Martin
and in one
part of it
when she's
kind of going
more into
depth of
what each
rule of the
code kind
of entails
because sort
of like our
American
constitution
it's not just
a list of
rules
there's
there's a
give and
take in
there
and she says
in there
a miscarriage
of justice
shall not be
represented
so a man
could go to
prison for a
crime he
didn't commit
but eventually
the true culprit
needs to be
found and
punished
so when
Tommy goes
to see
Kay
the lawyer
comes as
well and
they get
into a
fight
the
picked up
a chair
he's about
to kill him
so she
shoots him
and Tommy
naturally is
suspected of
crime because
right before he
dies the
lawyer tells
the policeman
it was Gordon
and even
though he
knows it'll
cost him
his life
Tommy's true
to his
word and
turns himself
back into
the warden
like he promised
he would
and as a
result he
is sentenced
to the chair
for killing
this man
even though
Kay is
trying her
darndest
to learn
she fights
it all the
way up to
the Supreme
Court
trying to
say I
did it
I killed
him and
no one
will believe
her
and you're
waiting for
a call
from the
governor
something's
gonna happen
but the
film ends
with him
walking the
last mile
so it's a
very difficult
topic to
have in a
code film
because you've
got this
person who
dies for a
crime he
didn't commit
and technically
she killed
someone and
faces no
repercussions
for that
but even
with just
slight changes
it's handled
a little
differently
in the remake
like the
reason he goes
back to face
his death
you see in the
original he's
gonna take this
boat out of the
country and all
the newspapers are
calling for the
resignation of
the warden and
you see he's
thinking about it
and then all
of a sudden
Tommy just
shows up
you don't know
why he made
that decision
but in the
remake you see
him on this
boat and he
sees the
newspaper talking
about how the
warden is being
held responsible
and that is what
changes him to
go back he
realizes this
man risked
everything to
let me have
this freedom
and if I
didn't kill
this fellow but
if I leave
I'll have
broken my
word and
made this
innocent man who
tried to help
me face serious
consequences
and very
meaningfully he
said before he
left even if it
means the chair
I'll come back
and he's true
to his word
because that's
exactly what it
means in this
case and the
last scene
K comes to
see him and
it's amazing it's
almost exactly
the same dialogue
they made a
couple of
tweaks which
made a big
difference but
just the mood
of the scene is
so different
like just
something else
I know we were
talking about
they kiss a lot
but he just
holds her for a
really long moment
before she leaves
and it's so
spiritual the
aspect of the
scene it feels
like they're
kind of beyond
that and he's
trying to release
her so it
seems like if
he really wanted
to maybe he
could have tried
harder to say
she did it
but he has
ultimately made
the decision that
he wants to
make the sacrifice
he says this is
a chance for me
to do something
decent with my
life you can't
take that away
from me and he
wants her to go
and find a good
man and get
married and have
children and she
asks him to marry
her and he says
you don't want to
carry me with you
to the other side
of the grave then
mark you for life
and he's just so
calm and
resigned and
sort of placid
for the first
time in that
scene and
talking about
the code and
self-regulation
there was a very
strong Catholic
influence because
Mr. Breen was
a very staunch
Catholic and
there's kind of a
joke like oh to
add what they
called come sing
moral values put a
priest in and there
was a character of
a priest in the
original but it's
amazing just Tommy's
tone when talking to
him he's just a
little bit more
respectful to him
and the most
notable thing is
the last scene
even though he
told him oh I
don't want any of
that pearly gate
stuff and he's
reading him the
last rites in the
original you see
him with the
crucifix like
reading the
Catholic last
rites but then in
Castle in the Hudson
you just see his
shadow on the wall
and he's just
reading a passage
from the Bible and
rather than just
saying I still have
an hour just get
out of here will
you Tommy says
that's enough
father I don't
need anymore but
just walk along
with me will you
and so you sense
that his spirit has
been touched
yes and he's
finding some
peace I think
something that
really calls back
to the book is
how the warden
seems more
disturbed about
walking that mile
than Tommy does
because his hand
is shaking as he
tries to light his
cigarette for him
and Tommy sees
that and he just
kind of looks at
him and he asks
the warden like
ready and then
just that last
moment the warden
puts his hand on
his shoulder so you
see how they've
formed this bond
sort of and I
think the warden
feels responsible in
a way because he
let him out if he
kept him in prison
like really he was
supposed to that
would have happened
in five years
instead of facing
yes he would
just be serving
sentence because
he'd become a
model prisoner
yeah but then
that the ending
of the last shot
when you see
Tommy's in the
middle with the
smoke rising
very artistically
and the warden
on one side
and the priest
on the other
side walking
out it's just
the ultimate
code Hollywood
drama right
symbolism and
sort of saying
between the law
and the church
if you will
between what's
legally right and
what's morally
right he's finally
right with both of
those things by
sacrificing his life
when he isn't really
guilty for this
because he knows
he's done a lot of
bad things in his
life and like you
said it's it is
so deep and
and moving and
spiritual on so
many levels you
know I watched
the movie first
and then I
showed it to you
and our mother
and a lot of
times I sort of
like crime films
and those are a
little bit darker
and a lot of
times it's just
like why do you
like these dark
movies and I
thought I don't I
don't know if
mom was gonna like
this and then we
got to the last
scene I looked
over she was
crying and I
don't know why I
felt personally
proud of it but
I just felt like
they did something
right it got beyond
just being a crime
film or being a
prison film it's
gotten so much
into these deeper
emotions it's a
testament to how
they could cross
genres but find
this human cord
to be struck in
all elements even
in darker topics
one of the
funnier scenes
because there
always are some
light moments
especially in
Warner Brothers
films they always
have a little humor
is when K comes
to visit him in
prison the first
time she looks
really beautiful
and he's like oh
why do you come
here looking
beautiful like that
do you want to
torture me so
then the second
time she looks
kind of doughty
and he says she
looks like she's
gonna smash up
bars with an
axe referring to
a carry nation
the temperance
league leader
fashion was always
a very important
part of films
my outfit is
inspired by the
one which K wears
the first time she
visits Tommy in
prison it's a dress
in this very
similar style to
this with large
jewelry light
colored gloves and
a hat with a
bunch of feathers
on it my outfit
is based on the
second costume
which K wears
when she visits
Tommy in prison
it's a tailored
black suit
with a white
blouse heavy
black gloves and
simpler black hat
and sensible
black shoes
coming out of
watching this film
what would you say
was your number
one sort of
takeaway from it
what was the
impression it
left on you
I think the
impression was
it seemed like a
very realistic
view of prison
yet a very
human element
and it is
amazing to see
the change in
this one person
and his
noble act
of the
end which you
never would
expect he'd
have he's just
such a
troublemaker
when he first
goes in he
won't put on
his uniform he's
throwing shoes
at people yet
in less than
an hour he
turns into this
noble person
because someone
showed him a
little kindness
and not just
anyone because
you know his
girl had been
kind to him
and I think
he had some
criminal friends
but a person
he expected to
be an enemy
someone in
authority he
resented authority
he didn't have a
good relationship
with his parents
because they were
both dead and
maybe they
weren't good
parents before
they died
he's never
had anyone
probably in
reform school
or anywhere else
who showed him
any kind of
care yet he
quickly grows to
respect the
warden and
his attempts to
like make him
want to work
succeed he
after being in
his cell for
three months he
wants to get
out there and
start working so
he manages to
give him a work
ethic and a
sense of honor
so he really
acts like a
father to him
so I think it's
a great example
of how someone
in authority can
be a good help
even to someone
who seems like
he's beyond help
like Tommy
and I think
that anyone who's
interested in
seeing classic
films might enjoy
this movie because
it's not too long
and it's very
dramatic so it
goes against those
like movies were
just light and fun
back then idea
if you like
dramatic films this
will be impressively
dramatic and
intelligent
because we both
feel there's such
a deep level of
humanity in
Castle in the
Hudson I really
was struck by I
felt even with it
being almost a
line for line
remake I watched
the original it
seemed like that
was more about
the prison and
this is one story
in it just with
the ending the
very last scene
the very last shot
not being him
walking us last
mile but showing
this same shot as
at the beginning of
all the prisoners
and saying like
this little floating
numbers of like
they're different
the years and
sentences which
adds up to 20,000
years and saying
thing but this one
is so much about
this one man
showing the
prisoner experience
just through his
his story and
as you say his
very important
connection to the
warden you can
watch this film on
Amazon Prime video
and on some other
streaming services to
rent or purchase
it's also available
on DVD and it's
in a very clear
black and white
copy many male
viewers in particular
might think that
they wouldn't like
classic films because
I think of them all
as being happily
ever after stories
or musicals and
to think a darker
film like this would
suit them more
however many
classic musicals
particularly ones
that were written
for film rather
than for the stage
will go against
many people's
ideas of what
movie musicals are
like and they
might not be
join us next time
as we talk about
just such a film
which features very
strong masculine
characters who also
sing and dance
thank you for
watching
goodbye