Ransom! (1956)

User Rating:

6.6/10   

Director:

Alex Segal

Writers:

Cyril Hume (written by) and
Richard Maibaum (written by)

Release Date:

27 August 1956 (Sweden)

Genre:

Drama

Plot:

The Stannard's son is kidnapped for ransom. Plot centres around Ford's (the father) efforts to find him.

Plot Keywords:

Ransom | Suspense | Kidnapping | Based On TV Movie | Beautiful Woman

Cast

Glenn Ford	...	David G. 'Dave' Stannard
Donna Reed	...	Edith Stannard
Leslie Nielsen	...	Charlie Telfer
Juano Hernandez	...	Jesse Chapman aka Uncle Jesse
Robert Keith	...	Police Chief Jim Backett
Richard Gaines	...	Langly
Mabel Albertson	...	Mrs. Partridge
Alexander Scourby	...	Dr. Paul Y. Gorman
Bobby Clark	...	Andy Stannard
Ainslie Pryor	...	Al Stannard
Lori March	...	Elizabeth Stannard
Robert Burton	...	Sheriff Jake Kessing
Juanita Moore	...	Shirley Lorraine
Mary Alan Hokanson	...	Nurse
Robert Stevenson	...	Fred Benson (as Robert Forrest)

Also Known As:

Fearful Decision (USA)

Runtime:

109 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (Western Electric Sound System)

Certification:

Argentina:13 | Australia:PG | Finland:K-16 | Sweden:15 | USA:Approved (certificate #17828)

Company:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)

Trivia:

Leslie Nielsen's first film.

Quotes:

David G. Stannard: Now I see why the unemployed have so many children.

Movie Connections:

Version of "The United States Steel Hour: Fearful Decision (#2.18)" (1955)

Disturbing for the wrong reasons, but still entertaining.

There certainly seem to be very mixed perceptions of this film posted here by the various reviewers. It is perhaps the film's greatest strength that it does manage to entertain despite some serious flaws. Indeed, my family and I enjoy this film very much, perhaps because there is so much wrong with it that generates discussion.

For starters, I'll address "realism". The depiction of the Stannard family is no more realistic than the Cleavers, the Nelsons, or any other exceedingly unbelievably perfect white upper-middle-class family that would be depicted on 1950's television; that is to say, there is no such animal as this, then or now. At the beginning of the story, the Stannard's grade-school age boy has been going about the house destroying the furniture to salvage wood for his backyard clubhouse, and for this he receives nothing more than a lighthearted and very amused reprimand from his father. This is realism? Had the story continued on dealing only with the perfect family life of the perfect Stannards, it would have been intolerable.

But, as you know, their boy is kidnapped. Unlike Ron Howard's rather inferior remake, this original screenplay never attempts to tell us who kidnapped the child or what their motivation might have been. Rather than a plot hole, this serves to increase the anxiety we share with the family, as these are questions they have no answers to either. And it's really rather irrelevant. The Stannard's live quite well, even by unrealistic 1950's white TV family standards, the potential money alone is all the motivation required for a kidnapping.

It is at this point in the film that we crash headlong into its biggest flaw. The treatment of Donna Reed's character, Mrs. Stannard, is deplorable, even in a time period when women were routinely portrayed as little more than drooling idiots. Seemingly greater than the concern for the kidnapped child is the concern that his mother might suffer an unchecked display of emotion. Indeed, the doctor has been summoned with his narcotics and she is promptly doped up even before the police have arrived! The only excuse offered for this disturbingly abusive misogynistic behavior is that "she carried that child in her body" and the father did not. Good Lord! As Mrs. Stannard remains in a drugged stupor for the remainder of the film, from this point on her character becomes little more than an annoying distraction. This portrayal of women as childish morons who cannot handle their own emotions is both shockingly sexist and insulting. Why is it that almost no one would pass up an opportunity to denigrate the portrayal of African Americans or Hispanics in old films, yet this treatment of women rarely rates a mention? I certainly hope this is not realism, as I should hope the family's seeming inability to bar unwanted tabloid vultures from the privacy of their own home is not considered "realism" either. The police were on hand, they could have handily ejected such unwelcome nuisances at any time with a mere request from the one remaining coherent parent.

Once we get past some of this freakishly surrealistic activity, the meat of the story does tackle some intriguing questions, and does make some attempt to deal with the family's anguish as well as the father's bold decision not to cave into the fear inflicted upon them by the kidnappers. Ultimately, it is these thought provoking larger issues that give the film it's value, as the Stannard's particular kidnapping seems to be suddenly resolved with no explanation whatsoever.

This is an entertaining film, relatively safe family viewing (if you don't mind explaining to your kids why they shot mommy full of dope at the drop of a hat), and should certainly generate some lively discussion.