IMDb user comments for
Compulsion (1959) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

32 comments in total

---

30 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
Murder and Dean Stockwell's Eyes, 27 April 2007

Author: M. J Arocena from New Zealand

Seeing "Compulsion" again after a very long time, it amazed me how well I remembered it. In fact I remembered every tiny little turn in Dean Stockwell's eyes. He is superb in the part of the young semi genius with a weakness for the shallow Bradford Dillman. The Leopold and Loeb case was the base for this thrilling Richard Fleischer film. It won acting awards for Stockwell, Dillman and Orson Welles at the Cannes Film Festival but with the benefit of hindsight, Dean Stockwell emerges as the winner against the famous test of time. Dillman seems a little bit too everything. Welles is great fun to watch and E G Marshall is terrific as the man determined to unmask the "powder poofs". Stockwell fainting at the trial, something that could have been so over the top, is in fact, shattering. The Leopold and Loeb story was also the base for Hitchcock's "Rope" and the wonderful Tom Kalin's "Swoon" Another version was rumored in 1991, directed by Martin Donovan with River Phoenix in the Stockwell part.

---

33 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Orson Welles and Leopold and Loeb, 2 September 2004
Author: theowinthrop from United States

In 1924 Nathan Leopold and his friend/lover Richard Loeb were two wealthy young Chicagoans, from Jewish American families, who were extremely well educated. Both were believers in the theories (somewhat twisted) of Friedrich Nietzche regarding the idea of the superman. They believed that supermen could regard certain laws as being only meant for "little people", not supermen. One thing they felt they could ignore was the criminal code...and this included murder. They decided to commit a perfect crime for the thrill of it. They would kidnap and kill a child, demand a large ransom, and leave a trail of clues that would befuddle the police. To do this they did do some things that showed careful planning (like stealing a typewriter so they could send untraceable letters). Finally they kidnapped a cousin of Leopold, Bobby Franks (age 14), killed him in their car, mutilated the body with acid and knives, and hid him in a deserted park culvert. Unfortunately for these two geniuses, Leopold dropped a pair of eyeglasses at the site where Bobby was deposited. It was the eyeglasses that led the police to Leopold and then Loeb, and the two supermen were fairly fast in caving in and confessing. The criminal historian, Jonathan Goodman, once wrote that if he ever planned to commit a murder and would ask infamous criminals for advice, he would certainly choose Burke and Hare (the Edinburgh body snatchers, who were not caught until they killed 16 people) over Leopold and Loeb.

They did not hang. Their families hired America's greatest attorney, Clarence Darrow, to defend them. He pleaded guilty for them, but requested a bench trial (just a judge) for the sentencing. His theory was that a jury would never be able not to divorce the cruelty of their actions from consideration of their punishment. For Darrow, a lifelong opponent of the death penalty, was unwilling to risk losing two guilty clients to public hatred.

He gave a classic discussion of the death penalty, and how it would not do what the public wished - stop further crime as a warning, and bring back (or closure to the family of)Bobby Frank. And the Judge did decide to not order the execution of Leopold and Loeb. They were sentenced to life plus ninety nine years (the sentence was later used as the title of Leopold's autobiography). But Richard Loeb was murdered in prison in 1936 (he made a homosexual advance on a fellow prisoner who slashed him to death - and was not punished for it). Leopold was released in 1958. He married, moved to Puerto Rico where he worked as a nurse, and died in 1971.

COMPULSION is based on a novel by Meyer Levin (a best seller in the late 1950s), that was based on the case, changing the names of Leopold and Loeb to Artie Strauss and Judd Steiner. The film only goes through the crime and the trial, culminating in the performance of Orson Welles as Jonathan Wilkes (a.k.a. Clarence Darrow). Dean Stockwell plays a sympathetic, confused Leopold (an issue among criminal historians - how really weak was Leopold - was he Loeb's sex slave?) and Bradford Dillman as a more aggressive Loeb. Martin Milner plays their college friend (and Leopold's rival for a girl in the class), who also finds the eyeglasses. E.G.Marshall is District Attorney Horn (and gives a very effective performance as an intelligent adversary of the two criminals as well as Welles). Diane Varsi plays the girl both Stockwell and Milner love. For some reason her performance is considered weak - actually while not fascinating it was more than competent.

The film does show the crime in it's aftermath (unlike the other film version of the Leopold-Loeb Case - ROPE - this movie does not the actual murder). It shows the increasing nervousness of Leopold, while Loeb keeps his cool (even "helping" the police investigation by suggesting some possible suspects of pedophile leanings). It is (unlike ROPE) shot as a period film, in the 1920s, but the film is in black and white - so the period costumes and accessories are not detracting from the action.

It is a well done film, but Welles appearance is only in the last half hour, culminating in the speech before the judge and his effective parting shot at Stockwell, who feels there is no God ("Perhaps it was God who made you drop your eyeglasses."). Welles performance of the speech was so effective that it was recorded on a record and was a best seller that year. And it is beautifully done.

But the film misses one point. Darrow did not win the sentence he sought by convincing the Judge of the impracticality of the death sentence. The Judge actually dismissed this argument of Darrow's. But Leopold and Loeb were under 21. He felt they were too young to be hanged.

It has been suggested that COMPULSION and ROPE could be shown together, but it would equally be possible to view COMPULSION with INHERIT THE WIND, to compare the performances of Welles with Spencer Tracy as Darrow/Henry Drummond in the latter film. There is also a peculiar type of movie loop in COMPULSION and INHERIT THE WIND. COMPULSION has a scene where Welles, is in his hotel room, when he sees some Ku Klux Klanners light a cross outside his window. In INHERIT THE WIND Tracy answers his hotel door room to see Gene Kelly (as H.L.Mencken/E.K.Hornbeck)wearing a hood and saying "Boo" as a joke. This is a reference to Darrow's agnostic/athiestic reputation, which was disliked by many people in his day. And early in INHERIT THE WIND when Kelly announces that Dick York (as Bertram Cates - John Scopes)will be defended by Tracy, one of the townspeople says, "He just got those two child-murderers off the other day."). It is rare for two films to have such mutual references in them, when they are not sequel films.

---

12 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
The Strange Case Of Dean Stockwell, 15 November 2007

Author: Ubaldo Martinez from United States

Watching this 1959 Richard Fleischer confirmed something I've always known. Dean Stockwell is a superb actor and an extraordinary presence on the screen. So, I think it's strange that he's not regarded as one of the greatest actors that ever lived. He started as a kid. He was Gregory Peck's son, twice. He was in musicals with Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra. He was directed by Elia Kazan. He made allegorical movies like "The Boy With Green Hair" directed by black listed Joseph Losey. He was Edmond in "Long Day's Journey Into Night" sharing the screen with Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Richardson and Jason Robards. No to mention his work in "Sons and Lovers" or the movies with Wim Wenders and David Lynch. Here, in "Compulsion" his performance is worthy of an Oscar and in fact he go the accolades at the Cannes Film Festival sharing the acting honors with Orson Welles and Bradford Dillman. But, looking at it now he is the one that comes out as the one who passed in triumph the test of time. His performance is so rich so perfectly modulated that you go straight into the human center of his sick, appalling character. "Compulsion" deserves to be rediscovered and Dean Stockwell's performance should be the main reason.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Leopold-Loeb Re-Telling Has Interesting Characters, 17 February 2008

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

This was pretty interesting, thanks to Bradford Dillman who was excellent as one of the murderers, and to Orson Welles, as defense attorney "Jonathan Wilk." Wells could be such an imposing presence on screen! Interesting, too, that his character was an atheist but in the end admitted he may have been wrong about that.

E.G. Marshall also was fun to watch as the prosecutor, "Dist. Att. Harold Horn," but, of course, the screen writers had him silent in the end only showing Welles state his liberal impassioned anti-death penalty speech at the end.

Dillman and Dean Stockwell were the wise-guy, young arrogant punks who thought they were smarter than anyone else. Dillman held up under pressure but Stockwell was an annoying wimpy wuss who cracked. Diani Varsi playing the lukewarm love interest, adds very little to the film.

Overall, this re-telling of the famous Leopold-Loeb case of the 1920s was worth the watch and recommended. If this kind of story fascinates you, I recommend a similar film: "Rope" (1949).

---

16 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Orson Welles, We Did You Wrong, 21 October 1999
Author: Alice Copeland Brown (alicecbrown@yahoo.com) from Boston

We can add Welles to Wilde, Monroe and others who we never respected until they were gone. His pleading for the lives of those crazy boys (as Clarence Darrow did) is an eloquent plea for the ending of the death penalty. Funny, how a barometer like the death penalty tells us so much about a society's relative civility. The US had backed away from it, but is now swinging back toward even public executions (which I would much prefer, as they show all of us how barbaric we have become).

Note that the movie dwells on their 'craziness' and 'richness', not the Jewishness or the homosexual relationships that evoked the wrath of the public in the real case. Both Dillman and Dean Stockwell do an excellent job of drawing out your anger until you find yourself one of the mob yelling for blood. To stem the tide, in comes Orson Welles. Welles' phrasing and meaningful looks struck me again with what a magnificent actor he was, as well as director.

Now I have to go read 'Compulsion', the novel around which this movie was made, to determine what was left out and if it would have contributed to some of the obviously omitted details that make this movie a little choppy. This movie performs the task that great art must take on itself: to provide us insights into life and how it should be lived. That can be done either negatively or positively, by point or counter-point.

Of course, unless you had some excellent writers and actors of the stature of Welles, you wouldn't come up to the quality of this movie. Definitely, black and white contributed to the brooding quality of the film. Color would have detracted, and you'll seldom 'hear' me say this.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
I agree with Ms. Brown COMPLETELY, 5 January 2007

Author: kenn_honeyman from United States

I had never even heard of this movie until today.WHERE in the world are the historians?This is on par for courtroom drama with Lionel Barrymore's great dissertation at the end of, "A Free Soul"-1931.This, also, was a fact based portrayal of Adele Rogers St.John's father's career.

I have to concur with Ms. Brown, and ask the question as to why this movie is not shown more often;i saw it on AMC. The bottom line is the line by Mr. Darrow:"You don't stop killing human beings by killing human beings".Mr. Welles was never in finer form, than when he gives this speech... i understand this speech is verbatim of the transcript of the trial.

---

12 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Short vision, 18 May 2005

Author: jotix100 from New York

"Compulsion" was one of the most important American films of the late 50s. Based loosely on the famous Leopold and Loeb case, the movie still packs quite an impact because of the excellent work by the three principals. As directed by Richard Fleischer, this is a disturbing look at two criminal minds who thought they were above and beyond the law because they had the perfect crime planned. The film was greatly adapted for the screen by Richard Murphy from the Meyer Levin book and stage play.

Even for those clever enough to carry on a murder, there is always a possibility that a minor mistake will give the culprit away. The two young men at the center of the story, Judd Steiner and Artie Straus are homosexual lovers. At the time, being gay in America must have been one of the worst things in a more puritanical and pious society. These two men hide their sexual preference well because of the circles they both move. Coming from upper class families, in a way, made it easier for these men to formulate a plan to satisfy their idle existences.

After committing a heinous crime, just because they thought they could get away with it, the two friends begin experiencing the guilt associated with what they have done. Judd's reaction is different from Artie's. Where Judd tries to lay low, Artie tries to help the police in a bold move that will end up badly. Judd suddenly feels abandoned by Artie when he realizes Artie might be getting too close to the people investigating the murder.

As careful as these men had been, something that apparently seems innocent, ties them to the crime. The principal investigator, Sid Brooks, turns the men against one another by playing his cards right. This is the moment that Jonathan Wilk, the famous trial lawyer enters the picture. Unfortunately, even a star lawyer can't save people that have talked too much because they thought they were above the law.

Star lawyers have always been at the center of all famous trials throughout the history. In a way, it's ironic that only one man, the great Jonathan Wilk is the only person in court to defend Steiner and Straus. Had it been today, these two men would have had a battery of expensive lawyers making the case for them. The figure of Wilke is based on the real lawyer of the Leopold and Loeb case: Clarence Darrow, a man larger than life.

Dean Stockwell and Bradford Dillman made an invaluable contribution to the success of the film. Mr. Stockwell, a child actor that grew up in front of the camera, makes a compelling Judd Steiner. Mr. Stockwell gets under Steiner's skin because he seems to know what made this young man do what he did. Mr. Dillman was a relative new face to the movies, but his performance as Artie Straus has a profound effect on the viewer. Neither man makes a likable person, but maybe that was the message the author of the play wanted to leave the viewer with.

Orson Welles made a splendid appearance as the defense lawyer, Jonathan Wilk. Mr. Welles' physical presence dominates most of the court proceedings. In fact, is a tribute to his genius that he towers over everything around him whenever he is in front of the camera. E. G. Marshall has some good moments as Sid Brooks, the investigator who unearths the truth in this case. Ed Binns, Martin Milner, Robert Simon, Richard Anderson make contributions to the film. Diane Varsi, as the Ruth Evans is the only female that has an opportunity in the film.

The film moves at a quick pace and will, no doubt, satisfy those viewers seeking intelligent entertainment.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Well Ahead Of Its Time, 24 January 2008

Author: sddavis63 (revsdd@gmail.com) from Ontario, Canada

In many respects, I thought this was a movie that was far ahead of its time. In some ways, it's a psychological study of why some people turn to evil without any apparent remorse. It's also an anti-capital punishment argument in a time when capital punishment was both accepted and non-controversial. It deals with subject matters that I wouldn't normally expect to see in a movie of this era, and it's a very taut psychological thriller that wouldn't bore anyone.

Dean Stockwell, in my opinion, was the clear highlight of the film. He offered an amazing portrayal of Judd Steiner, the seemingly emotionless one of the murderous duo (the other was Bradford Dillman as Arthur Strauss.) Steiner and Strauss are basically rich, spoiled kids who decide to take up killing for the fun and excitement involved. The movie revolves around the investigation into the murder of a young boy, and then the trial of the two. Stockwell and Dillman made an interesting combination. In the beginning, Strauss is portrayed as the one in charge, with Steiner uncertain and nervous. By the end, Steiner is transformed into a hard as nails and cold as ice monster. The evolution of that relationship is fascinating.

There were aspects of the story that didn't work for me. Ruth (Diane Varsi) came across as far too forgiving of Judd after her encounter with him, and frankly, the rather long-winded speech by Orson Welles (playing attorney Jonathon Wilk) to the judge at the end of the movie was too long-winded, even though I agreed with some of it. (Modern studies of capital punishment would call into question Wilk's statement that only rich kids would die for this kind of crime; in fact, it's overwhelmingly the poor who are sentenced to death.) I thought the movie also opened with a musical score and what we would call today fonts for the credits that were entirely inappropriate, and which seemed to almost set this up as some sort of comedy. It's not. It's deadly serious, and very good. 7/10

---

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
A strangely misshapen, although consistently entertaining film, 14 October 1999

Author: allyjack from toronto

The movie starts powerfully, as Stockwell and Dillman run down a drunk man; shot in glistening close-up, the combination of the instantly off-kilter performances and the lurid opening title design promises an extremely edgy, expressionistic work - a prospect borne out by the opening scenes that add further depth to the boys' relationship (intriguing because Stockwell appears to have the philosophical upper hand, whereas Dillman carries the greater effective weight through sheer goading and twisted charisma).

Gradually though the mechanics of the case take over, and such digressions as Varsi's plaintive affection for Stockwell (while her own boyfriend is a reporter who stumbles on the lead about the glasses) add very little. And then Welles totally takes over the movie with his grand performance, conjuring up oceans of world-weariness and theatrical wiliness in relatively few scenes - yet the closing focus on the immorality of the death penalty and the quality of mercy, presented as though the entire moral future of the world rested on this one verdict, barely coalesces with what came before it, resulting in a strangely misshapen, although consistently entertaining film.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The Perfect Crime ?, 23 December 2006

Author: ragosaal from Argentina

"Compulsion" deals with the Nathan Leopold and Dickie Loeb murder case in Chicago back in the early 1920's. Leopold and Loeb both came of wealthy Jewish families and decided to kill a little boy (Bobby Franks) just to demonstrate they were too smart for society's rules and could easily get away with their crime. It didn't work like that and they escaped death penalty just because their parents could afford Clarence Darrow a top criminal lawyer back then; they ended up in prison for life (Leopold died there during a fight with other interns and Loeb was released as an old man and died shortly after).

Richard Fleischer was a daring director that didn't hesitate in taking any genre in films, so he gave us such good different products as "The Vikings", "Soylent Green", "Tora, Tora, Tora", "The Boston Strangler", "Barabbas" or "Blind Terror".

Fleischer deals here with the Leopold and Loeb case (all names have been changed) and gets an interesting and entertaining movie. The black and white photography is adequate for the sordid atmosphere of the film, the script is acceptable -the director takes the most of it- and the actors are well directed getting of them more than they usually gave in the case of Bradford Dillman and Dean Stockwell (he nevertheless gave fine performances as an adult later).

Orson Welles plays the lawyer most convincingly and shows his undeniable talent mainly in his final statement in court (how on earth could he go into those cheap and bad Italian sort of "peplum" products as "David and Goliath" and "The Tartars" right after this one we'll never now!).

"Compulsion" is a fine film with the inevitable limitations proper of dealing with real facts and the idea of following them accurately. Give it a watch if you didn't, ypu won't regret it.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history