No Way Out (1950)

One of the more tiresome clichés, or prejudices, about "old films" in general, and older Hollywood films in particular, is that they are politically conservative, or reactionary, or at best dated and timid, compared to films of our own, eminently progressive, era. You meet this prejudice in the class room on a regular basis, where students respond to almost any random film you show them with "Wow, it is so ahead of its time." even when the film is firmly of its time. They take their own prejudice of the past to be the true past, and if this film does not confirm that prejudice it seems they are convinced that the film is unusual; it cannot be that they are mistaken. (Surprise is in general a feeling that arises when somebody discovers that their prejudice is belied by reality.) It is unfair to single out students though as any number of articles, books and tweets will tell you that this is a widespread belief, including among film scholars. (There is also a related tendency to believe that people who like older films are also, per extension, politically conservative, or reactionary, but that is a topic for another day.)

I was reminded of this again last week, by two articles that made that assumption. I suppose it comes from people not having seen many older films, and not being interested in them either, yet being convinced of their inferiority. I am not knowledgeable enough about silent films, but films from the 1930s can sometimes be shockingly powerful in their depiction of crime, corruption and racism, and it continues through the decades. I Was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (Mervyn LeRoy 1932), They Won't Forget (Mervyn LeRoy 1937), All the King's Men (Robert Rossen 1949, who also wrote They Won't Forget), Intruder in the Dust (Clarence Brown 1949), Stars in My Crown (Jacques Tourneur 1950), Riot in Cell Bloc 11 (Don Siegel 1954), The Phenix City Story (Phil Karlson 1955), Reprisal! (George Sherman 1956), Sweet Smell of Success (Alexander Mackendrick 1957), Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk 1959), The Intruder (Roger Corman 1962), Shock Corridor (Sam Fuller 1963) and so on and so forth. These were just a handful of the many films made in Hollywood that took a harsh look at the United States. Now I want to focus on another one, No Way Out (1950), which is not as forceful and striking (or unsettling) as the ones mentioned above, but of considerable interest none the less.

***

After World War 2, 20th Century Fox and Darryl F. Zanuck embarked on a project of social realism, films about current issues shot in a clear, functional style. Gentlemen's Agreement (Elia Kazan 1947) is a prominent example, about antisemitism. Another is No Way Out, written and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, based on an original story by Lesser Samuels. (Philip Yordan also had a hand in the script, as he so often did, or claimed he did.) The theme is racism, and relationships between white and black. It was the first film role for Sidney Poitier, as a doctor fresh from medical school, and with Richard Widmark as a hoodlum and pathological racist.

Despite being an original idea and script, No Way Out feels like an adapted theatre play, the way it is told and staged. The last shot in particular, in its framing, placing of bodies, the use of sound, the length, feels more theatrical than cinematic. I think this was deliberate on Mankiewicz's part, who always had a theatrical streak to him and his films. (This is not meant as criticism, just an observation.) He uses long takes throughout the film, and the pacing is somewhat slow and thoughtful. In keeping with the social realist look, everything is brightly lit, shot at a distance and with depth of field. Unlike other films in this style however, there are few outdoor sequences and little, if any, location work. One scene, when Widmark's character attacks a woman in her home, is shot in darkness with only a rectangular field of light across the middle of the screen, but that is almost the only sequence that deviates from the basic look of the film.

***

The story of the film is that two brothers are caught by the police during an attempted robbery, and in the ensuing struggle both are shot. They are taken to hospital and Luther Brooks, the doctor played by Poitier, is the one who is on call. While they are both shot in the leg, one of the brothers show other symptoms and Brooks suspects he has a brain tumour. He tries to save the man, who is already dying, but fails. The other brother, Ray Biddle, played by Widmark, is convinced that the black doctor deliberately killed him, and first tries to stir up a riot in the black areas in Chicago, where the film is set, and when that fails Biddle instead tries to kill Brooks.

One of the weaknesses with the film is that racism is primarily shown in its extreme form. Biddle is clearly mad, so brutal, violent and abusive he would appeal to no one. No white person would watch him and think "that could be me" and Mankiewicz might be said to make things too neat and easy. If that is what racism is, then almost any viewer can think "Of course it is bad, but it has nothing to do with me." There are a few scenes in which the fact that Brooks is black creates some more general tension, but those who are racist in this film are distinctly othered. They are not like you and me. The above-mentioned Gentlemen's Agreement, about antisemitism, is better in that respect because in that film almost everybody show varying degrees of prejudices against Jews, from the casual, unthinking to the self-evident hateful. Most viewers would be able to recognise themselves or people close to them in any of those characters, and therefore their own prejudices would be challenged.

But at the same time, in Gentlemen's Agreement, the main character is not a Jew, but a gentile, played by Gregory Peck, who pretends to be Jewish while writing a story about antisemitism. Mankiewicz has said that he did not want that for No Way Out, and he did not want it to be one of those films in which the main character is mixed-race or light-skinned, and played by a white actor, like in the previous year's Pinky (Elia Kazan 1949). He wanted the lead and hero to be played by a black actor, and be part of the black community. Sidney Poitier gives a strong, nuanced performance, and is the best aspect of the film, together with the dialogue and use of sound. His character would become almost a stereotype, frequently occurring in white liberals' films about racism: he is flawless, calm, wise, kind and professional. Just as Biddle is somebody nobody would defend, Brooks as somebody almost nobody could object to, unless they were crazy like Biddle. Mankiewicz has created two opposites, one almost pure evil and the other almost pure good. Brooks is also a pacifist. His black colleagues, and his brother-in-law, are ready to fight against the white man; not turn the other cheek but strike back. Brooks will have none of that, which also makes him easy for a white audience to accept.

Poitier and Mildred Joanne Smith (playing husband and wife)

There is a riot in the film but, which was unusual at the time, it is the blacks who lead the charge. They have got word that a white racist mob is gathering, and they strike before the mob has got going. The whites do not stand a chance, and it is one instance of the film when it gets more daring. Mankiewicz has provided Brooks as a pacifist alternative, but given the circumstances it is also clear that it was necessary for the black characters to take up arms and attack. They are within their rights Mankiewicz seems to say. (This sequence was one of the reasons No Way Out was initially banned in Chicago, and it was cut or trimmed in various cities and southern states.)

In the end, Biddle fails at killing Brooks, and when he is disarmed, Brooks empties the gun of its bullets and instead uses it to stop the bleeding in Biddle's leg. The symbolism is not subtle, and the film has been criticised for Brooks's unwillingness to strike back. Some has even said he sacrifices himself for the white man. But that is not what is happening. For one thing he is a doctor, and his duty is to save lives, not take lives. He also knows that killing Biddle will only be worse for him than for Biddle. But what primarily complicates the scene, and the character of Brooks overall, comes from the way Poitier plays him. While this is rarely spelled out or shown explicit, Brooks is a man who is constantly aware of racism, of him being a black man in a white world. He feels it all the time, it consumes him, it wears him down and makes him bitter. He is always trying to be the best man, and he is filled with doubt about himself, and this is because of the racism he knows is all around him. This is significantly more subtle than the use of a gun to stop the bleeding, because it is hardly ever spelled out. It is in his eyes, body, movements, and in his voice. His last line in the film is "Don't cry, white boy, you're gonna live." but he says it in a way that suggests he is sorry for this. He does not want to be the man who kills Biddle, even if he would prefer if Biddle had died.

***

As is inevitable with Mankiewicz, class is an important aspect of the film. Biddle is poor, white working class, and he is filled with resentment against other classes, and against those who try to move away from the area of which he is from. He is a man who is trapped by his own circumstances, and part of his racism stems from his feeling of being left behind by society, and believing that other people are more concerned about standing up for minorities, such as African Americans, than for people like him. His general hatred against society has found an outlet by being directed against blacks. And a black man who is above his own class he finds even more intolerable.

There are two other main characters in the film, Edie, played by Linda Darnell, and Dr. Wharton, played by Stephen McNally, who is the head doctor and Brooks' mentor. Edie used to be married to the dead brother, and also had an affair with Ray Biddle, but now she wants to leave that world behind her. She is conflicted about this, and at first uneasy with Brooks and blacks in general. But during the course of the film she changes and grows, and she is the only one who does this. The other characters are more or less the same the entire film. In one scene she goes to Dr. Wharton's home because she feels sick and exhausted. He is about to leave, and instead he leaves her in the care of his housekeeper Gladys, played by Amanda Randolph. Edie is at first hostile to Gladys, but surrenders and spends the night in her care. The next morning they have breakfast together, and it is a beautiful scene because they find they have something in common. They are bonding as two women living under a patriarchy; both victims of violence and abuse from men. Edie wants to know what makes men, the white men she has known, like that, like "wild animals", and compares them to dogs chasing a rabbit, tearing it apart and then moving on to chasing a new one. Gladys has no answer. The character of Gladys is traditional, and it was one of the very few kinds of roles available to black actors until then, but it is still a fine performance.

No Way Out is not just about racism, it is about class and gender too, and, to use of current phrase, Mankiewicz takes an intersectional view. This is another way in which I find it to be more complex and satisfying than it first appears. Mankiewicz has made several films that are much better, not least their visuals and narrative, but this one is still good.


---------------------------------------
Mankiewicz's comment about wanting a black actor for the lead is from Joseph L. Mankiewicz: Interviews (2008) p. 171

Information about banned and cut versions comes from the American Film Institute's website.

I have written about Intruder in the Dust before: https://fredrikonfilm.blogspot.com/2013/01/intruder-in-dust-1949.html

I have written about Reprisal! before: https://fredrikonfilm.blogspot.com/2015/04/2-x-george-sherman-reprisal-1956-and.html

And about Mankiewicz: https://fredrikonfilm.blogspot.com/2017/04/demille-vs-mankiewicz-october-22-1950.html

And about the not unrelated Lydia Bailey (Jean Negulesco 1952): https://fredrikonfilm.blogspot.com/2017/06/lydia-bailey-1952.html