Outrage (1950)

I was going to give it 1 star, but I respect Ida lupino. One thing I really can't stand is Bad writing! The Female lead is running and all active, then she trips on a very small staircase, and just decides to go to SLEEP on the very hard platform! REALLY?! All she had to do was KEEP RUNNING! Writing that forces characters to do stupid things like run away from a man whistling, but she didn't just keep running, she had to keep stopping and hide. Dumb! Also, she was all energetic in her fleeing, but she tripped on Purpose, over a big garbage can! Then, she got in a truck and Honked the horn, ON PURPOSE! The acting was so bad and forced, but I couldn't discern if it was the bad writing leading the bad acting, or just these actors were so bad. I've been watching old tv shows lately. The concepts are nice, but the writing is Dumb! As if it were lazily written. Characters that are smart, doing dumb things because the writer had to finish the episode. Every time I see dumb writing and characters doing dumb things that contradict their normal behavior, I just repeatedly say aloud, "this show sucks. The writing sucks!" This film is old, but that's no excuse to have poor acting and poor writing! All the positive reviews seem to ignore the obvious flaws that ruin the film. How can ANYBODY watching make it past the Chase scene without asking questions and being confused as to how dumb She was?! Also, the Very loud Truck Horn didn't stop! Nobody bothered to stop it! An old man living in the building next to the loud truck horn Stuck his head out, then shut his window to go to sleep! REALLY?! I doubt his window could be that sound proofed to block out that loud horn sound! And he just closes the window?! WITHOUT GOING DOWN TO CHECK WHY THE HORN WAS GOING?! Really?! That detail is UNREALISTIC! I guess, if thatvold man went down to check the horn, he'd have PREVENTED the rape, and the movie wouldn't have happened. Still, spare us a dumb movie with unrealistic details. I'd rather there be no movie than force a movie, write unrealistic details and depict the characters as dumb. In what world is it smart for a girl to run away from a whistling man, INTO A DARK ALLEY?! She could've stayed on the street! Also, How did she pass out, all of a sudden, seconds after She was running?! To take this movie seriously is to dumb my brain down. I can't let pass certain details because details are like puzzle pieces! You can't just throw in a few pieces that don't fit, just to complete the puzzle piece count. If The girl were smarter, and She never ran into a dark alley, and that old man went down to check the truck, the movie would be more believable. Don't write details that make characters look dumb and careless! This female lead looked dumb and careless. This movie was about rape! Yet, I didn't pity the woman because she made the dumbest mistakes and the writing was so bad. How could the writing be this bad?! How can you write the girl to be so stupid, to run in a dark alley, or an old man to ignore the LOUDEST TRUCK HORN RIGHT OUTSIDE HIS WINDOW?! Somebody resurrect Ida Lupino, and get her to answer these questions, then get her to correct these very obvious flaws. I wanted to like the movie, but it didn't earn my respect. Future Writers, PLEASE LEARN FROM THIS FILM! Very good Concept, Very Bad writing. You can have the best concept ever, but Bad writing will Ruin it. Even with the best actors, it'd still be ruined. How can people just ignore these big details/flaws at the start?! If you watched Her running and kept asking "Why did she just do that, or go there, or fall down and go to sleep on that Very Hard Wooden Stage?!" You are not alone! And if you asked any of these questions, that makes it difficult to take this film seriously. I don't like my mind being insulted. Again, CONCEPT IS great! Writing and acting are VERY BAD!

"Outrage" is a film way, way ahead of its time. To think...back in 1950 there was a movie that dealt with rape and its aftermath. It is an excellent film but it's also a film of its time--and in some ways it also gets the topic wrong. I am not blaming it--it's just that back in the day, there were a few misconceptions about the crime--though the film also is extremely sensitive and well worth seeing.Mala Powers plays Ann Walton, a young lady who is soon to be married. However, one night she is attacked and raped and she is left scared and traumatized. Her plight is so severe that she soon decides the best way to handle it is to run away and start an all new life. The trouble is, running away from her problems didn't solve them and soon she attacks a fresh guy and nearly kills him.First the good. Rape was never talked about or even alluded to back in 1950, so the film is very brave. Director Ida Lupino handled the rape scene wonderfully--making it menacing but not sensationalistic. Additionally, the film ended on a positive note--instilling a lot of hope.As for the bad, the film NEVER uses the word rape and the fact that it's a sexual assault is implied but only slightly. Again and again, they said that Ms. Walton was 'a victim of criminal assault'- -and so in that sense the film took a step forward but a smaller step than folks would like today. However, I doubt if the censors would have allowed this. I also thought that the film seemed to say that the man Walton bludgeoned (played by Jerry Paris) was a victim--whereas today he would be seen as being to blame because he refused to take no for an answer and NEEDED to be slapped upside the head with a wrench!! Additionally, the preacher had a speech about getting victims and offenders of all sorts therapy. While this is good for victims, time has shown us that psychotherapies are NOT effective with sex offenders in most cases. Still, they didn't realize this in the day and the film was very sincere in its efforts. Overall, the good clearly greatly outweighs the bad and the film is wonderfully made and a quality production throughout.

Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as "spoiled goods" (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who "gives her courage to face life again". There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty. Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing.

This is the second film I've seen of Ida Lupino as a director after 53's the hitch-hiker. I think this one was a better film then that one. This one has a girl who is about to get married and she is then sexually assaulted and doesn't like everyone looking and talking about her so she runs away and and is taken in by a family. I think Leonard Maltin's review is right only to give it 2 and 1/2 stars.