Man on Fire (1957)

Director:

Ranald MacDougall

Writers:

Jack Jacobs (story)
Ranald MacDougall (writer)

Release Date:

21 October 1957 (Sweden)

Genre:

Drama

Tagline:

Love Target!

Plot:

A wealthy businessman whose wife has divorced him is bitter about the divorce and prevents his ex-wife from seeing their child...

Plot Keywords:

Divorce

Cast

Bing Crosby	...	Earl Carleton
Inger Stevens	...	Nina Wylie
Mary Fickett	...	Gwen Seward
E.G. Marshall	...	Sam Dunstock
Malcolm Brodrick	...	Theodore 'Ted' Carleton
Richard Eastham	...	Bryan Seward
Anne Seymour	...	Judge Randolph
Dan Riss	...	Mack

Runtime:

95 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.66 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (Westrex Recording System) | Stereo (Perspecta Sound encoding)

Certification:

Finland:K-16 | West Germany:16 | Sweden:15

Company:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)

Quotes:

Theodore 'Ted' Carleton: King Solomon who was going to cut the baby in half. Why did Solomon smile?
Earl Carleton: Because he knew who the real mother was.
Theodore 'Ted' Carleton: The one who gave up the baby.

Movie Connections:

Featured in "Picture Parade: (1957-12-02)" (1957)

Man on Fire- Give the Kid A Break! ***

Definitely a forerunner to "Kramer vs. Kramer" with Bing Crosby starring as a father who has custody of his young son. His wife (Mary Fickett) divorced him years ago for a Washington political person. Crosby is a successful businessman who has a wonderful relationship with his son. Enter mom and her husband who want custody of the child.

Anne Seymour, in a one-scene restrained performance, plays the judge who surprises everyone with her decision to give the boy to his mother since the child has no ties with her. An embittered Crosby goes on a brief binge while being consoled by Inger Stevens, an assistant to his attorney played by the usual movie-lawyer E.G. Marshall.

The film is interesting and well acted by all but my flaw with it is that the child is constantly bounced around as Crosby and Fickett fight it out. In addition, the Solomon-like decision did not apply here. If we remember our bible, the woman who was willing to see Solomon divide the child really didn't love the child at all, if she wanted this to happen. In the film, the mother finally relents as she sees that the child really wants to stay with his father and therefore, in the tradition of Solomon, she loves the child more. This is wrong and the writers of this picture should have read the bible more carefully.

Naturally, everyone comes to his senses in this one by the end as a reasonable solution is obtained. One could question why this solution couldn't be put forth at the beginning of the controversy.

Nevertheless, the film shows insight in its discussing the effects of divorce on children, the anger of one parent in particular and that a child should remain with the female parent. Yet, haven't we come a long way in equality for both parents?