Walk in the Shadow

source: Walk in the Shadow

Moviecut—Walk in the Shadow

The fact that this modestly budgeted film leads to the possible conclusion that the film should have leaned to one position or the other. After all there is the old saying of San Goldwyn, "if you want to send a message use Western Union". I have little sympathy wi th Michael Craig's character. He bears great responsibility for allowing his daughter to play on a beach in the middle of winter without an adult in attendance. Bearing in mind that snow is on the ground,in real life,giving into the sea is likely to have killed him. The cinematography is excellent as are an impressive cast of experienced actors. Sadly the failure of this film caused the bankruptcy of the production com.

Also known as "Walk in the Shadow" (1966), this award-winning film is meticulously scripted, magnificently acted, superbly photographed, and, above all, genuinely dramatic and truly exciting. Janet Munro was nominated for the BAFTA award for Best British Actress of the year. Despite this important nomination and overwhelmingly favorable reviews, the movie died at the box office, both on its release in the U.K. in 1962 as "Life for Ruth" and in its U.S.A. release during January 1966 as "Walk in the Shadow". Audiences simply didn't take to seeing a grown-up Janet Munro. They overwhelmingly preferred her as a juvenile in such films as "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (1959) and "Swiss Family Robinson" (1960).

Michael Craig and his daughter are having an afternoon at the beach, where she is injured. He takes her to the hospital, where Doctor Patrick McGoohan tells him that only a blood transfusion will save her life. Craig is a non-conformist who believes tht blood transfusions are a sin, so he refuses. The girl dies. The inquest calls it an accident, but McGoohan has him arrested for manslaughter. As someone without faith I find these stories problematic. So, apparently, are the people who made this movie, because by the end of it they have thoroughly stacked the deck against Craig. It's a pity, because I find the issues this movie raises important and puzzling; what, if any, are the limits of religious tolerance? As an American, with afirm reliance on the Bill of Rights, I side with Craig. As someone who believes this life is all we get, I side with McGoohan. There are some fine performances by the two men, Janet Munro as Craig's wife, and Malcolm Keen, in his last big-screen role as Craig's father.

I have to admit I wasn't looking forward to watching this film. I sought it out only to see Patrick McGoohan's performance, which in my opinion could have been larger. Having said that, I did indeed watch the whole film, and it actually went by rather quickly, meaning it wasn't the chore I expected it to be. The premise of the plot is simple: a couple's daughter, Ruth, and their neighbor's son get into a boat accident, and the girl's father (Harris) saves the both of them. But the man saves the boy first, causing his daughter to end up with more severe injuries. Those injuries result in blood loss requiring a transfusion at the local hospital. But her parents refuse to allow the doctor (McGoohan) to perform the transfusion, due to their religious beliefs. Despite the staff's pleads, and eventually the mother's change of mind, the girl dies. From this point, the plot revolves around parent's relationship, and the doctor trying to get what he feels is justice for Ruth, in order to prevent other children from dying due to what he feels are fanatical religious beliefs. It all culminates in the father's trial under a British child-cruelty law. The film never flat out tells us just what Ruth's parents religion is (I am guessing to protect the studio from libel), but it appears they are Jehovah's Witnesses (according to other sources, so this may be incorrect). Other characters are identified as Jewish, Catholic, and Church of England, while the doctor is portrayed as more of a man of science. The wife converted in order to marry Harris, but never really agreed with his beliefs. Not only is the idea of religious freedom covered, but also the idea of The State having more control over people's children. The doctor mentions more than once that he feels the State should be able to step in and give treatment regardless of parents' views. In the end, the viewer gets the point of the story, without their own religion being insulted. No one is proven right or wrong. You can side with whichever character you wish, for the most part. Only the most fanatical may be offended. As for production, there are some interesting shots showing ominous skies and seas, interesting camera angles, etc. Acting is good overall, Harris being perfect as the father. Munro was a bit "weepy" for my tastes, but her portrayal of a conflicted mother and wife is for the most part not too "syrupy". McGoohan plays the doctor in a very quiet and restrained manner. I expected at least one major burst of anger from him (ala "Danger Man" or "Prisoner"), but he kept things low-key. In fact, his first batch of lines are delivered so softly I had to turn up the volume to hear them! All in all, I'd say this was a rather dark, but well made film of a touchy topic, which is handled fairly and doesn't insult or take sides. I'd like to have seen a little more "fire" in certain scenes, but that's one person's opinion.

A father's religious beliefs are put to the test when he refuses a blood transfusion for his daughter on religious grounds, and the child dies as a result. The doctor who tried to save the girl's life charges the father with manslaughter. This is a thought-provoking film that does not take the easy way out. It would be easy to make a scapegoat out of the father's religion, or absolve him of responsibility by taking a fatalistic view. To this film's credit, it does neither, but strives to present all points of view with fairness. As topical, relevant, and fresh today as when it was made. Highly recommended.

Location scenes at the beginning at Marsden with the (now gone) Marsden Pit Village and Souter Point Lighthouse in background. Typically good performance by Patrick McGoohan as a zealous, if misguided, physician. Excellent performance by Michael Craig playing a father torn between his love for his daughter and his religious belief. Disappointing performance by Janet Munro coming off her starring role in "Derby O'Gill and the Little People". Craig refuses a life-saving blood transfusion for his daughter who is injured in a boating accident and she dies from her injuries. McGoohan spurs a legal investigation and Craig is brought to trial for the manslaughter of his daughter. Amazing how ones prejudices change from the beginning of the movie to the end! In a climactic ending, Craig is found innocent of manslaughter but renounces his innocence and tries to commit suicide. The tone of the movie is highlighted by the dreariness of the early '60's working class lifestyle in the Northeast of England, a dreariness accentuated by the black and white filming. "His action - guilty as hell; his reason - innocent as heaven itself."

I have been desperate to see this film since I first read about it three or four years ago. Through the kindness of a stranger, I finally have done so. Why it has not been made available via VHS or DVD is even more of a mystery to me than it was before. County Durham, in the bleak north-east of England is the setting for Patrick McGoohan's second Sixties 'kitchen-sink' drama. His first was in the potentially even bleaker location of Sweden! His role in 'Life For Ruth' is, however, much more straightforward than his conscience-raddled postal clerk in 'Two Living, One Dead'. A blissful family day introduces us to a sweet little girl-child. In a tragic sequence of events she is badly injured in a boating accident on some rocks. She needs a blood transfusion. She doesn't get one. She dies. Using this excruciatingly sad canvas the story that unfolds is an exploration of how an individual trying to stand by his 'beliefs' is vilified and punished by his dissenting society. The events that the viewer has watched have been so extreme that we, the audience, have been plunged into that dissenting society and want the hapless religious zealot, played by Michael Craig with literally gritted-teeth, punished. The thwarted doctor, James Brown, played by Patrick McGoohan, declares !WAR! but finds that, as another James Brown has mentioned, "War! What is it good for?" By the end of the film McGoohan has communicated how his character's hot anger against the idiotic Craig and his guilt over Ruth's death has mellowed into sad regret for the girl and forgiveness for the tragic humanity that is her father. The film takes the audience through all the complex issues: Religion versus Secularism. Science versus Superstition. State versus Individual Right. Minority Belief persecuted by Majority Consensus. They are all wheeled out; it could be tedious but it is actually quite thought-provoking. You start the movie detesting Craig's wretched soul but by the end, whilst you don't support him, you have realised that this is a tough conundrum to solve. Because we had a side at the beginning we are as bewildered as the jury is, at the conclusion of the court-case. As British law requires no shadow of a doubt, then he must be acquitted. At the same moment Society forgives him, the man's own conscience awakes and he desperately admits both his guilt and his awful sin of pride that led to the entire disaster. He had seen himself as Abraham and had awaited the Angel that would come to stay the hand of death as a reward for his Faith. It was redolent of that old joke where the Holy Man runs to the church in the flooded village telling his flock to remain steadfast, for the Lord will save them. As his flock are taken away in boats he refuses help, saying the Lord will save him. As the final helicopter leaves with the final villager he spurns their help crying, the Lord will save me! As the water folds over his head and he drowns, his soul cries out to the Lord, "I believed in you! Why did you not save me?" And God's voice replies, "What do you mean? I sent you a boat. I sent you a helicopter. What more did you expect?" McGoohan's Doctor Brown saves this holy man from throwing himself under a bus but he can do little for the same man who is left on the cliff-top howling to the moon for the daughter that was lost on the rocks below him. May God forgive us all.

Filmed in Durham, 'Life for Ruth' is a surprisingly effective story about a man who puts his daughters life in the hands of God and ignores the advice of surgeons. Ruth dies and a court case ensues in which the tension of the situation is brought to a head. Well acted by Michael Craig and especially Patrick MacGoohan as a journalist who comes to see both sides of the argument. This is one of those typically British films with dignity that makes use of unusual locations.