Time Limit

I have to take exception to other reviewers calling Time Limit, a courtroom drama. There are no scenes in any courtroom, military or civilian. Still it's a very engrossing story.

Richard Widmark is acting as an investigative officer for the Judge Advocate General's Office trying to ascertain if there are enough facts to bring Richard Basehart to trial for treason. Basehart was a prisoner of war in Korea who is accused of collaborating with the enemy.

Through a lot of patient probing of Basehart and others, Widmark arrives at a very ugly story that while it doesn't totally exonerate Basehart it does give him the basis for a defense. So much so that Widmark requests he be assigned as Basehart's attorney when he does come up for court martial.

Time Limit ran for 127 performances on Broadway in 1956 and starred Arthur Kennedy and Richard Kiley in the roles Widmark and Basehart play. Widmark's good friend Karl Malden did this one time only job of directing and gets good performances from his cast.

Time Limit asks a lot of disturbing questions about the behavior of prisoners of war and whether we expect too much from them. Ironically when the USS Pueblo was taken by the North Koreans in the late sixties, these same questions were asked for real.

To me, Richard Widmark's best film is Time Limit. It's about an army inquest into a soldier who admits that he helped the enemy when he was a POW during the Korean war. Widmark is the Colonel in charge of the investigation, and Richard "He Walked By Night" Basehart brings his A-game to the role of the soldier. Any other colonel might just connect the dots and recommend a court martial - Basehart's Maj. Harry Cargill admits he gave broadcasts for the North Koreans, signed a paper saying the Americans were doing germ warfare, and was attempting to indoctrinate the other POWs in formal "classes" that the North Koreans had to try to brainwash them. All of the POWs in the same camp he was in verify that Cargill did these things.

But Cargill refuses to tell Widmark's Colonel William Edwards WHY. And he doesn't seem to care he could be, heck, probably will be executed for treason without some defense. With Cargill's past stellar military record, including in WWII, Edwards will not finish this investigation until he gets a "why". But Cargill has talked to nobody about why he did what he did - not even his wife. And Colonel Edwards is being pressured by his superior, a General whose son died in the same POW camp that Cargill was in, and even by Martin Balsam as a particularly irritating sergeant, to recommend prosecution and wash his hands of the matter.

And then Edwards notices that the descriptions of the back-to-back deaths of two soldiers in the POW camp the day before Cargill seemed to turn traitor are identical - as in word for word each time by each soldier. Is there a Manchurian Candidate situation going on here, or something else entirely? The plot twist at the end is the farthest thing from a gimmick, and is infinitely better presented and far less Hollywoodish than the sanctimonious speech by Jose Ferrer at the end of The Caine Mutiny, although I like that film too, for different reasons.

Check it out if you get the chance. WWII films always seem to get the spotlight, but this one is a forgotten jewel about a forgotten war.

The post-war era brought a new-fangled maturity to Hollywood – largely by way of talent coming in from the rival fields of theater and television (and expressed particularly in intense social dramas, often with a dash of psychology) – which considerably invigorated the style of Hollywood film-making in general and even helped towards achieving a more liberal censorship.

The film under review actually bears an affinity to four of the very finest efforts made during this era: Elia Kazan’s ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) – in its depiction of revenge within a close-knit outfit upon a stool pigeon in their midst (which had featured TIME LIMIT director Malden as an actor and Martin Balsam, who also appears here, in a bit part); Stanley Kubrick’s PATHS OF GLORY (1957) – in which army attorney Kirk Douglas also faces opposition (for his meticulous defence) from his superior officers who want to escape personal embarrassment by hastily doing away with the case in question; Sidney Lumet’s TWELVE ANGRY MEN (1957; again with Balsam) – similarly dealing with an investigation packed with twists, as well as not technically being a courtroomer; and John Frankenheimer’s THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962) – likewise set during the Korean War and involving brainwashing (plus also featuring Khigh Deigh).

Of course, it’s not quite on the same level of those milestone titles but definitely emerges as an underrated little film – its very sensitive nature (presenting all sides of the equation i.e. duty to rank and country-vs.-loyalty to, and consideration for, one’s fellow man but then leaving the audience to make up its own mind) possibly hindered any chance at Oscar glory, which would have been entirely deserving…or, perhaps, it was simply because there were already two courtroom dramas commanding attention at that year’s ceremony (the afore-mentioned TWELVE ANGRY MEN and Billy Wilder’s equally brilliant WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION) – though, ironically, both remained empty-handed after all!

Malden’s sole directing effort is impressive (though, again, not up to, say, Charles Laughton’s THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER [1955]) and one that gains excellent performances from practically the entire cast. Richard Widmark – a Hollywood star who wasn’t afraid to appear in meaningful films – personally co-produced this one (while others in similar vein he was featured in were NO WAY OUT [1950], JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG [1961], CHEYENNE AUTUMN [1964] and THE BEDFORD INCIDENT [1965]). Richard Basehart is typically anxious (and compelling) as the soldier accused of treason; he, at least, was awarded with a BAFTA nomination for his work here. Pretty Dolores Michaels is very engaging as Widmark’s sympathetic aide; the only other significant female role, turning up in just one scene, is played by June Lockhart: knowing her chiefly from SHE-WOLF OF London (1946), I was surprised to see her in such a demanding part (at one point, frankly confessing to Widmark her marital problems with Basehart) – but she fills it admirably. Martin Balsam’s character, as Widmark’s well-meaning but more often intrusive colleague, provides the sole concession to humor here – and, consequently, is entirely welcome for it. The film’s compactness, based as it is on a stage play, necessitates that it focuses on just two of the testimonies given by the sixteen soldiers involved in the case being tried – the other, apart from Basehart himself, offers a meaty early role for Rip Torn (which, of course, heralds an eventual revelation concerning his particular character). Carl Benton Reid appears as Widmark’s superior and close friend, a by-the-book military officer of the old school whose integrity is shattered by the end of the film in view of his own son’s unforeseen behavior while in captivity.

A gripping, thought-provoking and emotionally-draining experience (in spite of the horrid quality of the VHS version I watched – copied from Cable TV which, at the time, was suffering from bad reception!), I can’t figure out what’s holding this from getting a decent DVD release: hopefully, Widmark’s recent passing will start the ball rolling in this regard. Ultimately, I have to admit that my response to TIME LIMIT was so strong because it may have been influenced by my own current personal situation: notoriety following the violent death of a relative in the course of some shady activity – and which goes hand in hand with the film’s assertion that a man’s whole life, irrespective of how it was spent, will be judged by people who can’t know the whole story on the strength of that single reckless and deplorable act...

Across the frigid nightmare that is the Korean War, there are a thousand nameless graves over which a like amount of ghosts hover. Those haunting's are what drive American writers to pen as many stories onto the pages of that Forgotten War. One of those superb writers is Henry Denker who wrote this story called " Time Limit. " It takes place in one of the many American Army units captured and imprisoned in a P.O.W. camps by the North Koreans. This central story is about one, Major Harry Cargill (Richard Basehart) who having survived the war is now arrested and faces General Court martial and death by firing squad. To see Cargill is given every opportunity to defend himself, Gen. J. Connors (Carl Reid) assigns Col. William Edwards (Richard Widmark) who takes his job seriously. Two surprises hamper Edwards. One, Cargill wants to plead guilty and offers no defense at his trial. Most of the men who come forward to testify agree as to his guilt and find no reason to stop the execution. With the great actor, Karl Malden directing this film and casting such heavies such as Martin Balsam, Rip Torn, Yale Wexler and June Lockhart, this assembly make for a Classic. The movie is assured success with the fine performances and the stark Black and White reality of the Korean War. Excellent vehicle for both Basehart and Widmark. Easilly recommended. ****

Time Limit (1957)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Hard-hitting drama about Maj. Harry Cagill (Richard Basehart) who is brought up on charges of treason after being in a Korean War camp and giving information to the enemy. Once back in the states Col. Edwards (Richard Widmark) tries to understand what made him crack but he refuses to talk and all of his men give the same strange story, which doesn't make enough sense to Edwards. This film isn't very well known today, which is a shame but I'm going to guess that part of the reason is that it was released in the same year as both 12 ANGRY MEN and WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. All three films deal with twists and turns within a court setting, although this film here just deals with an investigation as we don't get to actually step inside the courtroom. With that said, all three films share a lot in common but this film manages to ask some pretty hard questions and it doesn't pull any punches with the answer. The film is brutally frank in its subject matter and even though we don't find the answers we're looking for until the final ten-minutes, the film still manages to pack one major punch after another. I think a lot of credit must go to Malden, in his only adventure as a director, and I do wonder how much influence Elia Kazan had on him. The film has a certain look and feel of ON THE WATERFRONT, which Malden of course made with Kazan. It appears that both films ask a lot of the same questions about bravery, talking and how much one person should take. Seeing as how this one takes place in the military it's clear that there is a political slant going on here as I'm sure many people would have to ask themselves how much torture, sickness and threats of death they could take without talking or trying to save their own skin. The "time limit" of bravery is an interesting question and we get many different answers as to how one person should be. The final ten-minutes is when things really start to break down as we finally get some answers and the twist here has been debated by quite a few reviewers. I personally didn't mind the twist and I think it worked well for what the film was going for. There were several directions that the film could have went for but the one they selected worked well enough for me. Another major benefit are the performances with Widmark leading the way in a rather laid back performance by the actor who was often shown as being a demanding, strong character. I thought Widmark was very believable playing it so laid back and I think that quiet nature here actually helped the film as it seems he was the only one who didn't want revenge for what had happened but instead just wanted the truth. Basehart is terrific as well in showing the hell that his character is going through. Dolores Michaels is good as Widmark's aide, June Lockhart is very strong in her one scene and Martin Balsam is on hand for some needed comedy relief. This is certainly an emotionally draining picture as the subject matter is rather ugly and the picture doesn't pull any punches. Malden handles the material extremely well and it's a shame we didn't get to see what else he could do behind the camera.