Rusty's innocence is undermined when prosecutor Tommy Molto (Joe Grifasi) accuses him of the crime in his office, infuriating Rusty. This sways audiences back in the direction of not believing Rusty's innocence because his outburst is reminiscent of someone guilty trying to cover up for a crime. In retrospect, the outburst was likely a cause of Rusty's frustration in his coworkers' lack of faith in him.
The character proxemics of the scene also do not help prove Rusty's innocence. Rusty's pointing finger and their personal proximity indicates that he is angry and defensive. The tight framing of the scene indicate high tension between the two characters, perhaps because one or both of them are trying to cover something up. Finally, the the straight on camera proxemics indicate that these two characters would be equals, but Rusty's dominant stance overrides this and shows that he is the more superior of the two, perhaps because he is keeping a secret.
Rusty's innocence is again undermined when Detective Lipranzer (John Spencer) reveals that he has kept the glass that should have been put into evidence. This glass could have exonerated or convicted Rusty, and the fact that it was hidden makes audiences believe that it would have been the latter option.
The most striking event where Rusty's innocence is undermined is at the end of the film when Rusty's wife, Barbara (Bonnie Bedelia), finally reveals that she was actually the one to murder Carolyn. She let Rusty go through the proceedings of the courtroom, watched others betray him, and continued to keep her mouth shut while she kept this secret. Although she does come clean to Rusty at the end of the film, her keeping her mouth shut for so long and not going to proper authorities was the worst victimization of Rusty's innocence throughout the film.
I agree with you that Rusty’s innocence is undermined throughout the whole film. This aspect of the film makes it suspenseful and makes it a mystery. If the director would have made it known from the beginning that Rusty wasn’t guilty than the film would be lacking the mystery that makes it so interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe audience is left throughout the film going back and forth on whether they think that Rusty is innocent or not. When ever he is called out in the office scene we see him react in a way that we would expect a guilty man to react. He becomes aggressive and belligerent. The audience sees him act this way and it really makes us question whether or not we believe him.
I think a big example that undermines his innocence that you didn’t mention is when he asks that his phone calls not be used in court. This shows that he has something to hide and it is just human nature to become suspicious when ever someone asks to keep something private. We as an audience want to know why he doesn’t want his phone log brought up in court and it becomes a big question mark.
The way that the film was written made it much more exciting and holding out until the end to tell the whole story really made the film work.
Rusty Sabich (Harrison Ford) is a bland, oppressed man who burns with a quiet, corrosive intensity that can flare uncontrollably. A Philadelphia prosecutor, Sabich's fire seems to have one outlet: his job. He loves prosecuting people. Otherwise, his life is dead-ended. He has a loveless marriage to a neurotic woman (Bonnie Bedelia) and an overbearing boss (Brian Dennehy) in a labyrinthine law enforcement world of corruption and twisted relationships. Then Carolyn Polhemus (Greta Scacchi) comes into his life. Lovely and seductive, Polhemus easily entices him to break his marital vows, but she schemes to get him to try for his boss' job. When he refuses, she leaves him. When she turns up dead, the victim of an apparent rape-murder. I agree that throughout the film the audience does not know whether or not he is innocent. The phone log always gives the audience a sense of doubt of the man's innocence.
ReplyDelete