At the height of the Cold War and the HUAC hearings, government employee Bernie Goldsmith (Borgnine) is summarily fired. He discovers, to his horror, that he's suspected of being a Communist. Ostracized by most of his community, he hires a lawyer and fights the charges. The other two brave men of the title are his lawyer (Milland) and a representative of the military (Lovejoy) who stand up for him. The film depicts the trauma Goldsmith and his family go through in the efforts to clear themselves. Based on a newspaper story, the film is an interesting attempt to deal with the blacklist issue circa late 1956 when it was produced.
Add a Review
-
Solo-1213 April 2007
-
planktonrules10 December 2011Ernest Borgnine plays a government employee who is accused of being a security risk and is fired. What this meant in early 1950s language was that he was suspected as a communist. However, the exact reasons for this as well as his accusers were never presented to him and defending himself against vague charges was difficult, if not impossible. Fortunately, he's defended by a capable lawyer (Ray Milland) and some members of the community come to his defense--though many of his so-called friends decide he MUST be disloyal and treat him and his family roughly. How can a guy defend himself if no witnesses or evidence are presented?! Such a film critical of the Red Scare of the early 1950s would never have been made much before 1956. Fortunately, by 1956, folks in Hollywood were willing to finally talk about the overreactions of the time. Now I am NOT saying communism was no threat--but the reaction was clearly a case where Constitutional rights were ignored. The film does a very nice job showing this and making Borgnine very sympathetic and real--sort of a great 'everyman'. And, I really liked Frank Faylen's portrayal as the mailman--he was quite the character! Overall, a very compelling film--and interesting as a portrait into our history.
By the way, this film was based on a real life government employee, Abraham Chasanow. However, Chasanow lived in Greenbelt, Maryland, a place that looks nothing like Riverview from the movie. A planned Levittown community, it was made up mostly of multifamily homes and were often blocky and unattractive--not the sort of place you'd want in a film. It looks a lot nicer now (they gave the places makeovers a few decades ago), by the way and I grew up only a few minutes from there.
Also, you might want to keep some Kleenex nearby. Some parts are very touching and emotional. -
A government employee (Ernest Borgnine) loses his job when his superiors receive notice that he had had ties with Communist organizations in the past. Set in offices in Washington D. C. and as well in a suburban development, the film goes between the two locales to track the action. Probably the more interesting locale is the suburb where he lives with his family and where the opinion seems to be divided between the neighbors as to whether or not he actually is a subversive. The Washington side of things is more or less focusing on his trial to prove his innocence and shines a favorable light on government fairness during his trial, which features Ray Milland as his legal representative and Nina Foch as the government heavy trying to prove the case against him. One wonders in real life if this opportunity was actually afforded to suspected Communists during the 50's. In any event, back at his suburban neighborhood things get pretty heated at his two kids' high school where they face rumors about their family, and other interesting situations as well arise that make the film at least mildly interesting compared to the whitewash it portrays at his trial.
-
JohnHowardReid27 June 2017Copyright 1957 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Paramount: 15 March 1957. U.S. release: January 1957. U.K. release: 25 February 1957. Australian release: No official release date. 7,951 feet. 88 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: The place is Washington, D.C., and the time is 1953 when the new security program was being inaugurated. Assistant Secretary to the Navy Rogers (Dean Jagger) directs that steps be taken to discharge Bernie Goldsmith (Ernest Borgnine), long-time department employee, as a security risk.
Meantime, at a Memorial Day picnic in Riverview, a housing development near the Capitol city, Goldsmith sits with his family and is surprised and pleased when his daughter, Shirley (Diane Jergens), wins an essay contest on the subject, "What Memorial Day Means to Me."
NOTES: Fox's 71st CinemaScope release and its 3rd CinemaScope feature in black-and-white.
COMMENT: Holds the interest well despite vigorous whitewashing and its juvenile concern with the Communist threat to democracy, etc. The film only comes to grips with the real issue once or twice: "A man might be classed as a security risk because he is a drunkard or a blabbermouth", but there is no indication that the government intends to do anything to rectify the Communist impression or to curtail its secret police probings into an individual's background on the unsupported denunciations of crackpots and personal enemies.
These weaknesses in the script are emphasized by Dunne's static direction. He is content to let the script speak for itself via unobtrusive camera angles and an almost complete absence of camera movement. Such an approach throws a great weight on the actors, who, by and large come through with flying colors, particularly Ernest Borgnine, and Frank Faylen in an unusually meaty role as a crabby postman. -
I rate "Three Brave Men" a 10.If it was possible to give a higher rating I would.I watched this movie just recently for the first time and I was transfixed from the very first second.The stark black and white made the atmosphere of the movie and the serious subject matter play that much better.I came away from this story feeling like I do when I see a story where someone is falsely accused of a crime and it ruins their whole life.One you are accused you can never totally get rid of the accusation and doubt from other people and society.The cast of this motion picture is incredible to name a few like Ray Milland,Ernest Borgnine,Nina Foch,etc.Ernest Borgnine is still going strong.He is still making movies.He is around 95 years old.He sure does not look it or act like is is almost a century old.Amazing!I recommend this movie to everyone.By the way this movie is based on a true incident.I Have This Movie.
-
revsolly13 December 2008In this tale of a loyal government worker who is wrongfully accused of being an unacceptable security risk, we find several key elements for us to mull over.
Of course we have the hero, Bernie Goldsmith, a loyal, hard working, Naval civilian employee. He is wrongfully accused of being a Communist sympathizer.
Now, before I go further, I must make a major point. The Navy is not wrong in wanting to rid itself of someone whom circumstantial evidence shows might have sympathies toward a repressive government, dedicated to the downfall of our republic. The Navy is not wrong in investigating allegations it received about one of its employees, with access to sensitive data.
Where the Navy makes its biggest mistake is in the personnel it used to glean information. As the movie unfolds, it appears that at least one of the investigators it sent in to vet Mr. Goldsmith, did not report accurate information. It appeared that he may have even falsified statements alleged to have been made by some of the people quoted in said investigation.
The gentleman who precipitates this whole ordeal is revealed to be a bigot of the first magnitude. He hates everyone who is not white or Anglo-Saxon, as evidenced by his statement to legitimate Navy investigators later in the movie. Hence his dislike for Goldsmith.
Having worked in military intelligence for 6 years in the U.S. Army, I know that, as the facts are given in the time line of the movie, the Navy was justified in pulling Mr. Goldsmith's access to classified and sensitive information. To do otherwise would have been inexcusable.
By rights, the ideal last scene of this movie would have been the villain being brought up on charges for his false statements, under oath.
I think it is wonderful that, for the most part, the citizenry of the town, starting with the Christian pastor, supported Goldsmith in his efforts. It was only the warped view of a small group of people who brought this whole case about. -
mamalv12 July 2014What can I say about this film, other than it is so good that it deserved recognition of some sort. Ernest Borgnine is always good, but here he is excellent as the every day man. His life is turned upside down, by rumors, and petty suspicions. He works for the Navy as a civilian and is accused of Communist leanings. He gets suspended from his job, and goes to Ray Milland, portraying a lawyer for help. People are vicious but his real friends step up to help. Milland as the lawyer plays the part a bit understated and of course is great. There are a lot of A list stars in this film. Nina Foch, Frank Lovejoy, Dean Jagger. All in all it is a wonderful look back at the paranoia of the fifties. Worth more than one look.
-
audiemurph12 November 2012This entry from 20th Century Fox feels like a low-budget film; no action footage, no epic scenery; just a lot of indoor dialogue. But make no mistake, this is a remarkable film, primarily thanks to the spectacular performance of the great Ernest Borgnine.
It seems to me that in most of his movies, Borgnine simply plays himself: a boisterous and bawdy character, sometimes benign, sometimes evil (see "A Bad Day at Blackrock"). But here, perhaps even more so than in "Marty", Mr. Borgnine gets a chance to play something different: a soft-spoken, kind-hearted man, who never fails to be conscious of how anything he says and does affects those around him. He is sensitive and bewildered, due to the accusations directed at him, and he plays his part so wonderfully well that you might actually forget who the actor is - I can't think of a better way to compliment this gentle bear of a man.
The supporting cast are fine throughout. Some of the sentimentality sometimes threatened to become maudlin, but, thanks to Borgnine's strength as an actor, it never takes over the film.
Particularly curious is the young actor Warren Berlinger, playing Borgnine's son Harry. We are left to wonder how Borgnine could have a son with a heavy Brooklyn accent when the rest of the family is essentially accent-free. But no matter, he too is appealing.
Ray Milland plays Borgnine's lawyer hard and well, though he looks a little puffy around the left cheek and jowl. The scene early on when he tests Borgnone's loyalty by berating him is particularly powerful.
The movie, though longish at 88 minutes, actually flies by, as you wonder desperately how Borgnine will fare in the end. A strongly recommended movie.