"Ransom" is based on a true story and was remade in 1996 starring Mel Gibson, but with somewhat different scripts.This 1956 film stars Glenn Ford, Donna Reed, Leslie Nielsen, and Juano Hernandez - one of my favorite actors, who has given my fine performances in many films.As in the true story, Ford plays Dave Stannard, a wealthy businessman whose child is taken from school by a nurse in uniform for reasons having to do with lab tests. This dates the film immediately, as no such thing would ever be permitted today.The parents (Ford and Reed) realize the boy has been kidnapped when he doesn't come home from school. Then they get a call from the school, and then they verify that the doctor didn't send a nurse for their son. They involve the police and eventually, they receive a ransom demand.After discussing the situation with the police, Stannard appears on his company-sponsored television show with a message from the kidnappers.This is such a powerful film - suspenseful, heart-wrenching, and one that brought me to tears, particularly in the scene where Stannard breaks down and Jesse (Hernandez) prays with him. I also found the end extremely moving.Glenn Ford and Donna Reed both gave tremendous, sympathetic performances, with Ford probably giving the best performance of his career as the anguished father. I've always liked him but I never think of him as having much range. He certainly is out of his comfort zone here.I remember liking the Mel Gibson film -- the father had the same toughness, though it was more overt. Ford displayed an inner strength rather than out and out aggression.Highly recommended.

Glenn Ford has always struck me as having a lot in common with his (unrelated) modern-day namesake Harrison Ford. Both were good at playing calm, unflappable heroes and at conveying a sense of solidity and inner decency which made them valuable as the heroes of thrillers, especially crime thrillers. In "Ransom!", as in the classic film noir "The Big Heat" which he made three years earlier, Glenn Ford plays an ordinary man whose life is suddenly turned upside down by the activities of a criminal gang. His character in "Ransom!" is Dave Stannard, a wealthy businessman. The Christian name may be a reference to the earlier film, in which his character was also named Dave, and the surname may be a play on the word "standard". (The pronunciation of the two words would be closer in American English than in Britain, where the first "d" in "standard" would be fully voiced). The Stannard family are very much the standard well-to-do white all-American family as portrayed in the media during the fifties- hard-working, caring dad, attractive mom, cheeky but lovable young son and faithful old black servant. The crisis in the family's life comes when their son Andy is kidnapped and the kidnappers demand a ransom of $500,000. In response, Dave takes an unexpected step. He is informed by the local police chief that, statistically, it will make no difference to his son's chances of survival whether he pays the ransom or not. He therefore decides that it is his duty not to pay the ransom, as to do so will only encourage other criminals to carry out kidnappings. He therefore makes a live television broadcast in which he offers the $500,000 as a reward for the capture of the kidnappers. The film was remade by Ron Howard in the 1990s with Mel Gibson in the leading role. Although Howard keeps the basic premise of the original film, the treatment of the subject is so different that a direct comparison would probably be unfair. The 1956 film has its strengths, particularly Ford's performance, but it also has three main weaknesses. The first of these is the portrayal of Dave's wife Edith as weak and hysterical, although the fault here lies with the scriptwriters rather than with Donna Reed. The second major weakness in the film is that it is too static. It contains surprisingly little in the way of physical action for a crime drama, even by the standards of the fifties. (There was, for example, considerably more action in "The Big Heat"). In some ways it is a rather old- fashioned film, looking back to the studio-bound "filmed theatre" style of the thirties and forties, in which most scenes took place indoors and dialogue was more important than physical action. Here, most of the action takes place in the Stannards' living room as Dave debates what action he should take with the local police chief, his brother Al, Charlie Telfer, a journalist covering the story, and even his butler "Uncle Jesse". (As Edith spends most of the film unconscious, having been sedated by the family doctor, she misses out on a lot of these discussions). The film's third main flaw is that we never see the kidnappers or even learn their identities. We therefore never know why, at the end of the film, they release Andy unharmed. (The main reason is presumably that studio bosses wanted a happy ending). This means that, essentially, we miss out on half the story. The psychological pressures on Dave and Edith, and the ethical considerations which lead him to offer a reward rather than paying a ransom, are only the first half. We also want to know the second half of the story- the psychological pressures on the criminals themselves, and how those pressures are increased by the fact that Dave has put a bounty on their heads. The film also avoids some of the ethical issues raised by Dave's decision. It seems, for example, unlikely that his bounty will ever be claimed unless one or more members of the gang turn State's evidence and inform on the others- which means that at least one of the kidnappers will end up being rewarded for the crime. "Ransom!" raises some potentially interesting issues, but does not treat them fully, and ends up as no more than a bog-standard (or bog-Stannard) crime drama. 5/10

While I enjoyed the Mel Gibson remake of this picture and was pleased to see him in a serious role where he could display his acting chops, I thought the whole idea was a little divorced from reality, although it made perfect sense at that time as it must have seemed forty years earlier. The notion of a kidnapping victim's family refusing to pay any ransom and using it instead as a tool to convince the perpetrators to turn the boy loose sounds logical enough, but in real life such an act would bring such universal condemnation upon the father in a real-life scenario that no one has ever considered doing it for real. Part of the reason is that so few children are snatched for money, but usually for other more nefarious reasons by mentally warped individuals who generally work alone and don't confide their plans to friends and associates, making such threats to kidnappers at best useless or at worst counterproductive. Because the villain was evident in the Ron Howard remake, the story had to take a turn whereby the father would have to confront the kidnapper one on one. In this original, the snatchers are virtually unseen, so all the drama rests with the victimized family and how they interact with those who come to their aid or to view the spectacle. As such, it gives the principals, Ford and Reed, the chance to emote and they perform very well. Donna Reed was an unusually gifted actress as her Oscar win and Emmy nominations attest and Glenn Ford was an underrated actor in his day, probably best known by younger generations as Superman's adopting father in the final stages of his career. Sad to say, there's very little suspense in the narrative, and one wonders how great directors like Hitchcock, Zinneman or Kazan might have turned this into a great film. If you've only seen the newer version of the two films, take the time to watch the original. Some of the acting is exceptionally good, and it's mostly a well-crafted film. If nothing else, it's interesting to see how different generations of filmmakers can put totally differing spins on essentially the same story. Dale Roloff

Not to be confused with Jay McInerny's Japan-set follow-up to his seminal 80's novel, "Bright Lights, Big City," or Mel Gibson and Ron Howard's stab at the same material, Glen Ford and company tackle the "title" and the kidnapping tale-of-woe with a heavy splash of sweat and hysteria. Sans modern pyrotechnics, the straight-forward narrative and sharp, clean black and white photography are welcome additions to any film library. Ford is a mass of twisted piano wire. Intense. Brooding. Furious. He rages against everyone in sight. Donna Reed spins from cool, detached resolve to loopy mush. The family doctor sends her to her bedroom loaded with tranquilizers. The kidnapper is never on screen--except for a burning cigarette. And maybe a shadow or two. The black actors are given more to do than usual. The butler has the run of the house and is a deacon. He wears his religion in full view of all the others. Fatherly, he hugs Ford in his hour of need. Could this be the first interracial embrace in movie history? Ford is a very affluent man and has a television anchored in his bookcase. I could see why Gibson was drawn to this material. Ford, jumping all over the place during a "live" broadcast, slaps his hand down over the Bible with such fervor, he almost flattens the tome into a leather pancake. Ouch. Finally, if the ransom gets payed, what are the odds the boy will be returned alive? Two to one. I know this because the police chief and the good book tells Ford so. Perfect.