This article does not concern itself with Fury for the most part - it only recounts Lang's later films after leaving the United States. But importantly, it mentions how he became "enmeshed in the gears of the Hollywood machine" and made numerous films here. It is my opinion that the social message and conflicting plot of Fury are a casualty to the Hollywood system of film project in the 1930s, and that the "churning out" of numerous titles during his time in the United States may have helped prevent the film from having a more coherent plotline and message. That is not to say Lang didn't have a vision as to what to do - indeed, Bellour emphasizes that Lang's "vision of the world" was very prominent in his films starting with Fury - but it does imply that his work may not have become what he originally wanted it to be. Directorial intent is difficult to identify at times, but the author of the essay does imply that Lang's American films may have had different content than what he had originally planned. The article, then, provides a possible explanation for the film's faults which can be backed up with other documents (Fritz Lang in America, etc.).

Fritz Lang's first American film, "Fury," concerns the story of a man whom, falsely accused of a kidnapping and murder, is held in a county jail against his will and is subject to mob justice at the hands of the local community. Such people burn the jail he is in and believe he dies, but he in fact survives and shows up later on during the trail of some of the lynchers, condemning the masses for their behavior while reflecting on his own mistakes. Many scenes, in particular the moment when the mob descends upon the jail, are still very captivating, but they seem to be in opposition to earlier moments in the film, where the happy relationship between Joe and Katherine is shown (aping a more lighthearted comedy in the process). The dramatic shift from carefree entertainment to social commentary, then poses an interesting question - is this shift consistent with the tone of the film? It is my argument that it is not, and through careful examination of the film as well as study of its various meanings and messages, it will hopefully be revealed that the shift detracts from the film's underlying social messages. However powerful such scenes may be, they cannot be fully appreciated without our understanding of the main characters. The change from lighthearted romp to stinging critique is too abrupt to justify, and the social commentary suffers to some extent because of this.

Kaes's paper on how Fury emphasizes the power and influence that exile can have on a person, particularly in the attention the film provides to Joe's loss of rights and of how fascism in Europe could have influenced Lang's production of the film. This is a particular thread I did not think of while viewing the film, and the importance of exile on Joe's character cannot be understated - his separation from the rest of humanity helps to prompt his more demented thoughts towards the end of the film and almost comes in the way of his eventual redemption. But the paper also makes note of a scene during the trail where film footage of the mob's participants is shown in freeze frame, leading said participants to feel remorseful for their actions. Such a use could not have actually happened when the film was made, and is used to emphasize the social messages of anti-mob mentality that Fury contains. This reminds me of the film's seemingly unlikely plot (or at least its opening segments with a happy Joe), and this helps to prove how a film's message can be altered by the kind of reality that it conveys. With such heavy emphasis on the participants of the mob, it helps to prove my point that the film's importance was placed more on its social messages than its distracting Hollywood-esque plot at times.

Johnson's essay on how lynching was represented in film and of how such a use of "historical memory" helps to highlight these films and their messages in an attempt to understand American society and history. Fury is mentioned within the paper where it is stated that the film emphasizes the brutality of the mob and of how their deeds can be rationalized by anyone. However, more notable in this paper is the comparison of the film to other anti-lynching vehicles of this era, including those of Oscar Micheaux. The lack of racial tension within Fury is mentioned, which I believe to be a very noticable problem for the movie's plot. Up until Joe is imprisioned, the movie follows what appears to be a very typical Hollywood pattern (a male and a female lead are going to be married, there is much humor, etc.), and this bleeds over into the film's anti-lynching aspects. To go along with Johnson's thesis, if "historical memory" is to be reconstructed from film, Fury (while its events may have certainly occured) is more dramaticized than may be appropriate.

Jensen's book is a general account of the career of Fritz Lang and divides its attention for mulitple films of his. Fury, of course, is featured, and while that section is concerned mostly with the history of the production, it also looks at how critics of the film criticised aspects of it (while defending the film's merits, largely). Various attacks on how critics thought the second half of the film invalidates its first "happier" act and of the film's lack of racial messages are mentioned, but Jensen defends the film by saying that the film's tonal shift makes Joe's conflicted feelings that much more important, and that by making Joe white implies that the film's events "could happen to anyone" (despite the fact that Jensen previously says that 80 percent of real-life lynching victims were black).

Indeed, Jensen goes on to say that the film's climax is most important and that everything else is "an afterthought," which seems to negate his previous arguments about the film largely working. Although I won't disagree with his opinion on the film's climax, it does make the film's coherency (or lack thereof) much more suspect, and that critics trying to find fault in the movie have some decent ideas to work from.

The article goes into great detail about the concept of civilization in the film and of how such notions of a "good" and "just" civilization are subverted by mob rule and the lynchings, thus accounting for Joe's transformation from cheerful to despondent by the film's end. In regards to my thesis, the transformation of Joe helps to prove my arguments in that the unusually "normal" Hollywood notions of love, relationships, and humor falls by the wayside within the first third of the film, and that the social implications of the lynching plot are what actually matters within the film. However,

This paper describes in a general sense how melodrama is used within the many films of Lang, and it contains a particularly interesting paragraph on Fury that states some of the faults of the film. In particular, Willis says that Lang, in presenting his "lynch-mob story within the story" of Joe and Katherine, failed in making the tale of Joe and Katherine's relationship believable - the unusual usage of peanuts, Joe's frequent mispelling of the word "memento," etc., are all used as evidence here to prove his point. I personally agree with Willis on these points, and I believe that the serious social message found in the lynching aspect of the plot clashes too strongly with the more tender story of Joe and Katherine, and that the movie's exploration of themes like social justice and individual responsibility only really occurs once Joe is thrown in jail. It seems as if the more standard, "Hollywood" relationship plot is a shell that holds the real plot within, and that initial stages of the plot mask the film's messages too strongly. To use a metaphor, it is as if the main plot of the movie is a pearl that is enclosed within a fairly unremarkable oyster.

Although focusing primarily on how some of Lang's last films may have been autobiographical in scope and could have served as a way to "wrap up" his career, the article also mentions Fury as possibly containing some of these personal tendencies. In relating a scene where Joe imagines how members of the mob are haunting him before they are sentenced to death, it is suggested here that the public and private spheres people place themselves in cannot be reconciled (that is, according to Tratner, people cannot have one "autobiography"). In terms of Joe, this means that his own distorted sense of justice and social order are harming him, and in relation to my thesis, the paper states that the shift from happy to dispondent Joe does not have to be reconciled; the two are already in sharp contrast to each other but serve to highlight each other's opposite values. However, as the movie ends on a happy note with Joe pleading his case and reuniting with Katherine, it is my opinion that such a shift is too abrupt and makes for an overly "happy" ending. Tratner's emphasis on duality in this section is important, but it still does not explain adequately how disjointed the two narratives are (Joe's happy life and subsequently his miserable stakeouts). This section does, however, help to convey the general message of anti-mob rule that Lang was trying to convey, no matter how diluted it may be.

Bagdanovich's book contains lengthy excerpts from interviews with Lang himself, discussing his many American films and of how they came to be. This book is particularly invaluable to this project as it contains many statements that make give insight into how Fury was made and of what problems arose during its production. In talking about the film, Lang mentions that he wanted an educated man to be the main protagonist, but that the producers insisted upon having an "average joe" to receive the scorn of lynch mobs. Studio pressures in casting and production schedules and laws influenced the film's production, and Lang even states that if a film was "to be made about lynching," it should have had something to do with racial tensions and problems. It appears that although Lang attempted to make the film as he saw fit, outside pressures prompted him to change it and apparently required that it be more standardized (i.e., the Production Code) than such a film would be in Europe. This could explain the possible failings of the movie's two seemingly inconsistent portraits of Joe. Lang even states that he hated the kiss between Joe and Katherine at the end of the film, saying that Joe's speech was what truly mattered - even then, it seems as if the film was altered to accomodate Hollywood more.

The article asserts that the lack of black characters in the movie undermines its messages about mob rule and lynching, and that the film uses the problems of lynching and social problems to show them in a solely "white" lens. Mennel examines how Joe's "higher" moral ground helps for viewers to identify with Joe more and states that such a film ultimately fails to provide the viewer with an adequate message as to why lynching and mob rule are inherently dangerous to American society.

For all of the lessons Fury wishes to teach to the audience, it does seem unusual that there are only a few black characters in this movie, and that all of them are relegated to extremely small roles. Therefore, the article raises an excellent point that the racial aspects of lynching, undoubtedly a concern in 1930s America, are glossed over in favor of a more general moral message given by a predominantly white cast. A serious subject such as mob mentality should been represented in a more fair light (and should incorporate the problems faced by all races), and it is still a disappointment that only white people are represented as being victims, and that they are largely unhurt from their mistakes and prejudices. Although, the film's release in 1936 may have prevented this ideal from actually occuring, and Mennel says Lang claimed the Production Code helped to remove any racial messages that the film may have contained, and even lists a scene from an earlier script that was cut because of such pressure.

This article describes the social commentary films that Lang worked on and of how they came to be, including that of Fury. As it helps to explain Lang's motivations for incorporating both broad themes of individual responsibility and the more narrow focus of Joe's redemption, it becomes very useful determining Lang's authorial intent in making the film the way he did. In particular, the article makes mention of the film's ending, where Joe shows himself to the court, acquitting the accused mob members and reuniting with Katherine. According to Smedley, this scene was entirely intentional, and was used to highlight a speech concerning the dangerous power of mob rule and of an individual's place in society.

Smedley ultimately argues that the film's social messages were what made the film work, and that its directness makes its messages work so well. Although this point cannot be denied, the progression of the film's plot is still unusual, and its problems do not appear to be answered. Smedley brings up the point that even Lang himself realized the film was overly dramatic but that his crew was working to make it "credible." This, to me, seems to imply that the premise itself was even illogical, and that attempting to make it "credible" would take extensive work. It seems that the message was more vital than the plot in this instance.