576 Teenaged Harry goes out on a window-breaking spree with a tough gang. Although he doesn't break any windows himself, he is seen by the night watchman and turned in to the police. The police investigator tries to get Harry to tell who else is in the gang, but Harry refuses to squeal on his friends. The investigator knows that Harry is a good-natured kid and so tries to convince the warehouse owner to simply accept payment for the windows without prosecuting Harry. But the warehouse owner is sick and tired of all this vandalism––he wants the investigator to "get tough" with Harry and "make him talk" so that his gang can be broken up. The investigator tries one more time to reason with Harry and when that doesn't work he decides not to get tough, fearing that this will just make Harry hate the police and drive him in to further delinquent activities. A man from Harry's church picks him up at the police station and takes him to his house to wait for Harry's father to get home from his graveyard-shift job. This guy also tries to get Harry to talk, but no dice. Everybody's thoughts are verbalized in the film, and it ends unresolved, instructing the viewers to make their own decisions for each of the film's characters. This is an unusual Coronet film. It's rare for Coronet to end a film unresolved and the ghetto setting of the film and its dark mood are also unusual. It reminds me of a slicker version of the Centron "discussion" films, such as Cheating or What About Juvenile Delinquency? It's not nearly as campy as those films, though it is about as depressing as Cheating. An oddity. Ratings: Camp/Humor Value: **. Weirdness: ****. Historical Interest: *****. Overall Rating: ****. Also available on The Educational Archives, Vol. 2: Social Engineering 101. Right or Wrong? Christine Hennig 2002-12-09 00:00:00 2002-12-09 00:00:00 4 6239 Should the night watchman have reported the crime at the warehouse he was paid to protect? Should Harry's mom have told the police that her son lived there, after they showed up at the house and asked for him? Should the man who's windows were broken have pressed charges? Should the police chief have questioned Harry after the charges were pressed? These are just some of the hard-hitting questions asked of the viewer in this short on morality. Bonus: Harry wrestles with his inner demons, using every muscle in his face. Like something out of Shakespeare... dynayellow 2003-09-17 12:15:02 2003-09-17 12:15:02 4 8873 Harry is with some other boys who throw rocks and break warehouse windows. Although he didn't throw any rocks, the night watchman recognizes him. A series of decisions by the watchman, the policeman, Harry's mother, the warehouse owner, and a family friend lead to Harry's apparent agonizing over whether to rat on his friends or not. From the start, the film says it will not judge what is right or wrong, but all we get is an adult viewpoint: we hear the inner dialog of the adults, but nothing of Harry's or his friends thoughts. We are only allowed to view and make assumptions from the acting of the boy playing Harry. Still, it is better acting and subject matter than most 1950's social guidance films. The boy wont talk... I'll force him to talk! Steve Nordby 2004-01-22 19:37:48 2004-01-22 19:36:59 4 12498 Instead of the usual "what would you do?" singular problem that is popular among these films, the filmmaker decides to go all out and lay out something like 5 problems for us to think about. Harry (who looks screamingly like someone from the Wahlberg family) is with a pack of hoodlums when they break a couple of windows at a warehouse (Harry doesnt he chickens out). The nightwatchman thinks.. should I report him to the cops? (he does). The cops come to his front door. Should his Mom let them in? (She does) Harry is then taken to the police station, where the detective is having a conversation with the warehouse manager.. The warehouse manager wants the policeman to make an example of him. Should the policeman do that? (he doesn't). The film THEN takes a only-in-the-fifties turn when a priest shows up at the station and TAKES HIM HOME. No doubt, to talk some sense into the boy, but WHY this was done is I'm quite sure lost on the "Priests are big boy pervs" audience of today, who would think of ANOTHER moral decision the priest would make later on that night (aw nuts, the film ended!) Reccomended! It's Marky Mark! Bill T. 2004-05-01 17:46:07 2004-05-01 17:46:07 5 An effective film, especially considering it was made in 1951. A Good script, that is well acted and directed. After seeing this film, this could elad to a good discussion about moral values and decisions. Effective ERD. 2007-04-28 00:29:24 2007-04-28 00:29:24 5 Harry is with some other boys who throw rocks and break warehouse windows. Although he didn't throw any rocks, the night watchman recognizes him. A series of decisions by the watchman, the policeman, Harry's mother, the warehouse owner, and a family friend lead to Harry's apparent agonizing over whether to rat on his friends or not. From the start, the film says it will not judge what is right or wrong, but all we get is an adult viewpoint: we hear the inner dialog of the adults, but nothing of Harry's or his friends thoughts. We are only allowed to view and make assumptions from the acting of the boy playing Harry. Still, it is better acting and subject matter than most 1950's social guidance films. wwwww fisherman777 2009-06-19 18:58:21 2009-06-19 18:58:21 3 6 4.17