Outrage!
Tags: revenge, murder

Plot synopsis:
=== Overview ===
Outrage argues that several American political figures have led closeted gay lives while supporting and endorsing legislation that is harmful to the gay community. The film examines the mass media's reluctance to discuss issues involving gay politicians despite many comparable news stories about heterosexual politicians and scandals. Outrage describes this behavior as a form of institutionalized homophobia that has resulted in a tacit policy of self-censorship when reporting on these issues. The film is based on the work of blogger Michael Rogers and his site blogactive.com.
=== Subjects ===
Among other subjects, the film includes:
Ed Koch, Democratic Mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, was a lifelong bachelor, dogged by "endless gay rumors", who publicly denied being gay. Although his record on LGBT issues is generally positive, he is blamed for treating the emerging AIDS pandemic in the gay community reluctantly, unlike the health crises he handled in other situations. New York and San Francisco were the main epicenters of AIDS in the early 1980s. Critics, most notably Larry Kramer, believe Koch handled the AIDS crisis poorly because he was closeted. Koch died on February 1, 2013, of congestive heart failure.
Ken Mehlman, the former Republican national chairman, was named in the film as a closeted homosexual though he was against policies friendly to gays.
Larry Craig, former Republican politician and Senator from Idaho. In 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men's restroom, where he was accused of soliciting an undercover police officer for sexual activity.

Review: Good film for Preston to go out on.
This is a film that makes us realize there is sometimes a difference between justice and the law.
Robert Preston shines as the grief-stricken father, who, after a miscarriage of justice, takes matters into his own hands, and is put on trial for it.
Beau Bridges, as his attorney, realizes there's something to the fight Preson is making.
Mel Ferrer, as the judge who had to let a criminal go, is outstanding.
His conscience bothers him, but he abides by the law he's sworn to protect.
And Burgess Meredith is a crusty as ever.
Some great old pros in this one.If this film doesn't make you think, you need to watch it again..
Taut Story.
Robert Preston portrays a grief-stricken dad who kills the man who raped and murdered his daughter.
Beau Bridges is the lawyer who defends the man's actions in court.
This film raises some deep issues about the justice system.
It especially questions the notion that criminals seem to have more rights than victims and their families..
Truly Unusual Irwin Allen Production!.
The most stunning thing about "Outrage" is not so much the intriguing storyline, but rather the fact that it was produced by Irwin Allen, the "Master of Disaster" of '70s cinema, and also responsible for erstwhile sci-fi TV series of the '60s like "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" and "Lost In Space." His productions are usually criticized for their lack of attention to the finer details like the script and dramatic performances.
But here, he surprises his critics (and fans) with a taut, and timely subject that is more "Law and Order" than "Poseidon Adventure." No action sequences, no explosions or people running around in rubber monster suits.
Just good acting with a provocative plot line.My only complaint is that Robert Preston's character seemed a bit 'dated' by 1986 in the way he lived through his religion....I mean, I didn't know many New York Irish Catholics in the '80s that were THAT religious (particularly a man).
I assume the director wanted his Catholicism 'played to the hilt" to emphasis Preston was above reproach to further the courtroom dramatics..
Was Remade.
I saw this movie in 86, and later noticed it was remade, starring Beau Bridges, in 97 "Defenders: Payback".
Same premise carefully retold 11 years later, only with John Larroquette as the vigilante "I don't want no attorney" father, instead of the original with Robert Preston.
Though the suspect chase would be used in the other "Defenders" TV movie "Choice Of Evils".More or less, a decent Hollywood justice type of film If you take it for what it is in that context.
The main idea is to show the viewers that not all homicide cases are black & white.
Instead, this film attempts to show (or rather pose to) the viewer, how YOU might react if your child's rapist or molester had been released on a technicality, even though he confessed to the crime.
Would YOU become a vigilante too?.
Great!
It hits - dead on..
Great movie!
It really makes one think about how the Justice system really does work.
Great story and performances by all, especially by Beau Bridges.
The system itself on trial.
Robert Preston's farewell performance is in this fine made for TV movie Outrage!
If you watch this film outrage is exactly what you will feel.The film opens with Preston buying 38 caliber pistol after being assured it will
'do the job' in a state with less stringent gun control laws then coming back to
New York City and after tracking him down, emptying the pistol into the body
of Stan Haze who got off on a technicality after raping and killing Preston's
daughter Susan Mackin who is only seen in flashback.After committing this act Preston walks into a police station and gives himself
up and waives counsel and makes a full statement as to what he did and why.Judge Burgess Meredith in a move who truly regrets asks young attorney Beau
Bridges recently of the DA's office to take the case and defend Preston.
A lawyer is supposed to defend his client zealously, but not quite as zealously as
Bridges does when he put the system on trial itself.Preston is a truly broken man, he's got one surviving child, a son who became a
priest and lives and works in a remote part of South America, one son killed in
Vietnam and this daughter who died.
His wife Selma Archerd dies shortly after
the dismissal of charges in the daughter's case.
Preston feels he's got nothing
to live for.
Makes him a truly dangerous man to one he hates.Purportedly the object of our legal system is justice.
Justice went quite a bit
awry here.
When Bridges questions the whole system that led to this Outrage!
he walks on the fighting side of Burgess Meredith.Colleagues do stick together and the 'system' is what these guys live by.
as Meredith says after many contempt citations judges have long memories.
His colleague on the original rape case is played by Mel Ferrer.
For his defense
strategy Bridges borrows from what Clarence Darrow did to William Jennings
Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Some good performances come from Linda Purl as Bridges wife and big breadwinner in the family at this point, William Allen Young as the Assistant
District Attorney, and most of all from Anthony Newley.Newley is one of those bottom feeding agents who wants the rights to Preston's and Bridges story.
He's already spending his agent's commission on
book and movie rights to be.
He's loathsome, but he might prove necessary
for the future.
This is one outstanding made for TV film and as good a one for Preston to go
out on as The Shootist for John Wayne and The Misfits for Clark Gable..
Interesting issues.
SPOILERS.
Whoever wrote it went to the trouble of looking up some law.
The question it deals with is pretty interesting.
A black man rapes and murders a white woman in New York.
When the alert goes out, the police capture the rapist, stopping him because he is the only African-American on a street in Little Italy.
They take him to the station and search him, finding jewelry from the victim in his pockets and scratches on his face.
He is read his rights but waives his right to an attorney because, "It won't do me no good." Other evidence of culpability is collected, so there is no doubt whatever that he is the rapist/murderer.
But the evidence is subsequently thrown out because the police did not have probable cause to stop him or search him.
Even his confession is suppressed because, although he didn't ask for an attorney during questioning, it seems he was on parole for a previous crime (a rape) and the attorney appointed for that crime still represented him, and so should have been present.
A bit complicated, but the victim's father, Robert Preston, simplifies things by blowing the murderer away when he walks.
This courtroom drama deals with Preston's trial for murder.
Preston is candid and sane.
He shot the guy because the law did not do its job.The movie conforms to the classic template involving tension between the rights of the accused and the sanctity of the law.
Too bad it's executed so perfunctorily.
The performers aren't all bad.
Mel Ferrer brings a quiet dignity to his role as a judge who sees himself as an instrument of the law, although he doesn't agree with it.
Linda Purl, in the traditional role of female support for a hero filled with self doubt, wears big glasses and is as dainty as can be, her shoulders narrow, he limbs vulnerable looking, as if they could be snapped by the slightest pressure.
She has enormous blue eyes and tiny lips that curl up at the outer edges, like Meg Ryan's.
Her acting skills are modest but adequate to the job at hand.
Burgess Meredith is another matter.
I kind of like the guy, but sheesh he can overact.
"No more OUTbursts!
This is NOT a FOOTBALL game.
This is a COURT of LAW!" His hair is a delightful mess but his smile is so taut that it seems to signal an immanent explosion.
Robert Preston is okay but is more effective in lightweight roles.
He has strong features and looks in fine shape for a guy who's career began back in the 1930s.
Beau Bridges is the weakest performer and it's too bad because his role is critical.
He just doesn't have much range.
It wasn't much of a hindrance in some of his earlier performances but it is here, where real drama and the blessings of Thespia are required.The director is of no help to him or anyone else.
Blocking is professional enough but Bridges and Meredith are allowed to overact outrageously.
Every question -- every statement that Bridges makes in the courtroom is treated as a climax.
As a result the courtroom scenes suffer from multiple climaxes and leave the viewer sobbing with relief and gratitude when the verdict is finally delivered.
I'll leave you to figure out what the verdict turns out to be.Well, maybe I won't.
It gets off to a slow start.
Robert Preston is dead meat.
But he's a proud man and won't plead insanity or any such nonsense.
He feels he deserves his punishment.
Bridges puts the law on the stand instead and criticizes the various legal issues that led to the rapist's release even after there was no doubt in anyone's mind that he was guilty of particularly heinous crime.
The jury finds instead that Preston is innocent but the justice system is guilty."We are a nation of laws, not men," said John Adams.
If you don't like John Adama -- and many didn't -- there's always Aristotle: "The law is reason, free from passion." In this case the law didn't prevail despite the cogent summary by the prosecutor.
What prevailed instead was passion, the very thing the law was designed to prevent from having influence over a decision.
J. Simpson case.
And it's amusing to imagine the audience applauding Bridges when he's scolded for trying to put the police and the judges on trial -- "sending a message to the police", as it were.
It's precisely what Johnny Cochran told the jury to do in the Simpson case..
Preston's Farewell Performance and an interesting look at the justice system.
As I mentioned in FINNEGAN BEGIN AGAIN, OUTRAGE!
was Robert Preston's last performance on film.
He plays Dennis Riordan, a man of quiet determination.
His daughter was raped and murdered, and as a result his wife died of the horror and strain of the tragedy.
But what made it worse was one of those legal technicalities came up regarding the even handedness of the "fair trial" theory of our law.
As a result the perpetrator is released.
So Preston, a few months later, tracks him down and kills him.Preston, of course, is arrested, and would have a perfect defense of temporary insanity.
He refuses the suggestion of his lawyer Beau Bridges to use this defense.
He knew what he was doing - killing a mad dog who destroyed his family.
Of course, in our legal system, that is not a viable defense...or is it?OUTRAGE!
picks at the defects of the judicial system.
The perpetrator was not stopped and seized by the police properly.
He was grabbed because of a racially chosen reason (he did not racially fit into the neighborhood the police grabbed him in).
Had the court not thrown the arrest and the evidence collected out, the perpetrator would have ended up in prison.
But it is one of those "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal no-nos, because it is not based on a reasonable, non-biased reason to have suspected the perpetrator.
That this view is actually ridiculous under the circumstances does not matter.
As Ambrose Bierce points out, in one of his FANTASTIC FABLES, when a Supreme Court Judge allows a man the right to use a boat on a river that sinks and drowns him - the state of the boat was not brought to the Judge's attention!
This, unfortunately, is a problem we all share (even, by the way, the criminals - I wish somebody would one day do a film showing a "successful" criminal tied up in knots by the legal system that has previously helped him).
Bridges wants to find out why the perpetrator got out, and slowly finds it was a decision by Judge Mel Ferrer (a fine performance of a man who hates having to do such things).
Bridges shows that this legal nit-picking is responsible for real loss of respect for the law.SPOILER COMING UP: Bridges in his summation turns the situation around on it's head.
He points out to the jury that what it all came down to was a legal decision for philosophical reasons to throw out important evidence against the rapist killer because it did not seem fair.
So, Bridges says, he wishes that if it was up to him, the jury would consider the actual physical and eyewitness testimony against Preston as so much evidence that can be discarded for the same reason.
The jury takes the hint, and releases Preston.Preston's health must have been beginning to deteriorate (he died in 1987).
His character has some good moments in the script, chatting with Bridges about the idiocies of a legal system he really can't understand.
But he is not as central in the film as Bridges or Ferrer are.
Still the film was thoughtful enough to make it a good final film for Preston's career to end with.