Escape From Alcatraz

In 1962, Frank Morris and John and Clarence Anglin escaped from Alcatraz prison.  In 1979, Don Siegel made a movie about this event starring Clint Eastwood, Patrick McGoohan, and Fred Ward.  And in 2026, I watched that movie with my kids.  While Eastwood is no Olivier, he has improved his acting skills since the last time we watched him in his Sergio Leone helmed Spaghetti Western trilogy.  Meanwhile, Patrick McGoohan proves his bona fide acting chops by making my daughters, who are very keen on him thanks to Danger Man, detest the fusty warden who preens his delicate ego at the expense of the inmates.  The rest of the cast does well, with Larry Hankin doing a good job with a nervous nelly character that could be easily overdone and made ridiculous, and Paul Benjamin as English gives a brief but memorable performance.

Escape from Alcatraz is a fairly accurate representation of the entire event, at least as far as Hollywood “based on a true story” movies go, but apart from Eastwood discreetly swiping a fingernail clipper in an early scene, the actual escape machinations don’t even start until the second half of the movie.  While this latter part of the story is filled with the clever problem solving and tension filled moments one expects in a prison break movie, the first half does not drag.  Watching Eastwood figure out the rules of his new prison, navigate the social structures, avoid a predator inmate, and build unlikely friendships all make for an entertaining watch.

Eastwood plays Morris, a high IQ convict who, after escaping from several previous prisons, now finds himself in Alcatraz.  The warden warns Morris that unlike other prisons, this one is inescapable, and all who have tried have been caught, killed, or found dead.  The warden allows privileges, including painting, reading, and working at jobs, based on inmate behavior, and, at first, Morris appears to be willing to play ball.  Even after he gets entangled in a violent confrontation with Wolf, a prisoner intent on being friendlier with Morris than Morris would prefer, and unjustly punished along with Wolf simply because he was defending himself, Morris goes back to minding his own business.

The movie doesn’t spend time exploring what crimes these men committed to earn their stay in prison, because, like all good prison break stories, the focus of the story is not on crime and punishment but rooting for the protagonists to gain their freedom, especially against daunting odds.  Richard Tuggle, the screenwriter, likened the story to watching climbers conquering Mount Everest.  There are, however, some interesting motivations wrapped up in the story.  At their first meeting, the warden explains to Morris, “When you disobey the rules of society, they send you to prison.  If you disobey the rules of the prison, they send you to us. . . We don’t make good citizens, but we make good prisoners.”  Morris does obey the rules of Alcatraz, at first, but when the rules prove arbitrary and provide no protection to those who follow them, then, as in any society even a prison, those with nothing left to lose will risk any consequence.  It’s only after the warden, offended by an unflattering portrait, punishes one of the kindly, elderly prisoners past the point of endurance that Morris begins plotting his escape.  He recruits three fellow prisoners to help him with his plan, and through guile, patience, and perseverance, they attempt to win their freedom

Several of the characters were changed, such as the fictionalized warden, who is never given a name, and Allen West, the fourth member of the escape group who has been changed to Charley Butts, an anxiety prone weakling rather than a fairly hardened criminal.  Most of the other characters are entirely fictional, like English and Doc, although some of the incidents that occur are true, such as Doc’s episode in the carpentry room.  That moment was based on Rufe Persful, who, in 1937, went a little mad due to abuse from other prisoners combined with the complete silence rule in force during that time (inmates weren’t allowed to talk to each other at any point).  The use of the chrysanthemum is also a fictional flourish, but a very good one.  It helped solve the problem of how to end a movie when the actual end of the story is still unknown.

There has been a great deal of speculation on whether or not Morris and the Anglin brothers survived their escape.  Their bodies were never found, and several folks have proven the plausibility of their rubber raft, which was far more robust in real life than it was depicted in the movie, making it safely to either the Marin Headlands or somewhere near the Golden Gate.  Some items, like an oar, a plastic bag with personal contact information, and, according to FBI records, the raft itself washed up on Angel Island, which is referenced in the movie, but men clever enough to plan and execute an escape this brilliant certainly could have been smart enough to throw around a red herring or two.  There have been reports of sightings, conflicting reports of contact with family members, and even a confession letter in 2018 from an old man claiming to be John Anglin hoping to negotiate medical treatment for cancer in exchange for turning himself in; however, nothing has ever been authenticated by the FBI which might still be nursing a bit of wounded pride, even these many decades later.  So the final chapter of the real story ends, like the movie, inconclusively, but, like the legend of D. B. Cooper, perhaps the mystery is what will keep the story alive long after even an elderly Morris and the Anglin brothers have passed on to their eternal rewards.

 

5 Responses

  1. Dom says:

    I’ve never actually seen the movie although I’ve long intended to do so and have it somewhere. I guess it belongs in the short queue now; the boys were intrigued by the story once upon a time. Thank you for this.

  2. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    Although I am among Don Siegel’s warmest admirers, I hated this movie when I saw it, but prison pictures–like movies about submarines, Antarctica, concentration camps, and schools–give me claustrophobia. Eastwood never learned to act–his grimace with the Toscano cigars he hated was the best he could do for Sergio Leone. Siegel a far better director got some muted muggings from him in Dirty Harry but when directing himself, Clint became a self-created cliché.

    I liked several of his films like “Bronco Billy” but came to realize that the sick people he played were projections of a deeply wounded human being. There is an amusing anecdote about some award ceremony. Eastwood was sitting with Siegel–they were apparently making Dirty Harry at the time– and talking loudly about what a disgrace Hollywood was to endure people like Dean Martin. Martin heard the diatribe and very calmly and pleasantly took Eastwood apart, while poor Siegel did his best to whitewash the episode. Martin’s point was that his approach was to appear effortless, while Eastwood’s approach was to be intense and serious. People were different, Martin suggested, and young Clint should quit comparing himself to others as a means of criticizing them. Eastwood was man enough to apologize to Martin and thank him for the advice.

  3. Roger McGrath says:

    I saw Escape from Alcatraz when it first came out and watched it again maybe 20 years ago. I enjoyed it both times, although there’s a couple of brief moments of political correctness thrown in. McGoohan is simply great at playing the detestable warden. For a guy who was engaging, personable, and interesting in person he may have been best at playing a bad guy. Think of him also in Brave Heart. Clint Eastwood is good at playing Clint Eastwood, and that’s a guy who people like to watch. I don’t think he’s ever stretched himself acting but usually his expressions, eyes, and postures are enough. The camera loves him. As Vince notes, the movie does follow the sequence of events in the escape fairly closely and leaves the fate of the fate of Morris and the Anglin brothers to the imagination. I hope they survived the waters of San Francisco Bay and lived out their lives in obscurity. However, both are highly unlikely.

    Tom mentions Bronco Billy. I thought it was one of the best things Clint Eastwood ever did. Although he didn’t exactly stretch himself, he showed greater range than in any of his typical movies and, to a degree, had fun turning his traditional Man with No Name character on its head. The movie has some real heart to it and the character development is mostly honest. Unfortunately, Sondra Locke plays the female lead. She can’t act much and she’s not particularly good looking. However, she was Eastwood’s main squeeze at the time so he put her in his movies. I recall critics were not kind to the movie and neither were Eastwood fans. I think the latter went to the movie expecting to see the Dirty Harry or spaghetti Eastwood.

    Thanks to Vince and Tom for reminding me of a couple of good movies.

  4. Michael Strenk says:

    Thanks again, Mr. Cornell. I always liked this movie. I agree that Eastwood became cliche, but so did John Wayne and any number of other highly entertaining personalities in Hollywood. I could eat the same thing, with slight variation, every day as long as it is reasonably good. Depending on how you look at it I’m either relatively easy to please in some things or dull as dishwater, probably the later.

    I wonder how this went over with the kids. I bow to your undoubtedly superior judgement, I’ve never had your burdens, but I would be squirming in my seat (George McCartney’s squirm factor) in the presence of children while watching Morris’ interaction with Wolf and be hard pressed to explain. The finger chopping scene is also a bit rough.

  5. Vince Cornell says:

    Mr. Strenk – so as not to scandalize anybody – I do soften some of the harsher edges in anything I show to the kids, especially anything graphically violent. There is much that can be understood through suggestion, sound, and reactions that doesn’t need to be seen with the eyes. Practically nothing goes before the kids without having been screened and, if necessary, pruned.

    On the other hand, I’ve also tried to make sure they understand the world has many evil people in it and, without going into detail, especially perverted people who seem to exist only to hurt others. Folks like that should be handled in much the same way Eastwood handles Wolf.