Rodrigo Amaro A critical take on the Genovese syndrome, which concerns bystanders in situations in which they could be more active, "The Incident" raises deep questions in this good combination of thriller with social denounce, rare pairing in today's movies. Larry Peerce's film (a remake of an obscure TV film) tells about the hold up of a train car by two muggers (Martin Sheen and Tony Musante) who keep picking on innocent passengers as if playing silly games. But no, they're gashly and dangerous as we're told and know them beforehand in the first minutes when they rob and kill a guy. It's late at night, New York back in its days of high criminality, everybody's tired and all they want is to just go home. We're introduced to the passengers before they go on board, the majority of them are people having heated arguments, husbands giving a hard time to their wives or girlfriends, or stressed over their usual problems. Then the idiots come up and trouble begins. Loud and demanding attention, the pair keeps bothering each passenger, offending them and being completely ridiculous and mean to everyone. No one acts upon them. The two dominate them in such a way that it's paralyzing, even when the threats (more the sense of eminent threat) are destined to a single person no one does a thing, complain or if they do is just too few. Who are the passengers? An old couple (Jack Gilford and Thelma Ritter), an African American couple (Ruby Dee and Brock Peters), a young couple (Donna Mills and Victor Arnold), the nothing in common Purvis couple (Jan Sterling and Mike Kellin) the Wilks couple (Ed McMahon and Diana Van der Vlis) and their sleepy daughter, two privates (a boyish Beau Bridges and Robert Bannard), a homosexual (Robert Fields) and the wrong man he tried to make a move (Gary Merrill), and the sleepy drunk who doesn't follow any action whatsoever. 14 people terrorized by two. Strange but it happens.The rising tension built by this thriller is highly effective, so unsettling and it stays with you days after the experience. Enraging, revolting, gritty. But this is just 50%. The other half comes with its perceptive look, almost a psychological study, on society and its ways. The writer breaks myths, stir up more and more controversies about people's reactions towards menacing acts of stupidity. Remember Bernard Goetz in 1984? Well, this movie could be a legitimate proof that his actions were positive, since he felt close to danger, he had to defend his ground. Sure, the real case is much more complicated but one can understand. I've been through a strange situation similar as his but luckily I had the chance to get out. What's destroyed here? Angry mobs doesn't exist when needed. Like said, it's 14 against 2, one of them armed with a knife (shown later in the last minutes, so people didn't know nothing about them except their strange behavior), the concept of union among strangers is destroyed when apathy takes over. Why stand up against? They're not bothering me, most would think or say. The not so rough manhood, only giving us rude guys when alone with their wives or girlfriends and completely powerless over two guys. What angered me the most besides the pair of knuckleheads was 1) the young guy with his girlfriend. Why? The level of insistence in his misoginy with her in his first scene was appalling, disgusting, eternally forceful yet when one of the guys comes over her and teases her he does nothing. And 2) the soldier. Not the injured one played by Bridges but his perfect friend. Two arms, two legs, highly trained....well why bother doing it, it happens all the time as he sort of say to his buddy. I admired the performances (specially the bad guys) and its relevance in presenting the different social perspectives and their issues, quite alright but there's thousands of problems. It lacks in realism, too strange at times. No one reacts even when picked on? No instinct, no reaction at all? If someone personally bothers you, you say something, anything. The passiveness of some characters wasn't real to me (it can happen but not in the way the movie presents it). Audiences would benefit more with a remake. The 21st century vision would be far more explosive than this one in the 1960's. There's a facade some of us wear as being tolerant when in fact many aren't. If happened now the story would be very different. Trust the words of someone with a little experience on this. 8/10

dougdoepke I agree that grim subjects warrant grim treatment. There are exceptions, of course, such as the effective black humor of Dr. Strangelove (1964), but not many. The trouble with this film is that it rubs our nose in its grim subject matter to a fault. In short, it's too long, too shrill and too unrelieved in the grinding nature of its message.The movie takes the now familiar topic of urban non-involvement and plays it out along a harrowing el ride through New York City. Along the way, two young thugs terrorize listless fellow passengers. Okay, lots of potential there for intense drama of the riveting kind; at the same time, the film does have its intense moments. The trouble is, it looks like everyone among the passengers dislikes everyone else. Thus, the anti-social behavior of the two thugs has nothing much for us to compare it with. For example, consider how the couples relate before boarding the el. The Wilks's bicker about a taxi; the Beckerman's whine about their son; the Purvis's complain generally; while Robinson rages before his wife. Then there's young stud Tony mauling poor helpless Alice; grouchy old Douglas; and dour gay man Ken. The only exceptions are the two amiable young soldiers. All in all, these folks offer little sociable contrast to the anti-social young thugs. Thus, the movie makes a strong statement about urban alienation, but at a price. And that price turns New Yorkers into one-dimensional automatons. Everybody crabs at everybody else, all the time-- that is, when they're not mugging or terrorizing strangers. Now maybe that is the case in NYC, but given its expanding birth-rate, I doubt it. I do know that 100-minutes of this kind of relentless in-your-face seriously overstates its case. Worse, it's to the detriment of the more effective case that could be made had the producers more regard for shading. I also know some such would have made a much better movie.

whpratt1 This is truly a very horrible story about subway riders in New York City made up of an older Jewish couple, Jack Gilford (Sam Beckerman); two African Americans; two soldiers, one wounded with a broken arm, Beau Bridges (PFC Felis Telfinger); a young couple with a baby, Ed McMahon. All these people are being belittled and degraded by two crazy boozed up guys who will not let anyone off the train and picks on everyone in the car. There is no one to stand up on their own two feet and give these guys a good beating, everyone decides to keep their mouths shut and take the beating they are handing out to them or we could say cowards. There are many veteran actors on this train, Martin Sheen, Donna Mills, Thelma Ritter, Jan Sterling. There is plenty of bigotry towards most of the people riding in this subway, but mostly against the two African Americans. This is a rather upsetting film and I am glad that New York City is better protecting the people in their city by putting police officers in these subway cars running deep under the city.

caa821 This is a terrific movie to watch today, 40 years after its release. As an essentially one-scene presentation, without any superstar members of the talented cast, and given the number of protest-type plays and films at this time of turmoil in the 1960's --- it is better now, not only for its story and performances, per se, but also as an excellent chronicle of these times.The story of a group of individuals, threatened and intimidated by a couple of "toughs," has been told many times, in a variety of settings, depicting the victims' fright, indifference, and even occasional amusement. But this one does tells it about as well as possible. The seedy setting, a New York City subway car, at night, provides a time capsule example of the word "seedy." A group like this could be equally-menaced, say, held hostage in the Presidential Suite at the Waldorf, but the dramatic effect would never be the same.Besides the drama - viewed now, four decades later - the film evokes a nostalgic view and feel of the 60's period. Martin Sheen and Tony Musante (a young 27 and 31, respectively), are outstanding, and Sheen's role, against-type, especially so. Beau Bridges is also 26 here, as is Donna Mills, and we also see Ed McMahon and Jan Sterling in their mid-40's. A very interesting view of these personalities then, along with the number of others in this outstanding ensemble.A real gem, and one of those frequent reminders that the best films often are found elsewhere from the high-budget, superstar epics.