Life for Ruth (1962) (original) (raw)
Synopsis
John Harris finds himself ostracized and placed on trial for allowing his daughter Ruth to die. His religious beliefs forbade him to give consent for a blood transfusion that would have saved her life. Doctor Brown is determined to seek justice for what he sees as the needless death of a young girl.
Cast
Popular reviews
August 2023: Director of the Month - Basil Dearden
Another of Dearden/Relph's "social problem" films, this is about a court case that touches on ethical issues related to religious beliefs, medical science and the law. A father whose faith is based on Biblical literalism is put on trial for his daughter's death after he refuses to allow her to have a life-saving blood transfusion after a tragic accident. It's highly intelligent without being cerebral and at times moving. And to its credit, its doesn't provide any easy answers of the complex moral and ethical dilemmas it raises.
The father's decision creates rifts in his marriage, causes outrage and ostracization by his neighbors and the press has a field day. Most…
What tf did Jehovah even witness anyway?
I would write more about this, another solid social issue film from Basil Dearden, but it seems from this that the tradition here is to straight up plagiarise from bbbgtoby and I don't have the energy to do that.
Drinking game; take a shot every time Janet Munro breaks into a run. You'll be shouting "Ruth" down the toilet in no time.
Dearden & Relph, Sugared Pill IV. Following films concerning juvenile crime, race relations and homosexuality (respectively Violent Playground, Sapphire and Victim), the team’s final prick of social conscience is probably the most esoteric and satisfying of the lot.
I say sugared pill, but there’s no sweet coating this time. This is surprisingly stark in its all-points-of-the-compass exploration of the ramifications of refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds.
Largely lacking the tabloid sensationalism of those earlier films, Life for Ruth offers sober dialectic and discourse. To that end characters have an absence of emotional resonance beyond being vessels to verbalise oppositional stances. This sometimes has the tang of the debating society, or at least somewhere that such cases are put forth (unsurprisingly things…
Basil Dearden's Life for Ruth presents a provocative exploration of ethical dilemmas through the lens of a tragic family narrative. Written by Janet Green and John McCormick, this film diverges from Dearden and producer Michael Relph's previous social problem dramas like Victim and Sapphire, focusing instead on the moral quandaries surrounding faith and the sanctity of life. Set in the coastal town of Seaham in County Durham, the film follows John and Pat Harris, portrayed by Michael Craig and Janet Munro, as they confront an unimaginable tragedy. Their young daughter, Ruth, becomes the victim of a harrowing accident at sea, leading to a desperate situation where a life-saving blood transfusion is withheld due to the family's religious beliefs. This sets…
John Harris, the father of an 8-year-old girl, finds himself on trial for refusing to allow the blood transfusion that would have saved her life.
At issue here is Harris' religious belief, as the follower of an unnamed sect, but which could be any one of a number, and the refusal of the doctor who was prohibited from saving the girl, to accept, as the authorities do, that it is simply a matter for the man's conscience, and his insistence on taking out a private prosecution, which sees the father on trial for manslaughter.
The film manages to show both sides of the argument without ever really getting into the nitty-gritty of this particular belief system, such as questioning why,…
Dearden continues his run of social problem pictures, following up race relations in Sapphire and open homosexuality in Victim, Life for Ruth sees him direct with great care and sensitivity a film that discusses science vs religion vs the law of the country with the emotive subject of the death of a child thanks to a belief that blood transfusions are against the will of the father's chosen god.
It's an incredibly difficult subject to present in a neutral and fair manner and I found it very tough to remove my own beliefs from my reaction to Dearden's film of Janet Green's play but the skill of the presentation is surely in that it makes you at the very least understand the opposing point of view and never preaches despite the inevitable court case in the final act.
This is yet another reason why Dearden should be considered one of the greats of British cinematic history.
“That’s what I did. I tried to save Ruth’s earthly life. How do I know there’s any other?”
This film is infuriating because it kind of misses its own point??? The film’s main tension (and the tension which underlies the trial) has to do with litigating the legitimacy of Harris’s religion by weighing the eternal life he saved with the mortal one he did not/arguing about literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of the bible instead of dealing with the underlying issue which is that Harris’s religious conviction was legally allowed to dictate what happened to his young daughter’s body. Sorry but you’re all concerned about the wrong thing!
The other thing is that this movie kind of unilaterally portrays all its nonreligious characters as Pedantic Assholes and all its religious characters as Persecuted Saints with very little nuance. The ending sort of hurriedly fixes this.
Anyway another McGoohan Movie down. I love him & he’s my little freak etc etc
Your God forgives, doesn't he?
At times, quite a strawman survey of issues of parental rights, religious freedom and medical ethics that really levels-up in the last act – the grief, rage and despair finally feeling real; how the tension builds and punctures.
No, I'm guilty! I'm guilty! He told the truth. I saw myself as Abraham when God tested his love; told him to sacrifice his son, only God sent an angel to hold back Abraham's dagger – I thought he'd do the same for me. I never really believed she'd die. I wasn't thinking about Ruth's afterlife, I was thinking about a miracle to keep her alive. I sacrificed her; I sacrificed Ruth, and I'm guilty. I'm guilty!
Life For Ruth (Basil Dearden, 1962) 9/10
Dearden continues with his series of films on social issues - racial prejudice in "Sapphire" (1959), homosexuality in "Victim" (1961) and here he tackles the conflict of religion and medical ethics in a heartrending but thought provoking drama. A young child is injured in a boating accident. The doctor (Patrick McGoohan) requests permission to give the child a blood transfusion in order to save her life but the girl's father (Michael Craig) refuses on religious grounds. The hapless mother (Janet Munro) reluctantly stands by her husband but secretly goes to the hospital to give permission. She is too late and the child dies. The doctor files suit and the child's father is brought…
It’s a plot that’s been a staple of every medical and legal TV series for the past fifty years, but Dearden tells the story well and the ending took me by surprise, in a good way.
This is a highly engaging drama that poses moral and thematic questions about religion and parental responsibilities to an effective degree. The cast is also great, it is well-paced, I like the setting, the cinematography is on point and the character interactions are good.