An unfiltered, unflinching document of the notorious 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, compiled entirely from raw TV footage (with no narration, music, or added scenes).An unfiltered, unflinching document of the notorious 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, compiled entirely from raw TV footage (with no narration, music, or added scenes).An unfiltered, unflinching document of the notorious 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, compiled entirely from raw TV footage (with no narration, music, or added scenes).
- Awards
- 1 win
John G. Adams
- Self - U.S. Army counsel
- (archive footage)
Roy M. Cohn
- Self
- (archive footage)
Ray Jenkins
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (as Ray H. Jenkins)
Joseph McCarthy
- Self
- (archive footage)
John L. McClellan
- Self - U.S. Senator, Arkansas
- (archive footage)
Karl E. Mundt
- Self - U.S. Senator, South Dakota
- (archive footage)
G. David Schine
- Self - U.S. Army private
- (archive footage)
Robert T. Stevens
- Self - U.S. Secretary of the Army
- (archive footage)
Stuart Symington
- Self - U.S. Senator, Missouri
- (archive footage)
Joseph N. Welch
- Self
- (archive footage)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIncluded in The New Republic's list of "The 100 Most Important Political Films of All Time."
- ConnectionsFeatured in McCarthy: Death of a Witch Hunter (1975)
Featured review
A Slice of History
Apparently the DVD's as of 2012 are expensive to obtain. My used one ran 50 bucks. Anyway, this is a slice of history that riveted the nation in those early days of coast-to-coast TV. Reviewer Mike Rice does a good job of filling in the background, so there's no need to repeat it here.
The documentary is an edited version of the 1954 senate hearings. On the whole, editing is to film footage what the eraser is to penciled composition. In short, astute editing can be used to create many, sometimes incompatible, effects. Now, I have no reason to believe editing was used here to skew any particular effect, but its potential for mischief is well to keep in mind.
Maybe it's my seven decades of breathing, but I did have some trouble following the narrative, and could have used some helpful bridges (a voice-over or graphics) to flesh out better continuity, especially when the topic of the Hearings changes. But whatever the difficulty, the legal fencing between experts is fascinating to watch. Note, for example, how no one on either side responds with a simple yes or no.
Naturally, most viewers approach the material with their own political pre-conceptions. I have mine, still I want to venture several observations not rooted, I believe, in my politics. Firstly, I don't recall seeing clips of McCarthy smiling before; here he at times appears almost affable, contrary to his usual sour image. Secondly, Welch is one eloquent attorney who really knows how to think on his feet. The usual brief clips of "Have you no sense of decency" only hint at those abilities. Then too, he's so unprepossessing looking you don't expect him to dominate the way he sometimes does. Lastly, I'd really like to know who concocted that phony letter from Hoover, along with the cropped photo. I may have missed something, but I don't believe those questions are resolved in the footage.
Be that as it may, Point of Order is real life dramatics at its most fascinating and remains an important slice of post-war history, from which the junior senator from Wisconsin never really recovered.
The documentary is an edited version of the 1954 senate hearings. On the whole, editing is to film footage what the eraser is to penciled composition. In short, astute editing can be used to create many, sometimes incompatible, effects. Now, I have no reason to believe editing was used here to skew any particular effect, but its potential for mischief is well to keep in mind.
Maybe it's my seven decades of breathing, but I did have some trouble following the narrative, and could have used some helpful bridges (a voice-over or graphics) to flesh out better continuity, especially when the topic of the Hearings changes. But whatever the difficulty, the legal fencing between experts is fascinating to watch. Note, for example, how no one on either side responds with a simple yes or no.
Naturally, most viewers approach the material with their own political pre-conceptions. I have mine, still I want to venture several observations not rooted, I believe, in my politics. Firstly, I don't recall seeing clips of McCarthy smiling before; here he at times appears almost affable, contrary to his usual sour image. Secondly, Welch is one eloquent attorney who really knows how to think on his feet. The usual brief clips of "Have you no sense of decency" only hint at those abilities. Then too, he's so unprepossessing looking you don't expect him to dominate the way he sometimes does. Lastly, I'd really like to know who concocted that phony letter from Hoover, along with the cropped photo. I may have missed something, but I don't believe those questions are resolved in the footage.
Be that as it may, Point of Order is real life dramatics at its most fascinating and remains an important slice of post-war history, from which the junior senator from Wisconsin never really recovered.
helpful•00
- dougdoepke
- Aug 4, 2012
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Herr ordförande! En ordningsfråga
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 37 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content