You are forgetting that she was GUILTY of being an accessory after the fact, conspired to conceal a murder and it is strongly insinuated that she barbequed and fed human remains to her customers.
The minister not only compromised his own principles, he thwarted justice in doing so. You can argue that the killing was justifiable, fine, but because of what the minister did, the victim never had his day in court. Think what you want of Frank, he deserved at least that after being beaten to death, then fricasseed like a hog. If what Idgie, Ruth and the rest did was OK in the eyes of the law and society, fine, then the court would find them innocent. But we'll never know, will we?
In short, the minister didn't do what a Christian would do. He did what any weak-willed person does, take the easy way out by lying instead of doing what is right, even if it might be hard.
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?"
reply
share
ncoflin
10 years ago
It's hard to feel sympathetic for the deceased here knowing everything the viewer of the movie knows. From a Christian upright point of view there is probably black and there is white. This is gray. Frank would have either stolen Ruth's baby likely never to be seen again if not for Sipsey's actions. A black person as stated in the movie would be hung no matter what for killing a white man. Justice isn't fair and I think the preacher did what was right. If he could look at himself in the mirror and answer to his God for it, then go him.
reply
share
Hythlodaeus
9 years ago
"he barbequed and fed human remains to her customers"
Yes, let's not forget that - because after all, good ministers give good manwitches to their parishioners.
What hump?
reply
share
grumpy_otter
9 years ago
"he deserved at least that after being beaten to death"
drnossal, I just wanted to point out that Frank was not beaten to death. Sipsy whacked him once on the head with a frying pan to prevent him from taking Ruth's child. While she did mean to make him stop, I do not for a moment think she meant to kill him. His death was accidental.
Because of the way "justice" worked in the South at that time, the victim's day in court would have meant that a black woman who accidentally killed a white man would have been executed for murder.
Sometimes lying is the right thing to do, if it prevents a worse wrong.
reply
share
drnossal
9 years ago
Forget race, just for a second. If a person hits another person over the head with a blunt object in anger and kills that person, even if death was unintended, what is that legally? It's called manslaughter in any jurisdiction, maybe even second-degree murder if you can prove intent to kill.
I agree that Sipsy is working at a severe disadvantage due to her race. But there is no argument that she killed a man and it would be pretty hard for her to claim self-defense, even if race wasn't a factor. Frank just came for the baby, he wasn't threatening her with deadly harm.
Finally, you forget that the child wasn't just Ruth's, it was Frank's, too. Ruth left Frank and took their baby without any legal right to do so. Frank had every right to take his son back from Sipsy and the rest, they had no lawful basis whatsoever to keep his child from him. But when he tried, Sipsy bashed his brains out with a skillet.
I think opinions here are seriously colored (forgive the pun) by the fact that Frank was an abusive jerk and forget that even abusive jerks can't be murdered, barbecued and fed to the neighbors without legal consequence.
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?"
reply
share