Was the Chicago Film Hunyak Wrongfully Convicted And Executed?
In the musical film Chicago we are introduced to 'the six merry murderesses of the Cook County Jail' during the Cell Block Tango number, one of the strongest dance numbers in the movie, in my opinion. Each of the 'merry murderesses' describes why the victim 'had it coming' and why she is innocent, as 'it was a murder, but not a crime'.
In the dance routine, five of the women have red handkerchiefs and the Hunyak has a white one, which made me assume it is a symbol for her innocence. I have been searching online for discussions about the Hungarian's innocence, but the most I could find were pages where she is called innocent without any proof or self-doubt. So here are my two cents on this important subject:
To prove the Hunyak's innocence we first need to prove that the red handkerchiefs are symbols for the murders and thus the white handkerchief symbolizes her innocence:
- The red handkerchiefs are used in lieu of the actual weapons, and each of the women simulates the killing with the garment. After a short glimpse at the attached photo mosaic one can easily see who killed her male partner by:
- firing a shotgun into his head
- putting arsenic in his drink
- stabbing him with a knife
The other three modi operandi are not described.
- Velma Kelly who killed both her husband and her sister has two red handkerchiefs, one for each of the murders.
- The Hunyak has a white handkerchief and does not simulate a killing on her male dance partner. She just subserviently reveals her white handkerchief, while white limelight floods her dancing area, creating a sharp contrast with all the other dancers who are lit in red.
While all of this is just circumstantial evidence, I believe the Hunyak, played by Ekaterina Chtchelkanova, was wrongfully accused, convicted and executed.
If per chance you do not own a copy of the Chicago movie, you are more than welcome to purchase it here.
28 January 2009 at 11:18 am Permalink
You’re on the right trail. The lyrics to her part of the song are:
“Mit kersek, en itt? Azt mondjok, hogy a hires lakem lefogta a ferjemet en meg
lecsaptam a fejet. De nem igaz, en artatlan
vagyok. Nem tudom mert mondja
Uncle Sam hogy en tettem. probaltam
a rendorsegen megmayarazni de nem ertettek meg…”
Which translates, roughly, as:
“What am I doing here? They say my famous lover held down my husband and I chopped his head off. But it’s not true. I am innocent. I don’t know why Uncle Sam says I did it. I tried to explain at the police station but they didn’t understand.”
20 May 2009 at 3:55 am Permalink
But at the same time, this argument brings us back to square one. The white handkerchief, doubled with the fact that really her only lines in spoken in English are “Not guilty!”; we don’t know if she herself is innocent. The other women all admit to killing their victims, but all we know by the end is that Katalin plead not guilty. We don’t know if that’s true.
13 September 2009 at 9:11 am Permalink
I do believe she was innocent. She did plead not guilty and denied committing the murder. In The Cell Block Tango, her phrase was Uh-Uh, and during her verse, Roxie asked “yeah, but did you do it?” to which she replied “Uh-uh, Not guilty”.
29 December 2009 at 5:07 am Permalink
Also, don’t forget that the woman who stabbed her husband to death clearly states that her husband “ran into” her knife, which I took to mean that she’s going to tell the jury that she did not intentionally murder him.
Despite her story, her handkerchief is still red to show her guilt. If the Hunyak was also guilty, then regardless of her story the handkerchief would also be red.
01 May 2010 at 4:10 pm Permalink
The Hunyak, I believe, serves as a metaphor for justice — or the lack thereof — in the Chicago criminal system. Because no one could understand her, the Hunyak was railroaded, despite her innocence (symbolized by the white scarf). No one could be bothered to get an interpreter to find out the Hunyak’s version of events and then check it out. She serves as a contrast to Roxy and Velma, two obviously guilty women who get off because of the machinations of a smart and cynical lawyer, Billy Flynn.
Because the Hunyak couldn’t afford a smart lawyer or even get a sympathetic interpreter, she perished. So much for justice.
08 February 2011 at 4:43 pm Permalink
The white handkerchief and the lack of an actual murder as well as the white light are all the keys you need to understand that she is in fact innocent.
And remember, while all the others are singing, The Hunyak is not. She goes through the routine with them, but she isn’t singing. Could it be that her character doesn’t speak English? Yes, but at the same time, during a dance number reality falls away and we’re allowed to incorporate fantasy which illustrates the point. The Hunyak does the routine because she is in jail with the other girls, but they are all singing their stories and the chorus and she does neither.
Also, the ‘Ran into my knife’ line was quite clearly sarcasm. But possibly she could tell the jury that, but it was meant to be flippant in a situation where everyone knows they’re guilty.
22 May 2011 at 1:49 am Permalink
Yes, it is nice to see other people’s interpretation of this. I was curious as to opinions on it.
however, I am not certain of her innocence. I did not know it was her husband who was killed. in her case, maybe she was dancing with the lover and not the victim? to show a contrast? interesting….
20 June 2011 at 10:16 am Permalink
couple of quick things:
1). I do believe that Hunyak is innocent, based not only on the symbolism given by the light and the handkerchief, but also because of the passion she shows while she is dancing with her partner.
2). The name of the character is Hunyak not The Hunyak. For example you would not refer to a your friend John as The John, first of all The John is the toilet, and second of all his name is John
26 June 2011 at 8:46 pm Permalink
I definitely think she’s innocent. In addition to the symbolism of the white light and handkerchief, there are two other key points, in my opinion:
1. As Dartfin noted above, she doesn’t sing about her story. Billy talks at one point in the show about how the justice system, and in fact the whole world, is just “show business.” But it isn’t for Hunyak. She’s not doing a song and dance to fool anybody… she’s just speaking the truth. Speaking; not singing.
2. It fits in perfectly with the whole message of the show: namely, that evil people who excel at playing the crowd will always thrive, and good people who just try to do what they believe to be the right thing, are chumps and losers.
When you get right down to it, there are only three people we really meet at all in the show who could be considered “good guys.” Hunyak (assuming she’s innocent), Amos Hart, and District Attorney Harrison. What happens to them? Hunyak is hanged. Amos is cheated on, humiliated repeatedly, overlooked, and swindled out of thousands of dollars. Harrison loses convictions on two guilty murderesses, and is made the fool by Billy Flynn.
Meanwhile, what happens to the “bad guys” (Roxie, Velma, Billy, and Mama Morton)? Roxie and Velma escape punishment for murders they committed, and start a successful nightclub act. Billy makes $10,000 and keeps his perfect record intact. Mama continues to bring in bribes and nookie by abusing her position at the prison.
Clearly, it doesn’t pay to be a good guy in “Chicago”…
19 July 2011 at 10:17 pm Permalink
The character’s name wasn’t Hunyak, it’s slang for Hungarian.
20 July 2011 at 10:09 pm Permalink
Thanks Eunice. I had no idea what Hooverk was talking about…
01 October 2011 at 5:50 pm Permalink
I’m so glad I found this post and subsequent thread. I’m playing Katalin in a stage version and my director wants me to play her as guilty. The choreographer wants me to play both sides of the fence so that the audience has to decide for themselves whether or not the Hunyak is innocent.
Prior to rehearsing the Cell Block Tango, I didn’t realize she doesn’t sing at all during that number. I find that telling. I think she is innocent. I think most people who are familiar with this show (both the film and stage versions) get the impression she is innocent. I’ve been thinking a lot about how to play her in those moments and scenes where all the other murderesses are hanging out and acting tough and thuggish. Would the Hunyak act that way; mimicking the other women as a form of assimilation? Or would she be scared and confused 99.9% of the time?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
21 April 2012 at 12:00 am Permalink
It’s seems obvious to me that she was innocent.
1) All of the others describe the true details of the murder they committed, all admitting, albeit ironically, that they’re guilty. In Katalin’s monologue, she says: “It isn’t true, I am innocent. I don’t know why Uncle Sam says I did it. I tried to explain at the police station but they didn’t understand me.”
2) The others all sing, symbolising their awareness of their “audience”. Katalin speaks, because she’s the only one who doesn’t understand that being innocent isn’t enough; you also need to “put on an act”.
3) The others sing in a sultry, self-righteous way, whereas she appears scared and emotional.
4) The other handkerchieves are all red, whereas hers is white.
5) There isn’t a single moment where she is portrayed as anything other than demure and pious. Granted: in real life, you can’t tell whether someone did it just by looking at them, but on stage, the characters are all there to serve a purpose. Her purpose is obviously “the innocent one that was found guilty because she didn’t play the game”, as opposed to Velma and Roxie, who were guilty but played (and won) the game.
Incidentally, the name of the character is Katalin Helinski. “Hunyak” is a derogatory term for a Hungarian, so it’s not like referring to your friend as “the John”; it’s like referring to someone you don’t know as “the American”.
21 April 2012 at 5:10 pm Permalink
You just blew my mind with speaking versus singing and putting on an act. Good call!
11 May 2012 at 6:11 am Permalink
She’s innocent, I pretty sure of that!
The red scarfs means blood, and they represent something about the murder, like the girl that putted arsenic into her partner drink, she take the scarf of his mouth, the girl who said her partner ran into her knife ten times has the biggest scarf of all of them, representing all the blood that surely was at the crime scene, Velma has two scarfs, which one representing the blood of her husband and sister. That would be no meaning the Hunyak has a white scarf if she wasn’t innocent.
Also the others reasons that have already been mentioned.
14 May 2012 at 7:29 am Permalink
You could also infer form the pictures that since Katalin is looking away that she had no idea that he would be murdered. All the other murder mistresses were looking at their victims and pulling the red cloth while see was looking away and pulling a white one. Most likely her lover did it without her knowledge.
31 October 2012 at 4:20 pm Permalink
The hunyak’s name was Katalin I personally think that, like all good musicals, katalin was used as a contrast to the two main antagonists. Xxx