BEFORE: I'm still waiting for this chain to get really good - I guess the good stuff doesn't kick in until I reach "The 39 Steps" or maybe "The Man Who Knew Too Much". If I have to wait for "Vertigo" for things to pick up, then I'll be very disappointed.
Linking from "The Shame of Mary Boyle", Edward Chapman carries over. I swear I didn't know that Hitchcock kept using the same actors again and again - I figured I'd have to link via the director's frequent cameos.
THE PLOT: A juror in a murder trial, after voting to convict, has second thoughts and begins to investigate on his own before the execution.
AFTER: I feel like maybe I'm getting close to a real crime story at last - but there are still some serious issues here. Like the fact that a juror on a case knew one of the defendants - that alone should have been enough to have him eliminated from the jury pool. Isn't that one of the first questions that an attorney would ask, to make sure that the jurors are not prejudiced?
Then we've got the fact that this juror, who got railroaded, sort of "Twelve Angry Men" style, into declaring the defendant guilty, would then take it upon himself to investigate the crime after the trial. Especially since he's an actor, not a detective. But supposedly he understands the world of actors and what goes on behind the scenes, even if he can't talk about it on film. Damn you, production code!
I've gotten a sampling over the last few days over the sort of things that couldn't be discussed on film, like attempted rape and pregnancy outside of marriage. Sometimes you could SHOW these things on film, but the characters couldn't talk about it, which is a strange place to draw the line. Tonight's film is affected by this, because we get a crime without a motive. Initially the woman accused of murder doesn't remember what took place, then we get a feeling that she might be protecting someone, for a reason that can't be discussed.
Even when it's revealed, I'm not sure I understand it - it's got something to do with racial backgrounds and possibly sexual ambiguity, but no one is able to state it outright. So, what, cross-dressing? Homosexuality? What was going on in that apartment before the murder, and why can't I know about it?
I hate to think of all the criminals who weren't prosecuted in the 1930's because the police were so sensitive to social standings that they didn't feel comfortable asking people questions about their freaky-deaky personal lives. Maybe I'm just too used to "Law & Order: SVU".
Supposedly this film features the first time on film where you see a character thinking and you hear his thoughts. Of course, this is a mainstay now - but back then they didn't have post-production dubbing, so the scene had to be shot with a recording of the actor's voice playing on the set. I guess that's one way to do it.
Also starring Herbert Marshall, Norah Baring, Phyllis Konstam (last seen in "Blackmail"), Esme Percy, Una O'Connor (last seen in "Witness for the Prosecution")
RATING: 4 out of 10 stage cues
No comments:
Post a Comment