Anwalt des Verbrechens

I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.

Hopelessly hamstrung by the requirements of the Production Code, The Unknown Man is a rather nasty piece of filmmaking, when you come down to it. Walter Pidgeon is fine as the defense lawyer who mistakenly frees a young killer, played with fresh faced ineptitude by Keefe Braselle, but the machinations set into motion by Pidgeon's fatal encounter with the slimy Crime Commission bigwig, played brilliantly by Eduard Franz, are hopelessly unrealistic. That leads some to conclude this is an entry in the noir cycle, but it plays more like a police procedural, with police captain Barry Sullivan successfully sniffing out the truth. Besides Franz and Pidgeon, the acting highlights are provided by Konstantin Shayne as an elderly shopkeeper victimized by shakedown men. Ultimately, though, The Unknown Man is a lesson in Old Testament justice, with murderers and their victims filling in as Sunday School sermon illustrations. If you can get over the moralizing, however, this is a decent minor picture.

Walter Pidgeon plays an attorney who is persuaded to defend a man accused of murder. This is odd, as Pidgeon is NOT a defense attorney but is still a well-respected lawyer. When he is able to obtain a not guilty verdict, he is horrified to find that the man was guilty after all--and he'd been suckered into using his good name to get the acquittal.

Later, when Pidgeon is talking about this case with a friend, he tells the guy that the murderer is part a larger organized crime scheme. And, in a twist, the friend turns out to be the leader of this mob--and rubs it in Pidgeon's face. In a fit of anger, Pidgeon kills the man and frames his client in the process.

So far, this is great. I like the idea of a lawyer acting on what is morally right and committing a murder. However, from this point on, Pidgeon's character just muddles his way through the film--doing a really goofy job in the process. Although he set up the murderer to take the rap for the second killing and he knows that the guy is a hardened killer, he inexplicably agrees to defend him once again! And, instead of doing a sane job, he just kind of muddles about and casts much of the suspicion on himself! What is going on here?! Pidgeon's character changes his motivation so often, you'd swear he had Multiple Personality Disorder! As a result of this very weak character, the film ultimately fails--despite starting off with such a wonderful premise.

Overall, an interesting time passer that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Too bad.

MGM made some excellent film noir. People are surprised but it turned out some excellent and very dark ones, notably "The People Against O'Hara." This bears certain plot similarities to that Spencer Tracy movie. However, it is unfortunately not a very good MGM noir.

Walter Pigeon, not one of my favorite actors, turns in a decent performance. Ann Harding, who could be exasperatingly grand in her 1930s RKO starring vehicles, has a small part as his wife. She's fine, though.

Keefe Brasselle as the young hotshot Pigeon defends is not up to the task. He doesn't ring remotely true as a sleazy kid on the take for whatever he can get and loving what he does get.

Barry Sullivan is one of the staples of the best of noir, however, and he is in his usual fine form as the district attorney who goes up against Pigeon in court. The movie, which seems to have needed it, has a voice-over narration by Sullivan. (I say it may have needed it because he speaks right over characters we see moving their mouths and acting out scenes.) It's rather predictable. Pigeon's Biblical recitation is interesting and casts the movie in a light that suggests it could have been much better than it is.

MGM Produced Only a Few Crime or Film Noir Movies that were Above Average. Their Heart just wasn't in it and didn't Even Try Much Until the Post War Audiences were Paying More Attention to those Reality Based Movies and Rewarded the Grit and Edgy Films with Box Office Success. The Uppity Studio was Now On Board. Sort of.

They Relegated Second Units and Hack Directors, Less than Premium Actors and Writers and Provided Them All with Low Production Values and Reluctantly Joined in on the Opportunity to Make Money. Most of Their Efforts were Unsurprisingly Average or Worse.

In this Crime Procedural Walter Pidgeon and Barry Sullivan do Their Best to Elevate the Thin Storyline with some Gravitas. it does Raise this One Slightly Above Average with some Surprising Twists. But the Production Suffers from a Rushed Schedule.

One Example where the Movie could have An Added Bonus of Realism with a Heart Stopping Scene would be to Film the Death of a Major Character that was Sudden and Powerful Involving a Hit and Run by Truck. These Pedestrian in a Hurry Movie Makers Chose to let that Action and Drama Occur Offscreen.

Overall it is Definitely Worth a Watch for its Story of Corruption and Crime Unfolding in Front of a Good Hearted and Naive Lawyer that Finds His World View Collapsing All Around Him. The Way He Deals with it is Interesting and a Bit Different for this Type of Thing.