El beso revelador

Most, (but not all) prosecutors only care about convictions, not justice.

The junior prosecutor wants to be the senior prosecutor. The senior prosecutor wants to be the assistant district attorney. The assistant district attorney, wants to be the district attorney, and the district attorney would like to be the mayor.

They climb this ladder by getting convictions. This movie is the story of an aggressive DA with no compassion. However, circumstances in his own life changes him so he becomes more interested in fairness and appropriate punishment, not maximum punishment.

Very well acted by Warren William and Gail Patrick.

While this film doesn't seem to have impressed Michael much, I found it somewhat better than SINNERS IN PARADISE (1938) though, obviously, not quite in the same league as Whale's irreproachable horror output.

The film's plot, though essentially contrived, makes for a very interesting melodrama: actually, this was a remake of the same director's THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1933) and the only review I could find called it "tame and uninspired" when compared to the "more visually striking" Pre-Code original (that was apparently shot on leftover sets from Whale's own FRANKENSTEIN [1931]!) - all of which makes me want to watch the 1933 film even more...

Despite its 'B' picture status, however, the film is stylishly handled by a master craftsman (right from the opening credit sequence) with special care given to camera-work, lighting and décor - not to mention the recurring use of montages; in fact, the latter sequences - along with the hectic pace and the theme itself - recalled some of the social conscience films being made contemporaneously by Warner Bros.! Warren William and Ralph Morgan give solid performances and their scenes together - particularly the latter's confession and the subsequent trial - are certainly among the film's highlights. Unfortunately, however, as was the case with the blackface scene from Whale's own REMEMBER LAST NIGHT? (1935), the film's stereotyped depiction of William's black maid would, most probably, not go down well with today's audiences!

While I never really understood why certain directors needed to remake their own films, I'm certainly glad it happened in this case - particularly since the original doesn't seem to be readily available (a regrettable situation with regards to most of Whale's non-horror titles!), but also because his second stab at the story has certainly made for a pretty good film in its own right.

Walter Huston famously said that he wasn't paid to sell good lines, but to put across bad ones. He often did. So did Warren William. For both of them, putting across bad lines frequently involved overacting. It's a bit difficult to believe WW being overcome by passion of any sort, and especially any aroused by his boring (though gracious) clothes-horse of a wife (Gail Patrick) in "Wives Under Suspicion," the tame and uninspired 1939 remake by James Whale of his more visually striking "Kiss Before the Mirror" made only five years earlier, but, presumably, too risqué to be rereleased after the Motion Picture Production Code began to be enforced.

Frank Morgan switched roles from defense attorney in the first to defendant in this one, and, unfortunately, Gloria Stuart and Walter Pidgeon did not return. The story is mechanical and has coincidences that strain credulity, but Warren William gave it his all. The only interesting touch was the courtroom set with the judge raised to an exaggerated height.

I noticed one of the reviewers complained about Warren William's tendency to over-act. Well, as a fan of the actor, I tend to agree--he DID over-act--and I generally liked his bigger than life and devil-may-care persona. That is why I decided to see "Wives Under Suspicion"--I'd watch just about anything starring this now forgotten star. Sadly, however, this was not one of his better films and it isn't surprising--by 1938, William had moved from his very successful career at Warner Brothers to Universal (a must less prestigious studio at that time) and the budgets were clearly smaller and it showed.

The film begins with William as a gung-ho District Attorney. He lives to prosecute and convict people--and his marriage and personal life have suffered. All he really cares about is winning--and sending as many people as he can to death row. However, when the case of a man who murdered his wife in a fit of anger (Ralph Morgan) is given to him, eventually the parallels between this case and his own sad life became apparent.

I think the biggest problem with this film is that the cast was amazingly limp. Morgan and William were very competent actors, but here they were NOT at their best. In particular, Morgan has a scene where he is supposed to cry but it comes off very poorly--embarrassingly so. In addition, while the story idea is good, the direction and dialog is all either limp or overdone. Director Whale (who made quite a name for himself directing the first two Frankenstein films at Universal) had clearly seen better days and the film failed to impress. It really should have been a lot better given the neat story idea.

I tuned in to catch that great patrician actor from the early 30's, Warren William. A commanding presence in every respect, too bad he's become so obscure. I expect his early death, 1948, has something to do with it. Then too, his best films-- Employees Entrance (1933), Skyscaper Souls (1932), Three On A Match (1932) -- were all pre-Code and as a result never turned up on censored TV for decades. Now, thanks to cable, they're run on outlets like TCM. So be sure to catch them if you haven't already.

Anyway, this programmer from Universal has a good premise, the humanizing of an egotistical DA (William), who counts his capital-case wins on an abacus that uses miniature skulls as a counter. Worse, he's sorely neglecting his patient wife (Jackson) who's slowly running out of patience, but he's too self-absorbed to care. But then the McAllen case comes across his desk and the ironies with his own life begin to intrude. Will his self-enclosed bubble now be enough.

Overall, the results are rather tepid despite the promising elements. Ten years later and the film would likely have gotten a noir treatment. Here, mood is largely missing, while suspense is slow to build, but does have one good unpredictable showdown scene that had me guessing wrong. Truth be told, I'm afraid many lesser performers could have handled the DA role, it not being one of William's showcases. In short, the DA is one of the typically conventional roles he was reduced to during the Code era. Also, the ethnic humor from the Butterfly McQueen-type maid reminds us that it's only a movie, after all.

Overall, there are gripping moments; however, the 70-minutes fails to come together in strong fashion despite the many promising elements. Too bad.

(In passing-- old time TV fans may recognize Milburn Stone as Doc from the classic western series Gunsmoke, along with Gail Patrick (Jackson) who successfully produced the prodigiously demanding Perry Mason series with Raymond Burr.)