Alibi

For its time, Alibi was probably groundbreaking with a crime world never truly seen before. That's probably why it was nominated for Best Picture in 1929. Today, people just see it as one of those creaky gangster movies from the early days of sound and pass it up thinking that it won't hold their attention one bit. I'm here to prove those people wrong.

For one thing, the story is what usually makes a movie for me. A film has to have a good story to get me to see it. Well, if you like any type of crime related movies, that's all you need to know. Even if you aren't a fan of crime dramas, this film will interest you with the way it captures the human spirit and the way it can deteriorate very quickly in times of stress.

Obviously that last bit can only be performed by great actors and actresses with natural talent. That's what you get with this film. Chester Morris deserved the Oscar he was nominated for, even if you just see his final scene you'll give it to him for his shocking portrayal of a rotten gangster.

I think that it's Regis Toomey, a forgotten star, who really shines in this film though. His performance as a drunk with something to hide is really quite remarkable. If they had Supporting categories back then, he'd have been a shoe-in.

I hope I've convinced you enough to check out Alibi because it's actually a really good film. I recommend it if you're looking for a good crime drama that will hold your attention, which shouldn't be hard since it's not a very long movie. Enjoy it, if you get the chance to see it.

One of the first scenes of ALIBI has a camera prowl an art deco night club and into the world of an ex-con (Chester Morris) Much of the film is stagy, including Morris' almost death scene. What makes ALIBI shine so well are the visual elements. The art-deco set direction, the incredibly well edited cop shooting sequence and a rooftop chase that looks more pen and ink rather than photograph makes up for the staginess.

If you don't know who Roland West was, after watching this you'll immediately want to see his other work. He pushes the boundaries of the technology of the time to make an outstanding work of art that's still reasonably entertaining even today.

It's obviously apparent that this was made at the time when talking pictures were just being invented but Roland West was not one to be inhibited by the limitations of what logic told him was possible. Aficionados of early talkies will be aware that most 1929 films were pretty awful. With a handful of notable exceptions, they were frequently stagey and static populated by actors seemingly utterly incapable of acting and talking at the same time. This isn't just one of the rare exceptions but an imaginative and beautiful piece of popular entertainment.

Compared with the more "normal" style of acting which we'd see in a year or so, the style of acting here hadn't quite evolved. That stilted and affected style however actually works really well with this picture by enhancing the other worldliness and the feeling of disconnect the characters have from each other and society in general. The mood Mr West creates heavily influenced by German expressionism is an edgy uncomfortable blend of realism juxtaposed with surrealism. It's definitely however not just an exercise in style - this has an abundance of substance too. You soon acclimatise to the acting style, it isn't bad just different although to be honest, Eleanor Griffith isn't good, Regis Toomey is a bit annoying and I'm afraid that to me Mae Busch will always be Oliver Hardy's wife!

Despite the understandable limitations of the production, what's unusual for a 1929 film is that it really engages your mind and immerses your thoughts in its themes. You question who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The police and the criminals aren't black and white - they're all pretty black. What this film then does is punch you in the stomach by making you realise that you were wrong. As it progresses you almost start to side with the criminals, you totally empathise with 'Joan' as she sides with them but then suddenly you realise how wrong you were as the bad guys show their true colours. It's rare for such an old talkie to play with your mind this cleverly.

These days a big topic of conversation is: 'can we trust the police.' Historically trusting the police isn't really a natural state of affairs. There seemed to be a golden age of trusting the Bobby maybe in the fifties but certainly in the twenties and more so in the thirties when The Depression kicked in, for a lot of people in America the police were not trusted. If they needed help or got into trouble, the last people they'd think of calling would be the police, they were not thought of as service to help or protect ordinary people. To a huge proportion of the population, they were just another bunch of hoodlums at war with other bunches of hoodlums. As 'Joan' demonstrates in this story, that sense that they were people to avoid is evoked very effectively. It gives you a genuine taste of the attitudes of the time - an excellent time machine!

In terms of style, although the cumbersome sound cameras restricted Roland West's vision, this almost has the feel of a classic expressionist silent classic. We get flowing camerawork sweeping down and across semi-surrealist rooftops yet still taste the dust and the dirt of the streets. He invites us into this world by occasionally using his camera to give first person point of views and uses his sets to express and accentuate the mood of the characters. Depending on whom we're seeing, their settings reflect their state of anxiety or optimism. For example, as the characters' outlooks turn bleaker, the walls look bigger and the people seem tiny and trapped. The spaces which were once opulent art deco apartments or nightclubs become huge enveloping claustrophobic prisons which again emphasise the hopelessness of those within.

As an insight into pre-Depression American society and how those people thought, this is invaluable. It's also a real work of art but is it something you can sit down with, kick off your shoes and relax with? Yes, it's not quite a classic but being so well produced, the quality is still there and so it's still enjoyable.

Having become a fan of director West via the ‘old dark house’-type comedy-thriller THE BAT WHISPERS (1930), I looked forward to watching every ‘new’ film of his – in the intervening years since that first viewing of BAT (on the eve of the Millennium, no less!), I had only managed to catch up with the somewhat unsatisfactory Lon Chaney vehicle THE MONSTER (1925) but, now, in quick succession came the original Silent version of THE BAT (1926) and ALIBI (1929), his first Talkie (notable for its innovative early Sound technique).

The latter is a gangster melodrama (a genre pioneered by Josef von Sternberg’s UNDERWORLD [1927]) whose quality was even recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, where it was in the running for three Oscars – Best Picture, Best Actor (forgotten star Chester Morris) and Best Art Direction (by the renowned William Cameron Menzies). While there are many who now look at it merely as a curio – and there’s no denying that its chief interest, after all these years, remains West’s artistic approach to the medium (extending also to camera position and movement, editing, and set design) – I found the plot itself, simple and moralistic though it is, reasonably absorbing.

Morris has just been released from prison and, while resuming his criminal activities, conveniently hitches up with a policeman’s daughter – she’s obviously naïve and speaks up for him when confronted with a murder rap. An undercover agent (Regis Toomey – who, feigning a drunken act, starts off by being obnoxious but eventually proves both hero and martyr) is ironically called upon to provide an alibi for Morris…but the girl unwittingly blows his cover and, inevitably, spells the man’s doom (bafflingly, West even places unwarranted emphasis on his overlong and maudlin death scene!). Eventually cornered in the top-floor of a high-rise, Morris breaks down before the cop who had been his rival for the heroine’s affections, revealing his true color (the star’s performance – alternating between smugness and a perpetual scowl – hadn’t been particularly distinguished up to that point, but he effectively shows his range here: his come-uppance, then, is truly incredible and unexpected). Also worth mentioning is the film’s unflinching brutality: Morris’ associate, the ageing owner of a popular establishment, has a tempestuous relationship with his “dizzy” moll (played by Mae Busch, frequent foil for the comic duo of Laurel & Hardy) and, at one point, he pushes her and she bashes her head against a cabinet!; later on in the scene, it’s he who gets thrown clear across the room by a punch from an enraged Morris.

Having just read the “DVD Talk” and “Slant Magazine” reviewers’ comments on the film, I’m not sure I agree completely – perhaps because I knew beforehand Morris would be playing a crook – with their contention that the line between hero and villain is deliberately blurred (in view of the Police’s objectionable methods, particularly a scene in which a captured member of Morris’ gang is literally terrorized into a confession) and even arguing that the gangster is initially depicted as sympathetic (his stretch in jail having apparently been the result of a frame-up). However, I got the impression that the Police were required to be tough in order to effectively meet the gangsters’ wave of lawlessness and violence (note how the cops stick together when a colleague of theirs is callously slain during a robbery, with the synchronized rapping of police clubs – the film was, in fact, based on a play called “Nightstick” – unleashing a dragnet over the whole area in a matter of seconds). Incidentally, an inspired way to further showcase the new-fangled Sound system was by throwing in a handful of ‘static’ musical numbers during the nightclub sequences!

That said, the quality of the “restored” audio was frankly quite horrid – with dialogue often too low to grasp or else being drowned out by extensive crackling on the soundtrack, and even dropping out entirely for a few seconds a couple of times! While nowhere near as distracting, the DVD transfer does display occasional combing; for some reason, too, the opening credits of the film have been digitally recreated!

Aside from wine and cheese, not all things age well. Like a gallon of milk, over time this film has started to sour--thanks mostly to changing and improving film-making. In fact, had this film been made just a year or two later, it would have been much easier to sit through. Unfortunately, this can be said of most films made in 1929. This was a transition period in which silent films were changing to sound and the technology frankly wasn't very good. Plus, since this was all new territory, the films tended to be very, very stagy--mostly because the sound men had no idea how to compensate for people as they moved away or towards microphones. This is all painfully obvious with ALIBI. Some characters are loud and easy to understand, others appear as if whispering and others have their voices fade as they move. Additionally, the film looked a lot like a play in parts as they used very long single shots with few inter-cut scenes. Plus, it was obvious some scenes were originally filmed as silent because the standard 24 frames per second (used for all sound films) made these segments seem like people were moving too quickly (as silents were filmed anywhere from 16 to 22 frames per second).

As for the plot, it's a crime drama with a lot to like and a lot to hate. I liked how, at times, the film was rather gritty--particularly in the last few minutes (the building scene at the very end was amazingly tough and memorable--one of the best death scenes in film history). Some may also like how the cops in the film pretty much ignore the Bill of Rights--and weren't above slapping a confession out or someone or threatening them with guns! Some may also be appalled, but this is truly Film Noir-like in its sensibilities. But, the plot also is really stupid at times--with some of the dumbest criminals you'll ever see in films, clichés galore and a very sappy death scene that will practically make you cringe.

Now as for the plot. For 1929, it was really quite good. If we'd had IMDb and the internet back then, a score of 7 or 8 wouldn't be unexpected. However, by today's standards, I'd have a hard time giving it anything more than a 2 or 3. So, splitting the difference, a 5 seems appropriate--for the time, a very good film but when seen today, it's terribly old fashioned and dull.