Midnight

Somewhat stagy drama about a jury foreman (O.P. Heggie) who's very strict on law & order convicting a woman of murder and sending her to the chair. Everyone seems to be upset with the juror, including the press and his family. Of note today only because Humphrey Bogart's in it. Unfortunately he has a small part. It's not a bad film of its kind. Heggie is certainly a quality actor. Top-billed Sidney Fox plays his daughter, whose story is where Bogie fits into things. The rest of the cast is okay, with Henry Hull being the most remarkable. It's a movie that obviously has points to make about capital punishment and the legal system not being fair for all. But it's a bit creaky and drags and kind of falls on its face in the final act. Worth a look for Bogart completists. Also of interest to O.P. Heggie and Henry Hull buffs. If there aren't any, there should be!

Firstly forget the fact that Bogart is in this - that's not important, he's only got a bit part: it's NOT a Bogart picture.

After 15 minutes I decided that this was the worst film I've ever seen but I stuck with it and then decided that it was brilliant!

Can't say I know much about Chester Erskine but this was his first film. After graduating from film school he obviously had dozens of ideas he was itching to incorporate into his first work of art. Given free reign to do whatever he liked, that's exactly what he did and you can taste his enthusiasm. Some of his innovations don't work but nevertheless it's fascinating to watch. There's one scene for example where the troubled Mr Weldon is doing a monologue with the camera zooming in on him - it zooms in so fast that you can see the poor old guy staggering back to avoid being hit in the face with the camera! In style and structure this film reminded me a little of HEAD, that experimentally weirdly incoherent film The Monkees made in the late sixties.

Whilst this is essentially a filmed stage play, Erskine's imaginative and innovative tricks and techniques really make this into a genuine movie. Visually it's stunning, so different from the typical directorial styles seen in Hollywood in the early thirties. Here in England we had Hitchcock making innovative (and good) films, in France Jean Cocteau and Bunel were creating their avant-garde masterpieces. These filmmakers clearly influenced Erskine but in comparison, his own effort looks very childish but at least he tried. He tries to do something different and that's what makes this a worthwhile watch.

The story is essentially about how Mr Weldon, who was on a jury, copes with being responsible for a murderer going to the electric chair and how this affects his daughter. It's a ridiculous story but Erskine's novel take on how to make a movie makes this inexplicably engrossing. What's clever is how Erskine makes you, the viewer part of the jury. With some interesting use of mirrors, you're in the centre of all this - you're the one who has to decide what's the right thing to do - you're the one to decide whether the death sentence is justified - you're the one who has to decide on the subsequent guilt of the daughter. In some respects, it's superb filmmaking.

The question is therefore why isn't Chester Erskine more well-known? Why isn't MIDNIGHT a classic? Why didn't it walk away with all the Oscars that year? The answer is simple - the acting is truly terrible: really, really truly terrible! This bad acting is however intrinsic to the overall style of the film but its strangely slow and incredibly unnatural pace makes this weird. Some people will find this unwatchable, some people will find it brilliant. If you like pseudo intellectual, cod-psychological pretentiousness, you'll enjoy this - it even ends with a pretentious 'finis' - love it!

As the foreman of the jury you want know, when the deed was done where did the money go, and the answer makes it clear, the lady's going to the chair, it marks the start of the beginning of your woe. On the night when execution's to occur, the tensions high with others you confer, but you've done what was required, the law states this girl must be wired, this is how murders of others is deterred. Then your daughter who's been out returns in stress, a crime of passion is disclosed murder confessed, puts you in a tricky place, the DA's chauffeured to your place, will he help to solve the problem, clean the mess?

Humphrey Bogart plays Garboni a gangster involved with the daughter of a jury foreman who helped convict a women of shooting the man who betrayed her. The pressure that falls upon this man and those around him makes the films story. This film is interesting for two reasons it explores guilt from two different perspectives on two different people giving the audience a wide range of emotions and consequences of dealing with the murder. Secondly it features Bogart in a small role, that should have been given more screen time. Bogart was still relatively unknown to the movie going public at the time it was made, of course he has a part that can be categorized as a 'heavy' a role he would fill many times until Maltese Falcon, where he would break through and finally play a lead role that did not require him to be a gangster.

Interesting film that explores the outcome of a murder trial on the jury formant and his family. A drama unfolds in the jury formans house on the night of the execution with surprising results for the legalistic jury forman who swayed the jurys verdict. Also interesting because the film features a very young Humphrey Bogart in a small role. The only disapointment is that Bogart didnt have more screen time. A better than average early message movie.