The Crime of the Century

Even today, $100,000 is mighty appealing, and one might even commit murder for it. In 1933 - whoa - it had the spending power of $2,472,807.69 today.

The 1933 Crime of the Century, directed by William Beaudine, stars Jean Hersholt as Dr. Emil Brandt, a hypnotist who works with people from all walks of life.

Brandt enters the police station begging to be arrested for murder. However, he hasn't committed it yet. His patient, Philip Ames (Samuel S. Hinds) works in a bank. Under hypnosis, he has commanded Ames to bring him $100,000 - and then he plans to murder him.

The Captain, Riley (Robert Elliott) and a detective Martin (David Landau) agree to keep him from killing Ames. Martin will go with him first, and Elliott will replace him when he goes off duty.

When they arrive at the branch home, Brandt's daughter Doris (Frances Dee) arrives home. Martin then is able to leave.

It turns out that Brandt's wife, Doris' stepmother (Wynne Gibson) is somewhat money hungry, and has spent a great deal of Brandt's money. She arrives home to get ready to go to the theater. We find out that she knows about the $100,000 and in fact, she has her boyfriend Gilbert (Gordon Westcott) outside ready to step in and steal the money.

Ames arrives, as does Captain Elliott. Brandt gets the money, replaces it in Ames' pocket with Elliott as witness and programs Ames to return the money.

The lights go out. There's a struggle. Ames is dead and the money is gone. With many suspects. A reporter (Stu Erwin) stops by and tries to put it together.

Later, during a re-enactment, there is another murder.

The film is interrupted toward the end and a man appears, giving the audience one minute to see if they can solve the murder.

One fun thing: a suspect is asked to try on a glove. Shades of OJ.

At 1:11, the film seemed long to me, but it was a good mystery with fine performances and fun re-enactments.

Enjoyable.

The 1930s was an era when many, many silly detective B-movies were made. Many were very entertaining (such as the Charlie Chan movies) and many more were pretty forgettable but entertaining. And, a few, such as "The Crime of the Century" are just bad...filled with cliches and poorly written. How the film has managed to have an overall score of 6.6 and so many positive reviews is beyond me!

An alienist (an old fashioned word for a psychologist or psychiatrist) comes to the police confessing to his part in a crime that has YET to be executed! However, the man (Jean Hersholt) is nice and well respected and the police agree to send someone to his home with him in order to make sure the crime isn't committed. However, the alienist has apparently hypnotized someone into stealing $100,000* from the bank and the 'robber' soon arrives. But before the nice alienist can send the guy back to the bank to return the money, the lights go out and the robber is killed and the alienist is Chloroformed**. Can the police and smarty pants newspaper man solve this bizarre crime?

There is so much that is silly about this one. First, you cannot hypnotize anyone into committing crimes. I have significant training in hypnosis...and if I COULD hypnotize someone into stealing $100,000, I'd sure give it a try! Second, the plot is unnecessarily confusing and complicated. Third, why reveal the wife to be evil so early into the story? This removes much of the suspense and would best have been revealed near the end. Fourth, and most eggregious, is the profuse use of almost every detective story cliche...such as the know-it-all newspaper man who investigates the crime, the evil new wife, as well as hypnosis.

Overall, a crime film with very little to recommend it. There are so many good films in the genre...so why waste your time with this one?

*The $100,000 is in a tiny envelope. This is impossible, as such an amount would be physically much larger...requiring a box or suitcase. $1000 bills are almost unheard of, $100,000 bills are not circulated nor never have been. So, he could have needed, at the least, 1000 $100 bills...and that would not fit inside a tiny envelope.

**How did the smart newspaper guy INSTANTLY know the alienist was Chloroformed?! Many things (such as ether) could knock him out and despite movies and TV shows portraying folks almost INSTANTLY going unconscious when Chloroformed, it takes several minutes to knock someone out this way. And, how did the newspaper man know the other guy was murdered without even inspecting the body?!

Dr. Emil Brandt (Jean Hersholt) staggers into a police station and confesses to murder ... only problem is he hasn't committed it yet. However, he has figured out all of the details and confesses what he intends to do to the police. He is a hypnotist and psychologist and his work involves turning people away from criminal activity. One of his current patients is a bank president who is feeling the urge to steal - Philip Ames. Brandt has already given him a command while under hypnosis - to bring him one hundred thousand dollars - a little over a million dollars in today's money. Tonight, when Ames returns to Brandt's house, it was Brandt's plan to put him under as he usually does with hypnosis, then take the money, kill Ames with a single wound to the heart, then dissect his body and dispose of it. The police would be searching for Ames when the money was discovered missing, but they'd be looking for a live thief not a dead victim of hypnotic suggestion.

Brandt confesses all of this because he is a moral man, is horrified by his own thoughts, and wants to be stopped before it is too late. How did things get this far? Because the moral Brandt is married to a very immoral woman, and she's been suggesting that she will leave Brandt unless their financial situation improves. The police say they can't arrest him for what he hasn't done but they will come to his house and make sure he doesn't carry out his plan. Brandt is thankful and relieved.

In spite of all of these precautions, Brandt does wind up - seemingly alone - in a room with his wife and a hypnotized Ames. The lights go out. Brandt's treacherous wife screams, hears a scuffle, then wrestles with someone in the dark, then flees into the street looking for help. The person who comes to her aid is crime beat reporter Dan McKee (Stuart Erwin). When the lights come back on Ames is dead in the manner described by Brandt in his plot, the money is gone, and Brandt lies next to Ames unconscious from chloroform.

McKee wants to bust this crime wide open for his paper, but he has to work around the police and deal with the fact that there are so many suspects - Brandt's daughter, Brandt's wife and her lover for obvious reasons, Brandt himself, the police who knew Brandt's plans, maybe even Brandt's servants - had they been snooping on private conversations?. Then there is some mystery man who shadows Brandt from the beginning of the film up to the time of the murder. Could he have done it? Brandt's daughter seems innocent enough, but she could have gotten into the house any time, plus McKee is sweet on her. Could she be the killer? What is unique and rather William Castle-like about this film is that about 15 minutes before the end the film is stopped and an announcer comes out and says that this film is moving so fast that the viewer doesn't have time to figure out who did it, so a brief intermission is declared as all of the suspects are shown on the screen while the intermission clock counts down. Then the film concludes.

I really liked this one. Although you are led to believe Jean Hersholt is going to be the lead in the beginning, it is actually Stu Erwin's picture most of the way, and he rises above his normal corn-fed supporting man image and comes across true as the hard-working crime beat reporter confident he can get the killer, get the story, and get the girl, even though it might be the girl herself or her father that he winds up sending to the electric chair.

I'm not an expert on William "One Shot" Beaudine, but I would venture to say that with a nickname like "One Shot" that you probably weren't so highly regarded as a film artist. From the films I've seen of his, I tend to be unimpressed and not very entertained. However, after a deep sigh at seeing his name in the opening credits, I spent the rest of the movie being happily entertained.

Crime of the Century is for fans of the 1930s-styled whodunits. It has the classic elements of what you would expect from an old mystery - a murder taking place in the dark with many suspects; an ensemble cast; a reporter who is one step ahead of the detective; the prime suspect is of course, the most innocent; and, an unexpected twist in the end. This film seemed to be very conscious of its' genre. There is a wonderful old-fashioned moment near the end when a narrator comes on-screen and gives us a short intermission to let the audience of the film take time to guess the murderer. The filmmakers' reasoning is that when reading a mystery novel, you have time to put the book down and think before you finish the end and films never offer you that opportunity. This was a refreshing moment and a great example of how this movie tries to be as original as it can.

The cast is very good. Stuart Erwin comes off better here than he did in a very similar film and role a year earlier in Before Dawn. Jean Hersholt is heartfelt and convincing as the doctor who tries to prevent himself from making a grave mistake. Look for Samuel S. Hinds in an early role as the poor hypnotized victim. The film moves along at a brisk pace. There are enough camera moves to make the film visually interesting and the film was made at Paramount and the production values really help for this type of film. The plot is about a doctor who goes to police to prevent him from killing a man who stole money for him. However, when the man ends up being dead the doctor becomes the prime suspect and it's up to the reporter to find out who was behind it. Crime of the Century is an excellent forgotten whodunit and is a must for fans of these drawing room mysteries.

A mystery the way they used to make them, full of clues, an on screen detective and the expectation that the audience is working hard to make sense of everything. Near the end, they stop the film and an announcer appears to give the audience a minute to guess.

The murderer is hard to guess, and this also has some interesting genre features. One is that the main suspect turns himself in before the crime. What mars this is that we have that one anti-cinematic device: the lights go out and events happen without us being able to see them. All crimes happen on-screen, but the crime itself is occluded. This happens twice, each time there is a murder.

As a narrative device, we have evolved away from this one, and I guess I am sad to see it go, because with it, you have purity: everything essential happens in front of you. But evolved away we have, to be replaced by off screen unknowns.

We have also lost the character who is our on-screen detective, but not as a result of cinematic development. These guys just faded from life in general, the newspaper crime reporter. That is a loss too.