Cross-Examination

"Cross-Examination" is a highly unusual courtroom drama. This is because the story begins in court and you are learning about things as the courtroom hears about them. And, as each person tells his story on the witness stand, the story then has a brief flashback showing the action that had occurred. This style was great as it kept the film fresh and original. The story has a strong "Madam X" sort of style and is clever. However, it never really rises above all this because it's a cheap B-movie and the acting was about what you'd expect from that.

H.B. Warner and Sally Blane are the nominal stars (although lovely Sally is hardly in the movie at all) of "Cross Examination" with Warner in his element as the defense counsel, while Edmund Breese scores as the prosecutor in Arthur Hoerl's well-paced, edge-of-the-seat script. Richard Thorpe directs the court proceedings in fine style and manages to give this taut, 74-minute support attraction plenty of production values, despite his "B" budget. Don Dillaway makes an effectively soppy hero, Wilfred Lucas enjoys a substantial role for once (he's the judge), William V. Mong is in his element as the heavy, and the exotic Natalie Moorhead can be also glimpsed in what is by Poverty Row standards quite an extensive cast line-up.

This courtroom drama is very poorly structured, almost self-destructively. Director Richard Thorpe went on to direct major motion pictures for major studios, but delivered total hackwork this time out.

Structure has one witness after another called to the stand and their testimony illustrated by a flashback. Sometimes the flashbacks overlap, but not in an interesting or dramatic "Rashomon" fashion, but merely redundant, adding to the accumulated tedium. The man in the audience writing (in cursive fashion yet) his impressions of the testimony to spoon feed the viewer is not merely dated but insulting, as if the audience was too dum bot follow the story without assistance.

Casting is extremely weak, with Warner as the defense attorney not balanced by having a relatively incompetent prosecutor (latter's acting and dialogue are both deficient). The sentimental ending is a total crock, and both "leads" (not really, in an ensemble cast) nonentity Don Dillaway and underutilized Sally Blane) have zero impact.

The version I watched ran only an hour, which is more than a reel less than the published 74 minute running time, but not only seemed complete, but was excruciatingly ponderous even at that length.

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I'm not usually a fan of courtroom dramas but I found myself growing more and more engrossed in the story the longer the movie continued. As each witness gives their evidence we are taken back to the night of a murder as individually viewed by each witness. The person murdered is a wealthy curmudgeon who was about to change his will. This grouchy man of wealth intends to disinherit everybody in his family and staff.

David Wells is accused of murdering his father and is brought to trial. His Defense Attorney is well played by H. B. Warner who later portrayed Colonel Nielson in some of the Bulldog Drummond mysteries. There is also a good performance by Sarah Padden as a surprise witness while William V. Mong looks good visually as the old curmudgeon who gets murdered. The respectability of the court is countered for a time by an amusing character called Varney who is in between jobs as a bootlegger and a revenue officer.

The story is told at a steady pace that slowly drew me into it's mystery. The characters speak in slow deliberate tones that is suitable for the seriousness of the situation in which David Wells finds himself. This is in contrast to the quickfire dialogue of many of the films of the 1930s and 1940s. The ending is very touching and there is a reveal that I didn't see coming. I recommend you search out this little known mystery.

William V. Mong has called in his lawyer to witness his new will in which he has cut off his son with a dollar. His son, Don Dillaway, comes in and they have a private conference. When next seen, his father is dead.

The movie takes place in court, with Wilfred Lucas presiding, Edmund Breese as the prosecuting attorney, H.B. Warner as the defense attorney, and Dillaway as the defendant. As each defendant testifies, the events of the evening are shown in flashback. It's a nicely structured example of the courtroom detective story, but it has the same essential flaw that every example holds for me: an utter failure of the investigative process that has led to the trial. The script ameliorates this by offering some strong motivations for people to hide their actions, but it niggles me nonetheless.

Still and all, it was a pleasure to watch the old professionals at work under the direction of Richard Thorpe, a sure hand at getting good results on screen with not much in the way in budgets. Within a couple of years he would go to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer where he would gradually work his way up through programmers into the big time, still coming in on budget for good results. In an era when hundreds of millions of dollars are tossed around by directors who have had one or two independent successes -- the modern-day equivalent of the Poverty-Row studios where Thorpe had toiled for nine years when he directed this movie -- it's a virtue worth noting.