The Crime of the Century

Jean Hersholt walks into the police station and confesses. He's a hypno-therapist, desperate for money because of Wynne Gibson, his second wife, and her spendthrift ways. So he has hypnotized a client into embezzling ten thousand dollars and bringing it to him. Hersholt killed him and took the money. Or he will.

Which, the cops inform him, isn't a crime until he does it. He goes with one of them to his home, where the patient is waiting..... and the corpses start to pile up.

It's a heck of a set-up, and a pretty good mystery in this definitely pre-code movie, in which reporter Stu Erwin falls in love instantly with Frances Dee, Hersholt's daughter and tries to solve the murder himself. With Torben Meyer, William Janney, Samuel S. Hinds as the patient and Fred Kelsey as a dumb cop.

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 crime of the century wasn't quite the crime of the century. It was a doozy, it was a mystery, but it was also solvable. When I think, "crime of the century," I think of a crime that was gotten away with.

The movie began with Dr. Emil Brandt (Jean Hersholt) pleading to detectives Riley (Robert Elliott) and Martin (David Landau) to lock him up. Why? Because he planned to commit murder for money. If the cops locked him up then he couldn't commit the murder.

He had hypnotized a man by the name of Philip Ames (Samuel S. Hinds) and commanded him to steal $100,000 and bring it back to him by 8:15 p.m. He was then going to kill Philip and take the $100,000 for himself. The killing part is why he wanted to be locked up. He couldn't trust himself not to kill Philip, but police don't make arrests for crimes that haven't happened.

It turns out that Dr. Brandt needed the money to appease his wife, Freda (Wynne Gibson). She was a gold digger and was going to double cross Dr. Brandt and run off with the money with her lover, Gilbert Reid (Gordon Westcott). She never got that chance because a fourth person (someone besides Freda, Gilbert, or Dr. Brandt) entered the house, killed Philip, and took the money. The main suspects were the three aforementioned with an outside chance of it being one of the detectives, or the newspaperman, Dan McKee (Stuart Erwin), or the help, or another man who was anonymous.

There was enough intrigue with the murder and the cast of characters that I stayed tuned in. $100,000 is enough for just about anyone to commit murder, so everybody was in play. There was very little focus on characters with the exception of establishing who they were and a small glimpse of what type of person they were, and that allowed the movie to stay focused on the murder and solving the murder. That's what I want from a murder mystery. I don't need to know a whole lot about each character except what's germane to the plot. "The Crime of the Century" kept everything crime-centric even if it wasn't "the crime of the century."

Free on YouTube.

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.

This is an absolute hoot! It's like one of those silly murder mystery games you play at dinner parties and just as much fun. It's difficult to categorise this: it's a really intriguing who-done-it but doesn't take itself at all seriously. It's brilliantly made whist at the same time absolute garbage.

It's exactly the sort of picture which could have garnered a real cult following. You could imagine hundreds of fans dressing up as these outrageously cliched characters: bungling cops, a cocky reporter, a femme fetale, a roguish playboy, a mad scientist and his sweet innocent daughter.

Of course, having that fabulous unsophistication of early thirties pictures, after knowing each other for about six hours, the reporter and the daughter fall instantly in love and get married - so nineteen thirties! It's certainly not your typical B picture - it's cheap, tacky, unashamedly over-acted but brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!

Although all the clues are there, you'll never figure out who the murderer is. Even if you rewind back to the bit with the murder during the minute you're invited to guess yourself, you'll chase those red herrings down the wrong path cleverly laid out to trick you. For a B picture, it's got a surprisingly clever story (it is of course based on a play so Paramount can't take all the credit) You also benefit from dynamic direction from pre Will Hay-William Beaudine and even decent, atmospheric photography like a camped-up Old Dark House.

It would never win any awards for filmmaking but if you enjoyed SCOOBY DOO, you'll love this magnificent nonsense.