Sede de Justiça

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!

... which is very odd for its time.

It opens with a woman testifying on her own behalf, talking about what led up to her killing her husband. She is a well dressed, what you would call "credible" looking 30 something woman, and it looks like maybe things are going to go her way, with it sounding like she was under terrible duress, just not wanting her husband to leave her. And then the jury foreman, Edward Weldon, asks a question that when answered by the accused, makes the entire thing suddenly sound premeditated. She is found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Meanwhile, watching the trial, is a gangster (Humphrey Bogart) and the foreman's daughter, Stella (Sidney Fox). They start up a romance.

This is where things get odd. Apparently everybody is blaming the jury foreman for the woman's conviction, when he simply asked a question. The news media is blaming him. Even his own family is questioning what he did. The night of the execution, several months later, he is beginning to buckle under the pressure, but he says the law is the law, the same for everybody, that an execution is hard, but then so is murder. He talks about the D. A. being the best and most just D. A. the city has had for years. That same night, his daughter Stella is very upset that her gangster boyfriend is going to collect a "hard debt" and then take the train to Chicago, maybe leaving her forever. And strangely these two events - the woman's execution and Stella's hearbreak, intertwine.

The film is one of the earliest mainstream films - made by Universal - I've seen to debate the morality and fair application of the death penalty. It also has lots to say about the power of suggestion, and what ambitious people will do to make sure their climb up the ladder is not impeded. It has lots of interesting intercuts and the cinematography will at times focus on what peoples' hands are doing as they are speaking, to reflect their mood.

Yet it seems like lots of people don't care for this one. Maybe it is because it fell into the public domain and it was probably falsely advertised as "starring Humphrey Bogart" when, if there is any central figure, it is probably O. P. Heggie as the jury foreman. The fact that he has rather wild looking hair and resembles a thin version of the ghoul in Carnival of Souls doesn't help his sex appeal, if in fact dealers of VHS and DVD copies of this film were trading on that. Then look at the original lobby card - it has Humphrey Bogart and Sidney Fox in a romantic embrace. That and the title had to have misled 1934 audiences too.

I'd recommend it for all of the reasons I've mentioned. Just don't expect Bogie to have lots of screen time. Also starring Lynn Overman as a very ungrateful son-in-law and Henry Hull as a lying yet pontificating reporter.

MIDNIGHT (reissued by "Guaranteed Pictures" in 1947 as CALL IT MURDER with eighth billed Humphrey Bogart - now famous - elevated to top billing for his supporting role) was originally filmed at the Biograph Studios in Queens, New York, for Universal Pictures, based on a Theatre Guild production of the same name (but called IN THE MEANTIME during its tryout tour).

While the stage production disappointed the critics and was not extended beyond its initial subscription run (48 perf., December 29, 1930 - Feb. 1931 at the Guild Theatre), Claire and Paul Sifton's examination of the flaws in the idea that "the law is the law" regardless of justice or tempering with mercy was interesting enough to justify Universal's committing a cast from the top of their second tier to turning out a decent "programmer" to fill the demand for films to keep the screens they controlled occupied between their major releases and training stars in the making (like Bogart and Sidney Fox).

The original play concerned the foreman of a jury, a man named Edward Weldon (O.P. Heggie on screen), which had condemned a woman for the murder of a man who was leaving her - only to find, two acts later, his daughter (Fox) in a similar situation.

Director Chester Erskine (at the start of a career which would see well remembered work on such "A" releases as THE EGG AND I, ALL MY SONS and ANDROCLES AND THE LION, working as director, writer and producer for another 40 years), while unable to produce the figurative "silk purse" out of a possible "sow's ear" of a melodrama, opened up the play, originally set only in the Weldon living room, with excellent - and given the period, surprisingly sophisticated - crosscutting between the condemned woman, the daughter's developing affair and the moral quandary around the Weldon himself.

If the 30's structure of the argument may strike many as dated today, and the "deus ex machina" solution to one of Weldon's problems too pat to be genuinely satisfying, they probably are - but the elder Weldon's overly strict, unbending interpretation of his moral and civic obligations is hardly unknown today as an excuse for lack of thought or bigotry. A remake with more "modern" technique might indeed be well received, but the implicit melodrama would be just as blatant.

While Humphrey Bogart's role is a relatively small one (although it is woven through most of the film), it makes for legitimately fascinating viewing as a transitional role for the handsome actor who had been playing stage juveniles. He had had 15 Broadway roles in the 12 years - and 9 films in the three years - before making this film, but would only have two more Broadway credits afterward (but 66 films). His Gar Boni in MIDNIGHT is very well done in a more modern style than many around him (see the similar effect the young Helen Hayes achieved with the same then "fresh" realistic style in 1932's FAREWELL TO ARMS) before finding the "world weary" persona that won career-making acclaim for his "Duke Mantee" opposite Leslie Howard on Broadway and screen just two years later.

It may be of some interest that on stage, the supporting role of Arthur Weldon (played in the film by future director Richard Whorf) was created by actor/playwright Clifford Odets.

Finding a good print of MIDNIGHT or even CALL IT MURDER may not be easy, but the search may be worth it. Don't expect a polished "modern" film, and shallow film buffs who don't appreciate history or context will probably hate it, but true film connoisseurs shouldn't miss this one for what IS there.

I have recently watched this film again. This time I realized that there is a lot in the movie besides just seeing Bogart in one of his early films. This movie makes a very strong statement about capital punishment. Equally as strong is its statement on who you know if you want to beat a rap. The whole movie takes place during a few hours before the scheduled execution of a woman who killed her lover who was going to leave her. Except for the beginning court scenes, and prison scenes, and a couple of scenes where Bogart is in a room somewhere, and when he and Sidney Fox are in his car, the movie takes place at the home of the jury foreman who found the woman guilty. A news reporter gets into the house with a radio and a surprise at the end so that the public can witness what it's like for that foreman as the scheduled execution time approaches. What you may think is a surprise ending really isn't the end at all. Keep watching for the twist involving the district attorney who has his eye on the governorship. This film, like Bogart and Huston's Beat The Devil, is in the public domain.