Defesa que Humilha

For the Defense (1930)

*** (out of 4)

Exciting drama from Paramount has lawyer William Foster (William Powell) at the top of his game. He's a lawyer who plays strictly by the book but what rubs people the wrong way is that he gets criminals and thugs off of their crimes. Foster's skill is put to the test when the woman he loves (Kay Francis) asks him to defend a man that Foster knows loves her too. Things take a complicated turn when Foster learns that it was the woman who actually did the crime.

Back in the 1930s it wasn't uncommon for Hollywood to take newspaper headlines and wrap them into a movie. This film is partially based on the career of lawyer William Fallon who was flawless when it came to defending some of the biggest criminals of the era. FOR THE DEFENSE is a really good movie that has some terrific performances, a rather good story and an ending that really packs a nice little punch. The film manages to keep you caught up in the story from the opening credits up until the very end so fans of classic Hollywood are really going to enjoy this.

I think the greatest thing about the picture is the performance of Powell. When watching his films today it's amazing to see how easy he makes acting look because he could pretty much transform himself into any type of role and this here is what he is best at.

This is a very smart character, constantly thinking and constantly on the movie. Powell plays this with ease and manages to build a real character. Francis is also very good, although her role isn't nearly as memorable. William B. Davidson also deserves a lot of credit as the District Attorney who can never beat Foster and sees him getting criminals off as a major problem for the safety of the country.

The story itself has a couple nice twists and turns along the way and there's no doubt that director John Cromwell knows how to handle the material and he keeps the film moving at a very nice pace. The great thing about Turner Classic Movies is that you can always stumble across films with actors that you know but perhaps films you haven't heard of. It's really too bad that FOR THE DEFENSE isn't better known today because it's a perfect example of a great cast, a strong story and how these small movies used to be made for quality.

Not as Good as The Mouthpiece (1932) this Similar Story of a Shady Defense Attorney whose Clients were the "Poor Souls" (low-lifes and gangsters) that Desperately Needed a Lawyer. For the Most Part He gets Them Off. Loosely Based on Real-Life Attorney William Fallon (who defended Arnold Rothstein).

The Film is Not Without Interest, Mainly the Teaming of William Powell and Kay Francis, it is Nonetheless a Talky Bore at Times and the Pacing is Ponderous. Powell Broods More than Usual and His Drunk is more "Pity Me" than Witty and Whimsical.

The Mood of the Movie is Sombre and Serious and Never Makes Much of an Impact, but it is a Pretty Good Pedestrian Paramount Picture. The Pre-Code Presentations are More Implied than Usual and have Very Little to Offer those Seeking this Out for Sleazy or Edgy Stuff. There is a lot of Drinking, a Few Skanky Characters and a Raccoon Coat for Some Flavor.

In the late teens and through much of the 1920s, defense lawyer William Fallon was unbeatable. In 120 murder cases, NONE of his clients were found guilty! While this might have made him famous in and of itself, his clients were a Who's Who of the scum of the day. Fallon defended mobsters, pimps and other low-lifes! The film "For the Defense" is based, in part, on Fallon's life--as is Warren Williams' film "The Mouthpiece"--which came out just two years later.

This film begins with William Powell playing William Foster--a hot-shot attorney who is known as much for getting off his slimy clients as his courtroom theatrics. However, while he seems like he's on top of the world, he has two serious problems--his drinking (which, in real like killed Fallon when he was still quite young) and his girlfriend, Irene (Kay Francis). The problem with Irene is that she loves Foster but he's unwilling to marry her (and the film STRONGLY implied they have been cohabiting) and she is entertaining a proposal of marriage from another guy!

One night when Irene is stepping out on Foster with this other man, she is driving during a hit and run death. Why she runs is never really believable, as she was neither intoxicated nor at fault as her drunk boyfriend sitting next to her really caused the accident. However, she leaves the scene and the boyfriend stays and takes responsibility-- saying that he was driving. And, since he was drunk, it looks like prison time for the guy. Naturally, Foster is called in to defend the guy--and the case ends up ruining Foster. How and why? See the film.

This movie is, in some ways, typical of many of the Pre-Code films. As I mentioned above, it is implied that Foster and Irene were doing the horizontal hokey-pokey ('sex' for those who prefer the more direct way of saying things). And, the film does glorify Foster (at least to a degree). But, it also shows that eventually evil is punished and Foster gets his comeuppance. Entertaining but a bit of a disappointment, as some might hope for more salacious Pre-Code shenanigans.

"For the Defense," from 1930, is loosely based on the career of William Fallon, who never met a client he couldn't convince a jury was not guilty.

William Powell plays William Foster, whose specialty is challenging cases, defending some real low-life characters. He always manages to have them found not guilty, and he doesn't rely on any unethical practices to do it.

Foster is seeing Irene Manners, a glamorous dancer (Kay Francis), who wants to get married. Foster, it seems, has some problems with commitment.

Irene has another man, Jack Dafoe (Scott Kolk) who is interested in her and wants to marry her. However, she wants to wait until she can explain the situation to Bill, whom she truly loves.

One night, Jack talks her into going for a drive with him. He's plastered, so she drives. The two are arguing when Irene hits a man in the street, who dies.

Jack sobers up quickly and tells her to hide. He takes the rap. She in turn begs Bill to defend him. Bill is jealous of Jack and doesn't want to take the case, but when Irene swears there is nothing between them, he accepts.

During court, the prosecutor questions Jack and asks if a woman was with him, which he denies. The prosecutor then tries to submit a ring of Irene's, found in the car, as evidence. When Foster sees it, he knows Irene was lying.

Good movie directed by John Cromwell, which moves quickly and has a wonderful performance from Powell and a good one by Francis. They made a great team. Powell could do drama and comedy with equal facility. You'll see none of the lighthearted Thin Man here.

Certainly worth a look. It doesn't have any of what made pre-code different - this could have been made after the code - but it's still good.

I love this period in film. I'm particularly attracted to the detective genre because it had a significant role in shaping how movies work.

A key personality in this, especially in the pre-code period, was the free-spirited fellow. Later he would be a tough guy, but in this era he was more likely to be interested in sex and partying. The actor that works best in this is William Powell, who happened to be working at a time when the industry was full of experiments. Rather than work hard on making a film perfect, they just rattled off this guess and that, try to see what worked. Unlike today, what worked was a moving target as the vocabulary and viewers matured.

This is such an experiment. Here the "detective" is a brash lawyer. The job changes slightly but the tweaking of the police and the DA is as with most from this period. Also constant was the notion that the key character could control the world around him to some extent. In this case, the lawyer pays a particularly high price, but is able to twist the story precisely as he would wish.

By itself, its uninteresting. In the context of hundreds of other movies that deal with what would become noir mechanics, it matters. And because it is in that period where honesty about sex was allowed, it has an edge.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.