A Hora da Vingança

Better than average newspaper drama from the Fifties. Seems to be a more or less forgotten Humphrey Bogart film, which is too bad. I couldn't find it on DVD anywhere, and watched it on a tape I made from cable ten or more years ago. The film has three intertwining plot arcs done very skillfully by screenwriter (and director) Richard Brooks. Martin Gabel plays the bad guy, a mobster who is suitably menacing, without overdoing it. Icon Ethel Barrymore puts in a fine turn as the newspaper heiress, and the lovely Kim Hunter shines as Bogey's ex-wife. Bogart is outstanding as the crusading newspaper editor, doing everything possible to save his paper, and bringing low the criminal element. Definitely worth seeing, if you can find it.

The 40's and 50's had quite a few movies in which newspapers and newspapermen were the central focus. There was "Scandal Sheet," "Ace in the Hole," "It Happened Tomorrow," "Foreign Correspondent," "His Girl Friday," this movie, and others. I suppose it makes sense considering print media was the largest and most influential form of media with television a decade or so away from becoming the ubiquitous medium it is now.

Ed Hutcheson (Humphrey Bogart) was the editor of The Day, a thriving New York newspaper. The owner and founder had just died and The Day was being sold by the wife and the two daughters. Ed was giving it his all trying to do what he could to prevent the sale as well as continue to print relevant news. He dedicated all of his staff and resources to looking into a local mobster named Tomas Rienzi (Martin Gabel) when one of his reporters was hospitalized for digging up too much information on the same gangster. He thought maybe, just maybe, this story would both: expose a criminal and save the paper.

This was an ideologue movie. There were two stories running parallel to each other. One was the story of the gangster and his outsized influence, the other was the newspaper being sold to a competitor who was going to shutter it. The gangster story was a thrilling one, but the paper being sold was a principled one.

If The Day was sold to a competitor and then closed down, that would be one less voice for the people. It would be one less viewpoint, one less source of news, and one less competitor for the other papers. Such a thing couldn't be good for the reader and the average citizen. Market competition has always benefited the consumer (even though it's not benefiting us much nowadays with gas prices) while monopolies have always harmed the consumer.

This was a pivotal issue with The Day being sold, but it also directly confronted a person's or business's capitalistic right to sell their property. Should the courts prevent this sale based upon it taking away a source of news from your average citizen, what other sales would the courts be allowed to, or have to prevent? It was a novel argument that played out on screen and gave the viewer food for thought.

Free on YouTube.

I don't know if it was intended to copy the fast-paced press room and gangster films that Warner Brothers did in the 1930's, but you certainly get a chance to see what Bogart could have done had he been a star at Warner Brothers during the 30's rather than largely a supporting player. Of course, everything here is taking place in present day - 1952 - but not only does the film reach backwards for its brisk pace, it reaches forward into the 21st century with some of its subject matter. In particular, there is the subject of how big companies buy smaller more effective companies to eliminate the competition, and the subject of inherited wealth and how the companies that formed that wealth are often not appreciated by the spoiled children-heirs.

Here Bogart plays the editor in chief of crusading hard-hitting daily newspaper "The Day", which is about to be sold off by the bored children of the deceased founder. The founder's widow (Ethel Barrymore) unfortunately is outvoted by her ungrateful children, and with the encouragement of Bogart's character tries to come up with enough money to buy her children's shares back from her daughters. In parallel with this is the story of The Day trying to break one last big story before they are bought out - a story that will break the power of a local crime boss who is not taking his possible downfall lying down.

This one is seldom seen and very well done, and I highly recommend that you see it if it ever comes your way.

"It's not our job to prove he's guilty. We're not detectives and we're not in the crusading business." That line from Humphrey Bogart early in the film lets you know you're watching a movie about a bygone era in journalism. Or maybe that's just an idealized fantasy and reporters were never like that, because later in the film Bogart contradicts himself by instructing his reporters to "go below the belt" and "we're gonna convict him of every crime on the books." Feelings on journalistic philosophy aside, this is an exceptional crime drama about the goings-on at a newspaper that's going out of business. Before the doors are closed, editor Bogart and his reporters try to uncover the truth about a racketeer's criminal activities.

Bogart turns in one of his finest acting turns, with terrific support from Ethel Barrymore, Martin Gabel, Ed Begley, Kim Hunter, Warren Stevens, Jim Backus, and many more. The story moves along at a smooth pace and keeps your interest throughout. There's quite a bit of monologuing but the script is packed with punch and grit. It's one of the better films in writer & director Richard Brook's career. It's worth a look on its merits as a dramatic film, as well as the added historic value it has for those looking to examine the differences and similarities between how journalism was viewed yesterday versus today.

Being the editor of a newspaper is intense, when the world outside your window don't make sense, where gangsters rule the roost, the owners easily seduced, an ex-wife who will not give you recompense. So we follow you around and watch you play, it's fair to say, that these are not ordinary days, always going toe to toe, they could be friends, they could be foes, but you ensure everyone, hears what you say. The performances are fine and competent, the emotion and the passion sufficient, not really sure the story's deep, there's not a lot of underneath, but it's 90 minutes that can be well spent.