Alibi

Aside from wine and cheese, not all things age well. Like a gallon of milk, over time this film has started to sour--thanks mostly to changing and improving film-making. In fact, had this film been made just a year or two later, it would have been much easier to sit through. Unfortunately, this can be said of most films made in 1929. This was a transition period in which silent films were changing to sound and the technology frankly wasn't very good. Plus, since this was all new territory, the films tended to be very, very stagy--mostly because the sound men had no idea how to compensate for people as they moved away or towards microphones. This is all painfully obvious with ALIBI. Some characters are loud and easy to understand, others appear as if whispering and others have their voices fade as they move. Additionally, the film looked a lot like a play in parts as they used very long single shots with few inter-cut scenes. Plus, it was obvious some scenes were originally filmed as silent because the standard 24 frames per second (used for all sound films) made these segments seem like people were moving too quickly (as silents were filmed anywhere from 16 to 22 frames per second).

As for the plot, it's a crime drama with a lot to like and a lot to hate. I liked how, at times, the film was rather gritty--particularly in the last few minutes (the building scene at the very end was amazingly tough and memorable--one of the best death scenes in film history). Some may also like how the cops in the film pretty much ignore the Bill of Rights--and weren't above slapping a confession out or someone or threatening them with guns! Some may also be appalled, but this is truly Film Noir-like in its sensibilities. But, the plot also is really stupid at times--with some of the dumbest criminals you'll ever see in films, clichés galore and a very sappy death scene that will practically make you cringe.

Now as for the plot. For 1929, it was really quite good. If we'd had IMDb and the internet back then, a score of 7 or 8 wouldn't be unexpected. However, by today's standards, I'd have a hard time giving it anything more than a 2 or 3. So, splitting the difference, a 5 seems appropriate--for the time, a very good film but when seen today, it's terribly old fashioned and dull.

The story here is interesting enough and on its own ensures that no one will feel disappointed at having watched this. Chick Weaver is a gangster just released from prison who hooks up with a "copper's daughter." Unfortunately, he can't go straight and gets involved with a warehouse robbery during which he kills a cop. The rest of the movie essentially deals with his attempts to frame an alibi for himself and with the efforts of the police to find the cop-killer. There are a few points at which the story gets a bit confusing, but it holds your interest well enough as you follow the various characters. What's really most interesting about this, though, is its status as a very early "talkie."

In that sense, I almost saw this serving as a proverbial "missing link" between the silent era and the sound era. There are parts of this movie which are very much like a silent movie - with no dialogue or sound effects other than a musical background. And yet, most of the movie has dialogue, although strangely the accompanying sound effects (ie, the sound of doors slamming, etc.) often seem to be missing. At times, this movie even has, in both sound and picture quality, a very later (say 1950's) feel to it. This diversity of "style" (for lack of a better word) would seem to me to be an example of director Roland West experimenting with this new way of movie-making. The weirdest aspect of this would probably be an extended scene right at the beginning of the movie, where police officers do nothing but bang their billy clubs against a wall for no apparent purpose - except, perhaps, to demonstrate to the audience that this has sound?

This is an enjoyable enough movie, and an interesting look at this transitional era of movie-making. 7/10

The acting is mainly from the silent film era, but the fact that it is a sound film actually makes it quite interesting.

The film is pre-Hayes Code and is startling in its violence. I don't think it was until 1937 and "Petrified Forest" (Humphrey Bogart) and 1951 "White Heat" (James Cagney)that such a psychopathic criminal was on screen. I don't think it was until 1970 and "Dirty Harry" (Clint Eastwood) that such a anger-filled cop was shown. The way the police are shown threatening to shoot a suspect and make it look like an attempted escape, really makes one see the need for Miranda Rights for suspects, something that didn't exist in 1929.

The lead performances by Regis Toomey and Chester Morris are memorable. This was Morris' first starring role and he went on to star in nearly 50 films over the next 10 years. In the 1940's he starred 14 times in the detective movie series "Boston Blackie". He did around 45 television shows in the 1950's and 60's.

This was Regis Toomey's first movie. He went on to star in some 25 movies over the next 5 years, before becoming one of Hollywood's most dependable supporting character actors in some 150 more films into the 1950's, often playing police detectives. He was in such classics as "His Girl Friday," "Meet John Doe," "Spellbound," and "Mighty Joe Young." He went on to appear on over 100 television shows from the 1950's to the 1980's. He costarred with Gene Barry in "Burke's Law" for three years in the 1960's.

Director Roland West did just two more films the following years starring Morris, "the Bat Whispers" and "Corsair." Unfortunately, he apparently became involved with real life gangsters and was involved in the tragic death of actress Thelma Todd, which abruptly ended his career. He shows a nice unique style here, with sequences of fluid camera movement inter-cut with quite static shots, a little like James Whale. It is quite similar to the other movies I have seen by him "The Bat" and "The Bat Whispers". If he had continued with films, he might be considered a great auteur today.

This is a must see for cinema buffs and especially lovers of gangster films.

If you don't know who Roland West was, after watching this you'll immediately want to see his other work. He pushes the boundaries of the technology of the time to make an outstanding work of art that's still reasonably entertaining even today.

It's obviously apparent that this was made at the time when talking pictures were just being invented but Roland West was not one to be inhibited by the limitations of what logic told him was possible. Aficionados of early talkies will be aware that most 1929 films were pretty awful. With a handful of notable exceptions, they were frequently stagey and static populated by actors seemingly utterly incapable of acting and talking at the same time. This isn't just one of the rare exceptions but an imaginative and beautiful piece of popular entertainment.

Compared with the more "normal" style of acting which we'd see in a year or so, the style of acting here hadn't quite evolved. That stilted and affected style however actually works really well with this picture by enhancing the other worldliness and the feeling of disconnect the characters have from each other and society in general. The mood Mr West creates heavily influenced by German expressionism is an edgy uncomfortable blend of realism juxtaposed with surrealism. It's definitely however not just an exercise in style - this has an abundance of substance too. You soon acclimatise to the acting style, it isn't bad just different although to be honest, Eleanor Griffith isn't good, Regis Toomey is a bit annoying and I'm afraid that to me Mae Busch will always be Oliver Hardy's wife!

Despite the understandable limitations of the production, what's unusual for a 1929 film is that it really engages your mind and immerses your thoughts in its themes. You question who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The police and the criminals aren't black and white - they're all pretty black. What this film then does is punch you in the stomach by making you realise that you were wrong. As it progresses you almost start to side with the criminals, you totally empathise with 'Joan' as she sides with them but then suddenly you realise how wrong you were as the bad guys show their true colours. It's rare for such an old talkie to play with your mind this cleverly.

These days a big topic of conversation is: 'can we trust the police.' Historically trusting the police isn't really a natural state of affairs. There seemed to be a golden age of trusting the Bobby maybe in the fifties but certainly in the twenties and more so in the thirties when The Depression kicked in, for a lot of people in America the police were not trusted. If they needed help or got into trouble, the last people they'd think of calling would be the police, they were not thought of as service to help or protect ordinary people. To a huge proportion of the population, they were just another bunch of hoodlums at war with other bunches of hoodlums. As 'Joan' demonstrates in this story, that sense that they were people to avoid is evoked very effectively. It gives you a genuine taste of the attitudes of the time - an excellent time machine!

In terms of style, although the cumbersome sound cameras restricted Roland West's vision, this almost has the feel of a classic expressionist silent classic. We get flowing camerawork sweeping down and across semi-surrealist rooftops yet still taste the dust and the dirt of the streets. He invites us into this world by occasionally using his camera to give first person point of views and uses his sets to express and accentuate the mood of the characters. Depending on whom we're seeing, their settings reflect their state of anxiety or optimism. For example, as the characters' outlooks turn bleaker, the walls look bigger and the people seem tiny and trapped. The spaces which were once opulent art deco apartments or nightclubs become huge enveloping claustrophobic prisons which again emphasise the hopelessness of those within.

As an insight into pre-Depression American society and how those people thought, this is invaluable. It's also a real work of art but is it something you can sit down with, kick off your shoes and relax with? Yes, it's not quite a classic but being so well produced, the quality is still there and so it's still enjoyable.

Having become a fan of director West via the ‘old dark house’-type comedy-thriller THE BAT WHISPERS (1930), I looked forward to watching every ‘new’ film of his – in the intervening years since that first viewing of BAT (on the eve of the Millennium, no less!), I had only managed to catch up with the somewhat unsatisfactory Lon Chaney vehicle THE MONSTER (1925) but, now, in quick succession came the original Silent version of THE BAT (1926) and ALIBI (1929), his first Talkie (notable for its innovative early Sound technique).

The latter is a gangster melodrama (a genre pioneered by Josef von Sternberg’s UNDERWORLD [1927]) whose quality was even recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, where it was in the running for three Oscars – Best Picture, Best Actor (forgotten star Chester Morris) and Best Art Direction (by the renowned William Cameron Menzies). While there are many who now look at it merely as a curio – and there’s no denying that its chief interest, after all these years, remains West’s artistic approach to the medium (extending also to camera position and movement, editing, and set design) – I found the plot itself, simple and moralistic though it is, reasonably absorbing.

Morris has just been released from prison and, while resuming his criminal activities, conveniently hitches up with a policeman’s daughter – she’s obviously naïve and speaks up for him when confronted with a murder rap. An undercover agent (Regis Toomey – who, feigning a drunken act, starts off by being obnoxious but eventually proves both hero and martyr) is ironically called upon to provide an alibi for Morris…but the girl unwittingly blows his cover and, inevitably, spells the man’s doom (bafflingly, West even places unwarranted emphasis on his overlong and maudlin death scene!). Eventually cornered in the top-floor of a high-rise, Morris breaks down before the cop who had been his rival for the heroine’s affections, revealing his true color (the star’s performance – alternating between smugness and a perpetual scowl – hadn’t been particularly distinguished up to that point, but he effectively shows his range here: his come-uppance, then, is truly incredible and unexpected). Also worth mentioning is the film’s unflinching brutality: Morris’ associate, the ageing owner of a popular establishment, has a tempestuous relationship with his “dizzy” moll (played by Mae Busch, frequent foil for the comic duo of Laurel & Hardy) and, at one point, he pushes her and she bashes her head against a cabinet!; later on in the scene, it’s he who gets thrown clear across the room by a punch from an enraged Morris.

Having just read the “DVD Talk” and “Slant Magazine” reviewers’ comments on the film, I’m not sure I agree completely – perhaps because I knew beforehand Morris would be playing a crook – with their contention that the line between hero and villain is deliberately blurred (in view of the Police’s objectionable methods, particularly a scene in which a captured member of Morris’ gang is literally terrorized into a confession) and even arguing that the gangster is initially depicted as sympathetic (his stretch in jail having apparently been the result of a frame-up). However, I got the impression that the Police were required to be tough in order to effectively meet the gangsters’ wave of lawlessness and violence (note how the cops stick together when a colleague of theirs is callously slain during a robbery, with the synchronized rapping of police clubs – the film was, in fact, based on a play called “Nightstick” – unleashing a dragnet over the whole area in a matter of seconds). Incidentally, an inspired way to further showcase the new-fangled Sound system was by throwing in a handful of ‘static’ musical numbers during the nightclub sequences!

That said, the quality of the “restored” audio was frankly quite horrid – with dialogue often too low to grasp or else being drowned out by extensive crackling on the soundtrack, and even dropping out entirely for a few seconds a couple of times! While nowhere near as distracting, the DVD transfer does display occasional combing; for some reason, too, the opening credits of the film have been digitally recreated!