Murder in Harlem

"I'm all by myself, free, sugar-cured, and single." "Hot diggity dog, right down my alley."

Oscar Micheaux's take on a real-life murder case from 1913, in which Leo Frank, a factory manager in Georgia, was convicted of the murder of a recently laid-off machine operator, Mary Phagan, who was just 13 years old (and had been working since age 10). The case was notorious in its era, especially when a mob of some of Georgia's prominent citizens kidnapped Frank from prison and lynched him, outraged over his death sentence having been commuted. He was Jewish, you see, and antisemitic sentiment ran high. Adding to the ugly event, the murderers and those around them brazenly sold postcards and souvenirs from the lynching afterwards, which apparently sold like hotcakes. Woven into the case were a couple of African American men, Newt Lee (the night watchman who discovered the body), and Jim Conley (the janitor who was convicted of being an accomplice after the fact, but who many modern day historians believe may have committed the crime).

It's certainly a fascinating case on which to base a film, and Micheaux had done so previously in his lost silent version, The Gunsaulus Mystery (1921). As disentangling the conflicting accounts of what had happened from the principals was complicated in real-life, Micheaux shows us multiple versions of the events ala Kurosawa's Rashomon. While the recounting of the murder in flashback was tediously drawn out in places, overall the storytelling was reasonably good, and helped considerably by the acting and costuming were a step above some of Micheaux's lower-budget efforts in the sound era. The women in particular were strong, starting with the sister of the night watchman (Dorothy Van Engle), who showed great range in a role that was intelligent, empowered, and sweetly seductive. Also wonderful in smaller parts were the sassy prostitute who lived next door (Bee Freeman), the wise maid (unknown, argh), and the murder victim herself (sadly also unknown).

As with many of Micheaux's other efforts, there are breaks with little musical interludes to liven things up, something I love about his films. Here, look for the tap dancer whose shiny satin outfit is set off by the dark background at 46:14, and Eunice Wilson performing "Harlem Rhythm Dance" at 53:36.

One of the things the films captures is just how much danger black people faced at the hint of being involved in violence against whites. The night watchman (Lorenzo McClane) is immediately suspected and understands the grave potential consequences early on. Later, the janitor (Alec Lovejoy) is shown to be coerced into helping cover up the crime for the factory manager (Andrew S. Bishop). While his character snivels annoyingly and even does a little jig when tossed a quarter, we feel how powerless he is, and how Micheaux sympathized with him. As part of his extended flashback while on the witness stand, he's in his boss's office with him for literally 13 minutes, which was far too long, though I did smile when he broke the fourth wall to tell the viewer "That white man's got something up his sleeve." That also mirrored the night watchman breaking the fourth wall to stare at the viewer when he finds the body early on, conveying a knowing sense of dread over the trouble he could be in as a black man standing over a dead white woman.

The fictional framing device of the author turned detective (Clarence Brooks) and his encounter with night watchman's sister in the first half hour felt weirdly glued on to this story, and was probably unnecessary. More unfortunate was making Phagan older, and inventing a vindictive, jealous boyfriend, one who says "D*** b****, you" upon finding her, and then strangles her unconscious body. It was ludicrous and muddled the story, even if I liked the little Leopold and Loeb reference slipped in by the boy who initially informed the detective about him.

The biggest sin, however, was in making Leo Frank white instead of Jewish, and by making him ultimately not guilty of anything beyond covering up the crime, finding a way of leaving out the horrific real-life lynching. Just imagine if Micheaux had confronted the antisemitism as bravely as had confronted the racism against black people, and had told the story in a simpler way, true to the facts (and accepting his view that the night watchman and janitor were both innocent). This could have been a masterpiece. Maybe he had conflicted feelings about Frank's conviction, and that's why he invented the character of the boyfriend. Regardless, I think he missed the most compelling part of the story, the lynching, sacrificing it for lesser things.

This film was the inspiration for Micheaux to write 'The Story of Dorothy Stanfield' eleven years later. The story is actually about her husband, Nathan Stanfield, who is living in hard times as a black medical doctor. It touches some very sensitive issues.

Murder in Harlem (1934)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A black watchman is doing his rounds when he stumbles across the body of a white woman. He calls the police but he's eventually arrested for the crime. Soon a lawyer is on his case trying to find out who was really behind the crime.

MURDER IN HARLEM is a fairly entertaining race film from director Oscar Micheaux who was of course the leading black director during this period. A lot of times the race films from this era didn't feature any white people but that's not the case here as the director was allowed a pretty good cast as well as an interesting story to work with.

Obviously, the director was still hampered with a very low-budget that didn't allow much technical advantages. The cinematography is the biggest issue here and especially during a few scenes where the camera zooms towards the actors, cuts off the top of their heads and then has to re-arrange the shot. Of course, normally you'd be asking for a second take but that wasn't possible when you're working with this type of budget.

The one big advantage this film had over several of the early sound films from Micheaux is that the performances were very good. Dorothy Van Engle gets most of the praise for her performance as the girlfriend and rightfully so as she comes across quite strong and certainly helps carry the picture. Clarence Brooks, Andrew Bishop and Alec Lovejoy all add very good support.

MURDER IN HARLEM is a very good example of a race movie that could have been so much more had it had the budget and technical advantages of what was going on in Hollywood. As it stands, the film is certainly very much worth watching but one can only think of what it could have been.

Black night watchman finds the body of a dead white woman on the job and is accused of the crime.

Good but unremarkable crime drama set interestingly in a world thats both black and white. Many of the so called race films have casts that are entirely black, here there is a mix, which is rather unique. The problem with the film is that although it was made in 1935 it moves and behaves like a film five or six years earlier. Its slow and creaky nature reminds me of a film like Sinister Hands or The Shadow Laughs.

Its a good little story but there is a good chance you'll get bored with it and start speeding through it (I did)

Before watching this film and certainly before judging it, there are things you should bear in mind. First, the quality of the actual celluloid leaves much to be desired, and the film jumps in places. Secondly, although by 1935 blacks had already made an enormous impact on American popular culture, this was primarily through music. Oscar Micheaux, who made this, was a rarity, so although by 2015 standards this low budget monochrome leaves much to be desired, it was not a bad effort for the son of a slave, even if he had been making films for more than a decade.

Yes, the script is a bit wooden, and the extended absurd cameo at the beginning about the book salesman is superfluously irrelevant and then some, but this was based on Micheaux's own experience. The film itself is a thinly veiled reworking of the murder of Mary Phagan by Leo Frank. Although there have been repeated attempts over the past hundred years to absolve Frank of this crime and put the blame on his Negro sidekick, the complete documentation from the case has now been placed on-line, and it is difficult to conclude otherwise than that fanciful as Jim Conley's story may sound, he was telling the truth.

That being said, certain agenda-driven special interest groups continue to beat the drum of anti-Semitism, with the absurd implication that in 1913 a low class Negro was higher up the food chain than a white, college educated businessman. Those same mischief-makers were very active when this film was made, so it is possible that the twist in the end of the story was formulated by Micheaux to avoid problems with distribution.