The Case Against Mrs. Ames

THE TOUCH OF VENUS (1948) was the sole other film directed by William A Seiter that I had watched to date - and I really liked it, especially the incredibly gorgeous Aca Gardner. This morning, I watched THE CASE AGAINST MRS AMES, done 12 years earlier.

They are two very different films, but both have pleasing touches of humor bordering occasionally on screwball.

Madeleine Carroll is to THE CASE what Ava was to TOUCH, a stunning female who leaves no male indifferent. Carroll plays a widow, mother of a six year old boy, and she stands accused of murdering her husband who, the viewer finds in due course, was not exactly an altar boy in life. Things get to a head when Carroll's very wealthy mother in law decides to keep the child.

In a court case full of adjournments, delays, deceit, and other malarkey, Carroll's defense lawyer (Alan Mowbray) thinks she is guilty, but somehow she is acquitted. That is when the mother in law - who has been poisoning the little boy's mind blaming Carroll for her son's death - retains Mowbray's services, and Carroll decides to do her own defense.

Not too successfully, and that is when Carroll asks prosecutor Brent to investigate the murder case so her good name is cleared.

I watched a poor copy on Youtube off a VHS tape, so I cannot usefully comment on the quality of the mostly interior photography but the script contains sharp and articulate dialogue, even if cause and effect are not always clear.

Thankfully only 85 minutes long and definitely worth watching. 8/10.

When the story begins, Hope Ames (Madeleine Carroll) is on trial for her life. It seems they believe she murdered her husband. However, despite the prosecutor, Matt Logan (George Brent), believing the case is going to be easily won, she's fond not guilty. This, however, is not the end of Hope's problems as her mother-in-law is now suing for custody--and the old woman seems willing to do just about anything to get the child away from its mother.

Things look pretty hopeless for Hope, and her only possible help might come from Matt Logan...as the prosecutor is now working for Hope. But what can Matt find out that would shed a different light on the case?

Like so many courtroom dramas, this one if filled with ridiculous outbursts and salacious newspaper headlines. But the story is still quite interesting despite its excesses....and if you thought the mother and mother-in-law screaming out in court is crazy...just wait until the insane ending to the story!.

I missed the first five minutes of this film when I saw it on tv in the late 1980's. The interaction between Carroll and Brent make it a classic film of the 1930's. I have waited for years for it to come out on VHS, but to no avail. Reluctant love is truly a great theme and one that is well treated in this film with the two great matinee idols of the depression decade.

Madeleine Carroll turns in a lively performance here as the accused socialite "Hope" who is on trial for murdering her wealthy husband. Her last ditch and emotional plea to the all-male jury does the trick and she gets off, but her mother-in-law (Beulah Bondi) wants her as far away from her child "Bobby" as possible so pretty soon they are going to have head back to court. Not only has the boy's grandmother employed "Waterston" (Alan Mowbray) as her solicitor - he was the defence lawyer for the original crime, but "Logan" (George Brent) the DA who failed in that prosecution has rather lost the plot since and taken to the bottle. "Hope" reckons the only way to keep her son is to prove, categorically, that she didn't kill her husband and so engages "Logan" to get to the bottom of just who did kill him! This hits the ground running and allows Carroll to pretty much own the screen throughout. There is some solid support from the wise-cracking Brent, Mowbray and the ever reliable Arthur Treacher brings a little stiff upper lipped humour as butler "Griggs". The actual investigation is a bit superficial and the clues rather fall into place but there's some fun to be had whilst the expected romance blossoms and the courtroom drama thickens. It might also show an early cinematic example of child grooming, too. Worth a watch, I'd say.

I was left unsure why Arthus Roche's name appeared on the credits. The screenplay bears no resemblance to the novel, and I am driven to the conclusion that using the title of a well known book (and hence having to credit it's author) was thought to be a good way of getting an audience for a second rate low budget movie. Of course, the novel being set in a Broadway of extremely dubious morals wouldn't have gone down too well with the US censor, or with the Hollywood moguls who would would also not have been to keen on the portrayal in the novel of a gangster mixing freely with the Broadway bosses. The issue (seemingly well researched in the novel) of the hardware shop as a front for the supply of weapons to the gangs would have been a bit hard to swallow, but with all those plot changes, why not just write a new screenplay?