Circumstantial Evidence

This odd little movie opens with a lofty sense of purpose, dedicating itself to `the need of arousing every man and every woman to the dangers that lie in circumstantial evidence.' What ensues resembles a `very special' episode of a sit-com.

Single dad Michael O'Shea sends off for a set of Davy Crockett woodsman's tools for his son Billy Cummings (who even looks like The Beaver). Boys being boys, the kid starts busting up wood crates behind the shop of a neighborhood baker, who slaps him and confiscates the offending hatchet. Enraged, O'Shea goes off to retrieve it. In the struggle, the baker winds up on the floor, with a gash in his forehead, dead. Witnesses swear they saw O'Shea lower the fatal boom. Next thing, O'Shea's on death row.

Avuncular postman Lloyd Nolan, who played no small part in all that went before, takes Cummings under his wing. With Nolan's help, and that of his friends in an athletic club, Cummings stages a charade that convinces even the governor that his dad deserves a new trial. O'Shea, meanwhile, convinced that his situation is hopeless, decides to break out of prison....

It's hard to know for whom this programmer was made - the Saturday matinee peanut-gallery crowd? Despite a thick roster of B-movie stalwarts (Ray Teal, Reed Hadley, John Eldredge, John Hamilton), it's simplistic and implausible throughout. Only in its last moments does it rally, displaying any tension and visual style. One can't help wonder, with all that had just happened in Europe and the Pacific, what was the miscarriage of justice that precipitated this call to arms against circumstantial evidence?

I only caught this film, as one early Charles Lamont's stuff, the future director of BAGDAD, which I will comment in a few minutes, and especially the Abott and Costello's adventures; at least most of them. Lamont was a prolific film maker whose most interesting and curious movie was SALOME WHERE SHE DANCED, and also SLAVE GIRL, both starring the also gorgeous and flaming Yvonne de Carlo. This one belongs to the long list of the thirties very very talkative movies, which the quality and interest was not always very obvious. The topic is not that bad however. It seems to be the same story - more or less - as Fritz Lang's BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT or John Sturges' THE MAN WHO DARED. So, from this point of view, and also considering that this Charles Lamont's film was made BEFORE the others two, yes we can consider it as interesting. Don't confound with another film made in 1945 under the same title, but not the same story, if my memory doesn't fail. Made by a forgotten and lost movie company Chesterfield. Hoops, sorry for the mistake; everyone will notice that I confounded myself ; I commented the 1945 film, instead the 1935 one which I just watched and just spoke about now...Sorry.

Odd B picture about a mailman (Lloyd Nolan) who sets out to prove a man (Michael O'Shea) is innocent of murder. What makes this one odd is, for starters, the mailman's relationship with young boys is definitely something of its era. It's all harmless enough in the context of the film's story but it's hard to see it flying today. The guy and his wife don't have any kids so he fills that void by being an uncle figure to the local boys, including the son of the guy who is accused of murder. He comes off as a little pushy and even creepy to me. The weirdest part is that he is largely responsible for getting the guy in trouble in the first place. On top of that he seems anxious to step in and replace the dad in the kid's life. It's all very strange considering he's not the villain here and his actions aren't supposed to be suspicious to the audience. Worth a look for the weird factor but as a movie it's basically a passable time-killer at best.

When his son has his new hatchet seized by a mean shopkeeper, Michael O'Shea goes to wrangle it out, and gets into a fight. While they are tussling over the hatchet, the witnesses see the man go down, and testify in court that O'Shea killed the man. O'Shea winds up on Death Row, while best friend Lloyd Nolan tries to take care of the boy.

It's a very late Fox B, and while the people in front of and behind the camera do their best, it all comes off as mechanical. On top of that, it's a misleading title; as any trial lawyer will tell you, witnesses are very unreliable in what they report, and easily manipulable. Despite attempts to provide some tension, it's rather flat.

Okay indictment of circumstantial evidence, when a man (Michael O'Shea) is convicted of murder and sentenced to death for a murder no one actually saw him commit. His son and his best friend set out to prove his innocence.

Pretty fair B movie.