Midnight

... which is very odd for its time.

It opens with a woman testifying on her own behalf, talking about what led up to her killing her husband. She is a well dressed, what you would call "credible" looking 30 something woman, and it looks like maybe things are going to go her way, with it sounding like she was under terrible duress, just not wanting her husband to leave her. And then the jury foreman, Edward Weldon, asks a question that when answered by the accused, makes the entire thing suddenly sound premeditated. She is found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Meanwhile, watching the trial, is a gangster (Humphrey Bogart) and the foreman's daughter, Stella (Sidney Fox). They start up a romance.

This is where things get odd. Apparently everybody is blaming the jury foreman for the woman's conviction, when he simply asked a question. The news media is blaming him. Even his own family is questioning what he did. The night of the execution, several months later, he is beginning to buckle under the pressure, but he says the law is the law, the same for everybody, that an execution is hard, but then so is murder. He talks about the D. A. being the best and most just D. A. the city has had for years. That same night, his daughter Stella is very upset that her gangster boyfriend is going to collect a "hard debt" and then take the train to Chicago, maybe leaving her forever. And strangely these two events - the woman's execution and Stella's hearbreak, intertwine.

The film is one of the earliest mainstream films - made by Universal - I've seen to debate the morality and fair application of the death penalty. It also has lots to say about the power of suggestion, and what ambitious people will do to make sure their climb up the ladder is not impeded. It has lots of interesting intercuts and the cinematography will at times focus on what peoples' hands are doing as they are speaking, to reflect their mood.

Yet it seems like lots of people don't care for this one. Maybe it is because it fell into the public domain and it was probably falsely advertised as "starring Humphrey Bogart" when, if there is any central figure, it is probably O. P. Heggie as the jury foreman. The fact that he has rather wild looking hair and resembles a thin version of the ghoul in Carnival of Souls doesn't help his sex appeal, if in fact dealers of VHS and DVD copies of this film were trading on that. Then look at the original lobby card - it has Humphrey Bogart and Sidney Fox in a romantic embrace. That and the title had to have misled 1934 audiences too.

I'd recommend it for all of the reasons I've mentioned. Just don't expect Bogie to have lots of screen time. Also starring Lynn Overman as a very ungrateful son-in-law and Henry Hull as a lying yet pontificating reporter.

Somewhat stagy drama about a jury foreman (O.P. Heggie) who's very strict on law & order convicting a woman of murder and sending her to the chair. Everyone seems to be upset with the juror, including the press and his family. Of note today only because Humphrey Bogart's in it. Unfortunately he has a small part. It's not a bad film of its kind. Heggie is certainly a quality actor. Top-billed Sidney Fox plays his daughter, whose story is where Bogie fits into things. The rest of the cast is okay, with Henry Hull being the most remarkable. It's a movie that obviously has points to make about capital punishment and the legal system not being fair for all. But it's a bit creaky and drags and kind of falls on its face in the final act. Worth a look for Bogart completists. Also of interest to O.P. Heggie and Henry Hull buffs. If there aren't any, there should be!

Firstly forget the fact that Bogart is in this - that's not important, he's only got a bit part: it's NOT a Bogart picture.

After 15 minutes I decided that this was the worst film I've ever seen but I stuck with it and then decided that it was brilliant!

Can't say I know much about Chester Erskine but this was his first film. After graduating from film school he obviously had dozens of ideas he was itching to incorporate into his first work of art. Given free reign to do whatever he liked, that's exactly what he did and you can taste his enthusiasm. Some of his innovations don't work but nevertheless it's fascinating to watch. There's one scene for example where the troubled Mr Weldon is doing a monologue with the camera zooming in on him - it zooms in so fast that you can see the poor old guy staggering back to avoid being hit in the face with the camera! In style and structure this film reminded me a little of HEAD, that experimentally weirdly incoherent film The Monkees made in the late sixties.

Whilst this is essentially a filmed stage play, Erskine's imaginative and innovative tricks and techniques really make this into a genuine movie. Visually it's stunning, so different from the typical directorial styles seen in Hollywood in the early thirties. Here in England we had Hitchcock making innovative (and good) films, in France Jean Cocteau and Bunel were creating their avant-garde masterpieces. These filmmakers clearly influenced Erskine but in comparison, his own effort looks very childish but at least he tried. He tries to do something different and that's what makes this a worthwhile watch.

The story is essentially about how Mr Weldon, who was on a jury, copes with being responsible for a murderer going to the electric chair and how this affects his daughter. It's a ridiculous story but Erskine's novel take on how to make a movie makes this inexplicably engrossing. What's clever is how Erskine makes you, the viewer part of the jury. With some interesting use of mirrors, you're in the centre of all this - you're the one who has to decide what's the right thing to do - you're the one to decide whether the death sentence is justified - you're the one who has to decide on the subsequent guilt of the daughter. In some respects, it's superb filmmaking.

The question is therefore why isn't Chester Erskine more well-known? Why isn't MIDNIGHT a classic? Why didn't it walk away with all the Oscars that year? The answer is simple - the acting is truly terrible: really, really truly terrible! This bad acting is however intrinsic to the overall style of the film but its strangely slow and incredibly unnatural pace makes this weird. Some people will find this unwatchable, some people will find it brilliant. If you like pseudo intellectual, cod-psychological pretentiousness, you'll enjoy this - it even ends with a pretentious 'finis' - love it!

As the foreman of the jury you want know, when the deed was done where did the money go, and the answer makes it clear, the lady's going to the chair, it marks the start of the beginning of your woe. On the night when execution's to occur, the tensions high with others you confer, but you've done what was required, the law states this girl must be wired, this is how murders of others is deterred. Then your daughter who's been out returns in stress, a crime of passion is disclosed murder confessed, puts you in a tricky place, the DA's chauffeured to your place, will he help to solve the problem, clean the mess?

Humphrey Bogart plays Garboni a gangster involved with the daughter of a jury foreman who helped convict a women of shooting the man who betrayed her. The pressure that falls upon this man and those around him makes the films story. This film is interesting for two reasons it explores guilt from two different perspectives on two different people giving the audience a wide range of emotions and consequences of dealing with the murder. Secondly it features Bogart in a small role, that should have been given more screen time. Bogart was still relatively unknown to the movie going public at the time it was made, of course he has a part that can be categorized as a 'heavy' a role he would fill many times until Maltese Falcon, where he would break through and finally play a lead role that did not require him to be a gangster.