... 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.
