The Judge

One of the last films directed by the great Elmer Clifton, whose career dates back to the mid-teens and D.W.Griffith, The Judge was also the first production of Ida Lupino's production company, first called Emerald Productions, later called The Filmmakers.

This is a quirky film which is both hard-boiled and pretentious, raw and artsy. It is also a film that raises as many questions as it answers. Elements are introduced into the story, covered in detail, and then not developed. Dream sequences are introduced, but are unclear. The main character--who is a sleazy defense attorney, NOT a judge--is well-played by Milburn Stone, but his story is not really typical of anyone other than this one oddball character. Why the film is called THE JUDGE, I don't know. The show begins and ends with a judge pulling out a file from his file cabinet, and talking about what a unique and disturbing case this was. The same judge does rule on an important case in the film, but he is not central--one wonders why the film is not called THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY? While star Milburn Stone and some of the supporting actors give good performances, the doctor and Stone's wife are both amateurishly played. Also, no scored instrumental music is feature in the film: only avant-garde acapella choral music, and the wire recording of the violin practicing that is used to get the psycho killer to grab a gun, which is used later as supporting music. This gives the film an art-film feel. A few scenes were unclear and required me to rewind the tape and watch them two or three times. The scene where the guy selling the dolls picks someone's pocket--the guy who later kills a policeman and is blackmailed by Stone--was unclear. Where was that gun coming from? Is this sloppy continuity, or an attempt at being ambiguous? Who knows... When the film ends, somewhat abruptly I might add, the viewer will probably have a number of questions as we did. However, whatever minor flaws I may complain about, The Judge is a unique film experience. Not entirely successful, but unique nonetheless.

...or: Well, that explains that.

In the exhibitor's press book issued with this film, there is a half-page, two-column story under this headline: Balance of Symbolism and Reality Is Important Facet of "The Judge" There we learn..."the delicate balance between symbolism and reality is one of the most interesting features of 'The Judge." While symbolism is used freely throughout, it infiltrates, rather than intrudes itself upon the consciousness of the audience. Instead of becoming an object in itself, a showcase for trick camera angles and self-conscious dramatic shots, the symbolism in 'The Judge' is worked in gently, a subtle shading to intensify the characters and action it supports. While the effectiveness of symbolism is exploited, it is made to keep its place in the anatomy of the picture."

(Thank goodness for small favors.)

"...Wiliam Jackson (Paul Guilfoyle), a little guy who is pushed around, is first seen in the uncompromising sunlight of a middle-class park, against the sculptured background of struggling figures at the base of a statue. He is trapped in the wire cage of a tennis court, and tried against the bleak bareness of a courtroom. All these backgrounds build unobtrusively toward making his actions in the contrasting Apartment 29 natural and even inevitable. They are an unspoken comment on, and explanation of, his character."

(A nerd is a nerd is a nerd)

"PROPS REVEAL CHARACTER: The office of Dr. James Anderson (Stanley Waxman), with its neat files and carefully cataloged data on human emotions, its stern furniture and well-ordered arrangement, portray the cold mind of the psychiatrist. Lucille Strang (Katherine deMille) is seen against a haughty background that shows the deft, impersonal hand of a professional interior decorator, artistically lovely but without warmth, showing she has spent money but no love upon it---pointing up her brittle and unsentimental character."

(Some of us clods just thought the dame had swell taste.)

"The props, too, speak their piece. Inanimate objects become characters in the story---Jackson's tinkle-toy that is crushed by the foot of an unheeding ruffian---the wire-recorder in Anderson's office that taunts Tilton (Norman Budd)---the gun that Strang steals from Anderson."

This course in fundamental symbolism ends rather abruptly right there, as if the printer had had all he could take, and just inserted a still of the scowling, bow tie-wearing Paul Guilfoyle in place of setting the type for a third column. Too bad. Perhaps the third column explained just exactly what a tinkle-toy was. Maybe it was a bedpan constructed out of tinker-toys from an Erector Set.

Did the writers explain all this to director Elmer Clifton?

At first I thought this was a sleeper in the making. Those early scenes of lunatic Tilton (Budd) are grabbers, especially when he challenges Code by shooting a crippled boy and his dog! Moreover, his contrast with ice cold lawyer Strang (Stone) sets up real character color. So it's no surprise when we find out about Strang's utter lack of legal ethics. But inside the cold exterior, the lawyer's suffering pangs of conscience over the rogues he's gotten off. At the same time, his arrogant wife is two-timing him with his associate, the county doctor, of all people. Thus, despite his rigid demeanor, Strang's not altogether unsympathetic nor unconflicted. Also, director Clifton heightens this first half with some imaginative camera angles and close-ups suggesting a world where anything might happen.

Trouble is the second half bogs down in a lot of talk minus the earlier visual novelties. Though loaded with potential tension, the Russian roulette scene goes on too long and is drained by too much exposition, resulting in an action climax largely wasted. Then too, Strang's motivations behind his murder scheme are muddied up with all the talk that's not helped by an abrupt dream sequence. In short, the promising early part is undone by a awkward latter part. All in all, the movie raises interesting ideas but fails to effectively develop them.

(In passing—For fans of TV's Gunsmoke (1955-1975), it's enlightening to catch actor Stone playing a role opposite to his avuncular Doc Adams in TV's longest running western. However, if he smiled even once as lawyer Strang, I missed it. Anyway, a salute to that fine actor.)

This is a freakish movie, and it plays a bit like the old radio series "The Whistler."

(Remember that one? "I am the Whistler -- and I know many things, for I walk by night. I know many strange tales hidden in the hearts of men and women who have stepped into the shadows. Yes, I know the nameless terrors of which they dare not speak.")

In this case, instead of The Whistler, we have "The Judge," who opens up his file cabinet of past cases, narrates some opening psychobabble about human minds, and lets us witness first hand the sordid horrors of human psychiatric neurosis, complete with a woozy flashback scene, more casual gun-handling than i have seen outside of a Western, and an acapella choir that sounds like it swallowed a theramin.

And what about Milburn Stone? Wow! Doc Adams on TV's "Gunsmoke" surely deserves kudos for playing firmly against type here. as a man so unexpectedly motivated that to say anything more about his intentions would be to ruin the experience of watching the looks on his face shift with almost every line he delivers.

If this had been a pilot for a very weird short-run TV series, it would have become a cult classic. As it is, it is just straight-out bizarre.

By the way, i'll bet you dollars to donuts that the dog in the opening scenes was trained by Frank Inn, uncredited. It's a larger "Benji" type terrier-shaggy cross, and the stunt is set up exactly like all of Inn's best work with Higgins and his other dogs: The dog has a whole routine or scene memorized, and pulls it off in a nice, long take without ever once looking at the trainer for instructions. Good job, Anonymous Dog! Good job, Frank Inn!

Yikes! As is typical with Alpha Video releases, the DVD copy for this one is pretty awful. It's very fuzzy and the sound very poor due to a loud hiss. While I am thrilled that Alpha brings out many B-movies which would otherwise never come out on DVD, the discs have never been restored in any way and it looks and sounds that way.

Milburn Stone plays Martin Strang--a lawyer famous for defending some high-profile murderers. One day he realizes that his wife is cheating on him and concocts a complicated plan. However, Strang is clever and is willing to take his time with this one.

One day, William Jackson (Paul Guilfoyle) kills a cop and is up on murder charges. Surprisingly, Strang volunteers to take the case free of charge even though it seems like a sure loser. However, there is a catch--the obviously guilty man will pay for the service by doing Strang a favor. After getting an acquittal on a technicality, Strang announces the favor. What that favor is and how it relates to the wife is something you'll need to say for yourself.

Now all this probably sounds great, right? Well that's the problem. While the set up was good, the payoff was not. Even worse, much of the ending needed to be explained by the narrator!! Instead of a dandy ending came talking, talking and more talking both before and after this exposition. In addition, during much of this you hear one of the most annoying soundtracks in history--with a chorus blaring out 'oooooooooooooo' for what seems like an eternity! Overall, the longer I watched, the less I enjoyed the film. A film that had SOME good ideas but which was horribly written and cheap. Very disappointing.