User reviews

MIDNIGHT (Universal, 1934), directed by Chester Erskine, based on a stage play, is reproduced as such in this screen adaptation reportedly filmed and produced in New York City. Headed by Sidney Fox, in one of her final screen roles and last for Universal, she plays Stella, the daughter of Edward Weldon, a jury foreman (O. P. Heggie, the actor most famous today for his role as the blind hermit in THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)) at a trial where a woman, Ethel Saxon (Helen Flint) is accused of murdering a man who betrayed her. Because Weldon is solely responsible for the verdict that convicts Saxon to be later executed at midnight in the electric chair, his personal life changes dramatically. Weldon is not only hounded by reporters after the trial, particularly one named Nolan (Henry Hull, the future WEREWOLF OF London also in 1935) who manages to be a guest at his home on the night of Saxon's execution, but he must stand firm with his decision regardless. Stella, who had become acquainted with a man at the trial named Gar Boni (Humphrey Bogart), becomes interested in him, unaware that he is a gangster, but learns about him later on in the story when she notices that he carries a gun. When Gar Boni finds himself having to be forced to leave town, Stella wants to go away with him, but he refuses to let her do so, but agrees on meeting her one last time before he goes. On the very night of Ethel Saxon's execution, Stella and Gar Boni have a farewell meeting in his car. As the switch is being pulled on Saxon, a gun shoots off on Gar Boni. Returning home to her father with the gun in her hand, Stella admits to shooting Gar Boni, which puts the old man into a real predicament as to what to do. Should he stand by his own merits and have his own daughter arrested for the crime, or find a way to violate the law and shield her?

Although the story premise is very interesting, especially the subject about a man who feels a murderer must pay the price, only to have his own daughter commit the same kind of crime of passion, MIDNIGHT fails to deliver mainly because of stiff, stagy production with not so convincing dialog. Under capable hands of a more suitable director, for instance, William Wyler, for example, MIDNIGHT might have worked as a tense and moving drama. Sidney Fox, who usually gives a satisfactory performance, seems to be the weakest link here, talking somewhat shaky at times for no reason. She's not very convincing, especially during her emotional scenes. Occasionally the camera shots moving at different angles keeps the pace moving, but not enough to hold one's interest at 73 minutes.

Other capable members of the cast include Margaret Wycherly as Mrs. Weldon; future director Richard Wholf as Stella's brother, Arthur; Lynne Overman and Katherine Wilson as Joe and Ada Biggers, tenants of the Weldon household; Granville Bates, Cora Witherspoon, Henry O'Neill, and Moffatt Johnston as a district attorney who is called to the Weldon home to solve the mystery to Gar Boni's murder.

To capitalize on the success of future film star Humphrey Bogart, MIDNIGHT was later reissued in 1946 as CALL IT MURDER with Bogey being given star billing, the very print available to video cassette and DVD. It's the former Blackhawk Video Company of Davenport, Iowa, that distributed the movie on videotape with it's original "Midnight" title, opening credits headed by Sidney Fox, O. P. Heggie and Henry Hull, with Bogart's name listed eighth in the cast, as initially presented in theaters in 1934.

MIDNIGHT will never be listed in Hollywood's Top Ten Best list, but it's worth viewing for being an early screen appearance of future superstar Humphrey Bogart or a rediscovery of Sidney Fox, whose movie career (mostly at Universal) lasted only three years. Fox and Bogart had worked together earlier in THE BAD SISTER (1931), which not only became Fox's movie debut, but the future two-time Academy Award winning actress, Bette Davis. (***)

MIDNIGHT (reissued by "Guaranteed Pictures" in 1947 as CALL IT MURDER with eighth billed Humphrey Bogart - now famous - elevated to top billing for his supporting role) was originally filmed at the Biograph Studios in Queens, New York, for Universal Pictures, based on a Theatre Guild production of the same name (but called IN THE MEANTIME during its tryout tour).

While the stage production disappointed the critics and was not extended beyond its initial subscription run (48 perf., December 29, 1930 - Feb. 1931 at the Guild Theatre), Claire and Paul Sifton's examination of the flaws in the idea that "the law is the law" regardless of justice or tempering with mercy was interesting enough to justify Universal's committing a cast from the top of their second tier to turning out a decent "programmer" to fill the demand for films to keep the screens they controlled occupied between their major releases and training stars in the making (like Bogart and Sidney Fox).

The original play concerned the foreman of a jury, a man named Edward Weldon (O.P. Heggie on screen), which had condemned a woman for the murder of a man who was leaving her - only to find, two acts later, his daughter (Fox) in a similar situation.

Director Chester Erskine (at the start of a career which would see well remembered work on such "A" releases as THE EGG AND I, ALL MY SONS and ANDROCLES AND THE LION, working as director, writer and producer for another 40 years), while unable to produce the figurative "silk purse" out of a possible "sow's ear" of a melodrama, opened up the play, originally set only in the Weldon living room, with excellent - and given the period, surprisingly sophisticated - crosscutting between the condemned woman, the daughter's developing affair and the moral quandary around the Weldon himself.

If the 30's structure of the argument may strike many as dated today, and the "deus ex machina" solution to one of Weldon's problems too pat to be genuinely satisfying, they probably are - but the elder Weldon's overly strict, unbending interpretation of his moral and civic obligations is hardly unknown today as an excuse for lack of thought or bigotry. A remake with more "modern" technique might indeed be well received, but the implicit melodrama would be just as blatant.

While Humphrey Bogart's role is a relatively small one (although it is woven through most of the film), it makes for legitimately fascinating viewing as a transitional role for the handsome actor who had been playing stage juveniles. He had had 15 Broadway roles in the 12 years - and 9 films in the three years - before making this film, but would only have two more Broadway credits afterward (but 66 films). His Gar Boni in MIDNIGHT is very well done in a more modern style than many around him (see the similar effect the young Helen Hayes achieved with the same then "fresh" realistic style in 1932's FAREWELL TO ARMS) before finding the "world weary" persona that won career-making acclaim for his "Duke Mantee" opposite Leslie Howard on Broadway and screen just two years later.

It may be of some interest that on stage, the supporting role of Arthur Weldon (played in the film by future director Richard Whorf) was created by actor/playwright Clifford Odets.

Finding a good print of MIDNIGHT or even CALL IT MURDER may not be easy, but the search may be worth it. Don't expect a polished "modern" film, and shallow film buffs who don't appreciate history or context will probably hate it, but true film connoisseurs shouldn't miss this one for what IS there.

This early Bogart movie is only available on DVD/video in a reissue print entitled "Call it Murder". This print lists Bogart above the title instead of 8th in the cast as in the original release, and was obviously resurrected to cash in on Bogart's post 1930's fame. He is adequate in a small part, but the film is a slow-moving filming of a 1930 play that is interesting enough as a moral melodrama, but also mercifully short. The interest lies in the sequences in the courtroom and death chamber, which eschew the stage-bound grouping, and ponderous delivery of the body of the film, and uses the camera in an imaginative and cinematic way. Worth a look as a 30's melodrama, but don't expect a Bogart movie.

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?

... 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!

Interesting film that explores the outcome of a murder trial on the jury formant and his family. A drama unfolds in the jury formans house on the night of the execution with surprising results for the legalistic jury forman who swayed the jurys verdict. Also interesting because the film features a very young Humphrey Bogart in a small role. The only disapointment is that Bogart didnt have more screen time. A better than average early message movie.

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.

One must judge this movie along-side its contemporaries. It is an outstanding example of the numerous "women with law problems" pictures of the Thirties. It avoids the sentimentality and masochistic suffering that the female lead predictably, and monotonously undergoes. Instead of a simple morality tale, with the focus on a single character's torment, we are presented with one of the earliest examples of Noir that I know, complete with dark despair, pessimism, and cynicism. The Law, in-laws, ambitious DAs, insensitive fourflushers and amoral bourgeois relatives, and an ambiguously moral reporter all serve to subvert the movie's latent sentimentality and cause us to question our moral bearings. Bogart is excellent in his brief role, but it is ridiculous to judge this movie by his screen time. All the acting is excellent (save Ms. Fox?) and the casting superb. The direction is inventive, especially considering the confining main set, with many startling close-ups, camera angles, and tableaux. Consider this movie in terms of the original "Chicago" (the play, 1927), its remake as the movie Roxie Hart (W. Wellman, 1942) and "Chicago," 2002. You'll see it has a lot to add to this theme, and is worthy of consideration in its own right.

I have recently watched this film again. This time I realized that there is a lot in the movie besides just seeing Bogart in one of his early films. This movie makes a very strong statement about capital punishment. Equally as strong is its statement on who you know if you want to beat a rap. The whole movie takes place during a few hours before the scheduled execution of a woman who killed her lover who was going to leave her. Except for the beginning court scenes, and prison scenes, and a couple of scenes where Bogart is in a room somewhere, and when he and Sidney Fox are in his car, the movie takes place at the home of the jury foreman who found the woman guilty. A news reporter gets into the house with a radio and a surprise at the end so that the public can witness what it's like for that foreman as the scheduled execution time approaches. What you may think is a surprise ending really isn't the end at all. Keep watching for the twist involving the district attorney who has his eye on the governorship. This film, like Bogart and Huston's Beat The Devil, is in the public domain.

As the execution of the woman he helped find guilty draws near, the jury foreman begins to question his decision. Chester Erskine's unusual examination of the impact a guilty decision has on a jury foreman and his family is earnest but dull. Sidney Fox is awful as the foreman's daughter, giving an increasingly overwrought performance that has the opposite effect on audience sympathies to that which is intended. Humphrey Bogart stands out in a small role, but that's probably just because he's Bogie.

You're going to have to be a great fan of silent movies to enjoy Midnight. It feels like it might have been the first talkie ever made, with the screenwriter and his actors experimenting with dialogue. Director Chester Erskine tries out camera angles that were probably inventive in 1934 but now seem obvious and old-hat. For example, as Helen Flint paces in her jail cell, the camera repeatedly cuts back and forth to O.P. Heggie pacing in his living room (with the camera situated behind the staircase's banister rungs) as he wrestles with his guilt. There are tons of silences and exaggerated expressions that would have worked in a silent movie, but will make you groan unless you have unlimited patience.

I'd better tell you the plot, since so far, I'm making this movie sound terrible. The foreman of a jury (Heggie) feels terribly guilty for condemning a woman to the electric chair, and he stays up till midnight with his family on the night of her execution. His daughter (Sidney Fox) is dating a gangster (Humphrey Bogart). He's unknowingly the plot of a drawn-out robbery, and a newspaperman (Henry Hull) visits the house hoping to get an inside scoop on the man's reactions. In theory, it's an interesting story. Had it been a silent movie, it probably would have been better. Had the editor tightened everything up and cut twenty minutes off the running time, it also would have been better. But, if you want to see a very young Humphrey Bogart in a movie where he doesn't get a high billing and only has a few minutes of screen time, you can rent it. I watched it for Henry Hull, who wasn't made up to be an old man for once. He looked very handsome, so I did have one reward for sitting through it!

This film was originally called "Midnight." In a noir set that I have, it's titled "Call it Murder" and Humphrey Bogart is top-billed. Originally he was listed as 8th in the cast, as he really doesn't have that much to do. It's of interest because of his presence - he plays a criminal, but he's a young leading man here - but otherwise, there isn't much to recommend it.

Why this is in a film noir set is beyond me. It's a melodrama (based on a play) that moves like an iceberg. The acting is stilted, as is the dialogue. The plot centers around a jury foreman (O.P. Heggie) whose jury has sent a young woman to the electric chair, and she is due to die that evening. People are begging him to stop the execution. This is my first problem. What can he do other than say there was a miscount? Anyway, he stands by his decision. When his own daughter (Sidney Fox) lands in the same predicament, claiming she killed her lover, Gar Boni (Bogart), one wonders how resolute he will be then. Pretty resolute. Ready to send her up the river, which I think is totally unrealistic behavior.

All this doesn't add up to much, but it's always a treat to see Bogart, and especially interesting at such an early point in his magnificent career. He's quite good. In fact, he's the only one who doesn't have huge pauses between his sentences and speaks in a decent rhythm. The director really didn't pace this movie too well. It's early days for talkies, and many actors were still adjusting their technique from stage to film.

An oldie, but unfortunately, not a goodie.

This film is probably one of Bogart's worst performances of all time. But it doesn't matter. As Shakespeare would say "The Play's the Thing". And this play (it is perfect for the stage) is so much better than the tripe served up from other pre-code films of the same era. The plot is laden with irony. The twist ending is unexpected, although we think we know what is going to happen and why. I will not reveal the ending; but it is terrific. This forgotten gem is so good, I'm adding it to my 2000 of the Best Films of All Time list for the next edition. It is not easy to make that list. The entire cast, except Bogart, does a great job (and I love Bogart). And even though his character's name is an Italian slur (Garboni) or Garbone) meaning something really disgusting (look it uo in the urban dictionary), the film is shot with great precision; one of the best in the 30s. Not to be missed.

Film instructors should use this movie as an example of what not to do. The acting and the directing are simply awful. The filming itself is actually kind of interesting, with some dramatic use of lighting. But with a plodding plot, incredibly long reaction (or lack of reaction) shots, and truly bad acting, this is one to watch with silly friends in a silly mood. It's too bad, too, because the basic story line is somewhat compelling.

Bogart only has a minor role, but turns in the best performance of the lot. We bought the video for about two bucks, and we're not sorry. We kept it. It's just too funny not to.

Capital punishment is questioned, indirectly, by "Midnight," as is whether "the law" is or even can be applied equally. Or should be.

"Midnight" is a stage play, and director tricks tried to make it into a motion picture, not entirely successfully.

Director Chester Erskine, billed here as Erskin, used a lot of gimmicky camera angles, including mirror shots and fast cuts, and actually intruded on the drama of the situations.

This is not "a Humphrey Bogart movie." Bogey plays a pivotal but lesser character -- and in my opinion gives one of his best performances. He was not stiff or stilted and his speech was clear. All in all, an excellent performance.

Who really is the star? Lovely Sidney Fox becomes the center of attention late in the film, but O.P. Heggie is the focus earlier.

He plays the father of her character, and father-in-law of the character played by that excellent Lynne Overman, here Lynn. His character brings into the bosom of the family a character, a breed of person in 2016 and 2017 generally reviled, and deservedly: a reporter.

Startling to me was Henry Hull, who plays that reporter and who apparently did not age well, because here he is young and good looking, and I didn't even recognize him at first. Henry Hull became simply better and better as his career ran on, and he was usually just outstanding.

In "Midnight" most of the characters are fairly equal. Each has important lines and actions.

But even more important than the people is what they say and what they are dealing with: Heggie's character was foreman of a jury that found the defendant guilty, and she is sentenced to death.

Whether she does die, whether she should have been found guilty, whether she should have even been sentenced to the chair are all considered. And thus the movie, despite its datedness, is still timely.

There are several versions at YouTube. I have watched only one so don't know if one is better than another, but I do recommend you try to watch "Midnight."

Remember it's a set piece. There are no car chases, no beheadings, no explosions, just a serious drama, beautifully performed.

Clever but slow in development. Would love to see David Mamet re-work the script and direct a remake without the Hollywood ending, possibly leaving us hanging as to Edward Weldon's choice and Stella Weldon's fate. Also, the Ethel Saxon character should be more completely and sympathetically developed.

Humphrey Bogart receives top billing in this film, which is somewhat surprising since he actually isn't in the movie all that much. He plays a man named Gar Boni, boyfriend of a woman (Sidney Fox) whose father (O.P. Heggie) was the foreman of a jury that convicted a woman of murder and had her sentenced to death. On the night the woman is due to be executed, the family gathers with friends who all try to convince Weldon (the father) that he should intervene to prevent the execution. (How a jury foreman would intervene at this late date is never answered.) He refuses, only to have his daughter stumble into the house, announcing that she's killed Gar. Weldon then has to decide whether to protect her or turn her over to the law.

All things considered this movie hasn't aged particularly well. The acting is mediocre and the story of Weldon's daughter killing Gar on the same night the woman Weldon's jury convicted is to be executed is just too neat and tidy and contrived. No doubt this deserves some credit for tackling a controversial subject, and the movie seems to be an early example of advocating leniency for women who kill men who are unkind to them. Still, simply tackling a difficult subject isn't enough to make a bad movie into a good one. Fans of Bogart will be both interested and disappointed in this one: interested because it represents a look at one of his very early roles and disappointed because it's such a limited one. The other disappointment, of course, will be that this is really such a poor movie. 3/10

Midnight (1933) opens promisingly with the camera lovingly panning across numerous faces in a courtroom before settling on a nice close-up of Humphrey Bogart. Unfortunately, from here on, our interest takes a gradual nosedive – especially when we discover that Bogie's big climactic scene is not going to be played on camera at all but simply reported to us by Miss Sidney Fox. True, it's not Sidney's fault that Bogie is wasted, but she herself is rather colorless in this one – and at least one of the two directors bypasses Sidney altogether and allows stagey O.P. Heggie to collar the limelight. But it's Helen Flint's movie. In the small but vital role of the condemned murderess, she is utterly convincing. Available on a superb Image DVD. Incidentally, this is a 1933 production. The movie was produced independently and shown to various distributors before being picked up by Universal in 1933; and Universal was mostly interested because they had Fox under contract. Universal applied for the copyright in 1933, and said copyright was granted to Universal on January 2, 1934.