The thing you must know about this film is that the crime drama element is secondary, and the main story is a critique of the media and human behavior. We first get a glimpse of this when before passing away, a media mogul talks about the importance of a free press, but in the next breath talks about how to sensationalize the murder we've just seen in order to strike fear into the public an sell more newspapers. His spoiled son (Vincent Price) then inherits his corporation, and soon pits three employees (George Sanders, Thomas Mitchell, and James Craig) against one another in a competition for a new executive position he's going to create (the one that will do all the work, so that he doesn't have to). We see in this a little comment director Fritz Lang has for inherited wealth as well.
One of the men runs the newspaper, another the wire service, and the third's angle is to take advantage of an affair he's having with the new boss's wife (Rhonda Fleming). The first two men scheme away, determining when to broadcast information and when to hold it for maximum effect (and personal gain). They think about how to add little elements in the story, like referring to one of the victims as "the attractive librarian," in order to titillate readers. They also use personal connections in the police force in order to get direct access to information (and even watch interrogations). It all becomes a bit of a circus, and the tragedy of the murders is lost, which is of course the point.
The main character is another man, a reporter (Dana Andrews) who is not involved directly in the fray, but is doing a lot of the investigation into the murders. He's also involved in a relationship with a woman in the office (Sally Forrest), though their relationship wasn't all that inspiring to me. The real issue, however, is that his actions don't seem all that believable, e.g. Is he really going to speak directly to the killer over the airwaves in the way he does, divulging information like that? Use his fiancée as bait? Swing from getting engaged to immediately carrying on with Ida Lupino when she tempts him? And is the media really going to be tasked with solving the crime, instead of just reporting on it?
I think that to be a satire, it needed to be a little more believable, and I could have used a little bit more of a shift into the darkness of the crime itself. The ending also undermines the film's message, and it reminded me a teeny bit of Otto Preminger's critique of the justice system in 'Anatomy of a Murder' - not immediately obvious that the critique is the main point, and then an ending that seems a little off in tone.
I did like how Lang seemed to enjoy himself thumbing his nose at the production code. The affair between Fleming and Craig is crystal clear, and under the guise of telling her husband she's going to her mother's. Andrews makes it clear to Forrest that he thinks people should "find out" about each other before marriage, and Lupino later quips that all men are polygamists as she flirts with him. Before marveling at his Forrest's nightgown (a "shorty" that "you can see right through") Andrews will also say "Get your things off; it's your wedding day, you want to look nice," which had me chuckling. It makes the fact that the middle-aged married couple (Mitchell and his wife) appearing in separate beds when he's phoned in the middle of the night extra comical, and one can sense Lang was well aware of that.
Lang may have taken joy in all this and the subversive commentary about the wonders of a free press, but it's hard to fathom it being among his personal favorite films he made, particularly given his body of work. It's entertaining enough to watch though.
