Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan, serving on a sequestered jury during a murder trial, fall in love. She is divorced, he is married.Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan, serving on a sequestered jury during a murder trial, fall in love. She is divorced, he is married.Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan, serving on a sequestered jury during a murder trial, fall in love. She is divorced, he is married.
- Awards
- 1 win total
John Albright
- Reporter
- (uncredited)
Richard Bartell
- Weatherman
- (uncredited)
Whit Bissell
- Mr. Lister
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
This film is about a group of jurors who are sequestered during an important case. In the process, two of them (Dennis Morgan and Ginger Rogers) quickly fall in love--even though Morgan is still married! This illicit relationship is meant as a parallel to the murder trial, as the defendant was having an affair when his wife was murdered--making him the prime suspect. Aside from these two actors, Thelma Ritter and Alan Reed (the voice of Fred Flintstone) are on the jury. Also, one of the witnesses in the trial is a young Frank Cady ('Sam Drucker' from "Green Acres")--who is apparently alive and well even today.
Aside from the Morgan-Rogers angle, the film is essentially a less tense nor as well acted film in the vein of "12 Angry Men". For example, a lady in the jury is projecting her hatred of her ex-husband onto the defendant--much like Lee J. Cobb directed his anger at his son on the defendant in "12 Angry Men". Overall, it's good, but nothing like "12 Angry Men" in quality and the affair angle seems to get in the way and was rather unnecessary--as well as a bit sappy--especially at the end. A decent time-passer but it just doesn't hit the mark.
Aside from the Morgan-Rogers angle, the film is essentially a less tense nor as well acted film in the vein of "12 Angry Men". For example, a lady in the jury is projecting her hatred of her ex-husband onto the defendant--much like Lee J. Cobb directed his anger at his son on the defendant in "12 Angry Men". Overall, it's good, but nothing like "12 Angry Men" in quality and the affair angle seems to get in the way and was rather unnecessary--as well as a bit sappy--especially at the end. A decent time-passer but it just doesn't hit the mark.
THIS story of jury members falling in love originated with Hungarian playwright Ladislaw BirdFekete, titled 12 IN A BOX. Unclear how well the original did, but other writers kept reworking it. In 1939 Hart and MacArthur produced it on Broadway as LADIES and GENTLEMEn starring Helen Hayes. The critics loved her, but the play not so much. This third try is from 1950, and reeks of the 1950s moralism-if a man loves a woman not his wife and wants to divorce her, he is morally corrupt and capable of anything including murder. The mechanics of jury selection were somewhat interesting, but it drags on as the sequestered jury acts like a bunch of misbehaving schoolchildren. Harry Bellaver as the official having to manage them has the best part-mature non biased. The deliberations in the jury room were fairly decent. Overall it is easy to see why Reginald Rose chose to have an all male jury in his jury drama. Did enjoy seeing Sarah Selby, Whit Bissell ad Anson Rainey in bit parts. Ironically Anson Raining played a convicted killer on death row in The Last Mile.
This film has two concurrent stories: a court case about a man accused of murdering his wife, and the two jurors who fall in love. It does neither justice.
Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan play the couple who find themselves on a sequestered jury, charged with determining the fate of an accused murderer. The film does little to convince the viewer that there is chemistry between the two or that these characters have much in common.
The court case is presented in "snapshots" of courtroom testimony that are unconnected and uncompelling. Most of it is just backdrop to the interactions between the jurors, who are a motley collection of emotional misfits. Unlike "12 Angry Men", there is little gravitas surrounding their interplay.
Blame the writing, which is disjointed and sometimes silly. Only at the very end does Ginger Rogers get a scene where she shows real emotion and depth of character. It is too late, and the ending is mostly unsatisfying.
Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan play the couple who find themselves on a sequestered jury, charged with determining the fate of an accused murderer. The film does little to convince the viewer that there is chemistry between the two or that these characters have much in common.
The court case is presented in "snapshots" of courtroom testimony that are unconnected and uncompelling. Most of it is just backdrop to the interactions between the jurors, who are a motley collection of emotional misfits. Unlike "12 Angry Men", there is little gravitas surrounding their interplay.
Blame the writing, which is disjointed and sometimes silly. Only at the very end does Ginger Rogers get a scene where she shows real emotion and depth of character. It is too late, and the ending is mostly unsatisfying.
Ginger Rogers didn't have too much luck in her choice of material by the time the late '40s rolled around--except for a reunion with Fred Astaire in 'The Barkleys of Broadway' most of her dramatic films were a disappointment--but 'Perfect Strangers' has a well-written script from a play by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur. The two stars play jurors who find themselves on a jury panel for a murder trial. Sequestered, they fall in love despite the fact that Dennis Morgan is married, unhappily. The suspense comes from wondering what will happen to their relationship when the trial ends.
Ginger had wanted to work with Dennis Morgan since their last teaming in 'Kitty Foyle'. Under Bretaigne Windust's sensitive direction, the two stars give interesting performances. Among the supporting roles, Thelma Ritter delivers her usual competent work. Well worth viewing, but not yet released to video. You'll have to catch it on one of the cable stations.
Ginger had wanted to work with Dennis Morgan since their last teaming in 'Kitty Foyle'. Under Bretaigne Windust's sensitive direction, the two stars give interesting performances. Among the supporting roles, Thelma Ritter delivers her usual competent work. Well worth viewing, but not yet released to video. You'll have to catch it on one of the cable stations.
Some scintillating pre-credits footage of bureaucrats shuffling through card files of prospective jurors, and we're off on the world's least interesting murder trial, propelled by a baffling romance between jurors Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan. Both are still married, she's separated, and the movie doesn't seem to know how to treat the prospect of their getting together--we're supposed to want them to, yet also not to want them to, because of all the lives it would disrupt. Meantime, the rest of the jury appears to be the stupidest ever, led by Thelma Ritter, doing her usual welcome Tenth-Avenue-salt-of-the-earth thing, but with bad lines. Rogers, as was her wont at this stage of her career, is more glamorous than the woman she's playing, and one detects a large whiff of star vanity; Morgan looks understandably bored. The movie's unaccountably fascinated with the minor details of jury duty, and everyone on this panel is such an idiot that there's nothing to do but watch them jabber and spar and lead to their inevitable verdict. Bretaigne Windust's direction (now there's a name) is disinterested and uncinematic, but not even a Capra or a Sturges could have made anything of this script.
Did you know
- TriviaThis film marks a reunion between Rogers and Morgan who previously co-starred in the highly successful Kitty Foyle playing lovers, for which Ginger won the 1940 Academy Award as Best Actress. According to Rogers, she and Morgan had wanted to work together again ever since and Perfect Strangers provided them with the perfect opportunity. Since that pairing, Rogers had notably become a free agent in Hollywood. Ginger Rogers reportedly took the role after Lauren Bacall turned it down.
- GoofsIn the fourth day of trial, the district attorney produces a two-page letter written to the defendant which he intends to read to the jury. The defense attorney objects but does not state the grounds for his objection. The objection is overruled by the judge. The D.A. reads the letter and submits it as People's Exhibit #1. First, how could they go full three days in a murder trial without submitting any other evidence? Note that up until then the prosecutor had been questioning witnesses and this could be the first physical evidence presented. Second, such a letter should have been provided to the defense prior to trial and any issues briefed and decided before trial. Note that the defense could still object during the trial to specific evidence even if it was known and disclosed previously. Third, the judge overruled the objection without even looking at the letter and allowed it into evidence without even glancing at the signature page. Note again that the judge would have been aware of the evidence and therefore been quick to overrule the objection. Fourth, the letter was not verified by any witness prior to its introduction (a prerequisite, especially for "surprise" items). Note if this was new evidence it would have been presented as such and the judge would have reviewed it before allowing it to be read.
- Quotes
Theresa (Terry) Scott: Now what happens?
Robert (Bob) Fisher: They start picking the jury. Twelve men - and women, I hope. By the way, my name's Fisher, Bobby.
Theresa (Terry) Scott: And my name is Scott, Mrs.
- ConnectionsReferences The Front Page (1931)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 28m(88 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content