Console
best movie i've ever seen.
CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Usamah Harvey
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
utgard14
In a small Southern town celebrating Confederate Memorial Day, a young woman (Lana Turner) is murdered. Suspicion quickly falls on her Northern teacher at business school, Robert Hale (Edward Norris), whom she had a crush on. Ambitious district attorney Andy Griffin (Claude Rains) uses this as an opportunity to build a name for himself, not caring about Hale's guilt or innocence. Hale is arrested and tried but the anti-Northern sentiment running through the town guarantees his trial won't be fair.Great role for Claude Rains, who owns every scene he's in as a remorseless politician out to further his career regardless of cost. Edward Norris (Ann Sheridan's first husband) has probably his biggest role as Robert Hale and does a fine job. Film debut of Allyn Joslyn, who plays a slimy reporter colluding with Rains. Pretty Gloria Dickson plays Hale's wife. She has a potent speech at the end. First significant role for Lana Turner. Note the tight sweater which accentuates her...attributes. This is why she was dubbed "the sweater girl" early in her career. The rest of the cast is made up of familiar faces, including Otto Kruger and Elisha Cook, Jr. Loosely based on the real story of Leo Frank, a Jewish man accused of murdering 13 year-old Mary Phagan in Georgia. He was lynched in 1915. The story here keeps antisemitism out of it, instead making it more of a focus on the resentments and prejudices of the South towards the North. Having grown up in the South, I know these sentiments were very real for many even decades after this movie was made. This is a film that examines everything from bigotry to mob mentality and the manipulation of the public by politicians and the media. Sociologically and historically relevant, it's a powerful movie from Warner Bros. with a good cast.
froberts73
Leave it to Warner Bros. to pull no punches. This powerful movie, based on a real case and sticking with the facts, is a stunner. The closer it gets to the end, the more involved you become as you hope for justice to be done.I can't pinpoint any performer as outstanding. They were all outstanding as was LeRoy's no-nonsense direction. No side-tracking, no crapping around with sub-plots. He got to the point immediately and stayed with it.This is an outstanding film. Interestingly it does not, of course, echo the South of today (I live in the South). There are still problems but, for the most part, they are back seat.In schools, prejudice would most likely be laughed out. The races work and play together and, yep, go out on dates together.If there are any KKK nutcases around they would be laughed out of the neighborhood.Back to the movie: Fan-damn-tastic.
james higgins
88/100. Wow, what a powerful story and so very far ahead of it's time. A very unusual film to come out of 1937. I could see it being made 10 years later, or in the 1960's perhaps. Impressive direction by Mervyn LeRoy, Claude Rains is just amazing and gives a very strong performance. Excellent style, superb screenplay. The film creates such a vivid and intense atmosphere and it is so thought provoking. Notable also for the early appearances of Lana Turner and Elisha Cook Jr., both of whom are very memorable. The film is very engrossing throughout and quite unforgettable. I very ignored classic that surprisingly doesn't have more of a following.
Robert J. Maxwell
A pretty good story of the arrest, conviction, and lynching of a New York teacher (Edward Norris) in the South, blamed for the murder of a young Mary Clay (the braless Lana Turner) of which he may or may not be guilty. The ambitious DA who nails him is Claude Raines. Defense is provided by Otto Krueger. There are other familiar faces in the film, directed for Warner Brothers by Mervyn LeRoy.I wonder what the folklorist Claude Levi-Strauss would make of this. He believed that people thought in categories, that thought was like language. One word was never like another word. Things were either the same or not the same. Likewise this movie seems to have very little in between one thing and its opposite. Levi-Strauss would probably have applauded.The movie gives us North/South, Memorial Day/Decoration Day, Guilty/Innocent, Life/Death, Reason/Emotion, and a host of other oppositions. (It leaves out Christian/Jewish from the original case of Leo Franks.) The relatives of Mary Clay stop a train carrying the convicted suspect, who is about to be pardoned by the governor, and they hang him off screen. None of the townspeople seem to have any doubt about what's going to happen. And nobody seems to disapprove. They don't even mourn the victim, Mary Clay. Their shock turns immediately to rage without any intervening period of grief. The opposite of rage seems not to be sorrow for the lost Mary, but moral innocence. ("I didn't do it!", all the possible suspects shout.) I suspect, in a way, the movie misses the point. It presents the story as a simple miscarriage of justice, prompted by the hostility of an insular community to an outsider. But, in essence, a lynching doesn't necessarily have to be the carrying out of some vernacular vision of justice. That's not the point. Nor is, "This'll teach 'em a lesson."One important point of a lynching, perhaps the main point, is that it expresses community allegiance. It's a rite of intensification whose real purpose is not that different from the Memorial Day parade with which the film starts. It's like the Fourth of July or Christmas. Photos of lynchings usually show some of the spectators grinning at the camera. All that's missing is the fireworks. The significance is that this is an important community event in which WE were brave enough to take part. Once the smoke of battle clears the prevalent emotion is not the residue of rage but pride.Some of the writing is pretty good. An example. During jury deliberations one man finds a note in his pocket: "Vote Guilty If You Feel Like Living." He's been holding out for the man's innocence. Now he tells the others angrily that he'll stick to his principles and not be swayed by threats. Another jurist, an elderly and avuncular type, explains to him that he's just worried about what people will say. It takes courage to disregard a death threat and vote guilty anyway. Nobody will think the worse of him if he votes along with the others. It's a smooth way of handling a truculent dissident. Vote guilty DESPITE the threat to kill you if you don't. That's the way a real man would do it. What a sales pitch, and delivered with such quiet confidence. Raines' prosecutor is equally adroit. "They say we're prejudiced against Yankees. Let's show them we're NOT prejudiced by hanging this guilty one and leaving the others alone!" The acting is a little overwrought, on everybody's part, the direction is functional and the story, though camouflaged, states itself quickly and then ends without much wasted motion. Even a shot of a train rattling smokily over a bridge is under cranked so it appears in accelerated motion. The court and the press are both phony and should be jailed themselves, but they're not. It's a rather bitter ending when Raines and a reporter are watching the murdered man's wife leave town and the reporter muses, "I wonder if he was really innocent," and Raines dispassionately agrees that it's a good question. The justice system is certainly an efficient way of delivering pain to a lot of people.
