Stephen Ashe, an upper class alcoholic defense attourney, successfully defends local mobster Ace Wilfong in a murder case. After his daughter Jan Ashe breaks her engagement to polo player Dwight Winthrop and starts an affair with Wilfong, she finds that the liason is not easily severed when she wants out. Winthrop earns Miss Ashe's true affections by killing Wilfong to break his grip on her. Now the question is, can Stephen Ashe save Winthrop with an impassioned defense speech to the jury?Written by
Gary Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Some movies are theatrical in the sense that all their values and methods are derived from stage values. This is one.
Some movies are in that sweet spot after talkies got going and before the code was enforced, so they have a vitality that is lacking for a few decades afterwards.
This fits those two overlapping pockets and is a fine example of theatrical acting. The story is simple: a woman from a "fine" family spends time with a gangster for exciting sex. She has an unnatural bond with her "mountebank" father, a drunken lawyer both of which characteristics give him an excuse to be broad in his acting style.
The father forbids the affair and dramatic complications arise. Its an excuse for speechifying, which is done fabulously so long as you understand the tradition. Barrymore is perhaps the last great speechifier in this tradition, though Olivier would hang on for much longer and be celebrated out of nostalgia.
There's an interesting fold in this. The audience has a surrogate on screen, in the jury. Courtroom movies have since this grown into a solid tradition. As the case is made to the jury, it is made to us. This is special because was an early edition of that model, say before Mockingbird and Christie. Because of that, the speechifying to us/jury is fresher, more direct, less burdened with mature movieness.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
15 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this