Reviews

My review will make better sense only if you have read the majority of the reviews that have gone before. The one missing ingredient that I feel stands out from other reviewers is the position of second wife Eve. You must understand that she was a "plant" produced by her father to get in good with the old man (Tom Garner) when Tom purchases his ( Eve's father) railroad. Daughter Eve's job seems to be to interest Tom enough to have her father placed in an influential position. Her reward we are left to assume is wealth & social position. She succeeds but is obviously bored. The movie turns on two scenes- the first is the first wife's (Sally) realization that she cannot compete with the money & power plus a younger love interest that her husband has garnered over the years. She does not want to compete but suggest only that Tom enjoy the fruits of his hard earned accomplishments. The second scene is when Tom realizes that in choosing the spoils he has gained nothing. The scene is made poignant by Tom repeating exactly what wife Sally said as she bowed out of their relationship and thereby giving in to "The Power & the Glory". Both realized the totally seductive nature of wealth & power and chose not to intervene in passing it on to their love ones. No, the movie does not quite convince this theme to the audience but it is there if you listen closely & carefully. For me what is missing is the reason or reasons that Tom is so driven. In "Citizen Kane" a movie so often compared to this one we learn why Charles Foster Kane is so driven and that in itself makes the story. But Tom Garner? The best we can come up with is that it's in his genes! ( as suggested by Henry the storyteller when Tom takes a dare & jumps from a high place & cuts his hand). Or was it Sally who claims she drove Tom and was "hard" & cared only about bettering themselves. Maybe? But we see no evidence of this as the story unfolds. Finally a comment on the s flashback style used to tell the story. True is not done in the traditional chronological order but personally I found this both innovative & enjoyable.

Eugene Forde directs this low budget "gangster" gem which proceeds predictably enough until we get to the climax which has sufficient twists & turns to separate it from the norm & maybe even satisfy a Hitchcock fan or two. But what really separates this film from not only the B film but any film is the abundant use of humor. In addition to some pretty corny but ofttimes amusing gags involving Warren Hymer as Hazy (aka Mr Metropolitan to the little girl who wants to be read to) we have what I would call a runaway Stepin Fetchit. Mr Forde lets him have his way as the Pullman porter mumbling through scene after scene trying to accomplish his job while others have different ideas of what he should be doing. In fact, I would recommend this film to anyone who has not seen Stepin Fetchit or anyone who enjoys a laugh or two while digesting their gangster/romance/drama film appetite.

This is not a "bad" movie on divorce it makes it's point- the kids are the real loosers in the process. Overall the movie is well written in the 30's, 40's & 50's style of tying things together for the sake of the work rather than attempting to show "realism". An early shot of Bob Phillips (Bruce Cabot)performing a "Court Marshall" for home discipline comes back to haunt him in his final scene as his two boys act as the judge & jury. I have no problem with Kay Francis in her role as the worldly woman stealing away a restless husband returning from WWII. This was a common theme following the war because it was a common problem (& again to point out it's timeliness- it is still a problem). But for pure acting the one to watch was Helen Mack as Martha Phillips. Her dialog delivery and timing are a delight to watch even when the writing does not quite live up to the best of the "golden age" of movie making.

One of my favorite films. Just a note to the viewers who have questioned the role of a "black judge" during this period of history. They certainly existed and handled all manner of cases. A note from an article in the NY Times follows: Special Correspondence THE NEW YORK TIMES.

February 8, 1903, Sunday

Page 34, 859 words

CHARLESTON, S. C., Feb. 5. -- During the reconstruction period in South Carolina, which followed the close of the civil war, the management of State affairs for a time was left to the tender mercies of the Negro. Officers who served with the Governor were Negroes, there were Negro Judges, and practically every county in the State had its black representatives in the General Assembly. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ]