Nolan November: Circumstantial Evidence (1945)

One of the unofficial mainstays of Cinevent and the Columbus Moving Picture Show is Lloyd Nolan, an extremely likeable actor who can deliver quips like no one else. This month we celebrate his work.

RODNEY BOWCOCK:  Joe Reynolds (Michael O’Shea) is the kind of hot-head that seems to be around every corner in mid-40’s movies.  You know, the kind of guy who has no problems busting heads with anyone he disagrees with, and generally shrugs off the damage that he does.  You know the sort.  We’ve seen this kind of thing before.  He presents his kid with a tool kit that includes a small wooden hatchet.  When his son (Billy Cummings) is trying to repurpose some wooden crates with his friends behind a local bakery, it is confiscated by the cranky baker (Ben Welden).  This ticks Joe off something fierce.  He casually threatens Kenny to his postman pal Sam Lord (Nolan) and storms off to retrieve the hatchet.  A scuffle ensures and a trio of patrons in the bakery swear that they’ve seen Joe kill Kenny.   During the trial, Sam is forced to admit that he heard Joe threaten Kenny.  Even with this damning testimony, Sam believes in the innocence of his army buddy, and sets out to prove that he didn’t commit the crime.

SAMANTHA GLASSER: The friend’s temper is slightly explained away by their military service—that’s way back in WWI people! This is long before we had the term PTSD, so any undiagnosed anger issues didn’t have a chance of being resolved by the law. He comes off as a gangster type, so even knowing he is innocent doesn’t endear him to the viewer. What does make him sympathetic is the fact that Sam vouches for him. Anyone who's okay with Nolan is okay with me.

RB:  He also seems genuinely fond of his kid as well, which softens his image.  This is something that works in the film for me.

SG: Again and again Joe asks about his son and wants what is best for him. You're right; he's a caring dad.

Manslaughter sounds like the right charge here, not murder. It is obvious that Sam has little knowledge of the law, as demonstrated by his outrage at the plea offer.

RB: Law and Order this isn’t.  To say the least.

SG: Funny you say that, because the courts often use Law and Order as a representation of the antithesis of real court proceedings. Of course, it is probably closer than this movie seems to be. Everything is wonky. Even the visitor’s area at the prison is strange to modern eyes. The prisoner is placed into a mesh box so he can speak with his attorney. Was this ever the setup?

RB:  I wondered the same thing.  Even in vintage movies, I don’t really recall seeing this setup before.

SG: Billy Cummings plays the boy. He has moments that are very good, and others where he awkwardly delivers his dialogue. This could have something to do with the clunky writing. For example, when Sam goes to the guardians of the boy to convince them to let him take him in despite his father’s wishes otherwise, they change their minds much too quickly, and of course the boy overhears their plan. They’ve taken no precautions to keep their conversation private.

RB:  Some of these shortcuts may have been done to keep the film on budget and on time.  The long time Sol Wurtzel operation that churned out so many memorable B’s at Fox had disbanded after he left the studio.  There was a strong possibility that Fox would just stop making B films, and they had to reorganize things quickly in time for their 1945 30th anniversary.  Plus, due to wartime inflation, budgets were going up and returns were dwindling on this sort of film.  But there were still some films on the schedule to be completed, including this one.  The responsibility fell on Bryan Foy, who had previously churned out a big ol’ bunch of competent B’s for Columbia and Warners.  Foy was a former vaudevillian and was partial to comedies so it may explain why the film just ran on autopilot, in spite of the fact that it was directed by John Larkin who wrote and directed a great movie for Fox a couple of years earlier, Quiet Please, Murder (1942).

SG: The Film Daily’s reviewer wrote, “Under the smooth and forceful direction of John Larkin the film makes out a good case in support of its thesis.” I disagree. The big moment that makes the judge agree to reopen the case is absolutely ridiculous, almost to the point of comedy. The kids talk like little adults until their effort becomes a farce.

With Nolan in the lead, we have expectations of action, quips and a story told quickly trimmed of all fat. This film tries too hard to convey a message about wrongful imprisonment and loses control of the other elements.

RB:  Yes, this has none of the charm and fun that you’d expect from the great cast.  I will say that ol’ reliable Byron Foulger has a good turn as a fussy murder witness.

SG: The critics seemed to be quite positive about the film, at worst lukewarm. “Credit for raising this film above average program fare goes to scripters Robert Metzler, who did the screen play; Samuel Ornitz, the adaptation, and Nat Ferber and Sam Duncan, the original story,” wrote Milton Livingston for Motion Picture Daily. It seems to be the abundance of writers contributes to the faults of the film, not its merits.

Harrison’s Reports wrote, “In spite of the fact that what transpires is not always logical, it holds one’s interest to a fair degree.”

Film Bulletin pointed out the scene near the end of the film. “Although this sequence has considerable suspense it seems quite unbelievable. For the rest, the story deals with true-to-life and likeable characters who talk and act like average small town folk.”

RB:  As is often the case, the neighborhood theatres liked this way more than many of the critics did.

“A good little picture that thrilled the hearts of the Lloyd Nolan lovers.  So many ask why he does not make more pictures,” was the general feeling of Miss Cleo Manry at the Buena Visto Theatre.

“Good program picture which pleased average business,” was the low-down from the Paramount Theatre in Dewey, OK.

SG: I wanted to like this movie more than I did. While I was entertained the whole way through, I can't forgive the bad writing and won't be revisiting this one. Two stars.

RB:  A great cast, but this time, the movie fell flat for this Lloyd Nolan lover.  It was competent, but the poor scripting left me cold and a film I was really looking forward to turned out to be “just another movie”.  Two stars as well from me.