Firstly forget the fact that Bogart is in this - that's not important, he's only got a bit part: it's NOT a Bogart picture.
After 15 minutes I decided that this was the worst film I've ever seen but I stuck with it and then decided that it was brilliant!
Can't say I know much about Chester Erskine but this was his first film. After graduating from film school he obviously had dozens of ideas he was itching to incorporate into his first work of art. Given free reign to do whatever he liked, that's exactly what he did and you can taste his enthusiasm. Some of his innovations don't work but nevertheless it's fascinating to watch. There's one scene for example where the troubled Mr Weldon is doing a monologue with the camera zooming in on him - it zooms in so fast that you can see the poor old guy staggering back to avoid being hit in the face with the camera! In style and structure this film reminded me a little of HEAD, that experimentally weirdly incoherent film The Monkees made in the late sixties.
Whilst this is essentially a filmed stage play, Erskine's imaginative and innovative tricks and techniques really make this into a genuine movie. Visually it's stunning, so different from the typical directorial styles seen in Hollywood in the early thirties. Here in England we had Hitchcock making innovative (and good) films, in France Jean Cocteau and Bunel were creating their avant-garde masterpieces. These filmmakers clearly influenced Erskine but in comparison, his own effort looks very childish but at least he tried. He tries to do something different and that's what makes this a worthwhile watch.
The story is essentially about how Mr Weldon, who was on a jury, copes with being responsible for a murderer going to the electric chair and how this affects his daughter. It's a ridiculous story but Erskine's novel take on how to make a movie makes this inexplicably engrossing. What's clever is how Erskine makes you, the viewer part of the jury. With some interesting use of mirrors, you're in the centre of all this - you're the one who has to decide what's the right thing to do - you're the one to decide whether the death sentence is justified - you're the one who has to decide on the subsequent guilt of the daughter. In some respects, it's superb filmmaking.
The question is therefore why isn't Chester Erskine more well-known? Why isn't MIDNIGHT a classic? Why didn't it walk away with all the Oscars that year? The answer is simple - the acting is truly terrible: really, really truly terrible! This bad acting is however intrinsic to the overall style of the film but its strangely slow and incredibly unnatural pace makes this weird. Some people will find this unwatchable, some people will find it brilliant. If you like pseudo intellectual, cod-psychological pretentiousness, you'll enjoy this - it even ends with a pretentious 'finis' - love it!
After 15 minutes I decided that this was the worst film I've ever seen but I stuck with it and then decided that it was brilliant!
Can't say I know much about Chester Erskine but this was his first film. After graduating from film school he obviously had dozens of ideas he was itching to incorporate into his first work of art. Given free reign to do whatever he liked, that's exactly what he did and you can taste his enthusiasm. Some of his innovations don't work but nevertheless it's fascinating to watch. There's one scene for example where the troubled Mr Weldon is doing a monologue with the camera zooming in on him - it zooms in so fast that you can see the poor old guy staggering back to avoid being hit in the face with the camera! In style and structure this film reminded me a little of HEAD, that experimentally weirdly incoherent film The Monkees made in the late sixties.
Whilst this is essentially a filmed stage play, Erskine's imaginative and innovative tricks and techniques really make this into a genuine movie. Visually it's stunning, so different from the typical directorial styles seen in Hollywood in the early thirties. Here in England we had Hitchcock making innovative (and good) films, in France Jean Cocteau and Bunel were creating their avant-garde masterpieces. These filmmakers clearly influenced Erskine but in comparison, his own effort looks very childish but at least he tried. He tries to do something different and that's what makes this a worthwhile watch.
The story is essentially about how Mr Weldon, who was on a jury, copes with being responsible for a murderer going to the electric chair and how this affects his daughter. It's a ridiculous story but Erskine's novel take on how to make a movie makes this inexplicably engrossing. What's clever is how Erskine makes you, the viewer part of the jury. With some interesting use of mirrors, you're in the centre of all this - you're the one who has to decide what's the right thing to do - you're the one to decide whether the death sentence is justified - you're the one who has to decide on the subsequent guilt of the daughter. In some respects, it's superb filmmaking.
The question is therefore why isn't Chester Erskine more well-known? Why isn't MIDNIGHT a classic? Why didn't it walk away with all the Oscars that year? The answer is simple - the acting is truly terrible: really, really truly terrible! This bad acting is however intrinsic to the overall style of the film but its strangely slow and incredibly unnatural pace makes this weird. Some people will find this unwatchable, some people will find it brilliant. If you like pseudo intellectual, cod-psychological pretentiousness, you'll enjoy this - it even ends with a pretentious 'finis' - love it!