It seems scandal sheets (what we now call tabloids) and unscrupulous journalists were a big problem in the '30's. Movies such as "The Front Page" (1931), "Scandal Sheet" (1931), "Five Star Final" (1931), "The Famous Ferguson Case" (1932), and "Picture Snatcher" (1933) were all dedicated to showing the world what certain newspapers and newspapermen were all about.
Add "Scandal for Sale" to the list. "Scandal for Sale" was extremely similar to "Scandal Sheet." They were virtually the same movie.
A bold, all-news all the time editor named Jerry Strong (Charles Bickford) was the editor of a small town paper until he left for New York where he could really flourish after he and his boss had a disagreement over what headline to run. Strong was about the salacious. He called it the "three M's": murder, mystery, and muck. That's what was going to sell papers.
He was contracted by The Daily Comet, a struggling rag desperate for more circulation. Strong was just the man to increase their circulation. He brought his good friend and ace reporter Waddell (Pat O'Brien) along with him to New York. Strong would have to hustle overtime to increase The Daily Comet's circulation and he would suffer heavy losses as a result.
Jerry Strong was essentially the same character George Bancroft played in "Scandal Sheet." They were both big imposing figures who barked orders to everyone and above all they were both newspapermen through and through. It was all about selling papers with them. The problem with worrying about nothing but selling papers is that ethics tend to take a back seat to sales.
"Scandal for Sale" was a good movie although I had one thing to quibble about. It's something that many characters in movies are guilty of and I don't like it.
I'm going to play spoiler here just to add this caveat.
In the end Strong earned a $50,000 bonus from The Daily Comet, but it had cost him his son, his best friend, and his family. Because of that he gave the money back to them as if to say, "This $50,000 isn't worth it. What is this $50,000 after what I suffered?"
His wife Claire (Rose Hobart) did the same thing. When he gave her his $25,000 bonus check she attempted to give it back to him as if to say she didn't want his blood money.
I've seen that in many movies where the protagonist is given money for whatever task he/she accomplished, but because of the lessons they learned along the way they no longer want the money. They came to the realization that money isn't all that important.
TAKE THE MONEY!!!
I get it. The money isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but it's still yours! Give it to charity then or simply put it away, but why refuse it??? It's not like you no longer need money because you had an epiphany. Money still is needed to do the most basic things, so why refuse it?
OK, I'm done. "Scandal for Sale" was still a good movie even if two of the characters let their ethics interfere with their common sense.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Add "Scandal for Sale" to the list. "Scandal for Sale" was extremely similar to "Scandal Sheet." They were virtually the same movie.
A bold, all-news all the time editor named Jerry Strong (Charles Bickford) was the editor of a small town paper until he left for New York where he could really flourish after he and his boss had a disagreement over what headline to run. Strong was about the salacious. He called it the "three M's": murder, mystery, and muck. That's what was going to sell papers.
He was contracted by The Daily Comet, a struggling rag desperate for more circulation. Strong was just the man to increase their circulation. He brought his good friend and ace reporter Waddell (Pat O'Brien) along with him to New York. Strong would have to hustle overtime to increase The Daily Comet's circulation and he would suffer heavy losses as a result.
Jerry Strong was essentially the same character George Bancroft played in "Scandal Sheet." They were both big imposing figures who barked orders to everyone and above all they were both newspapermen through and through. It was all about selling papers with them. The problem with worrying about nothing but selling papers is that ethics tend to take a back seat to sales.
"Scandal for Sale" was a good movie although I had one thing to quibble about. It's something that many characters in movies are guilty of and I don't like it.
I'm going to play spoiler here just to add this caveat.
In the end Strong earned a $50,000 bonus from The Daily Comet, but it had cost him his son, his best friend, and his family. Because of that he gave the money back to them as if to say, "This $50,000 isn't worth it. What is this $50,000 after what I suffered?"
His wife Claire (Rose Hobart) did the same thing. When he gave her his $25,000 bonus check she attempted to give it back to him as if to say she didn't want his blood money.
I've seen that in many movies where the protagonist is given money for whatever task he/she accomplished, but because of the lessons they learned along the way they no longer want the money. They came to the realization that money isn't all that important.
TAKE THE MONEY!!!
I get it. The money isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but it's still yours! Give it to charity then or simply put it away, but why refuse it??? It's not like you no longer need money because you had an epiphany. Money still is needed to do the most basic things, so why refuse it?
OK, I'm done. "Scandal for Sale" was still a good movie even if two of the characters let their ethics interfere with their common sense.
Free on Odnoklassniki.