You saw a movie a long, long time ago. The memory of that movie remains accessible but in a distant and haunting kind of way. Every so often you think about it. But it was a long, long time ago when you actually saw it and you were very young at the time. Consequently you don’t remember the title and you don’t know the names of any of the actors. You have no specific details to identify the movie. You just remember it.
The movie I’ve once again been thinking about recently, as I have off and on for decades, falls in that category. I saw it on television back in the mid 1950’s, probably before my tenth birthday. No telling how old it already was back at that time.
Ordinarily I would not throw something like this out for discussion, but there’s a lot of expertise on this board when it comes to old movies. So I’m going to take a chance and describe what I remember about the movie and perhaps someone will recognize it.
As the movie opens a man is on trial. The case has gone to the jury and everyone is waiting for them to return with a verdict. It’s a sensational case and in the brief opening scenes you see that all over the city this is the only topic of conversation whenever two people meet. And the question everyone is asking is “What’s taking the jury so long to bring back a guilty verdict?”
Everyone is certain the man is guilty. Everyone is very angry and agitated. Everyone wants the man in prison, on death row, and everyone will cheer his execution.
After a few brief opening clips showing this sentiment the movie shifts to the courtroom where the jury has just come in. There then follows an exchange between the judge and the jury foreman that goes something like this:
Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict?
Foreman (angrily): No, your Honor. This jury is hopelessly deadlocked with eleven votes for guilty and one for not guilty.
Judge (angrily): Very well. The case will be scheduled for retrial with a new jury. And if I knew the identity of the one holdout I would do everything in my power to make sure he is never again allowed to sit on a jury. This jury is dismissed.
The jury then files out of the jury box and one by one passes through the door leaving the courtroom. The first eleven jurors all have grim and angry expressions on their faces. The final juror does not. When he reaches the exit the door is slammed in his face. He tries to open it but the door is locked from the other side. He turns around in bewilderment to find himself confronted with a phalanx of press photographers. The instant he turns toward them the flash bulbs on their cameras begin popping in a blinding staccato of light.
And of course his face is quickly placed on the front page of every newspaper and he immediately becomes loathed and despised by all the people just as much so as the man who was on trial. But as he explains to the female lead, either a wife or a girlfriend, the one person who hasn’t turned against him, he had genuine doubts that the evidence was there to convict the man.
So for the rest of the movie he does what any movie hero would do. He sets out to investigate the crime himself, with help from the female lead, to prove that the man really was innocent.
Well, that’s the memory I’ve retained for half a century. Does it make any sense?
Their names are but not faces once a trial is over. Jurors are sometimes interviewed by the press if they want to talk about the completed case, outside of the courtroom, usually in high profile cases. I don't recall that names are ever reported unless by permission of the juror. During a trial even televised ones I don't think the jury is ever shown.
I can't place the film you're speaking of, but there is a 1937 movie called We're on the Jury which I haven't seen but which sounds like it might -- might -- be the one you're thinking of. But it's apparently a comedy (a remake of a 1932 film called Ladies of the Jury) and it may take place entirely within the jury room, so if so it's probably not the one you remember.
However, this film is being run on TCM on Wednesday, May 21, 2014, at 7:15 AM EDT. Catch it and see.
I might also suggest you could post your question on the classic movie forum or the "I need to know" board here on IMDb. You might get faster or better responses there.
hob, this is a film that's been burning a hole in my brain for years. It came on Million Dollar Movies in the mid-1960's at least twice. I think the story was about a bank caper. The catchphrase for the film is, "Maxie sleeps with his eyes open." I thought it might have been a 30's-40's gangster film featuring "Slapsy Maxie" Rosenbloom, but there's no film of his that seems to fit that catchphrase.
Someone else recently suggested to me that it could be from the 1957 film, DESIGNING WOMEN, which evidently has a burglary subplot. Any ideas?
No, Designing Woman (not "Women", as in the TV show) is a comedy with no burglary subplot, but the line "Maxie Stultz sleeps with his eyes open" is indeed from that film.
Gregory Peck is a sportswriter who has angered a gangster who fixes prize fights (Ed Platt, of Get Smart fame). To keep him out of harm's way, Peck's editor pretends to send him around the country, with by-lines filed from different cities. But in reality Peck is holed up in a hotel in New York. He's being guarded by a punch-drunk ex-boxer named Maxie Stultz (played by Mickey Shaughnessy), who's totally befuddled about everything but knows he's supposed to protect his pal Mike (Peck). On their first night at the hotel Peck calls his editor and tells him, "Maxie Stultz sleeps with his eyes open", because he's creeped out by the sight of punchy Maxie staring up at the ceiling while he's asleep.
The film does have this gangland subplot but no burglary, and Slapsy Maxie Rosenbloom is not in it. The bad guys do try to kidnap Peck's wife (Lauren Bacall) at a show in Boston where she did the costumes, but there's a huge melee and the day is saved.
The movie is actually very funny and won an Oscar for its script. You should definitely catch it. Peck seldom did comedy and Shaughnessy is hilarious. A couple of years ago I attended a special screening of the film in NYC hosted by Bacall and Rex Reed, and she explained why she chose that among all her films for the show: because it was a rare comedy for her, she did it while her husband Humphrey Bogart was dying and it was therapy for her, and her great lifelong pal Greg Peck was in it, and she said he was "the most gorgeous thing I'd ever seen". The following summer I ran it in my classic movie series and everybody loved it. My intro was much better than Rex Reed's, too, if I do say so myself!
That's right; DESIGNING WOMAN. I seem to remember a bit of trivia about this film. Didn't Cary Grant turn down the lead, hence Gregory Peck's remark about seeing Grant's thumbprints on the comedy scripts he received? I also know that Peck left flowers on Lauren Bacall's steps after the death of Humphrey Bogart which, I think, occurred during the film's production.
As far as the film itself, I definitely saw it as a six or seven year old in the mid-60's, and to this day, remember the catchphrase, "Maxie sleeps with his eyes open!" which was featured in the Million Dollar Movie coming attraction, but not the film's official trailer.
Also of interest is Peck took on this role after financing fell through on John Huston's TYPEE, the Herman Melville follow-up to MOBY DICK, in which Peck was supposed to star.
Thanks for solving that for me. I'm going to get my hands on DESIGNING WOMAN in the next week or two and re-establish my acquaintance with it.
Yes, definitely watch it again. It's certainly worth it.
I don't think Grant was ever offered this film. Peck's remark was in that bio of him and he made it while discussing DW, but he was speaking generally about being offered comedies, not this film in particular. However, originally it was supposed to have had two different stars: James Stewart and Grace Kelly. But Kelly dropped out after she left Hollywood and got married, and Stewart then decided he didn't want to do the movie. I'm glad, because there wouldn't have been much special about it with Stewart (he did so many comedies), and he was too old for the part. It was a nice change for both stars, especially Peck, and he and Bacall, as old friends in real life, do have great chemistry. It's a sort-of reworking of the first Tracy-Hepburn film, Woman of the Year.
"Typee" eventually got made in 1958 as Enchanted Island, with Dana Andrews, Jane Powell and Don Dubbins, one of producer Benedict Bogeaus's modestly-budgeted and largely forgettable productions of so-so quality. Still, I suppose the cast of that film went into it with their eyes open.
I suppose it's also possible that what I saw wasn't a filmed for theatrical release movie, but instead was a made for television "playhouse" production. Probably no way to track it down now.
That's possible, I guess. But don't give up. You never know what may turn up. If I get any other ideas or information I'll let you know. Do try posting the question on the classics board.
I don't know what movie that is you are looking for but talking about a juror voting not guilty because the case hasn't been proved reminds me of O.J. Simpson.
From what I read in the papers, I think he was guilty but I also think that if I had been on that jury, if the prosecutors had not proved without doubt to me that he was guilty (even if I felt that he was), I would also vote "not guilty". That's the way it's supposed to work. Even if you heavily suspect a person is guilty, if the prosecutor has not proven it, you have to find "not guilty".
This positively infantile preoccupation with bosoms!Terry-Thomas about US 1963.Hasnt changed much!
First, 12 Angry men was released for the silver screen in April, 1957 and probably wasn't shown on television until sometime in the 1960s. The OP states that he saw it on television in the mid 1950s.
Secondly, the OP talks about a female lead investigating the crime with the holdout juror outside of the courtroom. All the action in 12 Angry Men was in the jury room and there was not a female to be found in the entire cast.
It wouldn't possibly be a television show, would it? When I read the first words of your synopsis of the film, what jumped to mind was "Perry Mason's" The Case of the Deadly Verdict. While the jury isn't deadlocked, Perry sure is! And your "emotion recollected in tranquility" (Wordsworth) definitely made me think it was a television experience in a comfortable home.
I did consider the possibility of what I saw on television being a "playhouse" type production instead of a theatrical film that was now being shown on TV.
With the kind of memories I have of the story it was natural to assume it was a movie and I have specific memories of other occasions in the mid 1950's when I watched what were movies originally made for the theaters that were now being shown on TV.
But this particular story definitely wasn't an episode of a regular TV series like Perry Mason.
Of course it's not all that important. Perhaps the tantalizing aspect is simply that I can't get a good grasp on exactly what it was I saw all those years ago. It might even be disappointing if I actually did find it. As seen through my now aged adult eyes perhaps it simply would not be all that impressive.
I merely state that as a possibility. On the other hand I've long felt that the older works have a much greater probability of possessing a quality that stands the test of time than a lot of the more modern productions.
I merely state that as a possibility. On the other hand I've long felt that the older works have a much greater probability of possessing a quality that stands the test of time than a lot of the more modern productions.
Nooo! I've gone to an actual movie theater twice this year, which is two times more than I went in 2014. And next up in my queue is Martha Ivers, of which I never tire.
It's the experience in general that you're writing about that's so interesting. On a "Perry Mason" board I belong to, we recently had an ongoing discussion of "remembered" episodes that never happened...or might never have happened. Although all of us on that board are as familiar with the 271 episodes as you fellows here are with 3JRHFTW (and either era- or military-related films), it seems pretty universal that there's "one that got away." Two of us, one who could probably recite episodes in his sleep, remembered very clearly an intricate plot that was never written. So did I.
There's a difference between remembered movies, t.v. shows, and songs that you're willing to concede, albeit very reluctantly, never existed, and ones you'd be willing to fight a duel, if it came to that, about its being real. In 1990, I had just moved into my one-and-only own home. It was nothing special to anyone else, an old frame-home here in the Northeast, in what was then a modest neighborhood. I was exhilarated but nervous. It being a rainy April day, I drove out after dark around 7 p.m. to familiarize myself with the new neighborhood and just go to the grocery store.
On the way, I turned on the radio and was immediately enchanted by the strangest song I have ever heard. I have spent years trying to identify it to no avail. While I don't listen to Oldies Stations as a matter of habit, by 1990, popular music had nearly reached a pinnacle of self-indulgence, brazenness, and just everything that I find repellant. So I do recall vividly setting the station to an Oldies station and possibly AM band.
The song itself was performed by a male trio, and I recall the announcer saying its name. It started off like one of those somber 50's and early 60's love anthems in the tradition of "Never, My Love," but my attention was drawn to it on the foggy and pretty deserted roads by the solemnity not only of the music, but of the words. All I can recall is that it had to do with was the singers' gratitude for a beloved woman's marrying him. The lyrics were excessively grave--for three-part harmony (as far as I recall) by what seemed a white Doo-Wop ensemble. The melody was in a minor key; and I remember sitting in the nearly empty parking lot of the shopping center waiting for it to conclude. I then went to buy toothpaste and what-not, and forgot all about the odd haunting song.
In the ensuing years (I sold the house in 2002), I tried to recall the title. I called the radio station. I did internet searches using all kinds of search words. Nothing. Those twelve years in that home were among the happiest of my life (I taught myself, rip-offed in a stunning way by a "contractor," how to lay copper plumbing, how to spackle and put up a wall, how to drill a steel door for deadbolts). I was so grateful to God for a home of my own and thought it would last forever, and the day I locked the door for the final time around Thanksgiving in 2002, among other things, I thought of that strange love-song I heard once and only once back in 1990.
I know it will always be the "one that got away," but sometimes I'm willing to say I imagined it, and that it was a personal song from a certain Someone just for me.
And, as Joe Gillis says in Sunset Blvd. -- strangely "merciful"
Another film I've seen for the first time at a belated age (just this past year). Better late than never; but in regard to life being strangely merciful, in an odd way different than what I think Gillis means about Norma Desmond, Gillis' words are true. Is Norma insane because she demanded extraordinary mercy, above and beyond what other people want or expect?
When Homer refuses help lighting his cigarettes on the trip back to Boone City, we look at each other the way Al and Fred look at each other, and think, Oh, poor boy, you don't know what challenges await you. He's kind of a stand-in for the naif in those two as well as in the audience. It's only when he forces himself to be grateful for Wilma's mercy--and he really has to force himself to be grateful; it doesn't come easily--that he triumphs.
To be aware of plain everyday mercies or very mixed blessings that don't immediately announce themselves as such is a capacity many people seem to lack, whether because the capacity is intellectual or spiritual, or both, I don't know. It constitutes what's called a "fighting spirit." reply share
I heard a story about two men who had what you call a "fighting spirit" -- Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Don't know if it's true, but Dostoevsky wanted to write like Tolstoy and was able to talk to him alone for a time at Tolstoy's house one winter. The two men were walking outside in the snow when Dostoevsky noticed the much older Tolstoy was getting very cold and suggested they continue inside. Dostoevsky walked faster, being younger, toward the house when behind him he heard a thud. Tolstoy had fallen. Dostoevsky stopped and wondered if he should go back and help the proud but failing old man back to his feet. He decided to leave him on his own and pretended not to notice what had happened. A short time later Tolstoy managed to get himself back up and laboriously continued walking to the house. Dostoevsky felt that the older and very proud Tolstoy would have preferred the pain of recovering from the fall on his own rather than having been discovered as a victim of his age in the presence of a younger man seeking his help.
As you suggest, some acts of mercy "don't immediately announce themselves as such ...".
I just watched a recent film about an elderly woman (Joan Plowright) at a London assisted living home and the young man she lies to her nursing home friends is her grandson ("Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont"). It reminded me so much of a relationship of eleven magnificent years I had with a lady at a nursing home, a friendship so close I consider this woman my mother in spirit, to the extent that when feasible for identity purposes, I use her name as my mother's maiden name. She and I shared a common personality trait, excessive naivete. In "Mom's" case, excessive naivete supported her high spirits, and when the naivete finally, finally, began to fade, I knew what else was going to fade.
One day, she spoke to me with a bitterness I had always known existed within her, a frankness and realism that would not at all have been shocking from someone else. To the extent that such an angel could ever truly vent spleen, she vented it toward me. I'll remember to the day I die where I was sitting, and the light through the blinds, and the date. Dostoevsky did the right thing when he let Tolstoy pick himself up.
If there is one venue on the planet where people should be able to discuss the depression, fear, and hopelessness that must be fought tooth and nail every day as one ages, it would seem to be our planetary community called the internet. Surprise! Find a single site where honesty about aging is the main focus? Please let me know its address.
The only "place" where debility in its various forms can be entertained is in movies. If anyone ever criticizes you for spending too much time watching films, remind them that even in places of worship, honesty about aging and other fearful topics simply is never found. And this is why young people come here to "hate on" (God, give me the patience to endure that new verbal phrase) The Best Years of Our Lives. Young people who seek entertainment only to indulge lusts, whatever their nature, can't stand entertainment that deals with our mutual fragility. And oh do such kids ever feel threatened by this film for that specific reason.