If ever you ever wanted a definition of melodrama then this is it but don't let that put you off - it's is also a unexpectedly intelligent, grown-up and by 1929 standards, a well-made little film. A man kills another man - we don't know why, we don't know who the killer is, we don't know whom he killed. He's sentenced to death - is he resigned to his fate, does he want to die, is he planning an escape? By not giving anything at all away your curiosity is instantly engaged. It's such a clever little device - and one you wouldn't expect from a 1929 Fox Film.
In 1929 a handful of directors hit the ground running when it came to switching from silents to talkies. Most however, as was amusingly shown in the Margot Robbie film BABYLON hadn't a clue resulting in so much unwatchable awfulness. Although William Howard wasn't one of those up there with the likes of De Mille, von Sternberg, Mamoulian or even Roland West, he wasn't one the worst either. There's nothing wrong with this at all it simply doesn't have the 'wow factor' some of his contemporaries managed to achieve. He clearly knew how to make a silent film and especially his 'film parts' as opposed to the main 'stage play part' at the end (this picture is an expanded version of a very popular one-act play) are excellent. His skill is shown in the first scenes where he perfectly captures an authentic feel of pre-depression America as Muni traipses down some tatty street past tatty kids born a hundred years ago playing out their ordinary lives. He gives us a real time-machine moment.
The acting is also miles better than a lot of the very early talkies but it's still far from natural.... except for Paul Muni. His portrayal of detachment, hopelessness and quiet resignation is outstanding. Although this gets crazily melodramatic, Muni's stoic performance is both intriguing and really rather moving. He easily makes up for the shortcomings of his fellow actors....apart from Johnny Mack Brown who cannot be forgiven on any grounds. Fortunately he's not in this too much. You almost feel embarrassed for him. Whereas MGM and Paramount targeted those who considered themselves sophisticated, Fox's audience were more blue collar. Presumably Mr Brown was picked to appeal to Fox Film's rural audience in middle America but I'd imagine even the humblest of farm hands back then must have found that patronising.
I know people looked older in the past but Edith York, playing the mother looks about two hundred years old. She must have given birth to her daughter when she was about 90 which can only be explained by her daughter Mary being some sort of miracle you read about in The Bible. That's actually feasible and confirmed when you look at Marguerite Churchill because if you had to imagine what an angel looked like, you'd imagine her. She's almost too pretty to be real! You can easily forgive her slightly uneasy performance doing something completely new to her simply because she's so pretty but even so she's not just a (very) pretty face - she really can act - her emotional longing, purity and positiveness actually blends really well with Paul Muni's mysterious self-sacrificing moodiness.
