Circumstantial Evidence (1935) User Reviews (8)

Well Done!

[boblipton · 6/10 · 29 August 2019]

Reporter Chick Chandler hates circumstantial evidence. He feels that far too many people have been convicted on it. He cites cases in which people have been imprisoned for decades, or guillotined, only later to have been found innocent. He cooks up a scheme with Arthur Vinton to prove his point. He will set up a strong case for having killed Vinton based purely on such evidence. They quarrel publicly. Later, Chandler returns to Vinton House, where they fire off a gun, confirm that Vinton will go far away under an assumed name. Chandler leaves. Vinton sets fire to his house. Then a gloved hand appears, with a gun. Vinton is shot and killed, and Chandler is convicted and sentenced to hang.

It's a cheap but nicely performed B mystery from ambitious Poverty Row studio Chesterfield. Director Charles Lamont keeps the performers moving at a good clip. I have noted before how many Gower Gulch movies in this era plodded in their line readings and editing. Not this one! The tight dialogue makes the occasional pauses for silent, visual reactions by the players stand out, as they should.

a plea against capital punishment

[kidboots · 5/10 · 26 October 2008]

Very similar in theme to Fritz Langs' vastly superior "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" - this must have been an interesting "what if" possibility when released.

Jim Baldwin (Chick Chandler), a reporter, is a crusader against circumstantial evidence being used in court to decide a person's fate. When a man is sentenced to death due to circumstantial evidence, Jim concocts a plan with his friend, Fred Stevens (Arthur Vinton). They will stage a fight at Jim and Adrienne's engagement party, Fred will disappear and Jim will be arrested on circumstantial evidence. The only problem is that Fred has been turned down by Adrienne (Shirley Grey) and is brooding about it. You know he has no intention of "appearing" again until Jim has gone to the electric chair. They go to great lengths - including burning Fred's house and leaving a skeleton

• so it will look like he has perished in the fire. But Fred already had plans to abscond and sail to Paris on a fake passport. However, he is prevented by an unknown assailant who shoots him!!!

Jim is arrested and sentenced to die but his friends have dug up some dirt on Stevens. He was having an affair with Bernice (lovely Dorothy Reiver) the wife of a prominent citizen. Bernice's very guilty actions (why did she suddenly dim the lights when these heavies arrived???) bring suspicion against her.

Best psychological thriller ever made - I don't think so!!! One of the reviewers has definitely got to see more movies!!!!

Not Meant to be Howlingly Funny But It Is!

[lawprof · 5/10 · 26 May 2004]

A number of films are entitled "Circumstantial Evidence." Director Charles Lamont's 1935 attack on the use of circumstantial evidence to send defendants to the electric chair might have been intended as a lesson for the "B" movie public but the end result is funny to viewers today and I doubt was taken seriously back then.

Circumstantial evidence is, simply, anything other than direct evidence, the latter being, usually, confessions and eyewitness accounts. Even fingerprints and - nowadays - DNA can be examples of circumstantial evidence since there may be varying explanations for their association with the crime, some quite exculpatory.

In this potboiler, an unusual one at that, ace reporter Jim Baldwin (the mezzanine idol Chick Chandler) is outraged at the onset of the story as a defendant is sentenced to death for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence (hardly a rare verdict then or now). Baldwin mulls over how to bring this grave injustice to public attention with his fiancee, the beautiful Adrienne Grey (the in-real-life beautiful Shirley Grey). Adrienne, a gal artist for the paper, is also being pursued by syrupy suave colleague Fred Stevens (Arthur Vinton).

Baldwin gets the bright idea to set up various scenes that will convince all that he may well intend to harm Stevens who will later disappear after being "murdered" at his home, the building consumed by fire. Stevens thinks this is a capital idea and agrees to leave town, his remains being an old skeleton to be found in the burnt house. Maybe one reason for his willingness to depart is his desire to end a torrid affair with the young and pretty Bernice Winters (Dorothy Revier), married to a guy much, much older than her. In 1935, this kind of adulterous liaison wasn't pointedly shown on the screen that often.

The fly in the ointment is that while setting fire to his home, Stevens is shot to death by an unseen assailant. His body is quickly identified.

Baldwin gets arrested, tried, convicted and whisked off to the Death House for an appointment with Old Sparky. The rest of the film is about Adrienne's effort, together with Baldiwn's faithful friends, to prove he didn't kill Stevens.

The acting is howlingly funny at points. In the newsroom, the courtroom and in his cell Baldwin declaims against the evil of circumstantial evidence, the politicization of the district attorney's office and the public's lack of compassion for defendants who deserve to be executed but who should be accorded some measure of sympathy rather than callous rejoicing at their fate.

It's a silly movie. Charles Lamont was an incredibly prolific director who went on to truly great movies such as "Ma and Pa Kettle" and several Abbott and Costello buffooneries.

5/10 (but it is fun to watch).

"Some actors, we ought to be in pictures!"

[classicsoncall · 6/10 · 17 April 2012]

Someplace in here there was the germ of a good idea, and if made today, I think a well written script could make something of the concept. But what would be the point? In faking an associate's murder, reporter Jim Baldwin (Chick Chandler) winds up ascribing to the old adage, 'if anything can go wrong, it will'. Seriously, why would any reasonable person put themselves in this kind of predicament, even for the noblest of intentions?

Actually, the premise seemed reasonable at the outset. A man is convicted of murder in the opening scene, and the intrepid reporter rails against his conviction - "I say it's wrong to hang a man when the evidence is purely circumstantial!" A better thought out plan might have had Baldwin clue his fiancée in on the decision instead of leaving her out there to twist in the wind over his dubious judgment.

Gee, can you imagine what would have happened if the old codger Winters (Claude King) didn't come clean at the last minute? Jimmy would have gone to the chair and handed his circumstantial evidence baton over to the next poor sap to take up the cause. Is there a death penalty for dopey B movies?

Chick Chandler in the lead

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 30 January 2014]

Of all law reforms, the only one that seems to concern picture-makers is that relating to circumstantial evidence and capital punishment, which gets another doing-over in this interesting precursor of Fritz Lang's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This one doesn't have as many twists as the Lang version, though the basic plot is the same. Chick Chandler tends to make his reporter a little too brash, but we sympathize with him nonetheless in his predicament, though realizing that as this is a B-grade effort, the real killer will be discovered at the eleventh hour. There are enough startling plot developments and enough suspicion is cast at other parties to keep interest at a high level, acting is very capable and Dorothy Revier looks absolutely stunning in her ball-gown. There are a few attempts at comic relief which, while not overly successful, are at least brief. Lamont's direction has a degree of pace and skill well above his usual standards and production values generally are more than adequate. Available on a very good Platinum Disc DVD.

If Life Were Only That Simple!

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 1 February 2008]

The premise is interesting, but so far fetched as to defy believability. The plot cooked up by the two men is so jaw droppingly doomed to failure that it never moves into reality. The reporter wants to show how circumstantial evidence is being used to send people to their deaths for capital crimes. It would beg the question as to how frequently this was occurring. From watching these old movies, it would appear that judges routinely sent people to the gas chamber or the electric chair without a thought. Anyway, there's a fly in the ointment and the foolish young reporter gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He should be. He should be executed for pure stupidity. Still, things stay interesting until a deus ex machina ending. One redeeming part is when the idiot comes to realize what he has done; he has signed his own death warrant. He has created a near open and shut case. It just left me cold. The writers were in a hurry and lacked the imagination to put the pieces together.

This film starts off with quite a few strikes against it.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 27 December 2013]

"Circumstantial Evidence" is a film available on DVD from Alpha Video. Alpha is great because they are often the only source for lesser pictures from Hollywood's golden era of the 1930s-50s. However, at same time, Alpha NEVER cleans up their prints and some of their films are downright ugly. While "Circumstantial Evidence" isn't in horrible shape, the sound is rather poor (and gets MUCH worse near the end) and the print fuzzy. Pretty is ain't!

As the title would imply, the film is about the use of circumstantial evidence to convict people of crimes--in particular, murder. Circumstantial evidence is when inferences are needed to connect facts with a crime. They are NOT the most reliable sort of evidence and cannot be used to convict folks of most crimes in this country. Oddly, it can be used in murder cases. Well, a reporter doesn't like this and decides to prove how flimsy such evidence can be by making it appear as if he murdered someone when there is, in fact, no murder victim. So, he and his friend pretend to have a huge fight in front of a lot of witnesses--and later the friend will reportedly be killed. However, when this pretend victims is REALLY murdered, the reporter is naturally the prime suspect and faces the possibility of being executed! Can this guy somehow extricate himself from this predicament?

This film is from tiny Chesterfield Studio--one of many so-called 'Poverty Row Studio'. They were nicknamed this because they had minimal funds and tended to produce films very quickly and very cheaply. While these studios occasionally made dandy films, the norm were not exactly quality products. This and the use of mostly unknown actors are strikes against "Circumstantial Evidence" from the outset. Add to that a script that is VERY talky and sometimes dull and you have a film that is, at best, a time-passer and nothing more.

By the way, this film has a lot of similarities to a later film starring Dana Andrews, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"--which is well worth your time.

best psychological thriller ever made

[zedboyk · 10/10 · 4 April 2002]

Saw this years ago and have been trying to track it down ever since - I rate it as the best thriller ever - if you're into forensics, whodunnits, twisting plots... and just damn classic films (movies)

Timeless - not dated at all (well, a tad in the forensics department) - maybe as I was younger when I saw this, - just remains one of those films that stays with you forever. I've maybe convinced a hundred people to watch this and have had nothing but agreement - marvellous!!