An Act of Murder (1948) User Reviews (20)

Questions Still Raised Today

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 19 March 2011]

As Stanley Ridges says in An Act Of Murder what is hopeless today, might be curable on Wednesday such are the advances of medicine. And certainly we can treat and even cure more brain tumors today, even the type that Florence Eldridge has in this film.

But in 1948 cancer on the brain was a certain death sentence. At this time young Johnny Gunther was going through the same kind of struggle which his father would chronicle in Death Be Not Proud. Also the public remembered the premature death of George Gershwin from such an illness. Certainly Fredric March's character would also have been aware of these things, most definitely about Gershwin.

An Act Of Murder casts March and Eldrige as a small town Pennsylvania judge and his wife with Geraldine Brooks as their daughter. March is a rigid by the book judge known as Old Maximum because of the harsh sentences imposed. March has cross swords with defense attorney Edmond O'Brien in court so he's not real thrilled with Brooks going out with him, but Eldridge supports her daughter.

But when after having some dizzy spells, Eldridge goes to see their doctor Stanley Ridges, he finds out that she's got a terminal brain tumor and her suffering will increase exponentially. He's got a real crisis on his hands. Mercy killing is an option he considers and true to his rigid code, March confesses to killing her to relieve her suffering and is put on trial for it. Guess who gets to defend him?

Even with the Code parameters strictly enforced at this time, euthanasia was a daring subject to tackle in 1948. The ending which I won't reveal is a cop out, but they could have done little else at the time given the censorship restrictions.

March, Eldridge, and the rest of the cast are brilliant. An Act Of Murder raises questions still hotly contested today.

Daring Morality Play

[adamshl · 7/10 · 28 August 2014]

The concept of tempering legality with compassion is a daring, slippery slope. It is today as it was in 1948 when this challenging film was released.

Fortunately, this drama has the great acting team Florence Eldridge and Fredric March in the lead roles, lending both power and sensitivity to their characterizations. While conceding that the law must by its nature be clear and committed, one can also empathize with the human challenges faced in the case of a terminally ill loved one who is in great pain and suffering.

Where does one draw the line in such cases, especially when a spouse accused of murder emphatically pleads guilty? It's a tough situation created here, and one that must either tread the path of legal justice or find extenuating circumstances to help relieve the inevitable sentence.

"An Act of Murder" manages to walk this tightrope with considerable balance, thanks to an outstanding cast and some petty talented writers. The film also may be considered a "lost work," despite the pairing of Mr. and Mrs. March in the lead roles.

It's also interesting to see only a single bona fide professional review in the IMDb, as though this subject may have been (and still may be) too tough to handle. The most complete review (by Bosley Crowther of the NY Times) expresses the critic's general reaction without declaring a firm stance on the controversial subject of euthanasia. And perhaps this is the best we can ever get, for the topic may be too challenging for us mortals to ever definitively solve.

One of my favorite Fredric March performances, and an unfairly forgotten film

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 31 May 2015]

Here Fredric March plays criminal court judge Calvin Cooke who has a reputation as a sort of "hanging judge" so that he has earned the nickname of "old man Maximum". Edmond O'Brien plays a defense attorney arguing a case before the judge. While O'Brien's character looks at the spirit of the law, Judge Cooke looks only at the letter of it and it is obvious from the opening court scene that the two do not like each other. What do they have in common? They both love the judge's only daughter, Ellie.

Now this doesn't mean that the judge is a bad guy. He likes his community, adores his wife of twenty years (Florence Eldridge as Catherine Cooke), and loves his daughter.

But more trouble is afoot than just a suitor for his daughter's hand that the judge dislikes. His wife Catherine has been having headaches, dizziness, and has been dropping things due to numbness in her hands. She confides in a friend who also happens to be a doctor that she has "a friend" with these symptoms, and the doctor sees through her ruse and says that she should come to his Philadelphia office the next day for a check-up. She does that, but lies to Calvin and says she is going shopping.

This is where I do some head scratching. The news is bad - Catherine has a type of inoperable brain tumor that means a certain and painful death. The doctor tells Catherine that everything is fine. Who does he call? After sticking a cancer stick in his mouth to relieve the stress (????) the good doctor calls Calvin, her husband and tells HIM the truth. They both decide to not tell Catherine, the ACTUAL patient, the truth. Later when Catherine finds out, she decides not to talk about it either, even though by the way she found out she must know that her husband knows. Why isn't anybody talking to anybody about this woman's illness? Everybody just goes on pretending. Maybe this is the way it was 60 years ago, and that is one reason I love classic film - it gives you real insight into a bygone era about how people handled life, in this case illness, the fact that doctors routinely smoked, that grown daughters lived at home and pretty much went from the custody of their fathers to their husbands, and that it was acceptable for a policeman to shoot a dog that had been run over by a car in plain view of the general public - a mercy killing. This last incident happens as the judge is walking down the street to get pain medicine for his wife that just isn't doing the job. The implication is that mercy killing is on the mind of "old man Maximum" too. How will all of this work out? Watch and find out.

Even though all of the characters in this film are basically "good people" with good intentions, you could almost classify this one as a noir, because there are no easy answers, no possible way to a happy ending. I've seen a restored version of this film on Turner Classic Movies in the last year, so I wish Universal would find some way to get it out to the public. The questions the film raises are still relevant today. Highly recommended.

A Well Made Movie About Mercy Killing

[theowinthrop · 12 November 2004]

This is like the forgotten good film in Fredric March's career. People talk about ANTHONY ADVERSE, DR. JECKYLL AND MR. HYDE, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, INHERIT THE WIND, or THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN, but AN ACT OF MURDER is rarely recalled because of it's odd story. At a time when American film audiences wanted to forget World War II and the death and destruction it entailed, March and his wife Florence Eldrich appeared in the only film where their roles were equally important where the subject was euthanasia. It was well told, with March as Judge Cooke, a fiercely strict jurist who rarely showed a drop of mercy towards a convicted defendant. He finds his beloved wife is dying of an incurable, and slowly debilitating disease. While she slowly declines (and very visibly shows her own suffering) the Judge grimly determines to kill her by a convenient car accident. But after the accident the Judge confesses, and faces conviction in his own courthouse. Only at the last moment is he saved from the unforgiving penal code he is always upholding.

It is well acted (Edmond O'Brien giving good support as a liberal-minded attorney who is romancing March and Eldrich's daughter). But the best part is watching the chemistry between March and Eldrich. Only their joint appearances in ANOTHER PART OF THE FOREST and INHERIT THE WIND come close to this, but Eldrich's parts in those films is not as essential as her role in this one. And the subject matter is rarely tackled (certainly not in the 1930s or 1940s). If the end is a bit of a cop-out (the trial reveals that March is not guilty) it still is a brave subject to have tackled at all.

Exceptional film with one significant flaw

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 29 August 2014]

This is a rather masterful film with, I think, one flaw.

First, considering it was made in 1948, the topic of euthanasia was not one often the topic of a motion picture. This film is definitely before its time (if we're even really at "that time" now). And, for the most part, the director handled the topic in a sensitive manner.

The acting here is superb. Although Fredric March is not a name many younger moviegoers may be familiar with, when it comes right down to it, there were few more dependable actors during Hollywood's golden age...and all the way from silent pictures to 1973! My personal favorite is his role in "Inherit The Wind" opposite Spencer Tracy. He doesn't let us down here as a stern judge who commits (or did he) euthanasia. His wife here is played by his real wife -- Florence Eldridge (who appeared as his wife, and not, in several other pictures with him, including "Inherit The Wind". A very fine performance in both films, here as a wife facing a excruciatingly painful death. The third key player here is Edmund O'Brien, a terribly underrated actor, here playing a young lawyer who has come up against the stern judge, but who defends him because he is dating the judge's daughter.

Stanley Ridge, as the doctor, and Will Wright have fine roles. I was not particularly impressed with Geraldine Brooks as the daughter, but no significant criticism. There are other character actors you will recognize, as well. Overall a very good cast.

I mentioned that I thought there was one flaw, and it is the sole reason I won't give this film an "8". It's a very compelling story, and then in the very last scene -- March's mea culpa for planning to kill his wife to put her out of her suffering -- seems a little sappy, and perhaps whipped together to bring about a quick end to the film. And, it was pretty clear from the beginning that the stern old judge would learn compassion during the story. But aside from that, a truly fine film, and one I'm thinking of adding to my DVD collection when it again becomes available.

Highly recommended!

A tough one

[marcslope · 6/10 · 16 March 2015]

Caught this tough 1948 drama on TCM, which seems to have been out of circulation for a while. It's about a tough, by-the-book judge (Fredric March) who discovers his wife (Florence Eldridge, March's real-life spouse) has a fatal, painful disease, and rather clumsily plots a mercy killing. This means that for much of the film's length we have to watch Eldridge suffer, suffer, and it's quite uncomfortable viewing. There are plot conveniences that one other poster lists, and also the debatable position posed by the family doctor (Stanley Ridges, also good) that Eldridge should be lied to about her prognosis. Hal Mohr's photography thrusts itself deep into the Marches' anguish, and plot and subplot are contrivedly merged when Edmond O'Brien, as the liberal attorney who's romancing the Marches' daughter (Geraldine Brooks), injects himself into March's murder trial. Then there's some unconvincing, unsolvable philosophizing about euthanasia, and fadeout. I find a number of faults: Daniel Amfitheatrof's hyperactive musical score, which needlessly underlines everything, and was there ever a less appealing juvenile than pudgy, charmless Edmond O'Brien? But the issues are real, the debate is tense, and Mr. and Mrs. March are superb. Now if only TCM would find a way to show their other excellent co-starring vehicle from back then, also Universal and also directed by Michael Gordon, "Another Part of the Forest."

Lord have mercy

[kapelusznik18 · 7/10 · 30 August 2014]

***SPOILERS*** One of if not the first film out of Hollywood that tackles the subject of mercy killings that has honorable and straight laced, in going by the book, Judge Calvin Cooker, Fredic March,come to realize that there are extenuating circumstances in cases that he presides on that is not explained in the law that he's sworn to upholds. This comes crashing down on his head when his wife Catherine, Florence Eldridge, is diagnosed with a fatal brain disease that will slowly end her life, with her brain turning into mush, in excoriating pain. It's later in the movie when the Judge can't take it, his wife's suffering, anymore that in a fit of madness drives his car with his wife Catherine in it off the road where she ends up dead and him suffering severe head shoulder & leg injuries!

Even though exonerated in Catherine's dead Judge Cook feels that he in fact murdered her and wants to pay for his crime even if it meant life imprisonment or worse. Having attorney David "Double D" Douglas, Edmond O'Brien, given the job to defend Judge Cook , who refused to defend himself, it's decided the only defense for his action is an insanity defense in that he wasn't in his right mind at the time of the crime that he's not only accused of but admitted to! It takes a lot of work on "Bouble D's" part to not only convince the judge & jury but himself as well to Judge Cook's innocence. In that the man, Judge Cook, was out of his mind at the time of his wife's death but it wasn't him that killed her! It turned out that Catherine herself was the one who did herself in before her husband Judge Cook had the chance to do it!

***SPOILERS*** It was Catherine who found out the truth of her fatal illness in going through her husbands papers and knowing what she's in store for, a slow and painful death, that she decided to put herself, in taking a bottle of powerful pain killers, out of her misery. In an autopsy preformed on her on the insistence of Judge Cook's attorney David "Double D" Douglas reviled that Catherine was in fact dead before the car that her husband drove off the road hit the bottom of the gully that it landed in! The ending of the film was a bit of a cop-out in having Judge Cook not going through with his planned mercy killing of his terminally ill wife. But with the movie released in 1948 him really going through with it and being found innocent was totally unthinkable at the time by the movie going public.

In fact there was an even more poignant moment in the film a bit earlier when a man's best friend, his dog, was hit by a car and was, as his owner was in tears, mercifully shot and killed by a policeman at the scene. It was that tragic incident that gave Judge Cook the idea to do the same thing, in a car crash, to his wife to keep her from going through the same kind of suffering that the fatally injured canine was going through!

Not for hypochondriacs!

[Hup234! · 9/10 · 8 September 1999]

This film's relentless plotline marches straight-ahead forward as you squirm, fascinated, in your chair. The story is the familiar one about the onset of terminal illness within a solid American family of the 1940s. Never mind that it delves into MGM-style sermonizing; the great real-life husband/wife team of Fredric March and Florence Eldridge portray the couple whose once-comfortable lives are now being separated by an unstoppable and fast-advancing disease. The helpless husband, the uncomplaining wife, and their final attempt to recapture happier days with a doomed weekend outing is the stuff of deep film drama indeed. The sense of onrushing darkness is tangible through the film-noir camera shadings of Hal Mohr (Captain Blood, Phantom of the Opera [1943], The Climax), and Daniele Amfitheatrof's rich musical score. "An Act of Murder" makes a profound statement on the value, and the fragility, of life.

March and Eldridge Overcome Downbeat Sermonizing

[dglink · 7/10 · 17 October 2020]

Preachy moralizing on a downbeat subject, "An Act of Murder" is somewhat redeemed by outstanding performances by Frederic March and his actress wife, Florence Eldridge. A strict judge is faced with a moral dilemma, when his wife of 20 years is struck with a fatal disease that is incurable and increasingly painful. Most of the film's running time deals with the judge's home and work life, his daughter's relationship with an attorney the judge dislikes, and visits to a doctor, who is a personal friend of the couple.

Movies about terminal illness are often cloying TV fodder and difficult to endure; few are entertaining and tolerable like "Dark Victory," in which Bette Davis overcame a dire prognosis by sheer force of her personality. Directed by Michael Gordon and adapted from a novel by Ernst Lothar, this low-budget film does avoid maudlin moments and is no tearjerker. Eldridge as Catherine Cooke faces her crisis with courage and dignity, even while her symptoms worsen and her health declines. March's Judge Calvin Cooke stoically witnesses his wife's pain and addresses the imminent loss of his partner without self pity. However, the story reaches tedious sermonizing during a climactic courtroom scene. Edmund O'Brien, who plays the daughter's improbable love interest, steps into the court proceedings to make a point, after which a judge, portrayed by John McIntire, delivers a lesson about heart in the law, and March closes the film by declaring himself a changed man.

To say that "An Act of Murder" is entertaining is a bit of a stretch given the subject matter. To say that the film's moral teaching is groundbreaking would be untrue for most people. However, the sensitive portrayal of a loving couple facing loss after twenty years of marriage acted out by a loving couple after twenty years of their own marriage is reason enough to endure the sermonizing.

Remarkable Little Film

[paulbpage · 8/10 · 7 March 2015]

There's something quite remarkable at the heart of this honest and direct portrayal of a very human crisis. The leads here - Frederic March and Florence Eldridge, real-life husband and wife - are completely and thoroughly a middle-aged couple and depicted as such, in all their wrinkles and folds and reflections on lives that have been lived. It's a reminder that the two kinds of people we see in movies are the very young and beautiful and the very old. The Cookes here are seemingly fully filled in, a husband and wife with grown children, in the midst of real lives, inhabiting their marriage with the deep love that is far beyond the romantic love that's the staple of motion pictures. This isn't the dashing Frederic March of the 1930s but a mature, restrained father and husband. It's a bit melodramatic at times - director Michael Gordon is a journeyman professional and not William Wyler, director of the great film of that era starring March, The Best Years of Our LIves. But watch for the details, such as the sharp, discordant strings stabbing along as windshield wipers swipe across the screen. I think I saw that in another movie made a few years later.

Freddie and Flo

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 24 August 2020]

In this forgotten classic, a husband has to face the worst news imaginable: his wife has a brain tumor. They live in a small town, and the family doctor is also a close, personal friend. Together, he and the doctor agree not to tell her, so she can live out her life in as much peace as possible.

An added realism to this movie is the onscreen pairing of Fredric March and Florence Eldridge, who were married in real life. When he kisses his wife and worries how many more days he'll have with her, he's really kissing his wife. Freddie and Flo made a few movies together, and this is one of my favorites. I'm sure he would have given just as wonderful and compassionate a performance acting opposite another actress, but it's extremely touching to see him alongside his wife. If you like their rapport, check them out in Inherit the Wind.

Obviously, the title of this movie suggests some conflicting feelings about the plot. It's a very thoughtful piece that's a drama without dramatizing. It feels as real as it can be while still serving as entertainment. If you're a Fredric March fan, you've got to rent it.

Raises but fails to answer some important ethical questions

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 3 February 2014]

Opens most promisingly with sweeping tracking shots through courtroom corridors, but all too soon this courtroom drama inventiveness makes way for a more conventional weepie with mercy killing overtones. Nevertheless, it is superbly photographed by Hal Mohr, and brilliantly acted by the entire cast from the star roles so convincingly characterized by Fredric March and his real-life wife, Florence Eldridge, down to support players like Stanley Ridges and John McIntyre. As the daughter, Geraldine Brooks, gives such a warmly realistic performance, I wondered what happened to her. It seems this was her fourth film. She made her debut in Cry Wolf (1947) in which she was billed third. In Possessed, she was fourth; for Embraceable You (1948), only the number one star, Dane Clark, was billed above her. After Act of Murder, she achieved fourth billing in The Younger Brothers (1949), co-starred with James Mason and Joan Bennett in The Reckless Moment, and then played the female lead in Challenge to Lassie. Geraldine Brooks then made a far-reaching decision by accepting the lead role on TV in a Ford Theatre episode, The Farmer Takes a Wife (1949). Second-billed Dane Clark played the farmer. After making two Italian movies, including Volcano (1950), she returned to Hollywood and spent the rest of her life in TV roles – except for The Green Glove (1952), Street of Sinners (1957) and Mr Ricco (1975) – finishing with three episodes of Executive Suite (1976). She died at the young age of 51 on June 19, 1977.

Anyway, getting back to Act of Murder, the various title changes aptly convey the desperate attempts of the film's producers to sell it to an indifferent box-office. The theme is controversial enough, but hardly the right formula for postwar escapist entertainment. Of course, there was a fledgling art house circuit, but any chance it might have had with ethically committed moviegoers is somewhat negated by the way the plot neatly side-steps many of the moral, legal, ethical and medical questions it raises. Yet, despite this narrative slickness, the atmosphere of Act.../Case.../Live.../I Stand... remains uncompromisingly bleak.

Whose life is it, anyway?

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 3 April 2022]

There has been no shortage of films in recent decades dealing with the highly emotive subject of Euthanasia but such was not always the case.

It was Willi Forst's controversial 'The Sinner' from 1951 that is generally credited with breaking the taboo whilst devoted cinephiles will no doubt be aware of Wolfgang Liebeneiner's powerful 'I accuse' from 1941 which has been airbrushed out of film history because of its promotion of the Aktion T4 Euthanasia programme. The most effective episode of a mediocre British film from 1954 called 'Front Page Story' features a trial of a wife accused of 'mercy killing'.

Imagine one's surprise therefore to stumble across this novelty from Hollywood of the late 1940's adapted from Ernst Lothar's novel 'The Mills of God' and directed by Michael Gordon before he fell foul of the confounded HUAC.

Although a courageous, gripping and very well made film with committed performances from its first rate cast, it has been obliged neither to condemn nor condone the actions of a Judge who can longer bear to see his beloved wife suffer from a devastating and terminal disease. The final speech delivered by the brilliant Fredric March in which he declares that although legally innocent of murder he remains morally guilty, very much reflects the ethical and religious sensibilities of the time and the need not to offend them!

An act of social realism and contrivance

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 28 August 2014]

I recorded this film last night on TCM and I am watching it now. I think it is rather well made, with some extraordinary performances, but a few things do not work for me.

First, I want to discuss the scene where she experiences wincing pain and breaks the mirror in the bedroom while she is packing. We get this quick dramatic scene and then it is not mentioned again. Of course, the filmmakers are letting us know, by foreshadowing it, how fatal her prognosis is. But how did she explain to her husband the mirror getting broken? And even if she had it fixed without his knowledge, wouldn't she know at that moment that there is something terribly wrong with her? People having good days do not go around smashing bedroom mirrors.

Second, and this plot point might seem minor, but why is it that when they pack to go on their trip he takes the note explaining her full medical condition? Obviously, the filmmakers have neatly included it in his suitcase so that she can find it and learn about her situation. But wouldn't he have have left this information in his office or already sent it on to the local physician?

And third, now this is what bothers me most, because it is certainly not addressed-- but when he gets behind the wheel during the raging storm with his wife in the passenger seat-- how does he know that his plan to kill her will be successful? What if he kills himself in the process, too? Can we assume that he was not only homicidal but suicidal as well? Yet, did he ever take into account the possibility that he may not survive the wreck but his wife could? If so, what good would that accident have done? Obviously, in the very next scene we see that his plan apparently succeeded and the only visible evidence that he was even in a serious crash is the cane he walks with for the rest of the picture. He has no disabilities or scars (not even a bruise or scratch) while his wife conveniently (and mercifully?) experienced a much more final outcome.

Finally, another thing that didn't make sense to me is: when did she figure out he was giving her something stronger than aspirin? And how was she to know how toxic it was? So was her overdose intentional or accidental? This is not really explained, even later at the trial. It seems a bit hard to believe that she would have put the drugs into her purse without him realizing that she had taken them.

What seems to be happening at one turn after another in this picture is that the filmmakers are trying to dramatize a philosophical thesis about mercy killing. But because they have fully worked out all the plot details, we are left to wonder if this could have been a better film than it is and if the points could have been made more smoothly and convincingly. As it is we are left with an artistic statement about a difficult decision regarding the quality or end of life, but we are given it in uneven terms and in a scope that is overshadowed by contrivance instead of the social realism they may have been striving to attain.

Excellent but it loses its way towards the end.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 30 August 2014]

I watched "An Act of Murder" because I love the actors Frederic March and Edmund O'Brien. Both were Oscar-winning actors who were not exactly handsome (especially as they aged) and managed to give one impressive performance after another over the decades. Sadly, however, despite having two excellent stars, the film lost its momentum towards the end.

When the film begins, March plays a tough-as-nails judge and O'Brien a bleeding-heart defense attorney. The two don't like each other all that much--and late in the film, O'Brien's character comes to the judge's defense when he's on trial for a mercy killing. In between is the part of the film I loved most--and which is totally obscured by the ending which is filled with speechifying and some bizarre behavior by March's character. It's a shame, as the idea of mercy killing and medical ethics are really interesting topics and it's pretty amazing to see them talked about in the 1940s, as usually films deliberately avoided this back in the day.

Putting in question the letter of the law

[richard-1787 · 7/10 · 7 March 2015]

This movie has fine acting, but the real interest is the moral question around which it revolves: can a man kill another to put her out of incurable misery? As you know, that's a question that is still argued, and probably more argued, today than it was, at least publicly, in 1948 when this film was released.

The end, where the former letter-of-the-law judge, Frederick March, decides that henceforth he needs to consider intentions as well as actions, is very moving because 1) March was a fine actor, and 2) the background music opens our emotions.

But 1) to what extent can the law take intentions into consideration when passing judgment on acts that break the law? 2) Why did the judge not talk about his intentions to end his wife's life with her and with their daughter? I suspect that would have very much weakened his case if it were to be tried today. The point is brought up briefly in one scene between the judge and his daughter near the end, but then nothing is done with it.

It's a well-made movie, but it leaves you with unanswered questions that it doesn't do much to help you consider.

A Taut and Well Acted Film About Mercy Killing Unheard of in 1948

[LeonLouisRicci · 8/10 · 28 August 2014]

Fascinating Film that Daringly Approaches the Subject of Euthanasia. In Doing so it also has Liberal Elements Inserted about the Rigid Judicial System that has a Tendency Toward Antiquated ("Powdered Wigs") by the Book Procedures.

Edmond O'Brien is the Lawyer that Questions a Hard-Boiled Judge, while Dating His Daughter. The Judge Played by Fredric March goes through a Tumultuous Time Dealing with His Wife's Terminal Illness. But the Acting Accolades must go to Florence Eldridge who Gives a Riveting Performance.

This Thoughtful Piece of Social Commentary is Rich and Rewarding with Taut and Suspenseful Scenes that can at Times be Heartbreaking. This is an Odd Movie to be Sure, and is Well Worth a Watch for its Genuine Concern about Troubling Things that are Rarely Discussed (especially in 1948), but Linger on the Fringe of Everyday Life.

brilliant performances in a film that remains timely

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 9 March 2015]

Note: Today I went to hospice and said goodbye to a member of my family who has a brain tumor. So this movie resonated.

Frederic March, Florence Eldredge, Geraldine Brooks, and Edmond O'Brien star in "Act of Murder," a 1948 film directed by Michael Gordon.

March and Eldredge play a happily married couple, Judge Calvin and Catherine Cooke. They have a daughter (Brooks) engaged to an attorney (O'Brien) whose views are not the same as the Judge's.

Catherine is suffering from severe headaches, so she sees a doctor. It turns out she is terminally ill. Apparently the practice in those days, in movies anyway, is not to tell the sick person that he or she is terminal. He does inform her husband.

Catherine believes there is nothing wrong with her. The Judge decides to take her on a trip, a second honeymoon, during which she becomes violently ill and in intractable pain. When Calvin sees a wounded dog shot on a sidewalk so it wouldn't suffer, the wheels start turning.

This is a story about euthanasia, a topic still hotly discussed today. Here is a man who loved his wife desperately, to the point where her pain was his as well. There's a story in Dirk Bogarde's biography about the horrible death his companion suffered; at one point, when he and another turned him during the night, his companion said, "If I were a dog, you wouldn't do this to me." It made Bogarde a proponent of euthanasia.

"Act of Murder" is a beautifully made movie, heart-wrenching and powerful, nominated for the Grand Prize at Cannes in 1948. The camera work by Hal Mohr is exceptional. As Catherine's and Calvin's world becomes darker and darker, we see it.

Frederic March and his wife, Florence Eldredge are absolutely fantastic. They were the original stars on Broadway of Long Day's Journey into Night, and they must have been wonderful. An interesting play, like Streetcar, the focus can shift from the man to the woman, depending on the director and actors.

See March and Eldredge in this film.

Euthanasia Revisited ***1/2

[edwagreen · 9/10 · 30 August 2014]

Fredric march is the stern judge here forced to deal with his wife's terminal illness. Interesting to note that at no time in the film does the term inoperable brain tumor spoken despite the fact that this is the problem facing Florence Eldridge, the judge's wife and real life wife of March.

Our judge is forced to reexamine his attitude and ethics in this excellent moral dilemma.

Eldridge is in fine form as the doomed wife and Geraldine Brooks is perky but on spot as the daughter.

The ending may be viewed by some as a cop out once it is revealed how the wife really died. Yet this solution may also cause an ethical dilemma.

A film that has stood the test of time but at the time wasn't ready for a serious topic of discussion.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 15 September 2020]

History changes film, and often, film changes history or at least the public's perspective on serious issues. After World War II ended, Hollywood really jumped on the bandwagon dealing with serious issues like mental illness, alcoholism and various other addictions. There had been films before about spouses killing each other, but never for a reason like this. This is more an act of love than an act of murder, because when you meet Florence Eldridge, the first thing you will think when you find out that she has a terminal illness that will bring her great pain before she passes away from it is "No, not her!" Yes, even a fictional character can bring on that emotion to an audience, because she is a representative of everything we believe a great person should be, irregardless of gender-loving, loyal, tender and funny. Husband Frederic March is another story, at least in his career as a very strict judge who only follows the letter of the law, that is until he must break it to be noble.

When we first see March, he is on the bench, but March's Judge Cooke is no Judge James Hardy of the long-running MGM "Andy Hardy" series, dispensing justice with wisdom and concern. March is the type of judge that in a film noir or Boris Karloff horror movie would have the defendant vowing revenge. In his home life, March is quite different, judging based on the circumstances and the heart within the matter, and it will take a major slap in the face for him to wake up to see that justice isn't really justice if it doesn't consider all the facts and all the details which lead up to a criminal action being made. Eldridge has been suffering from serious headaches that create violent spasms, the type that no aspirin can cure and that no comforting or hugging or spoiling can fix.

When March learns from long time family doctor Stanley Ridges that her illness is terminable and will bring on a painful end, he is at his wit's end of what to do and decides to take her on the long planned second honeymoon as a way of bracing her for the end. Before they leave, Eldridge has a violent spasm in her bathroom that causes her in convulsions to break the mirror, and on their seashore vacation, all seems well until they go into a hall of mirrors and she breaks out in panic when the spasms return and she can't find her way out. March realizes that something has to be done to end her suffering, especially after a scene where an injured dog is shot by the police in public view to end its suffering. But Eldridge discovers the truth, and realizing that her suffering is making her husband suffer as well plans her own strategy. Twists have March, now a widow, turning himself in for murdering his wife, and daughter Geraldine Brooks and lawyer Edmund O'Brien (who is in love with Brooks yet opposed to much of March's courtroom methods) must step up to help him against his will.

Yes, there are obviously holes in the plot line, and often, March isn't deserving of audience sympathy. But as the details of the story show his genuine, undying love for Eldridge, it becomes impossible not to root for him to be exonerated with at least a finger wagging from the judge (Will Wright) who is sitting on the same bench that March shares with him. Award worthy performances and an excellent script (in spite of the holes) are aided by very good photography and editing. Eldridge, well respected for her stage work but underrated for her film work, was definitely award worthy here, and at least the story allows the audience to not suffer along with her too much. Brooks and O'Brien are not given the benefit in their characterizations of being as well developed as March and Eldridge, but this is not their story. Several TV movies dealt with the same subject years later, but as far as the issue of mercy killing is concerned, this film remains way ahead of its time, and deserves to be remembered for that, especially for March's moving speech at the end where he basically judges himself guilty.