Category: Nominees – 1920s

2022 – The Fabelmans

On the one hand, this is a Stephen Spielberg movie, so it is inherently good.  It is well-written, well-constructed, well-cast, well-acted, and well-presented.  Add to that another incredible John Williams score, and you have a shoe-in for a good movie.  But on the other hand, the movie was a little slow, and even though it might have been somewhat cathartic for the famous director, it felt slightly self-indulgent.  That being said, with all the incredible films under his belt, I think he should be allowed a passion proj ect or two.  But all that is a very minor complaint, and in any case, is my only real criticism of the film at all.  This was a very good movie.  I may not have nominated it for Best Picture, but it was quite entertaining.

The film was a sort of slightly fictionalized autobiography of Stephen Spielberg, himself.  It told of how, as a child, he was introduced to, and became fascinated with cinema.  It showed how his passion was embraced by his mother, and dismissed as nothing more than a hobby by his father.  It showed how his love for the art form was developed and how the young director honed his skills.

But there were also several keen dramatic elements to the film, like the terrible anti-Semitic bullying he faced in school, the infidelity of his mother, which led to his parents getting divorced.  And it was these things, I believe, that earned the film its Oscar nomination.  And it didn’t hurt, of course, that the voting Academy is a sucker for films that are about films and filmmaking.  That’s why they loved movies like The Artist, which won Best Picture in 2011, and Hugo, which was also nominated for the top prize in 2011.

The cast was incredibly good.  Here’s a quick run through of the key players.  Gabriel LaBelle played Sammy Fabelman.  Michelle Williams and Paul Dano played his parents, Mitzi and Burt.  Seth Rogan played Benny, Mitzi’s lover.  A couple of other notable names show up in smaller roles, names like Judd Hirsch, Greg Grunberg, and David Lynch.  The entire cast did a fantastic job, but special props have to be given to Williams and Dano.  For me, the acting skills of these two really seemed a cut above the rest.  The first movie I remember seeing Michelle Williams in, in which she proved herself to be an outstanding dramatic actress was 2016’s Manchester By the Sea.  The role of Mitzy wasn’t quite as intense as that one, but it was still beautifully performed. 

But really, it was Paul Dano that caught my attention.  He was just so believable in the part of Burt Fabelman.  He was smarter than all of the people around him, certainly more so than his son and his wife.  I think He was somewhat aware of his wife’s affair, and continued to treat her with love and kindness.  But in the end, she left him to be with Benny, taking their three daughters with her.  When Burt saw a photograph of Mitzy in her new home with a smile on her face that he had never been able to give her, his private emotions came to the surface.  Dano was so good in that moment.  But even then, his main concern was for his son, Sammy, who was going through a difficult time of his own.

And then I have to mention Seth Rogan.  The character of Uncle Benny could very easily have been a bit of a throw-away character.  But I really liked the way Rogan played the part.  In particular, I liked the scene where he bought the camera for Sammy.  It became clear that despite having an affair with a married woman, he was actually a good man who not only loved Mitzy, but Burt as well, and by extension, their children.  He loved Mitzy enough to back away and end the affair, and because of both the way the character was written, and Rogan’s performance, I ended up liking Uncle Benny, despite his faults.

The other dramatic subplot of the movie was one that I was not expecting.  It was the bullying Sammy had to endure because of the anti-Jew behavior of the other kids at the school.  But it was handled fairly well, I think.  It was intriguing, because even the girl who showed romantic interest in Sammy was anti-Semitic.  One of the only reasons she initially wanted to go out with him was so that she could convert him to Christianity.  She was almost more offensive than the bullies because she so easily assumed that he had an innate desire to become a Christian.  The thought never even occurred to her that he had any desire to remain a Jew.  I was offended on Sammy’s behalf!

And one final scene that I found fascinating was the one in which the school jock, the chief bully, grew both angry and strangely sympathetic toward Sammy for making him look like a superstar to the rest of the school, despite that way he had treated him all year.  It was almost a touching scene, by the end of which, the two boys developed something like mutual respect or even understanding, knowing that they were still not friends, but no longer enemies.

This was a Spielberg movie that didn’t feel like one.  It had a smaller scale and a subtlety that I’m not used to seeing from him.  It was good, though I wouldn’t call it great.  It was enjoyable to watch, though it’s not the kind of film I need to see again any time soon.

The Sound of Metal – 2020-21

I liked this movie more than I thought I was going to for several very specific reasons.  First, I thought it was going to be a movie about a style of music that I’ve never really enjoyed.  I was wrong.  Second, I liked how it showed me a part of the world that I know very little about.  Third, it left me thinking about it for days after I watched it.  I found myself wondering about the characters and their motivations.  I wanted to know what happened to them after the credits started to roll.  That, in itself, is the mark of a good movie, or at least a good ending.  And fourth, the two hour movie seemed to be over in no time.  It did a great job holding my attention.

Riz Ahmed played the part of Ruben Stone, a drummer in a metal band, who loses his hearing.  I have only seen the lead actor in one other film, and honestly, I wasn’t terribly impressed with that performance.  But here, he found a role that suited him and I thought he did a great job.  His girlfriend and lead singer in the band is Lou, played by Olivia Cooke.  The critics all praise Ahmed’s performance, and to be sure, he did a great job, but I think Cooke’s performance was just as good.  I found it interesting that to prepare for the role, Ahmed spent two hours a day studying sign language, two hours in drum lessons, and two hours with a personal trainer, and the remainder with his acting coach.

Other notable characters in the film were Paul Raci, playing Joe, the administrator of the deaf community that tries to help Ruben, Lauren Ridloff as Diane, a teacher at the deaf school who teaches Ruben sign language, and Mathieu Amalric, Lou’s father, who welcomes Ruben as the love of his daughter’s life.  As you might expect, the entire cast did a fine job, and I have no criticisms there.

At first, as one might expect, Ruben is terrified at the prospect of being deaf, and becomes hyper-focused on a surgery that he thinks will fix all his problems.  He shows little interest in accepting or dealing with the change in his life.  When Lou takes him to a shelter for addicts who are deaf, he is ready to walk away from it because they will not allow Lou to stay with him.  But knowing that it is what Ruben needs, Lou leaves him.  That scene affirmed my belief that their relationship was actually a strong one.  She loved him enough to let him go, and it was powerful. 

But after Joe teaches Ruben to stop resisting the help that was being freely offered, Ruben not only learns to deal with the loss of his hearing, but he makes friends, finds a community to be a part of, and a bit of happiness, as well.  He learns to live with the silence.  He is even offered a permanent job at the facility.  But he never completely abandons the idea of getting the cochlear implant surgery.  Going against the rules of the shelter, he sells all his possessions to pay for the expensive procedure.  When Joe finds out, Ruben is asked to leave the shelter, which is founded on the belief that being deaf is not a disability that needs to be fixed.

But the surgery doesn’t solve Ruben’s problems.  The quality of the hearing he regains is so poor that he becomes disillusioned. He wonders if he has made one of the biggest mistakes of his life.  There is a phrase I know of that says that the only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken.  I think it applies to the scenario.  The implants do, indeed, restore some of his hearing, but it sounds metallic, tinny, and broken, like a scrambled radio signal.  It gave new meaning to the film’s title, which referred to both the sound of the metal music he loved, and the bad metallic sound of the implants.

Next, Ruben learns that Lou has returned to her father’s house in Paris.  He goes to be with her, and of course, I was expecting him to find her with another man.  But again, my expectations were confounded.  She was genuinely happy at his return, and her love for him was just as strong as before.  But in the end, though he knows she loves him, he sees how his presence is disrupting her life, and even enabling a certain amount of self-destructive behavior in her, he leaves Lou in order to save her, just like she had done to him earlier in the film.  The last scene shows Ruben sitting on a bench listening to the distorted sounds of the city.  He deactivates his implants, seeming to prefer the silence that he’d been so afraid of.

The sound design in the film was fascinating.  It tried to take the audience into the world of the deaf.  The scenes where Ruben was first losing his hearing were particularly well-done.  And the metallic sounds of his implants was fascinating to listen to.  The film actually won two Oscars at the Academy Awards, one of which was for Best Sound Design.  The other was for Best Film Editing.  Those are both categories I know very little about, but I suspect they were well-deserved awards.

As the credits started to roll, I found myself wondering where Ruben would go.  Would he try to go back to the shelter and ask Joe for forgiveness?  Would he continue to use the implants on a regular basis, or had he finally accepted that his deafness was not a handicap, and live his life without depending on them?  Would Lou go after Ruben and try to find him, or would she understand why he left, and move on with her own life?  As I said, a movie that makes you ask those kinds of questions is a good movie, or at least it has a good ending.  This one was both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? – 1967

I liked this movie.  Sure, it was predictable, but it had a really good message.  The acting was all pretty amazing, and the script was well-written.  The movie’s big stars were Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracy.  Newcomer Kathrine Houghton filled out the main cast, but I have to make special mention of three other actors who each stood out to me as very good actors.  Roy E. Glenn, Beah Richards, and Isabel Sanford proved that they were every bit as good as the Hollywood superstars.

The movie was primarily about racism and it did a wonderful job of examining the issue from a few unique angles.  The movie was about a rich white family in San Francisco who are most definitely not racists.  Spencer Tracy plays the father, Matt Drayton, and Katherine Hepburn plays his wife, Christina.  Their 23 year old daughter Joanna comes home from a vacation in Hawaii, engaged to John Prentice, played by Poitier.   The main drama of the piece is centered around how the parents deal with the interracial relationship between Joanna and John.  Being a non-racist is all very well and good, but it is a different matter when it hits home in such a big way.

Sure, John seemed to be perfect husband material.  He was a prominent and wildly successful doctor.  He was kind, thoughtful, polite, respectful, conscientious, and clearly in love with Joanna.  The problem that Matt had with him was the color of his skin, and that’s OK because that was the social issue the film was trying to tackle.  But my problem would have been the fact that the girl wanted to marry a man she had only known for 10 days.  Forget skin color!  After only 10 days, you have no idea who this man is!

The film also looks at the situation from the perspective of the family’s black maid, Tilly, played by Sanford.  She showed a certain amount of anger at John because it was like he was trying to rise above his station, as if a black man had no business trying to marry a white woman.  Then there was the film’s surprising view of interracial relationships from the perspective of the church.  Monsignor Mike Ryan, played by Cecil Kellaway, was in full support of the marriage without reservations.

But for me, the stand out member of the cast was really Hepburn.  She had a couple of scenes that were priceless, the best of which is one in which she fires her employee for being a horribly racist woman.  Her little monologue was so perfect that it bears repeating here.  “Now I have some instructions for you. I want you to go straight back to the gallery – Start your motor – When you get to the gallery tell Jennifer that she will be looking after things temporarily, she’s to give me a ring if there’s anything she can’t deal with herself. Then go into the office, and make out a check, for “cash,” for the sum of $5,000. Then carefully, but carefully Hilary, remove absolutely everything that might subsequently remind me that you had ever been there, including that yellow thing with the blue bulbs which you have such an affection for. Then take the check, for $5,000, which I feel you deserve, and get – permanently – lost. It’s not that I don’t want to know you, Hilary – although I don’t – it’s just that I’m afraid we’re not really the sort of people that you can afford to be associated with.  Don’t speak, Hilary, just… go.”  A properly chagrined Hilary drives away without a word.  I loved it!  Then after that the film was pretty bold in its use of language when Joanna calls Hillary a “bitch!”  Quite surprising… but appropriate.

I also have to mention the incredible acting of John’s parents John Prentice Sr. and Mary, played by Glenn and Richards.  They were both great, but Beah Richards stood out to me as wonderful.  She doled out some of the film’s most profound wisdom, and she was pivotal in the film’s climax in which Matt changes his mind and decides to give his blessing on the marriage.  The film was a wonderful proponent of racial tolerance, released at a point in history when the issue was the hot topic.  But I think that it was the character of John who said it best when he said to his disapproving father, “You think of yourself as a colored man.  I think of myself as a man.”  How very true.   OK, maybe Poitier rivaled Hepburn in performance power.  Of course, Tracy’s speech at the end was supposed to be the film’s main emotional climax, but while it was good, his style of subtle and understated emotion just didn’t pack the same punch as the other actors.

This is a film that I cannot find to watch.

In Old Arizona – 1928 / 1929

Here we have the first western that was nominated for the Best Picture award.  Again, it was made right at the point where the silent era was dying and the talkie era was beginning.  That being said, the actors were still acting the only way they knew how.  They were making the big gestures and over-exaggerated facial expressions that were necessary for silent films.  The subtleties of the new style of acting had not yet taken hold.

It starred Warner Baxter as the Cisco Kid, one of the most infamous criminals of the Old West.  He was young, attractive and charming.  But he also robbed stagecoaches at gunpoint and that sort of thing.  Despite that fact, the film portrayed him as a sympathetic character.  For example, he made a point of not stealing from any hard-working individuals.  He only robbed businesses which could afford the losses.  In fact, when it is revealed that some of what he stole belonged to a common man, he returned it to him with a smile, though he did so without revealing his identity.

He was a rascal who evaded the law, using nothing more than his wit and charm.  He toyed with them, always maintaining his anonymity and making them look like fools.  Even though he was technically the bad guy, the film portrays him as the hero.

But, all that being said, he had his one weakness, and her name was Tonia Maria.  She was played by actress Dorothy Burgess, who incidentally was the worst offender of the “silent movie” style acting in the film.   Tonia was a two-timing vamp who was selfish, devious and self-serving.  Like most classic vamps, she used sex to get what she wanted, and it was the only way she knew how to behave when dealing with men.

The Cisco Kid was, however, crazy about her.  He bought her things and professed his love for her over and over.  But there was a fly in the ointment.  The army officer charged with bringing in the Kid was Sergeant Mickey Dunn, played by Edmund Lowe.  Tonia casts her spell on him and he is smitten with her, as is she of him, despite his arrogance and swagger.

Ah, the dramatic possibilities are endless.  But suffice to say, that Tonia gets her just rewards in the end.  She is accidentally killed by Dunn.  You see, The Cisco Kid learned of her unfaithfulness and her plan to turn him in for the reward money.  He engineered the accident and got away scot-free.  But that’s alright, since by this point we have been captured by his charismatic charms.

The film was good in that it used authentic locations in Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, San Fernando Mission and the Mojave Desert.  It also had the distinction of being the first talkie to be filmed outdoors, which at the time was a pretty impressive feat.  In fact, the use of background sounds, which by today’s standards are taken for granted, such the sizzling of ham and eggs in a frying pan, or the rattle of a stagecoach as it rolls through the desert, were a novelty for the audiences of the 1920s.

However, the film’s biggest flaw was the pacing, which was pretty slow.  The movie was just over an hour and a half long, but I think the story could have been easily told in less than an hour.

Interesting note:  The original Cisco Kid was a fictional character created by O. Henry in his short story, The Caballero’s Way.  He was supposed to be a 25 year-old desperado who killed for sport and was responsible for at least 18 deaths.  In this film, he killed no-one.

Broadway Review of 1929 – 1928 / 1929

This is going to be a difficult picture to review, mainly because it wasn’t a movie.  It was exactly what the title says it is.  It is a review.  It was a combination of Vaudeville acts, the Ziegfeld Follies, and the Jack Benny Show.  It was a show of individual acts that ranged from tap-dancing to acrobatics, from comedy routines to Shakespeare, and from love ballads to ukuleles.  There was no story, no plot, no cinematography, few set decorations, and what little artfulness there was came in the form of special effects like turning the image of the dancers to a negative image, or making it appear that a woman was climbing out of a man’s coat pocket.

However, to give fair credit, there were a wide range of costumes and directing choices that added interest.  And there was at least one song that I recognized.  Who knew that the song Singing in the Rain was a hit before the Gene Kelly movie?    And there were also a lot of famous names that are still widely recognized today such as Joan Crawford, Charles King, Anita Page, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, and Jack Benny.  So I suppose this review will have to be a critique of the various acts that stood out to me, and the directing.

The review started out with a song and dance number by the dancing chorus.  The sound recording quality was so antiquated that I couldn’t understand what they were singing about.  Their choreography was simplistic and poorly executed.  It was as if they hadn’t had much time to rehearse and precision was not their top priority.  When the troupe of 30 or so dancers extended their arms, they were all at different angles.  Every now and then, I could see a dancer who appeared unconfident about his moves.  It just started the entire show off with an air of shabbiness.

Next, Jack Benny came on stage, acting as the emcee and spouting inane banter that was supposed to be funny.  Unfortunately, the jokes were obvious and clearly scripted.  I’m sorry, but a joke generally isn’t funny if you can see the punchline coming.  Case in point:  The Laurel and Hardy sketch.  Their physical humor and sight gags were mildly amusing, but when a gigantic cake is brought out, what do you think is going to happen?  Of course Oliver Hardy falls over and does a face plant into the cake.  It only would have been funny if I hadn’t seen it coming.

Anyway, a very young Joan Crawford had a song and dance that wasn’t too bad, though it was a far cry from Mildred Pierce or allegations of Mommy Dearest.  Also, Charles King’s singing was very polished in the song Your Mother and Mine.  Comedian Cliff Edwards had a few mildly amusing bits and actually got the song Singing In the Rain.

There was an enactment of Romeo and Juliet’s Balcony scene that was filmed in Technicolor with Norma Shearer and John Gilbert.  First it was played out straight, but then, played out a second time, using contemporary slang instead of Shakespearean language.  For example, Juliet would say “Now listen boyfriend.  You have a nice line of chatter, but how do I know you care for me in a big way?” to which Romeo would reply, “Julie, baby, I’m gaga about you.  No kiddin’ Honey.”

Girl tossing was a favorite game during the acrobatic numbers which showed lines of men tossing young women back and forth like rag dolls.  And more than one act featured men in drag.  Then, in a memorable scene, a bunch of young women were lying in beds as if sleeping, when a host of dancers in truly terrifying masks hypnotized them, forced them to dance, and then supposedly dragged them off to a fiery abyss.  Creepy.  Beyond strange, and creepy.

But though most of the acts are pretty unmemorable for modern audiences, I know why this film was nominated for Best Picture, despite the fact that it had no plot.  There were two reasons.  First, it was one of Hollywood’s earliest examples of a feature length film that used sound.  And second, the performers were some of Tinsel Town’s biggest headliners in 1929.  The film had a budget of $426,000, and made a profit of $1.1 million, which, in those days, was a seriously hefty bundle of dough.  So, good for them.  But I won’t be watching it a second time.

Alibi – 1928 / 1929

This film was… confusing.  The plot wasn’t terribly deep.  It wasn’t overly sentimental or dramatic.  It didn’t have any comedic content, and the acting was a little off, though I have learned that there was a reason for that.  But it did have a few redeeming qualities.  Alibi seemed to be trying too hard to be something it wasn’t.

OK, first let’s look at the plot.  A man is released from jail.  Suddenly he is at a table in a nightclub with two people who are introducing him to a beautiful young girl.  They dance and enjoy each other’s company.  Already we have problems.  At this point there is no way to know who the two people are, who the beautiful young girl is, or why they are all sitting together at the nightclub with the ex-con.  For that matter, we don’t know why he was in jail, or even his name.  It just started the film off as confusing, making it a challenge to decipher who anyone was or what their role in the plot was.

The jail-bird was prohibition gangster Chick Williams, played by Chester Morris.  The young woman was Joan Manning, played by Eleanor Griffith.  The two people who introduced them were fellow gangsters Buck and Daisy, played by Harry Stubbs and Mae Busch.

The character of Joan seemed to be all over the place.  She knows that they are all gangsters, but she naively believes that they are good people who are trying to be respectable.  She even goes so far as to marry Chick and plans to run away with him.  Oh, and she happens to be the police chief’s daughter.  But then she lies to her new husband.  But she really loves him.  But then she gives him away to the “coppers!”  Pick a side, Joan!

The script was a little trite and had the actors using language that a modern audience might not understand, making everything seem very dated.  The term “copper” was thrown around like an insult.  The characters were written as stereotypes and were pretty one dimensional.  The gangsters were all liars and cheats, the young girl was sweet and innocent, and the police were all clever and honest.

But once I learned who everyone was, and settled into the plot, it became easier and more enjoyable to watch.  The character of the undercover cop Danny McGann, played by Regis Toomey, was particularly interesting.  When dealing with his police co-workers, he was straight-laced and coherent.  But when dealing with the mob, he acted the part of an over-the-top sloppy drunk.

But I have to mention his death scene.  It was incredibly over-done and melodramatic.  It took him forever to die after getting shot in the back by Chick.  He is lying in a fellow police man’s arms and croaking things like, “It’s getting hard to see,” and “Goodbye, Tommy!”  They actually started playing the Hawaiian ukuleles in the background as the sun set on Danny’s life.

However, after doing a little research, I have discovered why all of the acting was so over-done and, dare I say, a bit hammy.  This movie was made right at the time when silent films were giving way to the talkies.  There were several alternate scenes that were filmed so that the film could be released in both formats.  The acting in silent films has to be done that way to display emotions without the use of spoken language.  But unfortunately, that style of acting did not translate very well into a speaking movie.

Aside from that, the film was passable.  The director, Roland West, did some interesting things with the camera, using unique angles and putting the camera on a rolling track for a few smooth motion shots.  Add to that a few special effects that were fairly innovative for the time, and you have some minor technical achievements.  But for my tastes, it didn’t hold up well, especially for a modern audience.

The Racket –1927 / 1928

I have to say, this was a rather average movie, even by the standards of the late 1920s.  It was a silent film, complete with dialogue cards and continuous music, which in those days would probably have been played live at the cinema by an organist.  The version of the film I watched had a re-done soundtrack by Robert Israel in 2004, which had been arranged for a full orchestra.  It starred Thomas Meighan, Louis Wolheim, Marie Prevost, Henry Sedley, George E. Stone, Sam De Grasse, Richard “Skeets” Gallagher, Lee Moran, and John Darrow. 

Before getting into the film’s plot, acting, and directing, I did find an interesting little bit of drama surrounding the film itself.  According to Wikipedia, only one original copy of the film is known to exist.  “It was long thought lost before being located in Howard Hughes’ film collection after his death.”  I don’t know.  I would guess that since it had been nominated for Outstanding Picture, someone would have thought to preserve a copy of the film simply for its historical value.  It was only sheer luck that the famous philanthropist happened to keep a copy of the movie in his personal collection.

Anyway, as average a film as it was, I have been questioning why The Racket was nominated for the top prize.  I can think of three reasons.  First, the movie was based on a 1927 Broadway play of the same name.  This tells me that it was a popular story that was fresh in the minds of theatre-goers.  Second, it apparently dealt with a hot issue of the day, namely gangsters and a corrupt police department and government officials.  For this reason alone, both the play and the movie were actually banned in Chicago.  And third, this was the very first Academy Awards.  They were still trying to figure out what really constituted a worthy nomination for the Outstanding Picture award. 

My first two suggestions are certainly valid.  Other movies have been nominated for lesser reasons than those: popularity and social relevance.  My third speculation is little more than a guess on my part, but the reason I have to consider it is that I look at the two other movies it was up against in the Outstanding Picture category at that first awards ceremony.  First was a movie called Seventh Heaven.  This was a wonderful film that was innovative in both its story-telling, and its cinematography.  It had a great cast that portrayed some pretty complex and fascinating characters.  And then there was Wings, the first movie to ever take home the top honor.  Wings was a thrilling war drama with some amazing action sequences, impressive special effects, and a gripping and poignant climax.  The Racket just doesn’t measure up.

This was the story of a driven and dedicated police officer named Captain James McQuigg, played by Meighan.  His arch nemesis is the gangster, Nick Scarsi, played by Wolheim.  The plot follows Captain McQuigg as he does what he can to build a case against the murderous gangster.  But he seems to be blocked at every turn.  Scarsi has both police and politicians in his pocket.  When any of his men are arrested, a writ of habeas corpus suddenly appears, demanding that they be released.  However, just as an interesting side note, I did a little reading and found the movie got it wrong.  A writ of habeas corpus cannot legally release an unlawfully arrested or detained suspect.  What it can do is demand that the suspect be taken to a court to determine the validity of the arrest.  It is not a “get out of jail free” card.

And what would a big Hollywood film of the 1920s be without a romance.  In steps Helen Hayes, played by Marie Prevost.  She is a nightclub dancer who has designs on Nick’s younger brother, Joe, played by Stone.  Joe isn’t a criminal like Nick, but he also isn’t a nice guy.  He tries to get fresh with her, and when she rejects his advances, he tells her to get out of his car and walk home.  She flags down a copper who tries to lean on Joe for being a jerk to the young lady.  Joe runs and a car chase ensues.  Joe is caught and arrested, and Helen is detained as a witness.

With Joe in prison, McQuigg has the means to get at Nick.  Nick arrives at the police station while McQuigg is out.  He tries to bribe an officer to free his brother, but is refused.  Nick then murders the officer and punches out a handsome young reporter named Dave Ames, played by Darrow, who has taken a liking to Helen.  He goes out of his way to be nice to her, and she starts to fall for the boy.  But the nail in Nick’s coffin is the dirty politician, who McQuigg convinces to turn against the gangster.  When he is at last cornered, Nick tries to murder his arch rival and make a run for it, but he is shot and killed by the D.A., Mr. Welch, played by De Grasse. 

The plot wasn’t special or unexpected.  The directing of Lewis Milestone wasn’t inspiring or innovative.  The action wasn’t that thrilling and the romance wasn’t that deep.  The acting was passable for a silent film, though I will say that Meighan, playing the main protagonist, was completely outshone by his co-star, Wolheim, who was far more interesting to watch on the screen.  The Racket wasn’t a bad film, but it just didn’t seem to be on the same level as its rivals.