Sunday, September 22, 2013

Movie Review: Scandal Sheet


Scandal Sheet (1952)
directed by Phil Karlson, starring Broderick Crawford, John Derek

Note: This is my entry in the Journalism in Classic Film Blogathon, hosted by Comet Over Hollywood and Lindsay's Movie Musings

Once upon a time, the Daily Express was a respectable newspaper. In the hands of the unscrupulous editor Mark Chapman (Broderick Crawford), it's devolved into little more than a tabloid, with headlines like "Police Seek Gorilla Man-Slayer." Honor and prestige don't matter much to Chapman though, so long as circulation keeps rising. His star reporter Steve McCleary (John Derek) is a chip off the old block, resorting to tricks and lies to get the best headlines. Columnist Julie Allison (Donna Reed) is appalled at Chapman and McCleary's tactics but her objections are always steamrollered.

But Chapman's latest gag will wind up tying a noose around his neck. At a Lonelyhearts Ball sponsored by the Daily Express, a woman (Rosemary DeCamp) approaches Chapman with news that could break his career. She's the wife he abandoned twenty years ago and she's going to let the whole world know what a crook he is. They struggle and Chapman accidentally kills her. He covers up the crime, but he doesn't reckon on just how well he trained his protege McCleary. The young man is convinced that the Lonelyhearts Murder will be the story of his career and he's determined to sniff out every possible lead. Now Chapman is caught in a game of keeping McCleary off his trail without drawing suspicion. He's got to keep this story buried...no matter who he has to bury along with it.


One of my high school English teachers used to quote from a text that said detectives are the most natural heroes of a story because they want the same thing the reader wants: to know what's going on. The same thing could be said for fictional reporters with one crucial difference. It's the reporter's job to tell the truth, to broadcast it and sell it. A fictional detective can uncover the murderer and go home to tea and biscuits, satisfied that his work is done. The reporter always has to make a choice in how the information is used. It's a distinction that makes the reporter equally adept in the role of villain or hero. Things will never be clear-cut for them. There will always be consequences. There will always be one eye on the profit margin. No wonder reporters are always such cynics in the movies.

Scandal Sheet takes a basic but irresistible premise: what if the reporter was the one who committed the crime? And what if he had to make it look like he wanted to uncover the truth, even while doing everything possible to conceal it? The movie raises the stakes even further by pitting the villainous protagonist against his own protege, a man who'll do anything to get the story because that's what his boss taught him. The irony is that the investigation begins to turn the selfish younger reporter into a more principled man just as his mentor keeps sinking further into evil.


The movie was adapted from a novel by Samuel Fuller, the same Fuller that went on to direct Pickup on South Street and Shock Corridor. Before he went into movies, he was in journalism, starting work as a crime reporter at the age of 17. His experiences gave him a perfect insight into the workings of a journalist's world and he would return to the theme many times, from the obsessive, ambitious protagonist of Shock Corridor, convinced he'll win the Pulitzer to the dedicated, idealistic reporters of Park Row (Fuller's own favorite film). Fuller unfortunately did not adapt the screenplay for Scandal Sheet nor did he direct; it would have been a real pleasure to see Fuller's gritty, chaotic take on the misfits that live on the edges of scandal rags. Few noir directors had Fuller's affection for the sleazy and grimy back alleys of the city or his ability to characterize its twisted inhabitants without condescension. The only one I can compare him to is Jules Dassin but Dassin was always more elegant and broadly humanistic in his approach. Fuller is messy and eccentric and that's what makes his style so fun.

But if we can't have Fuller, director Phil Karlson is no slouch either. In fact, he's probably the film's biggest asset. Karlson's greatest gifts were pacing and control; his movies transition smoothly from scenes of talk to scenes of brutal shocking violence in a way that leaves you dizzy. His masterpiece The Phenix City Story is a prime example, slowly upping the ante with each killing and somehow managing to make each one a sadistic surprise. Here, he stages the initial killing with a striking shot of Chapman's wife moving around him, her voice rising to a shriek as she threatens him with the destruction of everything he's worked for. Karlson's camera follows her in a circle, as if the woman is literally walking in the shape of a noose. When she and Chapman begin to struggle, it feels truly violent, with the wife digging her nails into the man's hair. The fight ends with her cracking her head on a pipe and Karlson lingers on the agonized expression of her face.


Even better is Chapman's later killing of an innocent, alcoholic former reporter (Henry O'Neill). The man knows too much and can't be allowed to live. Another director might have framed the scene to allow Broderick Crawford's threatening bulk to overwhelm the older O'Neill. Karlson keeps them in a merciless extreme closeup, cutting between Crawford's shadowed face and O'Neill's immediate awareness of his own death. The faces tell the whole story.

Faces are a constant visual theme in Scandal Sheet. Karlson keeps returning to extreme closeups throughout the film, allowing scenes to play out through the changing expressions of the actors. He also collects interesting faces to populate the film, from the beaten-down but elaborately made-up former wife (Rosemary DeCamp) to the pop-eyed drunk that comes with information. One of the more striking shots of the movie is a scene where McCleary goes to question the local alcoholics and Karlson lets the camera travel slowly down the bar, letting us look closely at each man's face, seeing the wrinkles and shadows and disappointments that make up these men's lives. That single shot tells us so much about how society and the glib McCleary view these men, while letting us see the barhounds' grim humanity. The whole movie in fact, hinges on people's ability to remember faces. It's that which trips Chapman up and it's his fatal flaw. He's so focused on circulation numbers and suckers and slobs that he can never truly see the faces, only the figures.


I've had an allergy to Broderick Crawford since Born Yesterday. His one-note, blustery, growly performance and lack of comic timing just dragged scene after scene through the cement mixer. Thankfully, Scandal Sheet asks him to play it cool and contained so the shouting is kept to a minimum here. As the editor and unwilling murderer Mark Chapman, Crawford is gruff but professional, careful to keep his frustrations under wraps. He conveys the man's growing panic mostly through the eyes, his gaze shifting away just a little too fast when someone tries to bring up a new angle on the Lonelyhearts Murder. Chapman ends up as the embodiment of "win-at-all-costs" journalism, a man whose disregard for the human beings behind the circulation numbers will be his undoing. Complete scum but Crawford finds a note of pathos in the man's ultimate fate.

What Crawford can't convey, however, is the kind of sleazy charisma that elevated other "evil journalist" films like Sweet Smell of Success and Ace in the Hole. Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas were black of heart but nobody could doubt their smarts, the pleasure they took in working over the masses. They were con man, but you couldn't help admiring their style. Broderick Crawford has bull-headed determination on his side, but no allure. This really deadens the impact of the film's central relationship; the one between Chapman and his slick, admiring protege McCleary. Crawford just doesn't seem believable as the object of someone's hero worship. Put someone like Robert Ryan in his place and it would make more sense.


John Derek's performance as Steve McCleary has the opposite problem. While Crawford's performance only really becomes great at the end, Derek's only really great in the beginning. He's perfectly suited as the callow reporter, so convinced of his charm and appeal that he can hustle Donna Reed into buying him dinner and dismiss her in the same breath. Derek's long lashes and skinny good looks seem bizarrely contemporary for a mid-century film; he's almost drowning in the heavy overcoats of the period. You could CGI him into any random CW show today and he'd fit right in. Still, the man carries off McCleary's fast-paced dialogue and smug reactions well; it's like watching a man bang around in a sports car, not even realizing how much he's scratching up the paint job. Derek's on shakier ground when McCleary has to discover sincerity. The movie doesn't set up any great chemistry between him and Crawford and Derek can't supply the emotional depth on his own. You imagine something like the relationship between Edward G. Robinson and Fred MacMurray in Double Indemnity and Scandal Sheet could have been a great film.


But if I'm faulting the movie for not achieving greatness, that's only because it so often seems close to getting there. The screenplay crackles with the kind of sharp, zinging lines that's essential to any great newspaper movie. "Don't count your steaks before you hear the sizzle." "I always said you were born in a field of shamrocks." "You're still too big for Dead End Street." "Does the judge's needle sew anything up?" "Everything but knotting the thread at the end...I mean the noose." The movie is full of clever details that add greatly to the atmosphere and themes. For example, The Lonelyhearts Ball lures couples to the altar with the promise of a bed with a built-in television set (oh great shades of the reality shows to come). The newspaper office is overshadowed by a giant clock that marks the rising circulation numbers. The numbers grow with the Lonelyhearts Murder Coverage, just as Chapman's time starts to run out. There's a lot of creativity and a lot of intelligence at work here. Ultimately the movie ends up as a good, sharp noir that promises a little more than it can deliver. But then, every journalist knows that it's not just the story. It's how you tell it. And Scandal Sheet does a fine job at that.


Favorite Quote:

"We got a new man on this beat that's built like you between the ears. He saw a hole in the back of the dame's skull and figured she was slugged." 

Favorite Scene:

The final confrontation. Karlson manages to take a climax that would be disappointingly basic, a simple case of a man remembering one crucial detail while the murderer foolishly hangs around rather than making a break for it, and makes it completely riveting. Everything plays out in tight closeups, with Broderick Crawford sliding in and out of the shadows. You can see his last shreds of hope warring with his fear as he tries, futilely, to hide his too-famous face from view. All while his protege slowly comes to realize that the man he's idolized has been a stranger all along. It's slow and suspenseful and finishes on a wickedly smart final image, a fitting riposte to the career of Mark Chapman, the man who traded in scandal.

Final Six Words:

Gives new meaning to "screaming headlines"

20 comments:

  1. Great review. Love your description "he's almost drowning in the heavy overcoats of the period".
    As you say, Crawford and Derek weren't quite Robinson and MacMurray.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Crawford and Derek weren't quite Robinson and MacMurray." I could have just said that and this review would be a lot shorter :). In Crawford and Derek's defense though, the screenplay doesn't bother to sketch out their friendship much. Double Indemnity spent a lot of time on Robinson and MacMurray together.

      Delete
  2. Henry O'Neill really knocked my socks off in this movie. Over the years I must have seen him play the straight and narrow businessman or judge about a hundred times. He always looked like he woke up in the morning perfectly groomed. He must have had a ball playing old Charlie.

    You really hit on the things that work and that don't work about "Scandal Sheet". Great job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought a lot about O'Neill while I was writing the review. He manages to flesh out his character beautifully in a few short scenes and you really get a sense of the man's intelligence and regret.

      Delete
  3. What a great review - I certainly agree with your favourite scene! This was the film that introduced me to Henry O'Neill and prompted me to watch almost everything else he was in - I loved his performance that much!
    Thanks for sharing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's two for the Henry O'Neill fans! Just realized that he's in one of my favorite movies, The Reckless Moment.

      Delete
  4. Aubyn, while SCANDAL SHEET may have its pros and cons, you have me curious to check it out. I was intrigued by your comparison between Broderick Crawford and John Derek (who seems to have found his artistic niche as a photographer since then), I like your comments about the film's interesting faces, including: "(CGI (Derek) into any random CW show today and he'd fit right in." SCANDAL SHEET might also be an interesting double-feature with one of my favorites, John Farrow's THE BIG CLOCK. You did a great job with your Journalism in Classic Film blog entry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's definitely worth a look, for noir fans and fans of film in general. My thoughts on Derek were sort of influenced by a discussion I was having with my mom. We were talking about how hard it was to imagine Grace Kelly in contemporary clothes, without her classic style (see, these are the kind of things I talk about with my mom). And then it came to me that Derek was kind of the opposite, in that his looks seem tailor-made for our times. At any rate, the man was easy on the eyes.

      Delete
  5. This review was a LOT of fun to read. (As all your reviews are.) Like a commenter mentioned above, I'm also very interested to check it out and see for myself-- thanks for putting this film onto my radar!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're too kind. I'd be curious to find out your take on the film.

      Delete
  6. Your wonderful review has made me want to see this film. I'm a big fan of Broderick Crawford (his performance in "Born Yesterday" notwithstanding) and I'd love to see him in this. Great addition to the blogathon!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's really nice to hear from a Crawford fan and to get some assurance that I didn't go too hard on the man. I can't say I'll really be able to draw a bead on the man's acting until I see him in All the King's Men. I was surprised by his ability to work up some genuine...not sympathy so much as empathy for the character's predicament here.

      Delete
  7. Ditto to the above- your wonderful review has made me curious to see this. Sounds like a good rainy Saturday kind of movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That pretty much sums it up. It moves along at a very crisp, smart pace and the tension doesn't let up.

      Delete
  8. I like Scandal Sheet a lot. Sure, it has all the faults you mention, but a lot of films have similar flaws and overcome them, like this one, with the vitality of good pulp fiction. I wish you had more to say about Donna Reed here. To my mind, she's one of the best things in the film, and waaaaaay out of John Derek's class.

    Best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The vitality of good pulp fiction." You're quite right. I do wish I'd talked more about Donna Reed here, since she does play an important part in the movie but frankly, I never found an appropriate place to slip it into the review. Truthfully, I think she got stuck with the short end of the stick, since the script forces her to be the nagging conscience, telling us over and over how wrong it all is. That said, I think Reed does show a sarcastic and intelligent side here that cuts into the sermonizing. Imagine if the film had made her into the corrupted, crusading investigator and just cut Derek out altogether. Now that would have been something to see!

      Delete
  9. Hard to fault your take on this film, some good insights. Crawford is indeed kind of one-note, just as we was in two films i watched just the other day, Night People and Human Desire; as second lead he was a little easier to deal with. I always liked Donna Reed, John Derek was always a hole in the screen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah, I forgot about Human Desire, when I wrote about Crawford. I guess I just feel that Paul Douglas was more nuanced and funny when it came to the comic, blustering roles and Edward G. Robinson had more intelligence and pathos. Hell, I even find Victor McLaglen more endearing in those big lug parts. But that doesn't make Crawford a washout and I think his performance here shows I shouldn't underestimate him.

      Delete
  10. Interesting take on reporters being cynics I've never given it much thought but I will now when watching films on the subject. : )

    You really drew me in with this review. I'm not the biggest Donna Reed fan but after reading, I think I'll give Scandal Sheet a try.

    Have a nice weekend!
    Page

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sweet Smell of Success, His Girl Friday, Ace in the Hole, Blessed Event, It Happened One Night, Citizen Kane, Nothing Sacred, etc...yeah, I really do feel that reporters in the movies tend to come off as fast-talking cynics. Fascinating, intelligent, charismatic cynics, though :). I'm glad you stopped by and that you're intrigued enough to give Scandal Sheet a look.

      Delete