I'll tell you why so serious

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Having become a fan of director West via the ‘old dark house’-type comedy-thriller THE BAT WHISPERS (1930), I looked forward to watching every ‘new’ film of his – in the intervening years since that first viewing of BAT (on the eve of the Millennium, no less!), I had only managed to catch up with the somewhat unsatisfactory Lon Chaney vehicle THE MONSTER (1925) but, now, in quick succession came the original Silent version of THE BAT (1926) and ALIBI (1929), his first Talkie (notable for its innovative early Sound technique).The latter is a gangster melodrama (a genre pioneered by Josef von Sternberg’s UNDERWORLD [1927]) whose quality was even recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, where it was in the running for three Oscars – Best Picture, Best Actor (forgotten star Chester Morris) and Best Art Direction (by the renowned William Cameron Menzies). While there are many who now look at it merely as a curio – and there’s no denying that its chief interest, after all these years, remains West’s artistic approach to the medium (extending also to camera position and movement, editing, and set design) – I found the plot itself, simple and moralistic though it is, reasonably absorbing.Morris has just been released from prison and, while resuming his criminal activities, conveniently hitches up with a policeman’s daughter – she’s obviously naïve and speaks up for him when confronted with a murder rap. An undercover agent (Regis Toomey – who, feigning a drunken act, starts off by being obnoxious but eventually proves both hero and martyr) is ironically called upon to provide an alibi for Morris…but the girl unwittingly blows his cover and, inevitably, spells the man’s doom (bafflingly, West even places unwarranted emphasis on his overlong and maudlin death scene!). Eventually cornered in the top-floor of a high-rise, Morris breaks down before the cop who had been his rival for the heroine’s affections, revealing his true color (the star’s performance – alternating between smugness and a perpetual scowl – hadn’t been particularly distinguished up to that point, but he effectively shows his range here: his come-uppance, then, is truly incredible and unexpected). Also worth mentioning is the film’s unflinching brutality: Morris’ associate, the ageing owner of a popular establishment, has a tempestuous relationship with his “dizzy” moll (played by Mae Busch, frequent foil for the comic duo of Laurel & Hardy) and, at one point, he pushes her and she bashes her head against a cabinet!; later on in the scene, it’s he who gets thrown clear across the room by a punch from an enraged Morris.Having just read the “DVD Talk” and “Slant Magazine” reviewers’ comments on the film, I’m not sure I agree completely – perhaps because I knew beforehand Morris would be playing a crook – with their contention that the line between hero and villain is deliberately blurred (in view of the Police’s objectionable methods, particularly a scene in which a captured member of Morris’ gang is literally terrorized into a confession) and even arguing that the gangster is initially depicted as sympathetic (his stretch in jail having apparently been the result of a frame-up). However, I got the impression that the Police were required to be tough in order to effectively meet the gangsters’ wave of lawlessness and violence (note how the cops stick together when a colleague of theirs is callously slain during a robbery, with the synchronized rapping of police clubs – the film was, in fact, based on a play called “Nightstick” – unleashing a dragnet over the whole area in a matter of seconds). Incidentally, an inspired way to further showcase the new-fangled Sound system was by throwing in a handful of ‘static’ musical numbers during the nightclub sequences! That said, the quality of the “restored” audio was frankly quite horrid – with dialogue often too low to grasp or else being drowned out by extensive crackling on the soundtrack, and even dropping out entirely for a few seconds a couple of times! While nowhere near as distracting, the DVD transfer does display occasional combing; for some reason, too, the opening credits of the film have been digitally recreated!

Alibi (1929) ** (out of 4) Early talkie has a gangster (Chester Morris) released from prison and deciding to go straight. He married a police captain's daughter (Mae Busch) but soon afterwards police begin to think he was behind a cop killing. This thing was a huge hit back in the day and even got Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Actor but time hasn't been too friendly to this thing. Like many early talkies, the film spends way too much time letting the viewing know that it can talk. In fact, the first minute is nothing more than various police hitting their nightsticks up against a wall so that the sound effects can come through. Also with most early talkies, the characters just keep talking and talking and most of the talk has nothing to do with the plot of the film. Director Roland West does a nice job in certain aspects but I guess you can't blame him since I'm sure the studio was wanting to show off this new format. Future Boston Blackie star Morris is good in his role but it's Busch who steals the show. Some might remember her from The Unholy Three as well as several Laurel and Hardy shorts.

It's hard to watch this film out of the context of 1929 when it was first released. The Idea of a talking moving picture was still a novelty. In fact this film was released simultaneously with a silent version for those theaters that had yet to convert to sound. That said the biggest problem with this film is that it doesn't seem to know which side of the law it wants to side with, first it makes the cops out to be, I don't want to say bad guys, so let's just say unlikable. Then towards the end it's creates the criminal as well lets also say unlikeable. The problem is that it has one of the worst transitions I've ever seen. Again one has to go back to the time in which the film was made, this at the height of Al Capone and the bootlegging racketeering of that period and just before the stock market was to crash in October. Today many people see the police forces in a dualistic light, as being both there to serve and protect, and as villains with a corrupt politicized agenda. With this the film should hold up, but it doesn't. The main problem is that the characters are so flat and unlikable. It's hard to care one iota about who lives and who dies. In the end it's a film about jerks, plain and simple. I doubt however that when the film was released the audiences of the day had this same feeling. The idea of beating or threatening a criminal suspect was most likely looked at as not only acceptable but necessary. It's hard to come down on the film one way or the other, as I have mixed feelings about it as a whole. With that said the ending is one of the most anticlimactic endings I've seen since Chinatown. In that film, the whole concept of the movie was based around this idea of the inevitable of the outcome. Alibi fails in that it doesn't seem to hold on to any one concept for too long, instead making leaps that just feel awkward and clumsy. I think that what most likely amazed the audience was the fact that Alibi is one of the first films to start to play around with the sound design, having a moving camera and dancing and sound all working simultaneously creating a spectacle that most film goes of the day had never seen before. I can't say stay away from this film as it has it's place in the pantheon of cinema history, in part because it was nominated for Best Picture at the academy awards. However, if you're just looking for a classic film to watch on a Saturday night, you might want to steer clear of this one.

I know it is de rigor to inform readers if a comment contains spoilers but I want to issue an even sterner warning that this comment will treat the plot of ALIBI (1929) as mere fodder to be referred to in passing regardless of the consequences for those who haven't seen the film and who might want to maintain some sort of "suspense". For me the most interesting aspect of ALIBI is the fact that at this point (1929) the film industries of the US, Britain, Germany and France were equally capable of producing this type of film. The urban crime drama may have been pioneered by the French feuillade whose roots go back to written literature but it was perfected by Lang and the German School. Film Expressionism cried out for the geometrical shapes and dark shadows of the urban setting and the speed of what was just becoming known as 'modern life'. After all it was only in 1920 that 50% of the American population lived in cities even though the Jeffersonian ideal of the rural ideal was to linger in both film and literature until WW2.While expressionist lighting was used to tell the quintessential urban tale, the gangster story, in Germany, it was imitated around the world. The most adept imitator was Alfred Hitchcock, a one time art director who made his first film in Germany. It is important when discussing ALIBI to compare it to Hitchcock's contemporary effort BLACKMAIL, which was also shot in silent and sound versions. In fact ALIBI comes off as being vastly inferior. This is because ALIBI's auteur, Roland West is merely artistic while Hitchcock is an Artist.The disparity is most evident in the talking portions of ALIBI. There are problems with the sound which look like a compendium of SINGING IN THE RAIN gags. Sound levels vary and people are grouped, presumably to be in close proximity to the microphones. There is even a song in which the vocalist is seen badly lip synching to what, in the days before mechanical playback, must have been the actual singer off-camera. Hitchcock had a similar problem in that his female lead had a heavy Slavic accent and had to lip sync her entire role, which he pulled off far more effectively.The overwhelmingly biggest problem in the talking portions of ALIBI is the acting. Screen acting in talking films just hadn't been done and in this film everyone seems to be counting to three before talking. Its very off putting. Regis Toomy plays an undercover cop pretending to be a drunken stock broker referred to as "The Boy Wonder". He plays it like a grinning idiot with a silly broad smile on his face which seems to have been carved on in imitation of THE MAN WHO LAUGHED. No thought to the idea that he might appear sober and progressively get drunker and drunker, he's just a full time fool who couldn't have put over his act to a room full of ten year olds. Chester Morris, who was actually nominated for an Oscar for his performance, changes his demeanor as the role, NOT the character, demands. Released from prison, after a very effective silent montage, he assumes the leadership of a gang on no authority at all. His showy scene at the end where he becomes a blubbering coward reeks more of propaganda than drama. Re: All gangsters are yellow. When the undercover cop is discovered he is murdered somewhat inexplicably as knowing they were discovered the gang would have been better advised to get the hell out and not square accounts which would inevitably lead to the electric chair. However the necessities of propaganda required the villains kick the dog to confirm their sinister evil. Toomy has a super hammy drawn out death scene in which he actually wonders out loud why its getting dark. The academy might have thought this scenery eating was just the ticket in talking screen acting but apparently the public hated it and actors had to adapt to the new medium or else new actors untainted by the conventions of the stage brought in. Again, Hitchcock's characters are human beings, dualistic and inconsistent, their reactions ambiguous even to themselves. In ALIBI characters are set in stone and lack even free will. They act at the behest of a rigid morality tale whose points are hammered home. The police acquire information by literally pointing a gun at a suspects head not because they are tarred with the same brutal brush as the gangsters but to point out that this is the only way to treat 'them".The settings are over the top as well. Early geometrical deco, adapted from cubist designs and the neo-Mayan decorations of Frank Lloyd Wright (the curvilinear 'streamlined" deco was to come later) overwhelm the backgrounds. The silent scenes are very well shot. West knows the dramatic power of the dynamically unbalanced frame. Some shots use Caligari like angles and black and white shadows. There is a high shot of a car coming around a corner and stopping (done twice) which looks like it could have been lifted entire from Lang. (Also pointing out that as well as their film industries, automobile design hadn't yet diverged either.) Crowds pass by nighttime city streets as in Murnau. There are successful attempts at process shots and less successful attempts to use sound 'creatively'. Again, West's attempts pale beside Hitchcock's famous 'knife' sequence.As can be found in Roland West's IMDb biography, when he died he reputedly made a deathbed confession to Chester Morris that he murdered his mistress, Thelma Todd, whose death ended his Hollywood career. Morris and Todd co-starred in West' last film, CORSAIR (1931), another gangster melodrama. Apparently, unlike Hitchcock or Lang, West became involved in the gangster milieu rather than the cinematic arts.