Joan Blondell, Grant Mitchell, and the very young Tom Brown star in this early talkie from First National/Warner Brothers. When the bank bigshot is found moidered, the small town newspaper sends the story out on the wires, and all the bigtime reporters converge. Of course, they just want a story, any story, so they have already made up their minds about what happened. We even hear them talking about what might happen if the facts don't match their news stories. The coppers try to race to find out what really did happen, while the newspaper hounds from the big cities try to manipulate the local prosecutor and anyone involved. Will the truth get out before the big trial is over? Pretty fast moving. Good Story, if a bit exaggerated. Didn't win any awards, but those first few years of Oscars were hit or miss anyway. Directed by Lloyd Bacon, who started as an actor in the EARLY days of the silent films, and made the switchover to director, and sound. Story by Courtney Terrett. Made me think of Citizen Kane, when the reporters and publishers were not held to such a high standard of fact checking.
19 Reviews
"Oh, nothing ever happens in a town like this"
TheLittleSongbird23 August 2020
There were quite a few reasons for wanting to see 'The Famous Ferguson Case'. Really liked the concept, and will always admire it when any film offers a true to life and relevant today portrayal of the media. Have liked but not loved what has been seen of Lloyd Bacon's other work, which admittedly is not enough, and really liked how he handled atmosphere. A talented cast was involved here, including Joan Blondell in a different role from her famous wisecracking roles, though she did prove more than once that she could step away from that type of role.
Like she does here in 'The Famous Ferguson Case'. Other films of hers did a lot better though at utilising her, which was one of the film's bigger disappointments. 'The Famous Ferguson Case' is an interesting film with enough to recommend it. At the same time, it didn't strike as great and more uneven with a lot of good but a near-equal amount of not so good. It is worth a look but is a long way from an essential. Was not expecting masterpiece level just to say, it's not that type of film, but it should have been more than just decent.
Am going to start with the good things. It is slickly shot and even better is the appropriately moody lighting in spots and use of shadow. Bacon directs with ease, has an eye for atmosphere and succeeds in building up the momentum at the end. He agreed really shines in a powerful scene when the reporters see the consequences of their work. Some of the script is thought provoking, what is said about the media having both bite and relevance, and 'The Famous Ferguson Case' really does pick up towards the end in energy and in intrigue with more going on, ending strongly.
Blondell does a very good job with what is given to her, though for top billing her role is surprisingly not a large or meaty one. Grant Mitchell brings authority and fun to his part and it was hard to not cheer when his character expressed his view on the media, which is so true now. Two of the best performance come from Tom Brown, as one of the film's more likeable characters, and Leon Ames.
However, 'The Famous Ferguson Case' to me didn't start off that well. The early portions of the film are too talk-heavy and tediously paced, some of it also rather heavy-handed (the portrayal of the media at times is a little exaggerated). The opening is as long winded as one can get.
Kenneth Thomson overdoes it in his role and his character could have done with a toning down. Do agree too that everything about the prosecutor is stupid and downright incompetent.
Summing up, decent but not great. 6/10
Like she does here in 'The Famous Ferguson Case'. Other films of hers did a lot better though at utilising her, which was one of the film's bigger disappointments. 'The Famous Ferguson Case' is an interesting film with enough to recommend it. At the same time, it didn't strike as great and more uneven with a lot of good but a near-equal amount of not so good. It is worth a look but is a long way from an essential. Was not expecting masterpiece level just to say, it's not that type of film, but it should have been more than just decent.
Am going to start with the good things. It is slickly shot and even better is the appropriately moody lighting in spots and use of shadow. Bacon directs with ease, has an eye for atmosphere and succeeds in building up the momentum at the end. He agreed really shines in a powerful scene when the reporters see the consequences of their work. Some of the script is thought provoking, what is said about the media having both bite and relevance, and 'The Famous Ferguson Case' really does pick up towards the end in energy and in intrigue with more going on, ending strongly.
Blondell does a very good job with what is given to her, though for top billing her role is surprisingly not a large or meaty one. Grant Mitchell brings authority and fun to his part and it was hard to not cheer when his character expressed his view on the media, which is so true now. Two of the best performance come from Tom Brown, as one of the film's more likeable characters, and Leon Ames.
However, 'The Famous Ferguson Case' to me didn't start off that well. The early portions of the film are too talk-heavy and tediously paced, some of it also rather heavy-handed (the portrayal of the media at times is a little exaggerated). The opening is as long winded as one can get.
Kenneth Thomson overdoes it in his role and his character could have done with a toning down. Do agree too that everything about the prosecutor is stupid and downright incompetent.
Summing up, decent but not great. 6/10
"Famous" is not the right adjective!
JohnHowardReid29 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A newspaper yarn, "The Famous Ferguson Case" (1932) is something of a warm-up for director Lloyd Bacon's next movie, "Miss Pinkerton". This one, however, is rather dialogue bound. In fact, there's rather too much chatter, chatter, chatter all told! What's worse, despite is prolixity, it's all delivered at a rather flat, deliberate pace. True, some of the players do manage to keep the audience onside, and the plot itself moves along briskly enough when it's not weighed down by all the talk, but Bacon does little or nothing to communicate with his potential audience. Fortunately, in his next film, he shows more than a bit of form, so "The Famous Ferguson Case" cam be viewed as an anticipatory sampling of far better things to come!
Typical Entertaining Warners Film of the Time
bensonj15 January 2013
This is not "dull, trite and talky" as noted at the time by Variety, but a typically engaging 1932 Warners drama. The murder of a wealthy man in his country home is big news, especially since his wife seems to have quarreled with him that night about her boy friend. Two camps of reporters descend on the small town; the yellow journalists and the more responsible press. Joan Blondell is one of the bad crew, and is Kenneth Thomson's girlfriend, at least until the small town girl takes a shine to him. There are some nicely done scenes, particularly Blondell's cynically telling her rival what to expect from Thomson. She really belts it out in her inimitable style. Nearly as good is where Thomson himself tells the new girl what to expect; that he's an alcoholic and a manic depressive. It's good because he's pretty much telling the truth at the same time he's handing her a line. Tom Brown doesn't leave much of an impression as the local cub reporter, and the story cheats a bit on the solution of the murder. But the reporters' milieu, the good character-player line-up, and the general energy and pace of the production certainly make this worth seeing.
A Small-Town Drama
atlasmb22 August 2023
Upon its release, this film was quickly dismissed as "trite" by "Variety". In its day, it must have seemed like a rehash of commonly-debated issues regarding the press. From our point of view, it comes across as preachy and overcooked, but it still is an interesting glimpse into the concerns of the last century.
A small newspaper in suburban Cornwall, north of New York City, is run by Bruce Foster (Tom Brown) and his girlfriend, Toni Martin (Adrienne Dore). They dream of making it big in the city and leaving the small town behind. When a local murder case falls into their laps, Bruce sends the story out, including intimations of marital impropriety. Before long, hordes of reporters descend on the town, because the victim was a notable New York financier.
There are two camps of reporters: those looking for the truth and those looking for the sensational. Bruce and Toni fall under the influence of the big-city newsmen, as does County Attorney Jeffries (played admirably by character actor Clarence Wilson).
By the time the case goes to trial, the film has painted a black or white picture of the two methods of reporting. One side is respectful of journalism and legal proceedings. The other is dishonest, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt. Another big-city journalist named Maisie (Joan Blondell) travels between the two camps and provides commentary on the transgressions of the sinful. The film ends in expansive speeches, tragedy, karmic retribution, and the departure of the outsiders from Cornwall. And a touch of hope.
There is plenty of moralizing in this film, but there are also some fine moments. They may not stir the heart, but they are food for thought.
A small newspaper in suburban Cornwall, north of New York City, is run by Bruce Foster (Tom Brown) and his girlfriend, Toni Martin (Adrienne Dore). They dream of making it big in the city and leaving the small town behind. When a local murder case falls into their laps, Bruce sends the story out, including intimations of marital impropriety. Before long, hordes of reporters descend on the town, because the victim was a notable New York financier.
There are two camps of reporters: those looking for the truth and those looking for the sensational. Bruce and Toni fall under the influence of the big-city newsmen, as does County Attorney Jeffries (played admirably by character actor Clarence Wilson).
By the time the case goes to trial, the film has painted a black or white picture of the two methods of reporting. One side is respectful of journalism and legal proceedings. The other is dishonest, cynical, manipulative, and corrupt. Another big-city journalist named Maisie (Joan Blondell) travels between the two camps and provides commentary on the transgressions of the sinful. The film ends in expansive speeches, tragedy, karmic retribution, and the departure of the outsiders from Cornwall. And a touch of hope.
There is plenty of moralizing in this film, but there are also some fine moments. They may not stir the heart, but they are food for thought.
The Cynical vs The Hayseeds
sambase-3877317 November 2023
When the murder of a powerful man happens in a small town everybody starts nosing around. The big city newspaper boys show up and start manipulating and intimidating everybody to get the story they want even if it isn't true. The small town folks repeatedly give in to the big city boys and things get out of hand. You start wishing that somebody, anybody would punch these big city boys right on the jaw, knock them down and teach them a lesson about small towns and about truth. So that's what kept me watching. I wanted to see those big city newspaper boys get popped!
Some old movies start out strong, but then get weaker in the 2nd half. This movie not only stayed strong, but got even stronger in the 2nd half. It has a definite point to make and it makes it very effectively. There are some character speeches that help to solidify that. Those are well-written and well-acted.
It's a movie about the media and the truth. That problem is timeless and still exists today. This one is worth watching.
Some old movies start out strong, but then get weaker in the 2nd half. This movie not only stayed strong, but got even stronger in the 2nd half. It has a definite point to make and it makes it very effectively. There are some character speeches that help to solidify that. Those are well-written and well-acted.
It's a movie about the media and the truth. That problem is timeless and still exists today. This one is worth watching.
media circus film
SnoopyStyle23 October 2023
A shot rings out in the middle of the night in upstate New York. NYC banker George Ferguson is found shot to death and his young wife Vivian bound up. She claims that it's burglars. The news reporters race to cover the story as it becomes big news in NYC. Bruce Foster and girlfriend Toni Martin work for the local paper. Maizie Dickson (Joan Blondell) is a big city reporter. Bob Parks leads the group who sensationalizes the story.
This pre-Code film opens with text describing yellow journalism. This is trying to create a media circus. It's more tiring than exciting. I would rather have fewer reporters and give more time to the main leads. I expected much more screen time for Joan Blondell. I like the young local couple. Bob Parks is an important character. Everybody else can be either be cut out or minimalized. There is ambition here. The result is less impressive than I want.
This pre-Code film opens with text describing yellow journalism. This is trying to create a media circus. It's more tiring than exciting. I would rather have fewer reporters and give more time to the main leads. I expected much more screen time for Joan Blondell. I like the young local couple. Bob Parks is an important character. Everybody else can be either be cut out or minimalized. There is ambition here. The result is less impressive than I want.
More Stars Than There Are In Heaven!!!
kidboots24 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
In November 1931 Libby Holman, a singer with a uniquely husky voice who introduced "Moanin' Low", married a persistent stage door Johnnie - Zachery Smith Reynolds, heir to the Reynolds tobacco fortune. Eight months later he was dead - nobody really knew whether it was suicide or murder. Libby Holman and her lover were charged with his murder but because of the sensation it caused and the terrific influx of journalists allowed to walk around the crime scene, the truth was never really found out. Hollywood wanted to jump on the bandwagon and did the first official version of the story - "Reckless" with Libby Holman's good friend Jean Harlow but neither Holman nor Harlow were pleased with the results. But back in 1932 the real case was making sensational headlines and I think this movie is a thinly disguised attempt to deal with the effects shoddy yellow journalism has on a headline grabbing case.
Cornwall County is a sleepy little town where nothing ever happens - or so newspaper reporter Toni (Adrienne Dore) complains. She is using all her powers of persuasion to convince Bruce (Tom Brown) that his future lies in New York city. But like all sleepy little towns (in the movies anyway) this one is a cauldron of bubbling passions and it all comes to a head one night when Mr. Ferguson (Purnell Pratt), the most respected man in town, is shot dead. Mrs. Ferguson (Vivienne Osbourne) is having a not so secret affair with Judd Brooks (Leon Waycoff), a married man and somehow she is not terribly convincing when she is telling of her ordeal to the police.
Finally this town is News!!! and reporters descend from all over the country!!! Many of them are muck rakers who will stop at nothing to get a sensational story - even trumping up flimsy evidence against Judd who actually appears quite innocent of any knowledge of the crime. They turn up to interview his wife (Miriam Seegar) who becomes distraught and collapses. Meanwhile, while all the news hounds are hanging around fabricating evidence and trying to intimidate people who may have information, Bruce is doing his own leg work and investigating and manages to scoop them all.
While Joan Blondell and Grant Mitchell are the nominal stars, this is one movie that wouldn't get by without the rest of the cast - there are more stars in this than there are in heaven (to borrow MGM's phrase). Just when you start to think, this is a Joan Blondell movie without Joan Blondell, her part becomes more prominent - she plays (what else!!) a jaded reporter who is forever trying to reign in low life reporter Bob Parke's (Kenneth Thompson) roving eye and only by the movie's end gets wise to herself. She does have a great emotional scene towards the end when she gives Toni a few home truths about what her life will be like if she follows Bob's advice and goes to New York with him. A bit of the dialogue - "You're only jealous because I'm young" - "I'm only 20, younger than you, just imagine what you'll look like in a few years time" !!! Three cheers for Joan!!! And who's Grant Mitchell you ask. Well, Grant Mitchell was a terrific character actor from the early thirties. Not for him the forbidding fathers, he was always kind and left his kids wanting to make him proud ("Wild Boys of the Road" etc). In this movie he plays a decent but cynical reporter who as the story progresses is more and more disgusted with his journalistic colleagues. He also has a big moment at the end when he gives his opinion about how low some news hounds will stoop.
As to the rest of the cast - it seems that this was the movie to be seen in and anybody who sat in a chair was somebody!!! There was Vivienne Osbourne who gave intensity and drama to every role she played. Adrienne Dore, a cute blonde, who should have made a bigger splash. Tom Brown, a refreshing young juvenile who, like Anne Shirley, received his break in "Anne of Green Gables" (1934). Leslie Fenton always seemed to play dissipated young men - his "Nails" Nathan in "The Public Enemy" was memorable, dependable Walter Miller from the silent serials, Leon Waycoff, who went on to bigger things as Leon Ames, the under-rated Russell Hopton (he is the one sitting on a chair), J. Carroll Naish just starting out and last but not least Miriam Seegar, who passed away this year aged 104.
Cornwall County is a sleepy little town where nothing ever happens - or so newspaper reporter Toni (Adrienne Dore) complains. She is using all her powers of persuasion to convince Bruce (Tom Brown) that his future lies in New York city. But like all sleepy little towns (in the movies anyway) this one is a cauldron of bubbling passions and it all comes to a head one night when Mr. Ferguson (Purnell Pratt), the most respected man in town, is shot dead. Mrs. Ferguson (Vivienne Osbourne) is having a not so secret affair with Judd Brooks (Leon Waycoff), a married man and somehow she is not terribly convincing when she is telling of her ordeal to the police.
Finally this town is News!!! and reporters descend from all over the country!!! Many of them are muck rakers who will stop at nothing to get a sensational story - even trumping up flimsy evidence against Judd who actually appears quite innocent of any knowledge of the crime. They turn up to interview his wife (Miriam Seegar) who becomes distraught and collapses. Meanwhile, while all the news hounds are hanging around fabricating evidence and trying to intimidate people who may have information, Bruce is doing his own leg work and investigating and manages to scoop them all.
While Joan Blondell and Grant Mitchell are the nominal stars, this is one movie that wouldn't get by without the rest of the cast - there are more stars in this than there are in heaven (to borrow MGM's phrase). Just when you start to think, this is a Joan Blondell movie without Joan Blondell, her part becomes more prominent - she plays (what else!!) a jaded reporter who is forever trying to reign in low life reporter Bob Parke's (Kenneth Thompson) roving eye and only by the movie's end gets wise to herself. She does have a great emotional scene towards the end when she gives Toni a few home truths about what her life will be like if she follows Bob's advice and goes to New York with him. A bit of the dialogue - "You're only jealous because I'm young" - "I'm only 20, younger than you, just imagine what you'll look like in a few years time" !!! Three cheers for Joan!!! And who's Grant Mitchell you ask. Well, Grant Mitchell was a terrific character actor from the early thirties. Not for him the forbidding fathers, he was always kind and left his kids wanting to make him proud ("Wild Boys of the Road" etc). In this movie he plays a decent but cynical reporter who as the story progresses is more and more disgusted with his journalistic colleagues. He also has a big moment at the end when he gives his opinion about how low some news hounds will stoop.
As to the rest of the cast - it seems that this was the movie to be seen in and anybody who sat in a chair was somebody!!! There was Vivienne Osbourne who gave intensity and drama to every role she played. Adrienne Dore, a cute blonde, who should have made a bigger splash. Tom Brown, a refreshing young juvenile who, like Anne Shirley, received his break in "Anne of Green Gables" (1934). Leslie Fenton always seemed to play dissipated young men - his "Nails" Nathan in "The Public Enemy" was memorable, dependable Walter Miller from the silent serials, Leon Waycoff, who went on to bigger things as Leon Ames, the under-rated Russell Hopton (he is the one sitting on a chair), J. Carroll Naish just starting out and last but not least Miriam Seegar, who passed away this year aged 104.
For Blondell completists only
gbill-7487721 January 2020
Meant to be a critique of tabloid journalism, but far too heavy-handed in its delivery, starting from the lengthy forward that director Lloyd Bacon scrolls across the screen at the beginning. The power these newspapermen wield when interrogating witnesses, making up stories, and pushing around a milquetoast D.A. is crazy. Maybe if you believe that most news is 'fake news' this film may resonate with you, but otherwise the script is so lacking in every way (intelligence, artistry, charm,....) and it's a slog to sit through even with its short runtime. The main newspaperman (Kenneth Thomson) is annoying, and there's not nearly enough of Joan Blondell. Oh, and as a side note, that fainting scene at about the 40 minutes is pretty scary, as it looks like it would induced a concussion when Miriam Seegar (or her stunt double) hit the back of her head on the sidewalk.
Great ensemble film
westerfieldalfred22 January 2016
Fergusen is a top Warners programmer with a great ensemble cast. Blondell and Mitchell are the nominal stars but certainly don't have the flashiest parts. Virtually all of the actors do even the smallest parts with great believability, a credit to the director. Some aspects of the newspaper game are shown as sordid as they really were but frankly, a bit overplayed for dramatic value. As with some other Warners films of the period, notably I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang made the same year, this is a hard hitting message film meant to right a social wrong. It's obviousness detracts from the overall effect but it still hits you in the gut. The final scenes are as impressive as anything the studio has ever done. Deserves to be much better known and appreciated.
Fake news!
1930s_Time_Machine12 September 2022
Journalism's moral maze of complexities is simplified to an unrealistic black and white world of either good journalism or bad journalism. Although nuance, depth and subtlety are words not in this film's lexicon, it's still fairly watchable and does get its message across. Newspaper men made up a huge proportion of film writers, especially at Warners. It's natural therefore that the studios liked to make movies about a subject they had had first hand experience of and strong feelings about but that does make this a little preachy.
Because the characters are parachuted fully formed into the story, there's little time to get to know them all - and there are a lot of them. Consequently you don't get the chance to know them or feel that you want to know them and since you can't develop any empathy with them this film is a little cold and lifeless.
Because the characters are parachuted fully formed into the story, there's little time to get to know them all - and there are a lot of them. Consequently you don't get the chance to know them or feel that you want to know them and since you can't develop any empathy with them this film is a little cold and lifeless.
Has the press really changed that much since this film?
planktonrules6 December 2019
"The Famous Ferguson Case" is a movie that attacks many reporters--showing them to be a group of selfish, amoral ghouls who would murder their own mothers to sell a story! Along the way, they destroy and besmirch people with abandon.
Bruce Foster (Tom Brown) stars in this story, though oddly he's billed very low in the credits. Regardless, he's excellent as a naive young man who hopes to become a newspaper reporter. His chance comes when Mr. Ferguson is murdered and he's the first one on the scene. Because he broke the story, the veteran reporters who soon arrive take him under their wing...and he gets to see their yellow journalism first hand. In order to make a story where there isn't one, the leader of these scumbags convinces the simple-minded District Attorney to prosecute the man's widow...insinuating that the murder was a crime of passion and that Mrs. Ferguson and her supposed lover did it! The problem is that she's innocent...and the man identified by the press as her lover isn't! But do they care? Not really. Will the true story ever come to light? And, if it does, what about that young reporter?
Like "Five Star Final" (1931), this film is a great indictment of the press--or at least the sleazy element why would do anything...anything to sell papers. And, like this other excellent film, it's rather timeless and still resonates well today. Although "The Famous Ferguson Case" occasionally pulls its punches (such as in the prologue), the film is a hard-hitting story....with plenty of entertainment as well as several shocking moments...such as the hard to watch fainting scene.
Bruce Foster (Tom Brown) stars in this story, though oddly he's billed very low in the credits. Regardless, he's excellent as a naive young man who hopes to become a newspaper reporter. His chance comes when Mr. Ferguson is murdered and he's the first one on the scene. Because he broke the story, the veteran reporters who soon arrive take him under their wing...and he gets to see their yellow journalism first hand. In order to make a story where there isn't one, the leader of these scumbags convinces the simple-minded District Attorney to prosecute the man's widow...insinuating that the murder was a crime of passion and that Mrs. Ferguson and her supposed lover did it! The problem is that she's innocent...and the man identified by the press as her lover isn't! But do they care? Not really. Will the true story ever come to light? And, if it does, what about that young reporter?
Like "Five Star Final" (1931), this film is a great indictment of the press--or at least the sleazy element why would do anything...anything to sell papers. And, like this other excellent film, it's rather timeless and still resonates well today. Although "The Famous Ferguson Case" occasionally pulls its punches (such as in the prologue), the film is a hard-hitting story....with plenty of entertainment as well as several shocking moments...such as the hard to watch fainting scene.
Visitig press
MikeMagi22 January 2016
Any movie that starts off with an apology is in trouble. But "The Famous Ferguson Case" opens with a long-winded credit crawl warning against newspapers that takes sides in a sensational murder case and run scare headlines. Only Tom Brown as a local reporter seems content to deal with the facts. As for the visiting journalists, they spend most of their time boozing, ribbing each other and occasionally filing stories back to New York. Joan Blondell is along for the ride as a sassy member of the band who is less than impressed with her male colleagues. Not a bad little thriller -- but not a very good one, either.
An early J.B. programmer
OldieMovieFan27 January 2024
Simple story about country vs. City attitudes, or rubes vs. Slickers. The credits proclaim Blondell as the star, with Grant Mitchell the other main actor, but it's really Tom Brown's show. The studios put quite a bit of effort into Brown, but he didn't have much in the way of star quality; he moved to supporting roles and had a fairly long career.
Blondell on the other hand has a strong screen presence, easily overwhelming the rest of the cast, but she doesn't have much screen time at all, and isn't given much to work with when she does appear. She completely overwhelms the second actress, Adrienne Dore (just as Kay Francis would do in 'Street of Women' and Ginger Rogers also, in 'The 13th Guest' a year or so later). It's easy to see why Dore had only a brief career in movies, even though she is stunningly beautiful; the camera loved all these great leading ladies and simply didn't love Adrienne.
Mitchell - and the film - could have been well served to have his scenes cut, since neither he nor they add anything to the movie.
Still, it's a fun little film, better than a lot of tv, and definitely worth watching for very early Blondell!!
Blondell on the other hand has a strong screen presence, easily overwhelming the rest of the cast, but she doesn't have much screen time at all, and isn't given much to work with when she does appear. She completely overwhelms the second actress, Adrienne Dore (just as Kay Francis would do in 'Street of Women' and Ginger Rogers also, in 'The 13th Guest' a year or so later). It's easy to see why Dore had only a brief career in movies, even though she is stunningly beautiful; the camera loved all these great leading ladies and simply didn't love Adrienne.
Mitchell - and the film - could have been well served to have his scenes cut, since neither he nor they add anything to the movie.
Still, it's a fun little film, better than a lot of tv, and definitely worth watching for very early Blondell!!
A really good WB precode on yellow journalism
AlsExGal13 August 2023
In a small upstate New York town, Marcia Ferguson (Vivienne Osborne) and local bank teller Jed Brooks (Leon Ames) are seen about town being maybe just a little too friendly to one another given that both are married to other people. Then Mr. Ferguson comes back from New York City unexpectedly - he's a big banker there and this is the Fergusons' summer home. That night shots are heard fired from the Ferguson home, a man is seen fleeing the scene, and the authorities find Mr. Ferguson dead on his bedroom floor with Mrs. Ferguson bound and gagged in her bed. She says two very distinctive looking burglars are the culprits, and that they have taken her six carat diamond ring. These are the facts of the situation, which a young local newspaperman, Bruce Foster, lays out in a story he does.
With Mr. Ferguson being such an important person, the press from New York City descend on the town. They aren't happy with the story being just about a burglary gone wrong with the burglars being unknown and at large. They want this to be about two lovers - allegedly Mrs. Ferguson and Jed Brooks - killing Mr. Ferguson and making it look like a burglary and then set about to make that be the story. They flatter and cajole the county attorney into action, and at first they similarly flatter and dazzle the local newspaper reporter Bruce Foster. But then he realizes that one of these big city reporters is romancing his sweetheart away from him with talk of the big city and plenty of booze. As a result, Foster has both a professional and a personal change of heart and sets out alone to determine the actual facts of the case. Complications ensue.
Nothing was sacred with Warners' precodes, because no institution is without corruption and the cynicism in Depression weary audiences was quite high, and this time WB takes aim at the press. It's not quite as good as Five Star Final from the previous year, but still it's a fine ensemble effort with some gut-wrenching moments, especially at the end.
There was some really interesting camera work in this one to the point that I was sure the director must be Michael Curtiz, but it was in fact Lloyd Bacon. If I have any complaint it's that Tom Brown is just too baby faced to be playing the part of the small town reporter, plus he is actually only 20 at this point.
With Mr. Ferguson being such an important person, the press from New York City descend on the town. They aren't happy with the story being just about a burglary gone wrong with the burglars being unknown and at large. They want this to be about two lovers - allegedly Mrs. Ferguson and Jed Brooks - killing Mr. Ferguson and making it look like a burglary and then set about to make that be the story. They flatter and cajole the county attorney into action, and at first they similarly flatter and dazzle the local newspaper reporter Bruce Foster. But then he realizes that one of these big city reporters is romancing his sweetheart away from him with talk of the big city and plenty of booze. As a result, Foster has both a professional and a personal change of heart and sets out alone to determine the actual facts of the case. Complications ensue.
Nothing was sacred with Warners' precodes, because no institution is without corruption and the cynicism in Depression weary audiences was quite high, and this time WB takes aim at the press. It's not quite as good as Five Star Final from the previous year, but still it's a fine ensemble effort with some gut-wrenching moments, especially at the end.
There was some really interesting camera work in this one to the point that I was sure the director must be Michael Curtiz, but it was in fact Lloyd Bacon. If I have any complaint it's that Tom Brown is just too baby faced to be playing the part of the small town reporter, plus he is actually only 20 at this point.
The Evils of Big City Media
view_and_review14 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
My dad taught me "what will make you laugh will make you cry." He used to say that to me whenever we'd play cards and I'd take big risks. When they worked I was "laughing." When they didn't work I was "crying."
"The Famous Ferguson Case" (TFFC) is a didactic movie teaching the same lesson about the media. It also has an underlying message denouncing the big city vis-a-vis small towns.
A murder occurred in the small city of Cornwall, New York. It became major news because the man murdered was George M. Ferguson (Purnell Pratt), a big time New York City banker who made his home in upstate New York. A trove of reporters from the Big Apple descended upon Cornwall with pomp, cynicism, and typewriters.
Mrs. Ferguson (Vivienne Osborne) was the most likely suspect, and for good reason. When we first saw her she was in the car with Judd Brooks (Leon Ames) and they were talking like more than just friends. Marcia Ferguson was surprised when her husband came back early from his normal stay in NYC. He didn't see his wife Marcia with Judd and it was clear that she didn't want him to.
Furthermore, on the night of the murder, Marcia had a fantastic story that seemed too unbelievable. She claimed that her husband was killed by a burglar while she was tied up. Mind you, she didn't look like she'd been in any kind of struggle, her retelling of the events were simply too fake looking (and sounding), and she needed a reporter to chime in with the word burglar for her to quickly pounce on that narrative and run with it. Plus, she said she'd fainted so she couldn't say what exactly happened.
All of this could be explained by the fact this movie was filmed in 1932. The fact she looked unmussed after the incident, the fact she sounded like she was acting when telling the story, and the fact she fainted--all normal for women in 1930's films. Still, I wasn't believing it and nor were the police.
The story got out to the big boys in journalism via Bruce Foster (Tom Brown), the reporter for Cornwall's paper and a guy who had "small town" written all over him. Bruce was quickly overshadowed by Robert Parks (Kenneth Thomson), Maizie Dickson (Joan Blondell), and their gang of reporters from the big city. While Bruce wanted to follow the story, Bob Parks wanted to make the story--even if it ruined lives.
I like that the movie wanted to show how injurious the media could be with their shady practices, however I think it was done a whole lot better by the movie "Scandal Sheet" (1931). This one was preachy like "Five Star Final" (1931).
There were a few things that happened in TFFC that were over the top, hence they detracted from the movie.
First, was the behavior of the big city reporters towards the small town officials. They pretty much bullied the D. A. (Clarence Wilson) into doing what they wanted, and they wanted Mrs. Ferguson tried for murder. I don't doubt that public officials make decisions based upon public image, but TFFC made it seem like the D. A. was a total sap who had no backbone whatsoever. Instead of following the law he followed the dictates of Bob Parks, a reporter for the New York Globe, and his posse.
Second, was the reporters making Mrs. Brooks (Miriam Seegar) faint. Oh! How weak the women were in 1932. Bob Parks and crew were peppering her with questions about her husband's whereabouts the night of the murder. Then they sprung it on her that he was arrested (not true) in order to get her to turn on her husband and spill the tea. Instead, she fainted upon that news and hit her head. It's a wonder how women have survived this long with their frequent fainting spells. Good thing they've had strong men to save them.
Mrs. Brooks later died and her husband, Judd Brooks--who wasn't really having an affair with Mrs. Ferguson, but still there was no explanation for his being with her--confronted Bob Parks and told him "you killed my wife" ala a similar scene in "Five Star Final." This whole scenario was drummed up in order to drive home the moral lowliness of some reporters, but I think it could've been illustrated a lot better.
The third, and final, occurrence that was over the top was the obvious-looking guilt of Mrs. Ferguson followed by no explanation of anything. Yes, they found the two burglars (which I thought was ridiculous), but that still didn't explain her relationship with Judd or why her whole appearance, demeanor, and story seemed patently fake. I think it behooved the writers to give the viewer answers to tie up loose ends.
I get it. The media is a double-edged sword. As one of the reporters stated, at times they are a public service and at times they just snoop into people's business. But, as I said in my review of "Five Star Final": we, the readers, viewers, and listeners are just as responsible then. If we ignored the salacious and only gave attention to what is important, then the media would have no choice but to report what matters and what's really news. So, as sanctimonious and preachy this movie wanted to be, they should be preaching about the consumers of media as much as the purveyors of that media.
Free on Internet Archive.
"The Famous Ferguson Case" (TFFC) is a didactic movie teaching the same lesson about the media. It also has an underlying message denouncing the big city vis-a-vis small towns.
A murder occurred in the small city of Cornwall, New York. It became major news because the man murdered was George M. Ferguson (Purnell Pratt), a big time New York City banker who made his home in upstate New York. A trove of reporters from the Big Apple descended upon Cornwall with pomp, cynicism, and typewriters.
Mrs. Ferguson (Vivienne Osborne) was the most likely suspect, and for good reason. When we first saw her she was in the car with Judd Brooks (Leon Ames) and they were talking like more than just friends. Marcia Ferguson was surprised when her husband came back early from his normal stay in NYC. He didn't see his wife Marcia with Judd and it was clear that she didn't want him to.
Furthermore, on the night of the murder, Marcia had a fantastic story that seemed too unbelievable. She claimed that her husband was killed by a burglar while she was tied up. Mind you, she didn't look like she'd been in any kind of struggle, her retelling of the events were simply too fake looking (and sounding), and she needed a reporter to chime in with the word burglar for her to quickly pounce on that narrative and run with it. Plus, she said she'd fainted so she couldn't say what exactly happened.
All of this could be explained by the fact this movie was filmed in 1932. The fact she looked unmussed after the incident, the fact she sounded like she was acting when telling the story, and the fact she fainted--all normal for women in 1930's films. Still, I wasn't believing it and nor were the police.
The story got out to the big boys in journalism via Bruce Foster (Tom Brown), the reporter for Cornwall's paper and a guy who had "small town" written all over him. Bruce was quickly overshadowed by Robert Parks (Kenneth Thomson), Maizie Dickson (Joan Blondell), and their gang of reporters from the big city. While Bruce wanted to follow the story, Bob Parks wanted to make the story--even if it ruined lives.
I like that the movie wanted to show how injurious the media could be with their shady practices, however I think it was done a whole lot better by the movie "Scandal Sheet" (1931). This one was preachy like "Five Star Final" (1931).
There were a few things that happened in TFFC that were over the top, hence they detracted from the movie.
First, was the behavior of the big city reporters towards the small town officials. They pretty much bullied the D. A. (Clarence Wilson) into doing what they wanted, and they wanted Mrs. Ferguson tried for murder. I don't doubt that public officials make decisions based upon public image, but TFFC made it seem like the D. A. was a total sap who had no backbone whatsoever. Instead of following the law he followed the dictates of Bob Parks, a reporter for the New York Globe, and his posse.
Second, was the reporters making Mrs. Brooks (Miriam Seegar) faint. Oh! How weak the women were in 1932. Bob Parks and crew were peppering her with questions about her husband's whereabouts the night of the murder. Then they sprung it on her that he was arrested (not true) in order to get her to turn on her husband and spill the tea. Instead, she fainted upon that news and hit her head. It's a wonder how women have survived this long with their frequent fainting spells. Good thing they've had strong men to save them.
Mrs. Brooks later died and her husband, Judd Brooks--who wasn't really having an affair with Mrs. Ferguson, but still there was no explanation for his being with her--confronted Bob Parks and told him "you killed my wife" ala a similar scene in "Five Star Final." This whole scenario was drummed up in order to drive home the moral lowliness of some reporters, but I think it could've been illustrated a lot better.
The third, and final, occurrence that was over the top was the obvious-looking guilt of Mrs. Ferguson followed by no explanation of anything. Yes, they found the two burglars (which I thought was ridiculous), but that still didn't explain her relationship with Judd or why her whole appearance, demeanor, and story seemed patently fake. I think it behooved the writers to give the viewer answers to tie up loose ends.
I get it. The media is a double-edged sword. As one of the reporters stated, at times they are a public service and at times they just snoop into people's business. But, as I said in my review of "Five Star Final": we, the readers, viewers, and listeners are just as responsible then. If we ignored the salacious and only gave attention to what is important, then the media would have no choice but to report what matters and what's really news. So, as sanctimonious and preachy this movie wanted to be, they should be preaching about the consumers of media as much as the purveyors of that media.
Free on Internet Archive.
Great Idea but Poorly Told
Michael_Elliott1 August 2012
The Famous Ferguson Case (1932)
** (out of 4)
A great idea is pretty much wasted due to a weak screenplay in this melodrama from Warner. Wall Street big shot Ferguson is shot and murdered inside his summer home and his wife (Vivienne Osborne) tells the police that she was tied up by some robbers. The case gets some of the biggest newspaper reporters in the country and soon they're putting the pieces together without any evidence and they think the better story would be that Mrs. Ferguson's rumored lover (Leon Ames) was behind the killing in an attempt for them two to knock off the husband. THE FAMOUS FERGUSON CASE kicks off with a prologue warning newspapers about not seeking the truth and instead coming up with fake stories to sell papers. It seems this warning would be even more understandable in 2012 but sadly the film takes a rather interesting story and does very little with it. I think the idea of showing how crooked reporters are could have made for a very interesting story but sadly the screenplay here comes off rather lazy at times and by the time the film's over it's just a tad bit too much to believe. The biggest problem is that the prosecutor here is just so downright stupid that he allows the reporters to pretty much tell him who to charge, tell him what happened and he's also dumb enough to have the reporters write his court speeches. This here is just so sloppily written that I didn't believe the situation for a second. Another problem is that the film clearly wants to get its message across and there's just a tad bit too much preaching instead of actually delivering a strong story to get the point across. The entire cast offers up very good performances but I'd say Joan Blondell is pretty much wasted in her role. Tom Brown is very good as the one good reporter trying to learn the truth and Adrienne Dore is good as his partner who starts to get a big head for fame. Ames is extremely good as the man drawn into this mess. The film picks up a little speed towards the end and this includes a terrifically directed sequence where the reporters are confronted by someone they've damaged. I won't spoil what happens but it's quite powerful but it's a shame the rest of the film wasn't this strong.
** (out of 4)
A great idea is pretty much wasted due to a weak screenplay in this melodrama from Warner. Wall Street big shot Ferguson is shot and murdered inside his summer home and his wife (Vivienne Osborne) tells the police that she was tied up by some robbers. The case gets some of the biggest newspaper reporters in the country and soon they're putting the pieces together without any evidence and they think the better story would be that Mrs. Ferguson's rumored lover (Leon Ames) was behind the killing in an attempt for them two to knock off the husband. THE FAMOUS FERGUSON CASE kicks off with a prologue warning newspapers about not seeking the truth and instead coming up with fake stories to sell papers. It seems this warning would be even more understandable in 2012 but sadly the film takes a rather interesting story and does very little with it. I think the idea of showing how crooked reporters are could have made for a very interesting story but sadly the screenplay here comes off rather lazy at times and by the time the film's over it's just a tad bit too much to believe. The biggest problem is that the prosecutor here is just so downright stupid that he allows the reporters to pretty much tell him who to charge, tell him what happened and he's also dumb enough to have the reporters write his court speeches. This here is just so sloppily written that I didn't believe the situation for a second. Another problem is that the film clearly wants to get its message across and there's just a tad bit too much preaching instead of actually delivering a strong story to get the point across. The entire cast offers up very good performances but I'd say Joan Blondell is pretty much wasted in her role. Tom Brown is very good as the one good reporter trying to learn the truth and Adrienne Dore is good as his partner who starts to get a big head for fame. Ames is extremely good as the man drawn into this mess. The film picks up a little speed towards the end and this includes a terrifically directed sequence where the reporters are confronted by someone they've damaged. I won't spoil what happens but it's quite powerful but it's a shame the rest of the film wasn't this strong.
Because We Made It So
boblipton9 August 2023
It seems to be about a murder case in a small, upstate New York town. It's not, though. What it is about is an expose of yellow journalism, the issue of newspaper reporters taking a story and forcing it into living and growing not because of a search for truth, but a search for headlines.
It's told through the viewpoint of small town newspaperman Tom Brown, and his assistant and girl friend Adrian Dore. Both long for the opportunities and connections and, yes, money, that being on a big-city paper would bring, but when the big city reporters descend on the town, they browbeat the locals and make a mess of the investigation.
With Grant Mitchell, Vivienne Osborne, Oscar Apfel, and Leon Ames.
It's told through the viewpoint of small town newspaperman Tom Brown, and his assistant and girl friend Adrian Dore. Both long for the opportunities and connections and, yes, money, that being on a big-city paper would bring, but when the big city reporters descend on the town, they browbeat the locals and make a mess of the investigation.
With Grant Mitchell, Vivienne Osborne, Oscar Apfel, and Leon Ames.
THE COLOR OF CHOICE
sugarcoatedvision20 December 2019
This film was a pleasant surprise. Unlike some films of that era it had plenty of substance to keep my mind engaged past "The End" and just enough style to keep my taste buds involved.
It did have it couple of speed bumps. In the beginning ; it had me running for my reading glasses and at one point; I was waiting for someone to ask me if they can hear an "Amen". However for the most part it was front page stuff.
Although made it 1932, it served as a premonition of the corporate sponsored goofiness to come not only with the tabloids like the National Enquirer but also with the established mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC and of course Fox News. Sometimes it feels that these days when it comes to journalism; Yellow is now the color of choice.
It did have it couple of speed bumps. In the beginning ; it had me running for my reading glasses and at one point; I was waiting for someone to ask me if they can hear an "Amen". However for the most part it was front page stuff.
Although made it 1932, it served as a premonition of the corporate sponsored goofiness to come not only with the tabloids like the National Enquirer but also with the established mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC and of course Fox News. Sometimes it feels that these days when it comes to journalism; Yellow is now the color of choice.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
