The only other review appearing here more than adequately covers some of the holes in this film's screenplay, but I am a performance-oriented viewer and would rate the film more highly simply because of the plethora of excellent character actors peopling it. Amazingly, it is the lead, Jack Holt, who appears most against the normal grain as the unethical lawyer (well, legal ethics are like no others so that perhaps 'immoral lawyer' is a better descriptive). Holt, the physical model for Al Capp's Fearless Fosdick cartoon character (a take-off on HUAC and the like, if Fosdick even suspected you of doing something wrong, you were likely to end up with a big comic strip bullet hole right in the middle of your cranium) was so granite-jawed that he made Charlton Heston look like Wally Cox, and he was usually seen as the stalwart hero of Westerns, but he was getting on by 1934, and this seemed like a pretty good role to him, I would imagine. Anyway, even in his most sympathetic moments, he fails to evoke much sympathy; he just isn't that kind of actor. Jean Arthur shows up to good advantage here, only about a year away from achieving major stardom, and one has to wonder why it took so long for her to do so. Arthur Hohl, who just looked sneaky and played roles to fit, is seen here as a totally above-board district attorney who can't stand the way Holt operates, and he pulls it off (nobody ever said a crusading district attorney couldn't still look sneaky!). And instead of a semi-comic detective, Harold Huber here gets to play a mover and shaker of the city's criminal element, and is nicely authoritative throughout. But the two performances I loved (one of them with very few lines) were those of Sarah Padden as the mother of a murdered child, and John Wray as the dastardly fellow who committed that murder. Padden was one of those actresses who took every job available as the years rolled on, but back in the 1930s she had several really special dramatic roles and this was one of them. Underacting in a way we didn't see much of until the Actors Studio graduates started to populate Hollywood films, made a fetish of incomprehensibility, and mumbled their way to stardom, she was definitely ahead of her time, and she is so 'real' in many of her roles that it almost hurts. You can see the tension building up in her in her every line, and when she takes the action that finally convinces Holt that he's working for the wrong people, it is perhaps the dramatic highlight of the film. And Wray, a superb character actor who was also a director and who died fairly young, is so much of a weasel as the murderer, and so exuding of cowardice, that you almost feel sorry for the miserable creep. Both Padden and Wray seem to be totally forgotten by all but the most vociferous fans of films of the so-called Golden Age, and it is a shame, because they often stole films from both stars and better-known 'character' actors. Anyway, a film to see for its acting before any other consideration.
6 Reviews
The Good Bad Lawyer
boblipton8 December 2018
Jack Holt is a criminal defense lawyer who always get 'em off. Jean Arthur has just graduated with a law degree and wants to work for him. As she observes his methods, she discovers that what he says about himself is true: he has no legal ethics and is a publicity hound. As he is in the middle of defending a kidnapper and child murderer, she comes to him with an ultimatum from an earlier case: he has suborned perjury.
It's the second movie that Holt starred in under the direction of Lambert Hillyer, with Joseph August as the cinematographer. Hillyer and August went way back; for half a dozen years, they were the director and cameraman for William S. Hart. This was the last of 22 movies they did together, and it's a visual treat.
The standard shot in this one is a portrait two-shot, with one person talking and the other watching, cutting to a solo reaction shot. Only in the two-shots between the leads is there a visible reaction for the first fifty minutes, and then others begin showing their emotions: first Donald Meek as Holt's clerk, then others. It's a very cinematic technique of showing the growing openness of the characters, presaging the changes that make this a well-told story instead of a series of anecdotes. Also, this being a Columbia film, it should be noted that it's a cheaper way of shooting, rather than longer takes with more people to break down and make retakes necessary.
There are other nice touches to this movie, particularly the way that sound man Edward Bernds uses the sounds of newspaper plants to snap the audience from one scene to the next. Although this story of how idealistic young lawyer Jean Arthur reforms old, bad lawyer Holt -- which sounds a lot like a lot of William S. Hart movies in which a young Christian woman reforms Hart -- is nothing much in the writing department, Hillyer makes a very good movie thanks to his professionalism and that of the people he is working with.
It's the second movie that Holt starred in under the direction of Lambert Hillyer, with Joseph August as the cinematographer. Hillyer and August went way back; for half a dozen years, they were the director and cameraman for William S. Hart. This was the last of 22 movies they did together, and it's a visual treat.
The standard shot in this one is a portrait two-shot, with one person talking and the other watching, cutting to a solo reaction shot. Only in the two-shots between the leads is there a visible reaction for the first fifty minutes, and then others begin showing their emotions: first Donald Meek as Holt's clerk, then others. It's a very cinematic technique of showing the growing openness of the characters, presaging the changes that make this a well-told story instead of a series of anecdotes. Also, this being a Columbia film, it should be noted that it's a cheaper way of shooting, rather than longer takes with more people to break down and make retakes necessary.
There are other nice touches to this movie, particularly the way that sound man Edward Bernds uses the sounds of newspaper plants to snap the audience from one scene to the next. Although this story of how idealistic young lawyer Jean Arthur reforms old, bad lawyer Holt -- which sounds a lot like a lot of William S. Hart movies in which a young Christian woman reforms Hart -- is nothing much in the writing department, Hillyer makes a very good movie thanks to his professionalism and that of the people he is working with.
The happy ending sure didn't help this one...
planktonrules24 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Matthew Mitchell (Jack Holt) is a lawyer without many scruples. He's also amazingly good at his job and never wins. Naturally criminals love him and he's done a lot to make them happy.
When Mitchell is asked to give a commencement speech for a graduating class at law school, he admonishes them all to find another career...any other career because the job is only for people who have given up on decency! With this stirring speech, he oddly soon has a visit from one of the graduates. Joan (Jean Arthur) apparently thinks Mitchell is wonderful and wants to be his law clerk. The fact that she is decent and not corrupted like Mitchell AND wants to work for him never really did make much sense.
What's next, well I don't want to spoil it but will say that Joan and her boss eventually end up working different sides of the street. But what exactly occurs...well, you'll have to see for yourself.
In many ways, this film is like the excellent John Garfield flick "Force of Evil". The main difference and reason I prefer the Garfield film is the ending...."The Defense Rests" ending is too perfect, too happy and pretty hard to believe. It's a shame, as the acting was very good in the film and I liked it quite a bit up until the weird ending.
When Mitchell is asked to give a commencement speech for a graduating class at law school, he admonishes them all to find another career...any other career because the job is only for people who have given up on decency! With this stirring speech, he oddly soon has a visit from one of the graduates. Joan (Jean Arthur) apparently thinks Mitchell is wonderful and wants to be his law clerk. The fact that she is decent and not corrupted like Mitchell AND wants to work for him never really did make much sense.
What's next, well I don't want to spoil it but will say that Joan and her boss eventually end up working different sides of the street. But what exactly occurs...well, you'll have to see for yourself.
In many ways, this film is like the excellent John Garfield flick "Force of Evil". The main difference and reason I prefer the Garfield film is the ending...."The Defense Rests" ending is too perfect, too happy and pretty hard to believe. It's a shame, as the acting was very good in the film and I liked it quite a bit up until the weird ending.
The Defense Rests
CinemaSerf8 January 2024
"Joan Hayes" (Jean Arthur) is employed by hotshot criminal lawyer "Mitchell" (Jack Holt) just as he heads to court for what we are sure will be his 38th straight victory. Following a kidnapping, though, "Mrs Evans" (Sarah Padden) comes to visit and as her boss is busy, she is seen by the new and keen "Joan" who begins to piece two and two together and conclude that her butter-wouldn't-melt employer is maybe not quite the shining light he purports to be. Armed with some damning evidence, she confronts him - but events elsewhere overtake their stand-off and soon the fate of a man facing the chair is front and centre of the story. That story is a bit more substantial than many of these standard afternoon features with a rather beefier part for Arthur and a decent chemistry between the two as things get messy and dangerous. Add a couple of mob heavies and maybe just a hint of integrity and this makes for quite an enjoyable seventy minutes of crime-noir.
Every shady lawyer must have some moral guide looking over their shoulder.
mark.waltz4 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Don't let hard-looking Jack Holt fool you. He may not crack a smile very easily and seems sometimes to be a bit too shady, but there's a charm behind his sleazy lawyer here who takes on high voltage criminal cases to help free the defendant, no matter how guilty that defendant actually is. He goes to a law school graduation and tells the class that they've picked the wrong profession to go into. That doesn't deter pretty Jean Arthur from visiting him in his office and offering to work for him for free just so she can get some experience. She basically becomes his right hand woman and eventually his conscience when he takes on the case of an obviously guilty kidnapper even after the mother of the victim pleas with Arthur to get him to turn down the case.
There's something very artificial in the way this legal drama is played out, even though Holt seems perfectly cast as a shady lawyer. The problem is that Arthur's highly moral character seems like one that he would fire immediately after she got on his case about his lack of ethics. She treats him like a child in a few scenes, and when all of a sudden, their working relationship takes a romantic turn, all I could do was cry "eew", especially after seeing them playing father and daughter in the same year's "Whirlpool". Nat Pendleton plays a dumb cluck who works running errands for Holt, while character funny man Donald Meek is absolutely wasted as one of his law clerks. Sara Padden is very touching as the mother of the kidnapping victim (a six year old), even though she looks more like his grandmother.
Another moment that struck me as phony was the scene where the prosecuting attorney is handed a note by his assistant which says, "He's pulling practically every dirty trick in the book. Not very ethical." Even if the kidnapping case is straight from the headlines with the Lindbergh baby, this doesn't land as far as other recent attorney movies did, such as "The Mouthpiece", "Lawyer Man" and especially "Counsellor at Law".
There's something very artificial in the way this legal drama is played out, even though Holt seems perfectly cast as a shady lawyer. The problem is that Arthur's highly moral character seems like one that he would fire immediately after she got on his case about his lack of ethics. She treats him like a child in a few scenes, and when all of a sudden, their working relationship takes a romantic turn, all I could do was cry "eew", especially after seeing them playing father and daughter in the same year's "Whirlpool". Nat Pendleton plays a dumb cluck who works running errands for Holt, while character funny man Donald Meek is absolutely wasted as one of his law clerks. Sara Padden is very touching as the mother of the kidnapping victim (a six year old), even though she looks more like his grandmother.
Another moment that struck me as phony was the scene where the prosecuting attorney is handed a note by his assistant which says, "He's pulling practically every dirty trick in the book. Not very ethical." Even if the kidnapping case is straight from the headlines with the Lindbergh baby, this doesn't land as far as other recent attorney movies did, such as "The Mouthpiece", "Lawyer Man" and especially "Counsellor at Law".
Everyone Wins Except the Viewer
view_and_review14 May 2024
Warning: Spoilers
If there was one thing that most early movies suffered from, it is being too elementary. It wasn't that they followed a basic formula, because we have that today, it was that they made things too obvious: the lessons learned, what a person was feeling, if a person was lying or not, who was good, who was bad, who would be reformed, who would be punished, etc. Sure, there were some movies that did follow that pattern, but they were rare. For the most part things were didactically spelled out.
And the women they created. I've seen cardboard cutouts with more dimensions and individuality.
"The Defense Rests" stars Jack Holt as Matthew Mitchell, a lawyer for the guilty who never lost. He could get anyone and everyone off, and he did. He didn't even like his clients, but they paid well and they got him more publicity.
If Matthew was to be the hero though, he'd have to have a change of heart about the way he did business. As it was he was unethical, and an unethical lawyer couldn't be the protagonist.
In steps Joan Hayes, played by the weak-voiced Jean Arthur. She would be Matthew's moral compass.
Joan began her relationship with Mitchell as a sycophant. She practically worshiped Mitchell. She became a lawyer because of him and she wouldn't work for any lawyer but him. Mitchell wasn't in the market for new employees, but she was pretty and she gassed him up with enough flowery speech that he couldn't help but hire her.
Joan would find that the emperor had no clothes. The man she revered resorted to lies and cheap tricks to win his cases.
Say it ain't so.
She stuck with him out of some strange sense of loyalty, or maybe even love. She drew the line, though, when he agreed to represent Cooney (John Wray), a suspected kidnapper and child-killer. She tendered her resignation which Mitchell rejected. His rejection of her resignation was odd being that having someone so principled in his office could easily be his undoing.
The move would come back to haunt him. Joan went on a side quest to unravel a case Mitchell had recently won. Once she had enough evidence to bury her boss, she presented it to him. She stated that she would go to the DA with what she had and get him disbarred and/or arrested. Mitchell's response was pretty much, "bring it on!" He was cocky enough and good enough to withstand whatever some little rookie came at him with.
Joan's response was pitiful. She was so enamored with her idol that she broke down crying and stated that she'd have to go to jail with him if she turned him in. She was in such awe of him she surmised that she couldn't leave his side, even if she sent him to prison. Her behavior was nauseating.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Evans (Sarah Padden)--the mother of the boy who was killed--killed herself in Mitchell's office. She couldn't stand the thought of him getting her son's killer off, so she shot and killed herself in his office to either change his mind, or bring negative publicity down on him.
Mission accomplished.
Mitchell had a change of heart and figured out a way to have Cooney convicted without him throwing the case or stepping down. It was too blissful, especially for Joan Hayes. Her idol had turned out to be praiseworthy after all.
But there still remained that matter of the evidence she had regarding another case that could get him sent to prison.
No worries. Only two people could testify on that evidence: Gentry (Robert Gleckler) and Joan. As for Gentry, he'd been killed. As for Joan, she proposed to marry her celebrity crush which meant she couldn't testify against him. Everyone wins except the viewer.
Free on YouTube.
And the women they created. I've seen cardboard cutouts with more dimensions and individuality.
"The Defense Rests" stars Jack Holt as Matthew Mitchell, a lawyer for the guilty who never lost. He could get anyone and everyone off, and he did. He didn't even like his clients, but they paid well and they got him more publicity.
If Matthew was to be the hero though, he'd have to have a change of heart about the way he did business. As it was he was unethical, and an unethical lawyer couldn't be the protagonist.
In steps Joan Hayes, played by the weak-voiced Jean Arthur. She would be Matthew's moral compass.
Joan began her relationship with Mitchell as a sycophant. She practically worshiped Mitchell. She became a lawyer because of him and she wouldn't work for any lawyer but him. Mitchell wasn't in the market for new employees, but she was pretty and she gassed him up with enough flowery speech that he couldn't help but hire her.
Joan would find that the emperor had no clothes. The man she revered resorted to lies and cheap tricks to win his cases.
Say it ain't so.
She stuck with him out of some strange sense of loyalty, or maybe even love. She drew the line, though, when he agreed to represent Cooney (John Wray), a suspected kidnapper and child-killer. She tendered her resignation which Mitchell rejected. His rejection of her resignation was odd being that having someone so principled in his office could easily be his undoing.
The move would come back to haunt him. Joan went on a side quest to unravel a case Mitchell had recently won. Once she had enough evidence to bury her boss, she presented it to him. She stated that she would go to the DA with what she had and get him disbarred and/or arrested. Mitchell's response was pretty much, "bring it on!" He was cocky enough and good enough to withstand whatever some little rookie came at him with.
Joan's response was pitiful. She was so enamored with her idol that she broke down crying and stated that she'd have to go to jail with him if she turned him in. She was in such awe of him she surmised that she couldn't leave his side, even if she sent him to prison. Her behavior was nauseating.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Evans (Sarah Padden)--the mother of the boy who was killed--killed herself in Mitchell's office. She couldn't stand the thought of him getting her son's killer off, so she shot and killed herself in his office to either change his mind, or bring negative publicity down on him.
Mission accomplished.
Mitchell had a change of heart and figured out a way to have Cooney convicted without him throwing the case or stepping down. It was too blissful, especially for Joan Hayes. Her idol had turned out to be praiseworthy after all.
But there still remained that matter of the evidence she had regarding another case that could get him sent to prison.
No worries. Only two people could testify on that evidence: Gentry (Robert Gleckler) and Joan. As for Gentry, he'd been killed. As for Joan, she proposed to marry her celebrity crush which meant she couldn't testify against him. Everyone wins except the viewer.
Free on YouTube.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
