The Unknown Man (1951)

I wanted to but couldn't!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Walter Pigeon plays the part of a truly disgraceful lawyer. He agrees to represent a defendant in a murder case, thereby assuming a duty of loyalty to his client. In the course of the trial he succeeds in establishing that the key eyewitness against his client could not reasonably identify his client in view of the poor lighting conditions and, most important, that the witness need eyeglasses which he was not wearing at the time. Having demonstrated that there is not only lacking evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but a virtual lack of any evidence of guilt at all, the verdict of acquittal is inevitable. Indeed, the case should never have even gone to the jury; the judge should have entered judgment for the accused at the close of the prosecution's case. Upon discovering that his client really did the deed, the lawyer proceeds to assume the defense of the client for a second murder, one that he, the lawyer, committed, not the client, and proceeds to secure a conviction by withholding evidence, i.e., his own testimony that he, not the client, committed the second murder. He then goes on to provoke the client into killing him by, in effect, taunting him by revealing that he is the one who committed the second murder and getting the client to believe that he is prepared to see the client will be punished for the murder he did not commit. It is hard to imagine a lawyer betraying his duty of loyalty to his client so blatantly.

Those early scenes between DA Sullivan and attorney Pidgeon are beautifully played. Note how subtly a competitive sense is conveyed, along with professional respect and perhaps mild dislike. So when Pidgeon decides to take Wallchek's (Braselle) case and challenge the DA, we understand why. Pidgeon is excellent throughout. His resonant voice and dignified bearing suggest that Old Testament worship of the law that drives Brad's character. Ditto Sullivan's first-rate performance. Nonetheless, his DA takes a more pragmatic view of the law, one that's importantly tempered by reality.Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't measure up. Crime dramas whether noir or procedure were simply not MGM's strong suit. LB Mayer's philosophy was escapism and celebrity stars, and not even new production chief Dore Schary's background at gritty RKO could modify the entrenched tradition. Director Thorpe was one of Mayer's favorites because of his ability to complete projects under-budget. Unfortunately, that style-less efficiency is on bland display here as the scenes unfold in strictly mechanical fashion. Crucially, there are no visual (noirish) counterparts to Pidgeon's moral dilemma. Then too, the screenplay apes fashion of the day by needlessly involving a "Mr. Big" as the invisible mastermind behind crime in the city. Thus, what starts out as a very real legal dilemma—exonerating a guilty man and what to do about it—evolves into a contrived storyline, not helped by a highly contrived climax in the prison cell. That compelling premise really does deserve a more thoughtful, less tricky, development than what it gets here. Then too, once you think about it, I'm not sure how well the scales of justice actually balance, contrary to what the final scene appears to imply. Anyway, two fine performances are largely wasted in what another reviewer aptly calls a minor film.

I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.

Prominent attorney Walter Pidgeon takes a murder case pro bono, wins an acquittal and discovers that his client (Keefe Braselle) was not only guilty but part of an extortion ring reaching to the highest eschelons of the city. Panged by his own complicity, he undertakes an investigation, stumbles onto the identity of the "unknown man" who heads the syndicate, and murders him.The ironies engage when Braselle is charged with this second murder and Pidgeon must defend him by pointing to the existence of another "unknown man" -- himself. Though somewhat short of urban grit and long on rhetoric, the Unknown Man belongs to the noir cycle less by style or structure than by its acknowledgement of the pervasive corruption of American municipal politics that came to light in the postwar years.