Thu 24 Jan 2019
A Movie Review by David Vineyard: HOLLYWOOD STORY (1951).
Posted by Steve under Mystery movies , Reviews[10] Comments
HOLLYWOOD STORY. Universal Pictures, 1951. Richard Conte, Julie Adams, Richard Egan, Jim Backus, Fred Clark, Henry Hull, Paul Cavanagh. Screenplay and story by Frederick Kohener (story as by Frederick Brady). Directed by William Castle.
A surprisingly good mystery that is a bit plot heavy and would have benefited without Jim Backus’s jovial press agent narration, but otherwise posits a fair Hollywood mystery. Richard Conte plays Larry O’Brien, a successful New York film producer, lured West by money-man and friend Sam Collier (Fred Clark).
When he goes to visit his new studio, once home of silent films, he discovers it is where famed silent film director Franklin Ferrera was murdered in 1929 in his cabana in an unsolved mystery. Despite being warned off, O’Brien decides to look into the old murder as the subject of his first film and begins nosing around.
He even hires washed-up screenwriter Vincent St. Clair (Henry Hull) who worked with Ferrara to write the screenplay, and attracts the attention of Lt. Lennox (Richard Egan) who reminds him there is no statute of limitations on murder, and cops might come in handy.
Not everyone is happy about the case being reopened. Sally Rosseau (Julie Adams) is the daughter of silent star Amanda Rosseau (Adams appears in a dual role but is billed as Julia Adams in it) who was involved with Ferrara and would as soon leave the whole thing in the past with her late mother’s memory. So would O’Brien’s friend Sam Collier, and former male lead Roland Paul (Paul Cavanagh), the latter the suspect whose career was ruined because everyone believed he murdered the director over Amanda. And when someone takes a shot at O’Brien at the studio late at night it seems as if someone is willing to kill to keep the past silent.
Of course O’Brien and Sally will become romantically involved and secrets that hurt the innocent and the guilty will emerge, including a missing male secretary named Rodale who shows up willing to sell information and turns up murdered in his cheap hotel room.
Despite the setting, direction by William Castle, Richard Conte in the lead playing at amateur private eye, and black and white photography, this is in no way film noir. Instead it’s a fair mystery with suspects and clues that unfolds more like the kind of thing done later on television on shows like Burke’s Law or Ellery Queen than what you might expect on the big screen from this era.
There are lulls, the Jim Backus narration is a pointless distraction, and while it is nice to see them, brief cameos by silent film stars like Francis X. Bushman and William Farnum are more awkward than nostalgic, but get past that aspect, and there are actual clues here (the main one not shared with the viewer), a dangerous killer, and even a frame-up of not one but two innocent men.
It’s a short fairly complex mystery, and if you solve it before the hero, it is likely based more on being familiar with the genre than anything else, and I have to say there is one clue shown early and right out in the open that proves key to unraveling the mystery that is good enough for any mystery.
In fact the biggest mystery about this one is that they didn’t take that cast and story and make it into a noir. It wouldn’t have taken much effort to make the difference between a decent little mystery film and maybe a very good one. The problem here is that a pretty good idea is actually tossed off by everyone involved.
January 24th, 2019 at 11:32 pm
When you say “a fair Hollywood mystery”: do you mean in the sense of “fair play mystery”, or in the sense of not quite rising to the level of an good Hollywood mystery??
January 24th, 2019 at 11:44 pm
I think he means both.
January 25th, 2019 at 12:13 am
Thank you, Barry. 🙂
January 25th, 2019 at 1:19 am
We’ll have to wait until David says for sure, but the reference to ELLERY QUEEN in close proximity suggests to me he meant to say “fair play.” But as Barry says, maybe it’s both.
Sorry I missed this. I could have asked before posting.
It’s not a movie I would have noticed before reading the review. Now I guess I gotta go looking.
January 25th, 2019 at 8:38 am
Sounds like a good cast, but… I don’t know. On 2nd thought, Richard Conte doesn’t look evil enough to play a successful film producer.
January 25th, 2019 at 11:00 am
Is it supposed to be inspired by the William Taylor Desmond murder?
January 25th, 2019 at 5:12 pm
According to Wikipedia, the answer is yes.
January 25th, 2019 at 6:39 pm
William Desmond Taylor was a talented director of silent films.
Some are excellent: “Tom Sawyer”, “Nurse Marjorie” and above all “The Soul of Youth”.
There is a LOT more to Taylor than his murder.
January 25th, 2019 at 7:02 pm
King Vidor, the fine film maker, in retirement, wrote a cast of Killers about the William Desmond Taylor murder. His conclusions appear to have been refuted, but opened up new interest in the case. And as Mike Grost points out above, there is a lot more than his murder to Mr. Taylor.
January 25th, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Yes, it is both fair play and a “fair” mystery, and considering most original Hollywood mysteries are neither it’s a compliment. Of course for it to be a “fair play” mystery you will have to have a pretty good eye for detail to catch one of the major clues, but I did, and you may as well (it’s a visual and an aural clue).
The film does have problems: Jim Backus performance is almost enough to do the film in until the mystery ratchets up and he mostly drops out of the film (and I usually have a high tolerance for him); Castle’s direction of the scenes with the silent stars and for much of the first part of the film is flat to say the least; the fact we never really see Ferrara, the victim, makes it harder to care if his murder is ever solved; and, as too often happens, a bit of common sense would go a long way (as at the end when wounded cop Egan sends Conte after the killer with his gun rather than just call backup and pick the criminal up later). It is also a big missed opportunity for a damn good noir instead of playing like a B mystery programmer.
But the mystery is just good enough to keep your attention once the plot kicks in, and at it’s running time it isn’t hard to think of it as a solid episode of an older television tec show (I’m not suggesting you won’t guess the killer, but the clues that lay him low are at least shown and not so esoteric you have no chance at catching the two major ones them).
Which is to say I can recommend it for viewing on YouTube, but I wouldn’t be suggesting you buy tickets to see it at a theater or spend much to buy a DVD.
It’s clearly modeled on the Taylor mystery, at least as close to it as they could do considering when it was made. There were still quite a few people still around from that period in Hollywood, some even still working.
Refuted or not, I always thought the Vidor book would have made a decent movie itself.
I agree there was more to Taylor than just his murder, but it wouldn’t be the first time a violent end was all that was remembered about a talented individual.
Dan, Conte is teamed with Fred Clark in the producing business and his best friend is a press agent, if that helps on the villainy scale.