Trial (1955) Online

Trial is one of the best films of the Fifties and a personal favorite of mine in the credits of a favorite actor of mine, Glenn Ford. Made at the end of what is loosely described as the 'McCarthy Era', Trial bravely tackles the evils of right and leftwing extremism and shows that people of good will can make a difference in defeating them. It's a subject I'm surprised Frank Capra didn't consider as a project.

Communist attorney Arthur Kennedy has latched on to a case involving the death of a teenage caucasian girl in which a young Mexican boy stands accused of her murder. In fact we see the events as they transpire at the beginning of the film. The boy, very winningly played by Rafael Campos has some very dubious culpability in the matter.

But in this California town, prejudice against Mexican-Americans runs pretty high. Rafael is arrested and the Communist party looks to jump in. For window dressing they latch on to law professor Glenn Ford who agrees to go to court with the young man, partly to prove the falsity of that old adage about those who can't, teach.

Ford does pretty good for a while, but Kennedy who's more interested in a martyr and the stirring up of race prejudice, gets the mother played by Katy Jurado to have Rafael take the stand. District Attorney John Hodiak in a devastating cross examination blows the defense wide open.

Arthur Kennedy's bravura performance as Communist attorney Barney Castle won him an Oscar nomination, but he lost out to Jack Lemmon for Mister Roberts. But my personal favorite in this film is the Judge played with strength and dignity by Juano Hernandez. Judge Hernandez shows as Shakespeare put it that the quality of mercy is indeed not strained.

I can't think of another film in that time that showed some of the problems that scar America's soul, but also show that the cure offered might indeed be worse.

Unseen is a state investigating committee against subversives where Ford's been subpoened to appear. That's not modeled after McCarthy, the reference is to a California State Senator named Jack Tenney who in that era attempted to be a state version of McCarthy. And like McCarthy generated a lot of heat, but very little light.

Glenn and the cast can be very proud of the work they did on this film.

This is a very strange relic of the 1950s "Red Scare". While I do not dismiss this era as quickly as some (Stalin was evil and bent on domination and destruction, though Hollywood often sees the fear of communism during this era as unfounded), there were some unusual anti-communist films that are a bit preachy but very watchable--and important historically.

This film is about a defense attorney (Ford) who is being assisted by an organization that claims to be devoted to liberal ideas and free speech. However, over time, he sees them for what they are--opportunists who have NO interest in the young man on trial but are helping in order to undermine the American system.

Finally, I'd like to point out one performance that really stuck out in my mind. Juano Hernandez plays the judge. Considering he was a dark-skinned man of Hispanic descent, it was amazing to see him in a mainstream movie playing the part of a judge. His acting was excellent and it was wonderful to see a little bit of color injected into a Hollywood film of this era--this is no small feat.

This film fascinates precisely BECAUSE of its confused treatment of the theme of bigotry. It does not only refer, under a thin disguise of name, to Senator McCarthy - but also to the Ku Klux Klan. To me, its chief value is that it illustrates rather startlingly the ethical strangeness of a mid-fifties America apparently seeking a definition of justice while still beset with considerable self-doubt concerning its own institutions.

Few films of the period make so explicit the names of the antagonists; that is what sets it apart.

On the level of pure melodrama, it is entertaining, fast-paced and convincingly acted. The opening scene suggests an erotically-charged no man's land, namely the beach community of San Juno, anno 1947. This is the scene that I think will remain in my memory, because it precedes all the rhetoric, legalistic and otherwise, which never quite connects with the reality of spontaneous behaviour - simply, groping in the dark.

Pretty good drama featuring a reluctant lawyer roped into a murder trial. As usual Ford does a credible job as the harried attorney who strives to see his client gets a fair shake. To do this he must alienate many of the town's leading citizens who are, of course, looking out for #1. Worth seeing.

An hour and a quarter into Trial, the jury is finally impanelled. Ostensibly a legal drama, the movie casts wide its net, dragging in multi-hued racism, anti-Communism and fellow-travelers, corruption, vigilantism and media justice.

That venerable academy State University won't renew law prof Glenn Ford's contract because he lacks courtroom experience. He signs up with slick lawyer Arthur Kennedy ("Law's a business like any other"), who promptly makes him point man in a high-visibility trial. A Mexican boy has been charged with murder of an underage Anglo girl in a case of statutory rape. Town racists whip up a lynch mob; meanwhile, Kennedy flits across the country to milk cash from a leftist rally for the boy. But, confident that Ford will blow the defense, he's only interested in providing a profitable martyr for the "cause."

Ford faces a thankless task in the courtroom -- and the movie. Always the strong, stoic sufferer, he here plays a dupe, kept in the background, his face curdled into a mask of disdain. (Helpmate Dorothy McGuire, as Kennedy's maverick Girl Friday, shows more passion and intelligence.) His adversary is D.A. John Hodiak, so between them the soggy scenes before the bench fizzle out. Ford's final gallop to the rescue comes too late to neutralize the cynical torpor; the young Mexican proves as much of a pawn in the hands of the moviemakers as in the manipulative attorneys' and officials'.

Trial raises more provocative and timely issues than it can begin to explore, let alone resolve. It's a pity, because those issues still smoulder today, in the America of Court TV spectacles and an ideologically embalmed judiciary.

A 50's movie which challenges extremism at many levels. Bigotry, police corruption, mob mentality and communist subversion all are taken to task in this movie. A young Hispanic boy is accused of murdering a young white girl. Glen Ford, a law academic with no practical experience takes the case to learn what it is like to handle a real case rather than one from a text book. He is an incredible teacher, but will he be as good in the real world.

Throughout the story see then towns people wanting to hang the boy, the subversion of a communist sympathizer who uses the young man and his mother to further his cause, corrupt police, real-estate hungry bigots and more.

Truth win out in the end. However, Fords character is challenged by the trial judge, brilliantly played by Juana Hernandez, and his own bigotry (Sydney Portier does the same to Ford in "The Blackboard Jungle".

Over all a good movie set in the cold war era. It is a film where consensus is fought for and truth prevails.

Trial is an intelligently written look at the explosive issues of the 50s: race and communism. Though the film is hindered by its overly virulent anti-communist screenplay, it does try and deal with the intersection of race and justice in what was probably a very liberal manner in 1955. Trial is probably the first American film made with an African-American in an authority role (the always excellent Juano Hernandez as the trial judge). The film does take a wack at McCarthy (here 'disguised' as Congressman Battle) and also is openly critical of racists and nationalists. Even with the redbaiting--some of which is probably accurate--Trial is a very well made and brave film with one of Glenn Ford's best performances at its heart.

Surprisingly, this movie is very entertaining. Some parts are unintentionally humorous, and it's not one of the all-time greats, but it is well worth watching. It's much more involving than most movies of its day.

This great film will come as a great shock to anyone who thinks of 1950s America in Leave It To Beaver terms, and that's a very good thing. An exaggerated but not misleading portrait of a hugely racist and sexist nation at its worst, with a feel-good conclusion that rings false in light of what we've just seen and generally know to be true about the US at the time. The performances are good for the most part, but the things these people say and do may give you the creeps. The scene in front of the city hall when the local white men are about to use nitro to blow up the front door is absolutely frightening. The 50s will never seem the same again, and that's a very good thing. This movie should be part of history courses.

Trial is a very powerful film with a believable story line, revolving around a young Mexican/American boy accused in the death of a teenage girl with a heart condition, the death being caused by an alleged sexual assault. It first appears to be a straightforward courtroom drama, but before long, the plot begins to unfold revealing the film's ulterior message: That nothing is as it appears! The film's pronounced right-wing position does not seem at all offensive, as it clearly shows to what extent the political left will go to achieve it's agenda. As it is portrayed here, one is sickened as an ultra-left lawyer at first appears to be genuinely concerned with his client's case. At this point in my review, to go further in this direction would be a "Spoiler". If you get the opportunity to see this film, don't miss it! I've only seen it twice, both times on Turner Classic Movies; I do not know if it is available on either VHS or DVD.

****SPOILERS**** Powerhouse court drama that shows how a deceitful defender with a secret agenda is more then willing to send his innocent client to the gallows in order to further his cause.

Being accused of the murder of 15 year-old Mari Wiltse 16 year old Mexican-American Angel Chavez, Rafael Campos, is in desperate need of a top defense attorney to keep him from ending up on death row because of not having a proper defense. It seems obvious from the start that Angel is innocent of Mari death with the fact that she was suffering from rheumatic fever since childhood and her death was caused by it. The fact that Mari is white and Angel is Hispanic and he was making out on the beach with her at the time of Mari's death, which is considered statutory rape, is far more a strike against Angel then actually murdering Marie in the eyes of the people in town and who will eventually be on the jury.

Law professor David Blake, Glen Ford, needing court experience to keep his job at the local collage is looking to handle a court case and approaches the attorney who's handling Angels case Barney Castle, Arthur Kennedy. David to his total surprise is accepted by Castle to be the lawyer, with Castle doing all the leg work,defending Angel. Castle who to David's ignorance is a local Communist instigator and is using him to further his fellow commies agenda of fomenting hatred and violence between the races. When that goal is achieved Castle plans to exploit the racial hatred and violence to further his cause and attract new members; Mostly from the Mexican/American community

Working with David is Castle's assistant Abbe Nyle, Dorothy McGuire, who's a card-carrying Communist but is also wise to what Castle is trying to do. Abbe's loyalty to the movement, or Communist cause, has waned over the years to where she's now a commie in name, or party membership card, only. It's during the course of the trial that David and Abbe not only break away from Castles almost Svengali-like control but also fall in love with each other.

With David handling the Angel Chavez murder case he shows uncanny skills in the jury selecting process throwing off potential jurors who can prejudice the verdict. But David also get's Castle very angry in the possibility of him getting Angel off which is exactly what Castle doesn't want. Castle want's Angel to be convicted and executed and become a martyr to the cause. Castle is so conniving and skillful in doing that that he convinces Angel's mother Consuela, Katy Juredo, to go along with his maniacal and cold-blooded scheme.

Very intelligent court drama that's miles ahead of the many anti-Communist propaganda movies that were released back during the hight of the Cold War in the late 1940's and early 50's. "Trial" showed how many naive Americans were duped into becoming members of the Communist Party and work for it's ultimate success. Without even realizing that they were working against their, and their fellow Americans, best interests in doing so! In the end they would suffered greatly in losing their jobs and means of making a living as well as doing jail-time and in some cases even losing their lives, through the stress that they go through that in many cases lead to suicide, in doing it.

Being used by Castle to get funds for the Angel Chavez Defense Fund David finally realized what a fool he is by attending a large rally for Angel in New York City with him being the main speaker. David sees first hand how the Communists work in exploiting thousands to support their cause like Castle exploited David in his defense of Angel. David also learns later that the hundreds of thousands of dollars collected at the rally, as well as the rallies before and after, were funneled into the pockets of high Communist officials, like Barney Castle. That money is not used in defending the person that they, the duped contributors, were given to understand, by Castle, that it was intended for: Angel Chavez.

As the trial proceeds David just about convinced the jury of Angel's innocence but it's then that Castle steps in and dismisses David as Angel's attorney and shows his true colors "Red" by putting the young and confused teenager on the stand, against David's objections. It's then where the State District Attorney John J. Armstrong, John Hodiak, prosecuting the case tears him apart and cause Angel to implicate himself not in Mari murder but in him having sex with the 15 year-old girl! That in the eyes of jury was even worse then murder.

With the verdict a forgone conclusion and Angel now facing the death penalty David makes a last desperate attempt to save the young man's life by getting to show the judge Theodore Motley, Juano Hernandez, as well as everyone in the courtroom just what a slime-ball and phony the "Great Defender" of the downtrodden and working class Barney Castle really is. It's then that David gets Castle to lose his composure in David's plea for mercy in saving Angel from the rope. Castle, with a sure-fire guilty verdict slipping away from him, now completely loses it and exposes himself as the conniving and lowlife swine that he really is.

David's last and desperate "Hail Mary" attempt to save Angel's life worked in getting him found Innocent. Castle in now trying to make himself a martyr, a live not dead one like Angel, to salvage his already damaged reputation as a "Man of the People" quickly fell by the wayside. judge Motley's decision in not giving Castle the jail-time that he now so desperately wanted to become a martyr destroyed his entire scheme in salvaging the case that he secretly wanted David to lose.

"Trial," released in 1955 and directed by Mark Robson, starts out quite typically. A Hispanic young man (Rafael Campos) is accused of assaulting and murdering a 15-year-old girl. There is all of the accompanying town prejudice.

A law professor, David Blake (Glenn Ford) who needs trial experience in order to keep his job is taken on by attorney Barney Castle (Arthur Kennedy) and assigned the case. Though Blake's instincts go against Castle's orders, his insecurity kicks in and he conducts the pre-trial procedures the way that Barney wants them, little realizing that Barney has a very hidden agenda.

This interesting film was done at the height of the Red Scare. It's very well-acted if disconcerting - only because there is no hint at the beginning as to where this film is going to lead. Dorothy McGuire plays Castle's assistant and ex-girlfriend who falls for Blake, and Katy Jurado plays the boy's easily influenced mother. Someone else mentioned the black actor, Brazilian-born Juano Hernandez, who plays the judge. A former Broadway actor, Hernandez gives a marvelous performance and is inspired casting. Sadly, all of these actors -- Ford, McGuire, Kennedy, Campos, Hernandez, Jurado, John Hodiak (who plays the prosecutor) and Ray Middleton (the sheriff) are gone now.

Well worth watching.

Glenn Ford, a law professor, carries about a cigarette lighter with a Latin inscription that translates as "Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy." Here we see that the application of the remedy can lead to an iatrogenic disease.

Poor, young, Mexican, Rafael Campos, is found standing over the dead body of a young girl on the beach. The girl has suffered from rheumatic fever and has died, in the opinion of the medical examiner, from heart failure induced by violent exertion. The consensus is that Campos had been pursuing her with rape on his mind and that this is therefore a case of felony murder.

The loud-mouthed bigots of San Juno are organized and they and their leader intrude on the quiet funeral ceremony of the dead girl, forcing the Padre to say two blessings, one before and one after their rabble-rousing racist pronouncements.

Later, they form a mob in front of the jail and assault the iron gate, trying to break it down in order to lynch Campos. The sheriff doesn't have enough men to prevent them but he talks the hoi polloi out of it anyway for reasons of political advantage. He doesn't care about the kid but he wants to be reelected.

So far, so humdrum.

A minority kid is about to be railroaded into the slams for an alleged sex crime and barely escapes murder by an aroused crowd of white zealots. We've seen it all before.

We even anticipate it when Glenn Ford is drawn into the case under the auspices of the Libbo lawyer Arthur Kennedy, and we anticipate too that while Kennedy is out scraping together enough money to fund the defense, Ford -- in his first trial -- will get the kid off, maybe with some other guilty party breaking down on the stand and sobbing, "I DID it. I DID IT! But I only meant to scare her." Not this time.

As one of the "good guys", the smirking Arthur Kennedy, in his villainous mode, is immediately jarring to our seasoned sensibilities. In his first meeting with the defendant and his family, he shoves the hysterical mother around and whacks Campos across the face to force him to admit that he tried to rape the girl, while innocent Glenn Ford stands aghast.

It isn't long before we learn that Kennedy is a communist and is using Rafael Campos to generate a lot of cash -- only some of which will go the defense fund, while the rest winds up in the pockets of the party. Not only is Kennedy a commie, he also pronounces the defendants name with the wrong initial phoneme -- Shh, instead of Tch -- as if it were a French verb in the second person.

By the end of the trial, the Communist Party line has changed. They no longer want to get Campos off. They've decided that he'd be more useful as a martyr, so Kennedy does everything he can to sabotage the defense -- firing Ford (who was about to win the case) and disrupting the court by calling the judge, reliable old Juano Hernandez, a "handkerchief head" and an "Uncle Tom." The judge is pretty savvy, however, and by this time Ford has wised up enough to save the kid from the guillotine, but not from prison.

The plot is as disjointed as hell. It wanders all over the place, poking into narrative corners, dwelling too long on incidental characters like the sheriff and the victim's family and the defendant's mother.

But, in its own, somewhat obstreperous way, it's more challenging than most of the courtroom dramas that wind up on film. It shouldn't have been called "Trial" because the focus here is chiefly on what goes on behind the scenes, after court is adjourned. The extremists on both sides have a spotlight turned on them and they enjoy it. And the film raises questions that the usual formula does not. Not everyone on the "good" side is respectable. The money is shady, raised from people under deceptive circumstances. Should it be used, even if it's "bad" money? When Ford demurs, Kennedy replies with a question: What would you rather have? Fifty thousand dollars for a defense fund or one hundred and six? Good question too. Suppose a convincingly innocent-looking Muslim is on trial for some terrorist act. Should the defense accept funds from some Jihadist organization? Would it be better to shun such money and have the defendant convicted? Tough ethical stuff.

The film is weakened by overacting. That's Mark Robson, the director. He's in charge of such things. And some viewers might be put off by the lack of the usual Manichaean divide between black and white, the absence of clear good and evil, a feature that I think is the movie's main virtue. What I mean is that it's not reassuring. It prompts us to think, to question our conception of the justice system, to wonder about our beliefs. That's an irritant. As Charles Sanders Peirce said, "Belief is thought -- at rest."

This very unsatisfying movie is really all over the place, just like the era that produced it. In that sense, it's an interesting document of its time, but not too fun to watch. It starts out as a typical corporate-liberal morality courtroom-crime movie, a' la Call Northside 777 or 12 Angry Men. But those movies were unequivocal about their direction -- they knew where they wanted to go and went right there. This one quickly loses its thread as it veers off course into 1950s anti-Communist paranoia-land. This movie isn't satisfied pointing out the dangers of the Communist 5th column that supposedly wanted to tear down our society and values. It doesn't even have faith in its own anti-Communism, posing the idea that 1950s ultra-leftism was bad because it was some kind moneymaking con. The plot about the far right ideologues who want to lynch the boy at the film's outset is forgotten about a third of the way through. The usually terrific Glenn Ford looks lost here -- his notion of moral confusion seems to be wandering around as if he has forgotten his lines. Maybe he's trying to figure out where the plot will go next? The film's final bizarre resolution is unrealistic, to say the least. We're supposed to be happy that the Mexican boy is only sentenced to a juvenile reform school instead of the electric chair. But the problem is -- is the boy a murderer or isn't he? If he's not (as the film seems to imply), why is it fair that he is punished at all? This is the American consensus view at its most confused. The final scene where the prosecutor stands up and agrees with the lenient sentence is the prize topper to this unlikely and directionless trial. This isn't the most far-fetched law movie -- I can't decide whether that honor belongs to the stupid "Suspect" starring Cher or the well-made "Boomerang!" with Dana Andrews. But it's certainly the most confusing -- guaranteed to appeal to the modern nativist right wing, who will probably think it's okay that a Mexican boy be sent to reform school for daring to set foot on an all-white beach or sit next to a white girl. (That'll teach 'em.) I should also mention the headache-inducing "edgy" bebop piano score, which seems to have been a staple of this type of movie in the 50s. It does have a few laughs, though these are unintentional. For example, listen to Dorothy McGuire's little soliloquy about how she turned Communist sympathizer during college -- she just wanted to be special! Weird, weird weird.

Trial is a movie that begs for a re-make, but in the current climate of political correctness, it is a story that cannot be told today. The Left Wing writers and actors that populate Hollywood would never allow that. This story was perfect for its time. Although it ostensibly is about the trial of a young Hispanic boy, it tells the tale of how activist groups twist and turn the laws and the people of the US in such circles that people come to believe that wrong is right. The bad guys were the Communists in this movie, but they have been defeated... or have they? Watch this movie and instead of the Communists, slip in the names of other prominent modern Leftist groups and you'll see that the story is not as dated as it looks.

This movie just seems to take on too much and it just doesn't work. It stars out with Glenn Ford working as a law professor who is about to be fired unless he gets some actual trial experience. He goes to several different lawyers but is turned down until he runs into Arthur Kennedy. Dorothy McGuire is his assistant and begins a relationship with Ford. They get a young Mexican boy accused of murdering a white girl as a client and Ford and Kennedy seem to be going in different directions on the case. Ford actually wants to save the boy but Kennedy just wants to raise money and make a martyr out of him but he can't do that unless the boy is found guilty. They even bring up communism in here and it just seems they bring up too much in not enough time.

A tepid tale of race, court-room tactics, communism, crooked lawyers, and desperate educators. Sound convoluted? It is. Somewhere in this mixture there was a great story, but it got lost in an attempt to expose too much. Considering the cast, writer, and director this one should have been great. Somehow we never really care much about the central characters, and the story rambles on to a conclusion that is unrealistic, at best.

There are just too many Complicated Issues on Display in this Well Meaning but Ultimately Frustrating and Meandering Film to make it anything more than a Confusing Curiosity of its Time.

Bigotry, Greed, Communism, the Flawed Judicial System, Liberalism, Conservatism, Inter Racial Relationships, Corrupt Politicians and Law Enforcers, Martyrdoms, and Academia are all Touched on here with Varying Degrees of Insights and Outright Stereotypes.

The Movie is just too Heavy and is brought down by its own Weight of Wondering about so Many Things that it Rarely Attains any Valuable Views on its Multitude of Controversial Subjects.

Well Acted, with some Unsure Directing by the Occasionally Brilliant Mark Robson (see 1943's The Seventh Victim), the Problem here is a Convoluted and Overloaded Script that, in the end, does no Justice to the Myriad of Matters it Explores.

There are Hispanics and Blacks in Major Roles and there are Things On Screen that did not Juxtapose Easily with the Conservative Fifties, so the Film is at least Credited for Trying to Shed some Light on Wrongs in Search of a Remedy.

Very good film showing how the Communist Party in the United States tried to exploit a case of where a young Mexican boy was accused of killing an American girl. It's all for the cause, even if it means that the Mexican, is put to death.

What a year 1955 was for Glenn Ford. Besides this film, he made "Blackboard Jungle," and the equally wonderful "Interrupted Melody."

Arthur Kennedy gained still another Oscar nomination, but always in a losing effort, as the lawyer who takes him in to defend the case, while Kennedy has an entirely different agenda.

Dorothy McGuire, Kennedy's aide, falls for Ford and later informs him of her unwillingness to accept the party line.

Just like "The Manchurian Candidate," this is a frightening film of subversion in the good old U.S.A.

Of course, Katie Jurado is the mother of the accused and she rattles off that same emotion as she did a year earlier in her Oscar nominated "Broken Lance."

"Trial" stunned me. Set in the '40s, the story shows us how the descendants of the original slave owners, now the modern Jim Crow segregationists, began hiding behind Communist front groups and adopting social causes-- not out of a sense of remorse but only to give the themselves a veneer of respectability to avoid detection. Sound familiar?

Since the end of WW2,these Marxist wannabees have been infiltrating academia, the media, and the entertainment industry in a combined effort to destroy the nation they hate by revisionist history and constant negative propaganda. Is it any wonder why liberals despise Senator Joe McCarthy so much?

Dorothy McGuire's speech to Glenn Ford describing how she became a Communist "fellow traveler in college" could have been written by millions of today's campus snowflakes ... that is, IF they ever learned how to write a coherent sentence between riots.

I do like Glenn Ford. He seemed to be that actor in the fifties that could present causes, go the extra mile. In the post World War II drama, a young Hispanic boy is accused of the murder of a young white woman. The case is dramatic enough, but it becomes embroiled in all kinds of neo-cold war stuff where the boy becomes a victim. It's very possible he is guilty. That doesn't really seem to matter. Ford plays a young lawyer, trying his first real case, depending too much on those who enlisted him. When we get to the last five minutes, I had to shrug and wonder how credible the plot was. I'm sure that Hollywood Code got in there somewhere.

Copyright 1955 by Loew's Inc. An M-G-M picture. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 13 October 1955. U.S. release: 7 October 1955. U.K. release: January 1956. Australian release: 7 February 1956. Sydney opening at the St James. Running times: 110 minutes (Aust), 108 minutes (UK), 105 minutes (USA).

NOTES: A four-minute scene with Arthur Kennedy in which some mild criticisms are made of the U.S. legal system was deleted from American prints but retained in the U.K. and Australian versions.

Arthur Kennedy was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, losing to Jack Lemmon in Mister Roberts.

Number 7 on the Film Daily's best films of the year list, as voted by over five thousand American film critics.

COMMENT: Tremendously popular in its day, Trial is yet another movie that has disappeared from public view. True, it's a film with a number of major deficiencies, but it also offers Arthur Kennedy in what is undoubtedly the most charismatic performance of his career. As a rabble-rousing fund-raiser he really comes across with a force and vitality that's absolutely rivetting. In fact, the rally scene is the most vividly realised in the film, brilliantly directed on a level of wondrously-sustained hysteria, abetted by exceptionally skilful special effects.

Unfortunately, the other principals don't quite match Kennedy's expertise. Yes, there are some enthralling support portrayals by the likes of John Hodiak and Juano Hernandez, but Glenn Ford and Dorothy McGuire don't enter into their roles with quite the required zest. Their performances could be justly described as little more than routine. Of course they are not helped by the irrelevant, predictable and thoroughly cliched romantic interest that the script so artificially stirs up between them.

Alas, the most damning indictment against this legal drama is the very illegality, naivety and incredibility of some of its legal arguments. The "solution" is a real cop-out. And as for Armstrong's so called "devastating" cross-examination which is actually so weak and unconvincing... True, Trial has something to offer in the way of engrossing entertainment, but, in all, misguided emphases both in script writing and direction, rob it of the power and high-voltage interest it should have generated. Robson's approach is always slick, but often superficial.

I believe this was based on a very good book, but I found it convoluted and meandering. If you like movies of the 50's and courtroom dramas, you will enjoy this tale of race relations and the question of guilt or innocence of a young Mexican as it unfurls. I always found Glenn Ford a dull actor, so maybe *I* am the one prejudiced here. (and to be honest, movies with a one-word title - "Trial" - are seldom very good.) Just my opinion. Arthur Kennedy and Dorothy Maguire also star.

A self-doubting law professor wants to prove himself by defending a Mexican boy accused of murder. In the process, however, he gets mixed up with powerful political forces seeking to use him and the trial for their own narrow purposes.

As I recall, the movie got a spread in Life magazine, probably because of its topical theme and serious intent. In the mid-1950's, race was becoming a major political topic, 1954's de-segregation ruling being a chief catalyst. Clearly, the movie wants to frame the emerging issue in generally liberal terms, vilifying both bigots and McCarthyites on the political right and communists on the left. In contrast, Glenn Ford's idealistic attorney stands in for what the movie hopes will be an emerging consensus, one that endorses a principled justice for all races. Making the judge (Hernandez) a Black man also suggests that our institutions can work well regardless of skin color.

Now these are worthy topics, but even the best screenplay would have difficulty blending them into an effective 100-minutes. Unfortunately the result here tries to cover too much and ends in little more than an awkward dramatic mix. Also, the usually low-key Ford is too low-key in the movie's pivotal role. Thus the many disparate elements lack a unifying center, drifting more or less from one thread to the next without needed coherence. Notably, however, the film manages to avoid the cartoonish communist stereotypes of the period, making that key Cold War element more believable than most. For example, Kennedy's attorney (Barney) may be a schemer but he's also recognizably human, along with his boisterous fund- raising crowd. And when he admonishes the crowd to not trust anyone, I had to re-run to make sure I'd heard the un-Stalinist sentiment correctly.

All in all, it's a well-intentioned film, but lacks the dramatic impact, for example, of the similarly themed 12 Angry Men (1957). Moreover, the sprawl is simply too loose to provide an effective "think piece" platform.

One of the dialog lines from the film is an equivalent to the Hippocratic oath of "First do no harm".

When Glenn Ford is confronted by the legal conundrum of having been duped by Edgar Kennedy's character into causing and unjust result for the client and advancing the terrifying policies of the groups apposing the US system.

Mr. Ford's character, as the law professor, compelled by his idealism, turned attorney states "Where there is right there is a remedy." This short simple phrase makes more sense than most of the high sounding, self-serving rhetoric of recent times.