Beyond A Reasonable Doubt (1956)

by Nathanael Biller

I, like so many others, love mystery movies but especially mystery movies made in the classic Hollywood era, it’s when I believe the only true noir films were made. I’ve seen so many classic film noirs in my life ever since I was a child so some movies that I’ve watched before I rediscover again. Recently I watched (or re-watched depending on whether I first watched this farther back than my memory goes) the classic film: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This movie could be considered more of a crime thriller than a pure noir mystery film but certain aspects of the film blurs the lines between the two genres.

The film starts off introducing us to a happy couple comprised of a woman named Susan Spencer who is played by the elegant Joan Fontaine, and her fiancé whose name is Tom Garrett portrayed by film noir staple Dana Andrews. The couple is joined on screen by Susan’s father Austin Spencer, who’s portrayed by Sidney Blackmer. The three make a character set and it’s primarily these 3 characters that the film focuses on.

The actors are talented and have the professional chemistry on screen that is so signature of classic Hollywood films. However it’s not the actors or their chemistry that makes this movie pull you in, it’s the innovative plot. My favorite movies are the ones that think outside the box and bring you a narrative “what if” story, these tales intrigue me the most. The type of stories you dream up in your head while you’re trying to fall asleep at night and think about how the outcome would be if it happened in real life. I’m not talking about the absurd like a sci-fi film or fantasy, which can be extremely entertaining as well but I’m referring to a plausible story involving ordinary people that get involved in a rather unusual situation. And Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is definitely a film of this ilk. 

The film was able to trick me into believing it was something that it wasn’t.

The story sets up like this: Susan Spencer’s father Austin is a newspaper editor and is frenemies with the city’s district attorney, the two split ways on the discussion of capital punishment with Susan’s father erring on the side of mercy and the DA demanding death sentences for certain criminals. Austin Spencer, intent on making a difference on society and proving that the legal system can make fatal mistakes, comes up with a way to do it. He devises an unorthodox plan which he proposes to his good friend Tom Garrett. The innovative plan is this: frame an innocent man for a death penalizing crime such as murder by planting circumstantial evidence and mimicking the description of the lead suspect. Then photographing and recording the planting of the evidence along the way to document the experiment. The framed man would then be arrested and tried in court for a crime he didn’t commit, and the whole scheme would be revealed right before a verdict is sentenced. Tom Garrett at first is credulous of this idea, pointing out that picking any random murder wouldn’t be plausible, only specific murders of people which little was known about would be required to pull off such a hoax. However, a murder that matches all the requirements conveniently appears within the same week of the pairs discussion and Tom volunteers to play the part of the would-be victim of the justice system. The absurd social experiment starts and Garret and Spencer begin planting incriminating evidence at the scene of the crime and entwining Tom Garrett into the murder victim’s life. Tom tries to assume the role of the unidentified murder suspect as much as possible by even wearing the same attire that the suspect was last seen wearing and frequenting spots that the said suspect was said to be seen at. The plan goes well and the district attorney takes the bait. He soon arrests Tom Garrett and does exactly what Austin Spencer predicted he would. Spencer knew that the DA, hungry for justice, would pounce on a suspect, act rashly, and accuse him based solely on seemingly solid evidence but ultimately circumstantial. This demonstrates Austin Spencer’s view of the district attorneys political stance very clearly: when you want something to be true, every little happenstance adds another trick eye lens to your glasses of delusion.

At this point everything is going as planned for the schemers except for Susan Spencer who is clueless to the social experiment her father and fiancé are performing as they both agreed that only the two of them should know about it to ensure absolute secrecy and avoid any chance that it would be revealed and ruined. Because of this Susan appears to break up with Tom due to his recent odd choices of company and his strange behavior. This distresses Tom and makes him want to explain everything to Susan, but Austin assures him all will be righted once the experiment is revealed. It’s about this time in the film that we start to get uneasy as we realize that Austin Spencer has been put solely in charge of all the photographs and receipts that prove they planted and bought all the circumstantial evidence that is being used to convict Tom Garrett. What if Austin Spencer isn’t what we thought? What if his supposed “experiment” was just a way to cover up a murder he was planning? And coercing Tom into volunteering, was his way of escaping punishment for his crime? We don’t want to believe this of him because he’s painted as a kind and rather clever chap. However once this thought crosses your mind you can start seeing every other action of Austin Spencer in the movie as being double sided and it’s easy to see his words and behavior in a completely different, more sinister manner now. Thankfully, not long after we start to question this, we get our answer to the question in a rather shock sequence. 

As Tom Garrett’s sentencing is approaching, Austin Spencer believes it is time for his grand reveal and takes all the documents to prove Toms innocence from his safe and drives down to the courthouse. Only he never makes it, because he’s blindsided by a large truck which causes his car to burst into flames and destroys his body and everything inside his vehicle. This twist is unforeseen, but not completely unexpected because of course we already had a hunch something was about to throw a wrench in the plans. This is happens to be a very big wrench and suddenly a genius experiment becomes a dangerous joke that isn’t funny anymore. Tom confesses the whole scheme now that his only confidant is dead and tries to explain to the jury how Austin Spencer masterminded the whole thing. This is all very good but Tom now lacks the very thing the DA is using to convict him: evidence. Tom is desperate for anything to vindicate him now, any shred of evidence circumstantial or not, just something that will support his claim of innocence. Thankfully he still has supporters, Susan comes back and seems to believe his wild tale and she vows to save him with the help of Tom’s lawyer. The pair try unsuccessfully to undo all the evidence Tom Garrett planted to convict himself. The irony is that Tom has no one to blame but himself for his situation as he wouldn’t have even been considered a candidate for the murderer if not for his meticulous method of becoming the perfect suspect. Now Tom is about to be sent to the penitentiary and placed on death row, but at the last minute the film makes its climatic resolve: Austin Spencer kept a letter locked inside his safe in case of his untimely death, the letter explained the whole plot of framing the innocent Tom Garrett and placing circumstantial evidence to prove a political point. With this new piece of evidence Tom is set to be pardoned by the governor and the district attorney has to admit that perhaps he was wrong about jumping to conclusions that Tom was guilty and perhaps this means he was wrong about his other views as well. The repercussions of the case could go a long way in how the justice system handles the death penalty. We all breathe a sigh of relief for Tom and realize the movies point was to show us an interesting view on the harshness of capital punishment and state that perhaps humans are too flawed to be given the right to judge anyone if the judgement results in the taking of a life. Whether you agree with this agenda or not you have to agree that the movie’s plot was interesting and the way the filmmakers conveyed their point was innovative.

But as we are processing all of this and pondering the message of the film, we’re jolted by one last twist, a scene that renders the belief that the film was intended to make a point or deliver a political message completely and utterly in shambles. The film never had an agenda and there were seemingly no lessons to be learned. The political aspects of the film were sincerely only plot devices and the filmmakers weren't trying to send a message they were merely using all the politics as a way of conveying the story, which was just a murder mystery after all. Although this is disguised by a creative narrative of a man with an eccentric way of proving his own beliefs that ultimately had nothing to do with the movies message at all.

Now, if your waiting for me to reveal what the plot twist is, I’m sorry to say I shan’t, because I highly recommend you watch the film and one of the biggest reasons is the shock you will find at the end. If you are like me you will be very amused and taken completely off guard; if you’re not like me perhaps you will feel slightly cheated and annoyed. But even if you do, just the fact that the film was able to trick me into believing it was something that it wasn’t impressed me and I feel confident it will impress you as well.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a really well made film and the direction is commendable. It’s probably one of the best classic Hollywood mystery films I’ve seen and definitely one of the most creative. I hope you can view it soon and see if you agree.

Happy watching!