I actually sat through Freedom of the Press (1928) and it's surprisingly gritty

If you're into those old-school movies where people wear big hats and point aggressively at newspapers, you'll probably dig this. It's definitely for the silent film nerds or people who like seeing how journalism used to look before the internet ruined everything. 📰

Modern audiences who need a jump scare every five minutes will probably *hate* it. It moves at its own pace, which is to say, it takes its time getting to the point.

I watched this late on a Tuesday, and honestly, I expected to fall asleep. But there is something about the way they filmed the **printing presses** that kept me awake.

Lewis Stone plays the editor, and he has this face that just looks like he's constantly disappointed in the city's ethics. He spends a lot of time looking at a desk, but he makes it look like the most important job in the world.

There is a scene early on where a guy gets cornered in an alley. The lighting is super moody, almost like a precursor to those noir films from the 40s.

I noticed a weird detail in the newsroom—one of the extras in the background is just aggressively typing on a typewriter that doesn't seem to have any paper in it. It made me chuckle because I do the same thing when I'm trying to look busy at work. 😂

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Freedom of the Press (1928) through its definitive frames.

Marceline Day is in this too. She has these huge eyes that do about 70% of the acting for her.

The plot is mostly about a crooked politician trying to keep the paper quiet. It's a story we've seen a thousand times, but it feels more *raw* here because there's no sound to hide behind.

The titles are a bit wordy sometimes. One of them stayed on screen so long I had time to go get a glass of water and come back without missing anything.

It reminded me of the drama in The Eternal Question, though that one felt a bit more theatrical. This feels more grounded, like the director actually spent five minutes in a real basement once.

There’s a moment where a character receives a phone call, and the way they react is so over-the-top that it becomes the best part of the movie. They don't just look surprised; they look like they've seen a ghost through the telephone wire.

The movie gets way better in the second half when things actually start to go wrong for the bad guys. I like how the villain doesn't just give up; he gets more desperate and weird.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Freedom of the Press (1928) through its definitive frames.

I think I saw a poster on the wall in one scene that looked like it was from The Gallopin' Gaucho, but I might have been hallucinating. The print I watched was a little grainy.

The pacing is a bit clunky near the middle. It feels like they had two different ideas for how to end a scene and just mashed them together.

One thing that really stuck with me was the ink. They make the ink look so thick and black, almost like oil. It gives the whole concept of "the press" this heavy, physical feeling.

If you've seen Why Change Your Wife?, you know how these late silents can sometimes feel a bit stuck between eras. This one feels like it's trying to be a modern thriller but with 1928 tools.

The ending is pretty predictable, but it's satisfying in a "justice prevails" kind of way. We don't get enough of that these days.

I didn't care much for the romance subplot. It felt like it was there because a producer said, "Hey, we need a girl and a guy to hold hands at some point."

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Freedom of the Press (1928) through its definitive frames.

The guy playing the son, Malcolm McGregor, has some okay moments, but he mostly just looks confused. To be fair, if my dad was Lewis Stone, I’d be confused too.

I found myself wondering if they used real newspaper offices for the filming. The desks look appropriately messy, covered in real junk and not just movie props.

It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s a solid watch if you’re in the right mood. 🎥

I’d put it above something like Save Me, Sadie in terms of re-watchability. At least here, something is actually at stake.

The final confrontation is filmed with a lot of close-ups. You can see the sweat on the actors' faces, which adds a bit of grit to the whole thing.

Sometimes the camera lingers on a door for like five seconds after someone leaves. It’s those little imperfections that make me love this era of filmmaking.

Anyway, if you find a copy of this, give it a shot. It's better than staring at your phone for ninety minutes. Probably.