Newspaper Noir in 1952: Deadline-U.S.A., Scandal Sheet, and Assignment-Paris

My last three articles were about Deadline-U.S.A., Scandal Sheet, and Assignment-Paris—all released in 1952 and all examples of newspaper noir. That is, all are stories about newspaper reporters and their work publishing the news of the day. I hadn’t planned on writing about newspaper noir three consecutive times, but because it has worked out that way, it seemed like a good opportunity to investigate newspaper noir, a subgenre of film noir, a little bit.

◊ Deadline-U.S.A., released March 14, 1952

◊ Scandal Sheet, released January 16, 1952

◊ Assignment-Paris, released September 4, 1952

I tried an online search for newspaper noir and didn’t find much information about this type of film. But I did find one article about journalism in noir at the website Heart of Noir. Click here to visit the site for more information.

Deadline-U.S.A., Scandal Sheet, and Assignment-Paris are certainly not the only films about newspapers and reporters. Heart of Noir lists many examples of newspaper noir, and it looks like I have more films noir to see. At Heart of Noir, the criterion for categorizing a film noir as a newspaper noir is simply that “[a]t least one character works in journalism.”

Although I am not a big fan of categories, as I have said/written many times before, I’d like to think that the one character and their work for a newspaper are not the only criteria that make a film a newspaper noir. The character and their newspaper work should at least be the main parts of the film’s narrative, which would thus include the newspaper and its one or more employees as vital parts of the story. So I would limit the category a little more: I wouldn’t call a film noir a newspaper noir if only one of the characters happened to work for a newspaper.

I realize that the designation of a film as newspaper noir (or even as film noir) is subjective. Fans have definite opinions—and that’s one of the things that makes writing about noir interesting for me.

And then there is the term newspaper noir trilogy, which is applied specifically to three of Fritz Lang’s films. I have already written about all three:

◊ The Blue Gardenia, released March 28, 1953

◊ While the City Sleeps, released May 16, 1956

◊ Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, released September 13, 1956

The Blue Gardenia explores the public’s appetite for sensational stories and a newspaper reporter’s willingness to pander to those appetites. In While the City Sleeps, a newspaper’s reporters learn of a serial killer terrorizing young women in New York City. The paper’s owner decides to create the position of executive director and give it to the person who learns the killer’s identity first, thus setting up a fierce competition and putting lives at risk.

A newspaper publisher in Beyond a Reasonable Doubt maintains that an innocent man can be arrested, convicted, and executed on circumstantial evidence alone. He nominates his future son-in-law to be the innocent suspect in his experiment that involves the very real crime of murder. The publisher’s plan is really an obstruction of justice and manipulation of public opinion and the justice system.

It isn’t uncommon for film noir to feature newspaper reporters, and this makes sense. Reporters function much like private detectives and police investigators who search the dark and shadowy side of human nature for a living. Reporters search for the truth (not always true in noir, of course) and publish stories about what they find. But they also have to pay attention to what the public wants and is willing to pay for, and the tension between the two can sometimes get in the way of honesty and the pursuit of justice in the public arena.

This tension is part of the narrative in Scandal Sheet, although I would say that Mark Chapman, editor in chief at the New York Express and one of the main characters in the film, cares a lot less about the truth and a lot more about selling newspapers and increasing circulation. His newspaper sponsors publicity stunts that are also meant to increase sales and have nothing to do with a search for the truth and informing the public. His blatant manipulation of the public to make more money and sell more newspapers sounds like the modern version capitalism applied at times to social media and reality television.

Deadline U.-S.-A. is a film about the feared decline of the free press in the United States. The villain this time is not a single person but the prevailing trend of corporate consolidation and its effect on newspapers and their ability to maintain their independence. This is another modern theme: Large corporations and people with a lot of money (and political connections) are controlling more and more markets when it comes to news in 2026.

Assignment-Paris is a bit different from Deadline-U.S.A. and Scandal Sheet. This time, the villain is the communist regime in Hungary and its clampdown on the press, both domestically and internationally. The hero is a lone foreign correspondent from the United States who wants to report the facts and is repeatedly blocked and persecuted for trying to do his job. He is successful in the end, but he pays for it with his health and almost with his life. Again, the theme is surprisingly modern.

All three films—Deadline-U.S.A., Scandal Sheet, and Assignment-Paris—are modern in their take on human nature and the news. The same can be said of Lang’s newspaper noir trilogy. The themes in newspaper noir are still relevant today, even though newspapers are not nearly as ubiquitous as they once were.

The three screenshots are from Assignment-Paris (1952), Deadline-U.S.A. (1952), and While the City Sleeps (1956), respectively.

Deadline-U.S.A. (1952)

In his audio commentary on the DVD for Deadline-U.S.A., Eddie Muller claims that the film is not a noir. Then about fourteen minutes into the film commentary, he states that he scheduled the film to open his 2008 Noir City Film Festival in San Francisco. I have said (written) many times that I’m not a big fan of categories for film, and maybe Muller feels as ambiguous about film categories as I do. But no matter what category you want to put it in (drama, crime thriller, film noir, fictional commentary on the state of the newspaper industry), Deadline-U.S.A. is a great film. And in spite of being produced in 1952 and in black and white, it’s a film with a modern theme: the decline of the free press in the United States.

The film starts with a Senate commission hearing, which is attended by the press and is filmed by television cameras. A reporter from the Day, George Burrows, is in the courtroom taking notes while Tomas Rienzi testifies about spending money to influence an election, a charge he denies. When Burrows gets back to the newspaper offices to talk to the managing editor, Ed Hutcheson, Hutcheson learns that the newspaper is about to be sold to Lawrence White, owner of a rival and competitor called the Standard.

The Standard is the opposite of the Day: it is a tabloid full of sensationalism and yellow journalism. Ed Hutcheson laments how readers want horoscopes, dream interpretation, comics, and so on. He wants to fight the sale of the Day, but the heirs, the widow and two daughters of the original owner, are determined to sell. It is now Hutcheson’s job to tell the employees that the newspaper will be sold and that they will lose their jobs.

Hutcheson goes “home” to his ex-wife Nora. It’s home to him because he still loves Nora, but they are divorced and living separately. She wishes he hadn’t come to visit, but he stays. He is too drunk to argue when she arranges their separate sleeping accommodations. The next morning, Ed gets a phone call about George Burrows, the newspaper reporter, who is found in an industrial park after a beating by Rienzi’s men. Ed runs off, and Nora is reminded why they divorced in the first place. When they do finally meet for dinner, Nora has just enough time of Ed’s time to announce that she plans to remarry before Ed gets another phone call and rushes off about another important story.

This latest story involves a murder mystery, and the reporter who wants to follow the lead is the only female reporter at the Day: Mrs. Willebrandt. An unidentified woman was found in the river wearing only a mink coat, and Willebrandt found out that the woman’s mother, Mrs. Schmidt, arrived at the morgue to identify her daughter. Willebrandt is convinced that the mother knows a lot more than she is telling. The daughter, Bessie, used the name Sally Gardner, and Willebrandt believes the mother and the daughter’s alias are two details that will be part of a great story.

(This article about Deadline-U.S.A. contains some spoilers.)

Several story threads are thus introduced in the film: Tomas Rienzi, organized crime, and general corruption; the impending sale of the Day and the attendant legal wranglings that Ed Hutcheson hopes will thwart the inevitable; the possibility that Ed and Nora Hutcheson can renew their romance and marriage; and the mystery of the unidentified woman found in the river. Some are more closely connected than others, but all are wrapped up by the film’s end, including the legal case concerning the sale of the Day to Lawrence White of the Standard.

The probate court decides that the sale to the Standard should go through, but Ed Hutcheson stands up in court to defend the Day. He invokes the readers, the employees, the unfinished business concerning Thomas Rienzi, and the paper’s desire to expose Rienzi’s corruption. He also defends a free press, competition, the marketplace of ideas, all of which sound like arguments that could be made today about the media. Earlier in the film, Hutcheson tries to convince Garrison’s heirs not to sell, and he made similar arguments then, too. Unfortunately, he cannot stop the sale.

But Hutcheson isn’t going to let the Day fade away quietly. He prints an editorial about Tomas Rienzi, Rienzi’s corruption, and its effects on the life of the city. He doesn’t use his own name in the byline; he uses John Garrison’s. John Garrison was the owner of the Day and died eleven years earlier. When he finally discovers hard evidence of Rienzi’s crimes, he publishes the story, and it’s just in time for the newspaper’s final edition. The evidence comes from Mrs. Schmidt, mother of the murdered girl. She has her daughter’s diary, and she is not afraid about publication of some of the details it contains. She trusts the newspaper, not the police, because she has read the Day for thirty-one years; it was how she learned English after immigrating to the country.

As I mentioned, the DVD comes with audio commentary by film historian Eddie Muller. Just like his other commentaries, Muller’s commentary for Deadline-U.S.A. is a lot of fun to listen to and is packed with information about many aspects of the film. The film has a special significance for Muller because he grew up around newspapers thanks to his father, who wrote about boxing, and because he himself worked in journalism, all of which makes his commentary that much more entertaining. Here are just a few of the facts Muller discusses in his commentary:

◊ The offices of the New York Daily News were used for the location shootings for the newspaper: the press room, printing rooms, trucking, and so on.

◊ The director Richard Brooks starts the story with a congressional hearing, which was common in film and on television in the 1950s.

◊ The newspaper business allowed Richard Brooks to survive the Great Depression. He worked for the New York World after it had been folded into the New York Telegram. The real-life story about Joseph Pulitzer and the New York World story is used in the film. The story about the newspaper’s heirs was based almost exactly on the story of Pulitzer’s heirs. Margaret Garrison is a stand-in for Joseph Pulitzer.

◊ Richard Brooks wrote the part of Ed Hutcheson for Humphrey Bogart, and he had to fight Darryl Zanuck to cast Bogart. Bogart is perfect for the role because he could portray cynicism and idealism at the same time on-screen. Bogart as Ed Hutcheson voices a lot of Joseph Pulitzer’s editorial philosophy.

◊ Richard Brooks cares less about organized crime than he does about the decline of newspaper journalism. Richard Brooks’s ideas about merging newspapers as a threat to democracy are prescient.

Because of the different story threads, the narrative seems to jump from one plot detail to another, and Deadline-U.S.A. is another film where viewers really have to pay attention to all the clues and remember names and details. Seeing the film more than once is a big help, but that shouldn’t be a hardship because the film is so good. Humphrey Bogart is great in the role of Ed Hutcheson. The supporting cast is filled with several film noir regulars like Paul Stewart, Martin Gabel, and Tom Powers. Ethel Barrymore plays the role of the widowed heir Margaret Garrison. She, Bogart, and the supporting cast all give strong performances (probably no surprise to fans of film noir and classic films).

Deadline-U.S.A. is one of those films that viewers have to watch carefully because every detail counts, and repeat viewings are well worth the time. The role of Ed Hutcheson is a bit different for Humphrey Bogart, but that just makes the film all the more interesting. It’s amazing that so many of his lines could be repeated today and remain true about the free press in the United States—almost three-quarters of a century later.

March 14, 1952, release date  •  Directed by Richard Brooks  •  Screenplay by Richard Brooks  •  Music by Cyril J. Mockridge  •  Edited by William B. Murphy  •  Cinematography by Milton R. Krasner

Humphrey Bogart as Ed Hutcheson  •  Ethel Barrymore as Margaret Garrison  •  Kim Hunter as Nora Hutcheson  •  Ed Begley as Frank Allen  •  Warren Stevens as George Burrows  •  Paul Stewart as Harry Thompson  •  Martin Gabel as Tomas Rienzi  •  Joseph De Santis as Herman Schmidt  •  Joyce MacKenzie as Katherine (aka Kitty) Garrison Geary  •  Audrey Christie as Mrs. Willebrandt  •  Fay Baker as Alice Garrison Courtney  •  Jim Backus as Jim Cleary  •  Carleton Young as Crane, Garrison’s daughters’ lawyer  •  Selmer Jackson as Williams  •  Fay Roope as Judge McKay  •  Parley Baer as the headwaiter  •  John Doucette as Hal  •  Florence Shirley as Ms. Barndollar  •  Raymond Greenleaf as Lawrence White  •  Tom Powers as Andrew Wharton  •  Thomas Browne Henry as Fenway  •  Phillip Terry as Lewis Schaefer, Nora’s fiancé  •  Joseph Sawyer as Whitey Franks  •  Lawrence Dobkin as Larry Hansen, Rienzi’s lawyer  •  Clancy Cooper as Police Captain Finlay  •  Willis Bouchey as Henry  •  Joseph Crehan as White’s city editor  •  Kasia Orzazewski as Mrs. Schmidt  •  Norman Leavitt as a newsroom reporter

Distributed by Twentieth Century Fox  • Produced by Twentieth Century Fox

Tokyo Joe (1949)

Almost all films noir benefit from repeat viewings, and that is especially true of Tokyo Joe. Some slang used in the film probably will be unfamiliar to modern viewers, but a little bit of history information is the biggest help. I did a bit of research before seeing the film again, and that made a difference. But historical fact is not the reason to see Tokyo Joe because it is really a poignant story of trying to mend broken relationships after a protracted world war.

Humphrey Bogart, starring as Joe Barrett, gets top billing, but that shouldn’t be a surprise because the film was produced by his own production company: Santana Pictures Corporation. And Bogart is definitely the star, the lead, the actor who carries the film. Many of the other actors were unfamiliar to me. Even Bogart’s female lead, Florence Marly, as Trina Landis, was not familiar. I did wonder if she did her own singing in Tokyo Joe because her portrayal in the nightclub sure looked like she was using her singing muscles, so to speak. I couldn’t find anything specific about that, but I did learn from Wikipedia that Marly dreamed of being an opera singer, so I believe my hunch is correct.

The film starts with aerial shots over Tokyo and eventually camera shots from a plane. Barrett is one of the passengers on the plane that lands at Haneda Airforce Base. Postwar Japan is under U.S. military rule, and Barrett is checked in at the airport by a U.S. military officer who informs him that he will have to check in at the Provost Marshall’s in Tokyo. When Barrett leaves the base, the officer calls in Barrett’s passport number to a Colonel Dahlgren. Barrett heads next to the Provost Marshall and checks in, as required, and the major in this office also calls in Barrett’s passport number. The military is keeping tabs on Barrett from the beginning and, because this is film noir, viewers can assume that his arrival in Japan may be cause for suspicion.

Barrett is back in Tokyo to salvage his old business: A cabaret (what he calls “a joint”) called Cabaret Tokyo Joe. Ito, a friend and business partner of Joe’s from before the war, is still at the nightclub, which is now being managed by Japanese. Ito is very hesitant with Joe at first because Joe is American, from the conquering country, but he finally thaws after a friendly kudo fight with Joe, and they renew their friendship.

(This article about Tokyo Joe contains spoilers.)

Ito wants Joe to live in the apartment over Tokyo Joe’s, like old times. He tells Barrett that his old girlfriend Trina is still alive and that she is in Tokyo. Barrett is thrilled; one of the reasons he returned to Japan was to find Trina, but his first meeting with her at her home doesn’t go according to his plan. He learns that she has married. In fact, she has remarried because Trina and Joe had been married before the war, before he was drafted. Trina divorced Joe after the war without ever telling him because she didn’t know where he was, and married Mark Landis. Trina tells Joe that her new husband, Mark Landis, works for the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP).

Barrett’s visitor’s pass is good for only sixty days, and he intends to win Trina back in that time. But he realizes he faces a large obstacle in Mark Landis, and it is quite possible that he will need more than a couple of months. Barrett decides he needs a business to provide him with a good reason to remain in Japan. He goes to Baron Kimaru, underworld crime figure and former head of the Japanese secret police. Already viewers can see that trouble is in store for Barrett in Japan; he seems to be running into trouble everywhere he turns.

Joe wants to start an airline franchise: He can do so because he is a U.S. citizen and is an experienced fighter pilot, but he has no money. Baron Kimura has money, but martial law prevents Japanese citizens from engaging in businesses that are considered vital or sensitive for Allied security. Barrett strikes a deal with Kimura: He’ll fly and Kimura will handle the administrative details. Barrett also gets assurances about transporting only goods like frozen frogs between Seoul, Korea, and Tokyo.

Barrett gets nothing but bureaucratic red tape from the military about his airline permit, which he needs before he can go into business with Kimura. Barrett goes to Kimura to discuss his administrative troubles. Kimura has held on to files from the Japanese secret police, and he thinks one in particular will interest Joe. Joe reads it, but viewers don’t know yet what is in the file. Joe worries that it could be a forgery; he knows the Japanese were good at that kind of thing. But Kimura tells him to ask Mrs. Landis about the information in the file.

And Barrett does just that. Trina Landis tells Joe that she spent the war in a prison camp, and it is true that she worked for the Japanese broadcasting propaganda to U.S. GIs. Joe reminds her that she was a naturalized citizen married to a U.S. citizen in wartime, and what she did was treason. But while Trina was in prison, she gave birth to a baby girl, and the Japanese used her baby as a bargaining chip to get her to work for them. To save her daughter, she did what the Japanese asked her to do. Joe surmises that most jurors wouldn’t convict Trina when she faced this kind of coercion, but he also thinks that he can use the information to ruin Mark’s chances working for SCAP and get Trina back. But then Joe learns that Trina’s daughter Anya is his, not Mark’s.

Joe now wants to back out of his business deal with Kimura because he wants to protect Trina and their daughter. But Kimura turns the blackmail on Joe. Kimura tells Joe that the secret files on Trina Landis will be used one way or the other. Joe threatens Kimura, but Kimura tells him that if he dies, the files would stay with people who can use them. Joe is backed into a corner.

Joe Barrett goes to Mark Landis, literally with his hat in his hand, because he needs help cutting through army red tape, which Mark can do because he works for SCAP. Mark agrees to help him, and Nippon-American Air Freight is finally off the ground. Joe and Ito are back in business, a different business, but trouble continues to plague Barrett. They have no proof, but they are still worried about working with Kimura, a known gangster, and that the airline is a front for a smuggling business.

Colonel Dahlgren and now General Ireton want to work with Barrett. They already know that he is fronting for a criminal organization. They also know before he does that this organization plans to bring back three Japanese war criminals from Korea. Joe may be cutting corners where he can, but he is a patriot. He doesn’t need too much convincing to do what needs to be done to thwart Baron Kimura’s plans. Kimura knows this about Joe, too. For added insurance that his smuggling scheme will work, he has his henchmen kidnap Anya.

Trina, of course, is sick with worry about the safety of her daughter. The predicament just adds to the pressure on Joe, who comes through and saves Anya. By the end of the film, viewers see Joe as a hero: He came through when Trina and Mark Landis really needed to count on him. Mark came through—very graciously—when Joe needed help.

It seems that both Mark and Joe were heroes, in very different ways, when they needed to be. I wonder if that was the message of the film in 1949 because Mark was not cast as the bad guy, standing in Joe’s way. The Japanese characters in the film were portrayed as bad guys for the most part. But Joe still kept his friendship with Ito after the war. Ito commits hari-kari by the end of the film, however, because he feels ashamed about convincing Joe to return to Japan. Joe has the time, while Ito is in his death throes, to give a short patriotic, political speech to Ito about the glorious Allied goals of postwar reconstruction for Japan before Ito collapses. The film isn’t entirely free from a bit of propaganda. But as I already pointed out, Tokyo Joe is a poignant story about people trying to mend broken relationships after a protracted world war, and it succeeds at telling that story.

Filmgoers in 1949 would have been familiar with many of the terms and the postwar political developments overseas, but modern-day viewers could probably benefit from some research. I know I did. Here are some helpful links:

◊ Wikipedia provides a basic overview of the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan.

◊ SCAP = Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which was created at the start of the occupation of Japan on August 14, 1945.

◊ SCAP was headquartered in the Dai Ichi Sogo Building in Tokyo. The characters refer to it at various points throughout the film. Baron Kimura knows that Joe Barrett met with Allied officers simply because he was seen entering the Dai Ichi Building.

◊ It was very difficult to hear the dialogue sometimes in Tokyo Joe, and the DVD I watched did not come with subtitles. I think Trina said Oeyama or Okayama Prison Camp when she talked to Joe about what she did in Japan during the war. For a list of prisoner-of-war (POW) camps in Japan, see the website “Alphabetical Listing of POW Camps in Japan Proper.” The website says that the list is not updated, but it was still helpful for a rookie like me when it comes to wartime Japan.

As I said, historical accuracy is not the reason to see Tokyo Joe. It is a great story that I just happened to enjoy more when I learned about some of the facts discussed by the characters. And the three leads are not one-dimensional. Joe shows his ugly side when he is intent on winning Trina back, but he saves Anya in the end. Mark is naturally hostile to Joe when he first shows up at the Landis house, but he is gracious enough to give Joe a chance at a business in Japan. And Trina did what she could to save her daughter during the war, even if it meant a charge of treason when the war was over. To say that the war complicated these characters’ lives in every way imaginable would be an understatement. World War II touched the lives of millions of people, and a film like Tokyo Joe shows how this happens to Joe, Mark, Trina, and Ito.

November 1949 release date  •  Directed by Stuart Heisler  •  Screenplay by Walter Doniger, Cyril Hume Bertram Millhauser  •  Based on a story by Steve Fisher  •  Music by George Antheil  •  Edited by Viola Lawrence  •  Cinematography by Charles Lawton Jr.

Humphrey Bogart as Joseph (Joe) Barrett  •  Alexander Knox as Mark Landis  •  Florence Marly as Trina Pechinkov Landis  •  Sessue Hayakawa as Baron Kimura  •  Jerome Courtland as Danny, pilot  •  Gordon Jones as Idaho, pilot  •  Teru Shimada as Ito  •  Hideo Mori as Kanda  •  Charles Meredith as General Ireton  •  Rhys Williams as Colonel Dahlgren  •  Lora Lee Michel as Anya, Trina’s daughter  •  Kyoko Kamo as Nani-San  •  Gene Gondo as Kamikaze  •  Whit Bissell as Captain Winnow  •  Harold Goodwin as Major J. F. X. Loomis  •  James Cardwell as a military police captain  •  Frank Kumagai as the truck driver  •  Tetsu Komai as Lieutenant General Takenobu (aka “The Butcher”)  •  Otto Han as Hara  •  Yosan Tsuruta as Goro  •  Hugh Beaumont as the provost marshal major

Distributed by Columbia Pictures  •  Produced by Santana Pictures Corporation