dolorosa2000
If taken in the context of the era in which it was produced, this short is worth seeing. It's a stark reminder of the simplicity of America in the 1950's. Even with the high tech snooping technologies employed today, the basic detecting techniques shown in this film are still used today. To get a feel for the way others may have felt watching this short in 1956, imagine yourself in a darkened theater watching this film. I think that many back then may have perceived this to be a revealing look at the world of detectives. It also occurs to me that this is quite a commercial for Pinkerton. Talk about product placement. I'd like to know more about the WHY? behind a short such as this one. I'm needing to know more about this series of shorts.
Neil Doyle
Today's high-tech procedures in detective work take a back seat to antiquated methods of "spying" done by Pinkerton detectives in this old-fashioned short that divulges the simple methods by which these men hoped to catch unsuspecting suspects. And not only that, but it does so in a manner that has no suspense whatsoever.Their methods are so primitive (even for '56), that it feels as though you're watching a spoof of detective work. Funniest bit of all has someone following a "cheater" all day long, even lunching at a nearby table, to show how clever the detectives did their day long spying. These RKO shorts deserve to stay in the vaults. I haven't seen one yet that really impressed me when shown on TCM.
Michael_Elliott
We Never Sleep (1956) ** (out of 4) RKO-Pathe short takes a look at the day in the life of a Pinkerton National Detective agent, which just happens to be the oldest private eye company in the country (at the time at least). This is another entry in RKO's Screenliner series and I've yet to be overly impressed with any of the films. The biggest problem is that the narration is rather boring and never really gets you interested in the stuff you're seeing. The film was obviously shot silent because they knew the narration would be doing all the work. None of the "action" that we see is all that entertaining because it seems rather rushed and just hacked together. We see how a detective might follow someone and how they might find out if that person is working with others. Nothing much is learned and nothing is covered that various other shorts weren't doing twenty-years earlier.
John Hedtke
Saw this on TCM as filler after "The Maltese Falcon." It's vaguely interesting from an historical POV, because you get to see antique technology of 50 years ago, but none of this is still relevant. Crime's evolved, detection's evolved, and this is just plain out of date. Watching people get the information off of a telegraph form by dusting the form underneath it to see the pencil marks? 16mm film being shot of someone faking a disability? Well, the wallpaper in the apartment is classically 40s; that was interesting for a moment.Worst of all is the example of tailing someone. Anyone who tailed a suspect as badly as that, even then, would be spotted in the first *block*. Tailing's not done by having the same chubby guy with the same loud tie walking 1/2 a block behind the suspect all day and eating on the other side of a restaurant and watching the suspect while he eats *his* lunch.If you're watching TCM and this comes on, take a bathroom break. Your time will be better spent.
AD
