One of the reviews of this short film try to tie it to the McCarthy Hearings going at the time this film was. That's an ignorant and probably intellectually dishonest take on this film. This film is simply meant to make school age children, and maybe a few adults, think about their own moral values. Very few things are as basis as right vs. wrong. The boy was involved with an act of vandalism. Did he do anything? You have to watch the film to know. This film is about a number of adults who demonstrate their values by the way they act. And in the end the boy is left with a decision to make. Is this a technological tour de force? No! But it is a very good film at creating conversation about an important topic. A society that doesn't know right from wrong would be a horrible place to live. And if you did live there. You probably wouldn't live for long. Because if you don't know right from wrong you also can't value life and property rights. It's common is 2018 to dislike the cops, to steal at will, to abuse others property, just generally abuse everyone else's rights while doing anything you care too. This film would be sure to start a long conversation in any group of two or more viewing it. One reviewer thinks it right and proper that this probably isn't being shown in schools anymore. I think children should see it quarterly during the school year, every year. All low votes up to this time are disheartening. Because those a votes for chaos in society.

The cast is unfortunately lost to history in this short subject which does have some interesting things to say about moral choices we make. Unfortunately the production values are as thin as dental floss and the conclusions heavy handed to say the least.A couple of interesting assumptions are made in this film. The police to handle the juvenile in question once he's identified call a member of the kid's church. No one in 1951 questioned the moral authority of a church in these matters. So the first offender after breaking a window at a warehouse is given over to a church representative. Better than juvenile attention I think, but still an interesting choice for the times. Secondly and even more important the last choice is left up to the kid as to whether to rat out his fellow offenders. In 1951 when we were trying to identify members of the Red conspiracy within our midst, informing was a very political issue. You KNOW what this film wants the kid to do.I doubt this film would be shown today to a school audience.

Right or Wrong? (1951) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Decent educational short was produced down in Georgia. The story involves a teenager who is out with other kids when they decide to throw some rocks through the windows at a warehouse. The night watchman notices the one boy who doesn't throw anything so he calls the cop and the kid is picked up but he's not certain if he should just take the blame or tell who the other kids were. RIGHT OR WRONG? isn't a lost masterpiece or anything but I think fans of these educational shorts should enjoy it. The film actually has some pretty good direction early on because these early scenes seem as if you're watching some sort of Gothic horror movie with the atmosphere and use of shadows. The performances are also a little bit better than you typical see in these types of movies. At just 10-minutes the film certainly doesn't overstay its welcome and its pacing is also another plus. Throughout the film the narrator asks the viewer what they would do with the various circumstances in the film.

Bad, mostly, as an example of film-making. This Coronet educational short subject was intended for schools and poses an interesting question in a dull manner, like, unfortunately, every Coronet short subject I have seen.A gang of boys break into a warehouse, presumably for the sheer pleasure of it. The night watchman recognizes one of them and tells the police. A series of adults try to figure out how to deal with the situation when he refuses to squeal on his friends.Like may Coronet films, it tries to get its audience to do right by putting them in the place of others. Unfortunately, despite its good intentions, it does so in a very dull manner. So the message becomes "Be like people who are not very interesting, who can't figure out what to do because their moral decisions are based on such a complex standard that even they're confused". No thanks.