The Hole in the Wall

It's incredible to see how they managed to get every single aspect of filmmaking so wrong. Even the featured train wreck is a complete train wreck. It's so atrocious that you just keep watching to see if it can get worse - and boy, does it!

Just because this was made in 1928 is no excuse for how virtually unwatchable this picture is. 1928/29 productions from the likes of Von Sternberg, deMille, Arzner, Mamoulian and a few others are still watchable and entertaining today but this - this is so embarrassing you wouldn't want anyone to know you've actually seen it. People in 1929 can only have gone to experience this because of the novelty of seeing a talkie (even though much better alternatives were available). People today should simply avoid this.

The story, dialogue, direction, acting, photography, special effects are all as bad as bad can be. It's hard to which is worst but the story must be number one contender. Amazingly this is actually based on a real play which people actually paid money to see - apparently not a children's play either. It has to be one of the most stupid plots I've ever seen. I know that the police back then didn't have the highest of reputations but even my dog could have figured out what was going on with this bunch of con artists - the thickest bunch of criminals you'll ever see involved in the most unrealistic stupid, stupid racket ever.

If the plot isn't bad enough to make you wonder if you've been given LSD, wait until you've witnessed what Robert Florey considered acting. Yes that really is Edward G and Claudette Colbert but like the great Walter Huston in the equally awful GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS, this demonstrates that without a director who knew what he was doing, the most talented of actors can appear like five year olds in a school nativity play.

It's also shocking to witness that era's sensitive and caring attitude towards mental health issues. For reasons completely and utterly unexplained, the gang keep "a lunatic" in their basement. Other than screaming like an animal every now and then, he doesn't seem to have any purpose whatsoever in the story. To deal with this inconvenience, someone suggests: Why don't you send him back to the carnival where he belongs? Incredible!

As awful as this is, you can't tear yourself away from this nonsense.

The Hole in the Wall (1929)

** (out of 4)

Edward G. RObinson plays a man known as The Fox, the leader of a group of thieves. They get away with so many crimes due to help from a psychic but when she is killed the leader fears their criminal days are over. That's until they meet Jean Oliver (Claudette Colbert) who agrees to help them as long as they help her kidnap a child from a woman who caused her to go to jail.

THE HOLE IN THE WALL is a pretty ridiculous drama story that should have been re-written a few times before it was actually filmed. THe film has pretty much been forgotten today except to those who want to see two future legends in their talkie debuts. While the film is pretty stupid all around, the appeal of the two stars makes it worth watching.

As I said, the screenplay here is certainly the worst thing about the picture as the entire thing is just way too dumb to make you actually care about anything going on. The entire thing with the psychic just doesn't work and at times it becomes rather laughable. I'm guess since this was an early talkie the screenwriters just through everyone would be caught up in the dialogue that they wouldn't pay attention to how silly the story was.

The one good thing about the film is that it clocks in at just 63- minutes so it's certainly over before you know it. Both Robinson and Colbert are decent enough in their roles but I'm not sure anyone watching this in 1929 would have guessed that they'd go on to become legends.

Hollywood studio scouts were scouring Broadway theaters in an attempt to persuade and hire articulate actors and actresses to make the leap into cinema. Studios spent lots of money for talent scouts after discovering many of their reliable silent movie performers were incapable of making the transition over to sound. These actors either possessed an unpleasant voice, their verbal rhythm was slow or uneasy, or they simply had difficulty remembering their lines. Those whom especially hadn't acted on the stage before were most likely fodder for early retirement.

A good example exists in one of Paramount Pictures earliest talkies, filmed in its New York City studio. The company hired two Broadway stage performers to play the leads in its April 1929 "The Hole in the Wall." Claudette Colbert, 25, signed with Paramount in 1928 for her silky voice with a touch of a French accent and for her looks. A four-year veteran of the stage who had emigrated to New York City from France at the age of three, she appeared in Frank Capra's 1927 lost silent film, 'For the Love of Mike,' before getting the call for the talkie, "The Hole in the Wall."

Meanwhile, 35-year-old Edward G. Robinson, a Romanian-born immigrant to America since nine, had made his Broadway theater debut in 1915. He received Paramount's attention for his role in the stage hit 'The Racket,' which was made into a film the next year. The studio scouts felt he was a natural as a conman in "The Hole in the Wall," his movie debut.

The two became highly successful in their transition from stage to screen. But Robinson's memory of how bad his first movie was caused him to vow to never to watch it. Years later, after Colbert saw "The Hole in the Wall" playing on television, she called up the actor and told him the Robert Florey-directed film wasn't all that bad and he should see it. "The Hole in the Wall", based on a Frederick Jackson play, concerns 'The Fox' (Robinson), working alongside a fake fortune teller to con rich people out of their money. The reliable teller dies in a car accident. Up steps her replacement, Jean Oliver (Colbert), who was previously unfairly incarcerated by a rich society woman and is looking for revenge. The director Florey, went on to have an active career as both a film and television director in A-listed and low budgeted B films well into the late 1940s, before transitioning into television in the 1950s. As for Robinson and Colbert, both would see their names on movie theater marquees for years to come.

There are several reviews posted here on the page which cover well "The Hole in the Wall," but I just want to with this comment encourage younger viewers who may be considering embarking on a look at this one to definitely do so. This film was released in April of 1929, so it was probably shot over the winter of 1928-29 or in Jan or Feb at the latest. I would conjecture that most films produced before the summer of 1929 do not hold up well for viewing today, in 2020. But this one does... it looks and feels good in its acting work, its direction, the sets, and the compelling story. Oh sure, the dialog may not be sparkling, but that's just the writing... we're not looking for something great when we are peering into history. We are looking for the joy of seeing what came before, to learn how things developed... to see what things were like back in the day. And "The Hole..." gives us that. Many films in 1928 were still being shot as silents, particularly before summer began, so here in these early days of talkies we have the actors placed around microphones that often dictated where the actors were placed on set. Much of the dialog was delivered deliberately and enunciation was important. The voices may be a bit louder than what would really be appropriate for the situation. For some actors the dialog offered could sound "stagey," and getting physicality to jibe with speech was tricky. Some actors coming in from silent pictures had exaggerated eye and hand movements, but that wasn't the case in this film. Just think how really exciting it must have been to be a part of this change from silents to talkies in the film industry.

It was fun to here see the apparent difficulty of trying to present the characters in conversation while in the nightclub with the band's music playing. For the most part they didn't even try. There was one short sequence where they did try and it worked out just so-so. And furthermore, no attempt was seemingly made to soundtrack the words of the cops who were gathering for the stakeout at the gangsters' den... we only see the mouths moving in apparent conversation while the soundtrack is dull static. This shouldn't be negatively criticized by us today; rather it should be enjoyed. The little girl in peril under the dock is shown in silence in her peril... we the viewers must supply our own sound for the situation she is in, including the splashing of the water by Donald Meek (I for one think silences such as this can add to the gathering concern felt by the viewer if one accepts some of the terms of watching a sound film from early 1929).

This film is a real treat for all the reasons listed above and also because, on good authority, it was Edward G. Robinson's first sound picture and was also his first gangster role, and additionally for it being Claudette Colbert's very first movie role. Youngsters and anyone interested in film history should indeed enjoy this very valuable motion picture. It is a worthy experience.

THE HOLE IN THE WALL is a crime melodrama where only one gun is seen fleetingly. Edward G. Robinson stars as "The Fox", leader of a small gang who has found a new racket that's a cinch, running a fake spiritual medium which finds out information about the belongings of rich believing clients which he then steals. When his "Madame Mysteria" is killed in a railway crash (an incredibly cheap "special effect" badly done with toys which even 1929 audience must have laughed at) he is without a female front for the organization. Within hours into the dungeon-like headquarters/business walks Claudette Colbert, fresh out of jail after being falsely accused of theft. Unable to find a job, she comes the headquarters having heard she might could find a place in the racket from sources she knew in the slammer. Robinson immediately sees her as his new medium and after a practice bit, she agrees to do it - in exchange for her own illegal scheme - she wants to kidnap the granddaughter of the woman who framed her and keep her, raising her as a crook she was accusing of being.

This 1929 melodrama is quite bad and yet rather interesting. This is mainly thanks to top-billed Claudette Colbert, clearly a natural for films, she gives a smooth performance in a highly wavering film. Edward G. Robinson does come not off quite as well and he is hampered by the heavy makeup often given men in mediocre early talkies, black lips and all. It's easy to see why Paramount kept her and passed on him. The big surprise is David Newell, the second lead, who does a very competent job as the good-looking young reporter who turns out to have been an old beau of Claudette's. Newell is very much the type of leading man Paramount loved - he definitely foreshadows Ray Milland and Fred MacMurray - yet his stint as a Paramount player was brief (he appears to have been let go during the massive cutbacks of late 1930 which saw Jean Arthur, Mary Brian, and many other secondary performers canned at the studio.) Newell was playing small parts in 1932 and by 1933 he was beginning an extremely long career as an unbilled bit player.

Meek character actor Donald Meek makes a rather unconvincing gang member and then there is a character supposedly purchased from a freak show named "Dogface" who is kept around inexplicably since he never really has anything to do in the story. Louise Closser Hale's grande dame is written so imperviously she's barely given pause to the fact that her granddaughter is missing with no leads. Actress Nellie Salvage, a minor player in silent films, has her only talking role as the ill-fated Madame.

The print I viewed was in quite good shape, however it ran only 63 minutes although there was no continuity problem suggesting it may have never been the 73 minutes IMDb lists it at. The movie is also a complete talkie, although there are a few seconds of non-sound when characters appear to be conversing but this was probably dropouts in the print.

The movie ends somewhat abruptly, as often appears to be the case in early Paramount talkies. The set designer and cinematographer do a considerably better job creating a fairly spooky, creepy ambiance than does director Florey. Worth seeing only as a curio - or for fans of the cast.