Woman in the Dark

I've known of Ralph Bellamy for most of my life. During the fifties and sixties, he was a bit of a staple in television dramas and had a fairly extensive movie career. Rediscovering him in some of these old films, he appears to have a quality that was utilized. He was frequently used as a very masculine character, a kind of dominator of women. He seems to be characterized as a person who once he makes his mind up, won't listen to anyone. This is no exception. He has been framed and put in prison for manslaughter, his temper getting the best of him. It isn't long before he is in trouble again, hooking up with Fay Wray (who really was quite beautiful) and alienating a few people in his community. The problem with all this is that we are expected to believe that people will act in such knee jerk ways, not looking at evidence. Of course, the good guys don't help because instead of pleading their cases, they just take off. Shootings occur and people end up making deals when a simple explanation would have probably circumvented the whole thing. This is a sort of pleasant movie, but not worth a whole lot. There is some pretty bad comic relief that only distracts from what is supposed to be serious.

Woman in the Shadows (1934)

*** (out of 4)

Lightweight but entertaining crime/drama about a man (Ralph Bellamy) released from prison and deciding to stay alone in his cabin so that his bad temper won't get him back into prison. Everything's going well until a woman (Fay Wray) shows up being chased by her psychotic lover (Melvyn Douglas). There's nothing overly special about this "B" film from the Biograph Company but the three stars make it well worth watching. The pre-code elements with Wray's dress slipping down or the close-ups of her legs being shown are nice touches. Also known as Woman in the Dark. Directed by Phil Rosen who would go on to direct several Charlie Chan films as well as Spooks Run Wild and Return of the Ape Man.

Routine 30's programmer with nothing particularly to recommend. John's (Bellamy) paroled from prison because he killed a man in a fight. To stay out of trouble, he retreats to a cabin in the boondocks. But there he meets Louise (Wray) who's also in trouble. Then when his ex-rival Robson (Douglas) shows up, things really go haywire, especially when John slugs a confederate of Robson's. So, can John clear himself with the cops now that his parole's in jeopardy, and maybe warm up to the plaintive Louise.

Actor Bellamy's usually derided for being dull. Here, however, he shows some charisma as a leading man. But why it takes his character so long to clinch with the luscious Wray remains a cosmic mystery, especially when she walks in the door in a clinging satin gown. Oh well, it's the movies, and certainly King Kong knew better. The story idea comes from ace crime novelist Dashiell Hammett, but appears to suffer from erratic adaptation. For example, having movie sidekick Roscoe Ates clowning around undercuts any serious intent, and almost certainly didn't come from Hammett's novel. Nonetheless, fans of Wray should tune in thanks to her many glowing close-ups. Otherwise, the 60-minutes is pedestrian at best.

This one came in the DVD collection and is the only reason the watch it.The best that can be said is that it is a good cast wasted. Hard to believe Dashiell Hammett had a hand in this uninteresting film. It was Pre-Code and had a few half-hearted attempts to inject sexual innuendo which would pass unnoticed nowadays. I give it 3 due mainly to an uninspired script and an outlandish storyline. The cast headed by Ralph Bellamy and Fay Wray try mightily. Melvyn Douglas is the heavy in this one and Roscoe Ates is on hand as comic relief but adds nothing - not even humor - to the proceedings.

I hope no one went to great lengths to restore this picture - it wasn't worth it and I can't recommend it.

Interestingly, this isn't a Hollywood film - it was made in New York at the old Biograph studios. That's about the only interesting thing about this other than wondering why reasonably high profile actors ended up in this low budget rubbish. The story behind that might be more interesting than this film?

The difference between this and something from a major studio is blatantly obvious. It looks decidedly amateurish. It's directed with all the skill of an arthritic chimpanzee trying to teach the tango in a dance school. It's hard to believe that some of these people are proper actors and that they have actually seen a camera before. I don't however harbour any pre-conceived notions that the cinematographer had seen a camera before.

It's just entertaining enough that you'll probably watch it to the end but you'll have the feeling that you've just watched a local amateur dramatics society put on a play in a church hall.

It's also a perfect example of how not to efficiently use your film time. They seem to have forgotten that in a movie you can have more than one thing going on at the same time. This results in weird long gaps in dialogue whilst each member of the cast waits in turn to read their lines. For example, He asks Her a question - does she reply? Yes but only after she's walked for about 5 seconds in silence to the other side of the room (where the microphone is?) to reply. It makes it so slow. 'Speak as you walk' you'll be wanting to shout.

I wonder if this explains why Fay Wray's career didn't go anywhere after Kong?