Murder on the Campus

I'm convinced that serious moviewatchers need to perform regular, frequent cinematic calisthenics. And that these must include some wading through old, forgotten 30's era mysteries. These unsung projects collectively are the foundation of many of the storytelling conventions we use today.

Mysteries from this era are true detective stories that "play fair" in allowing you to outguess the writer. It is participative viewing of the kind that persists in other forms in movie stories. Here it is pure. This example is a good one for your daily toneup.

It features a narrator which is literally a reporter, a typical trick. It also has an impossible murder, impossible as it turns out in several ways. There are the comedic cops as well as a co-detective doctor. (Doctors in that era were considered men of science.)

You'll have a hard time not guessing the murderer, but how early do you think you can?

Incidentally, this is set on a college campus. You'll not find it easy to relate to these students.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This little poverty row murder mystery has a good basis in its script - A campus could-have-been athlete is a slacker on and off the athletic field, failing in his studies, yet Lillian Voyne (Shirley Grey) seems to have a soft spot for him. This causes some jealousy from reporter Bill Bartlett (Charles Starrett). But then one night when Bill actually drives Lillian to go find said athlete, he is murdered in the campus bell tower just as the chimes have rung. Bartlett is nearby and blocks the only exit from the tower. Yet, when the police arrive, they find the campus slacker dead in the bell tower with a bullet in him, nobody else is in the tower, and there was no place from outside the tower that he could have been shot.

The film keeps things moving, and with fairly good production values, although I can spot a few scenes where the sets have been redressed and reused as different rooms entirely. And there are a couple of other murders that seem to be related to the first one. The problem is, as is common in these lower budget productions, that there are too many characters that don't distinguish themselves from one another, so that when anybody ponders a theory about who did what to who, I had no idea who they were talking about without backing up and rewatching parts of the film.

But the oddest characteristic of this film is that the police just let reporter Bill Bartlett barge in on the entire murder investigation. He tampers with witnesses, steals evidence from police custody to have it examined by a lab he trusts, and encourages a local criminologist to take the investigation away from the police because he has no faith in them, as if he has that kind of authority. If the accused has a good attorney he/she could probably get lots of evidence tossed just because of this busy body reporter breaking all of the rules.

I'd probably give this a 5.5 if that was possible because it is interesting.

Charles Starrett is a reporter trying to figure out how a guy could be shot in a bell tower while no one is around. He ends up investigating another murder and an apparent suicide. Shirley Grey plays his romantic interest. Edward Van Sloan plays a criminologist; after all, he has plenty of experience killing vampires. As usual, the cops, led by J. Farrell MacDonald, are imbeciles, and Starrett has to solve the mystery for them. The ending is somewhat clever, although by then, I had figured out who the killer was - but not the method. As a bit of trivia, I had never seen Grey before, only to discover she was born not too far from where I live. MacDonald looks and sounds like William Frawley.

Shirley Grey is a very popular girl on campus, despite having to work. For that, she's a singer down at a local night club. When a series of murders occur, she winds up as a suspect. But her boy friend, reporter Charles Starrett, doesn't believe she did it. This cuts no ice with chief of police J. Farrell MacDonald, nor his sergeant, Dewey Robinson.

It's a Chesterfield picture, directed by Richard Thorpe. He was slowly climbing his way out of Poverty Row. This means he gets good performances out of a cast that includes Edward Van Sloan, Maurice Black, and Al Bridge.

The problems arise with the issue of uncovering who committed the murders, and why. Miss Grey is an early suspect. She clearly knows things that's she's not telling, which makes her a prime suspect in the eyes of the police, if not of anyone who knows how mysteries like this are plotted. Just once, I'd like to see the girl friend turn out to be the murderer, despite the insistence of her adoring lover. The information is revealed in clumps as they are told to Starrett, with a log monologue to explain method and motives Still, despite problems with the script, it's a good mystery, and the performances are nothing to sneer at.

This film essentially begins with a gunshot being heard by a number of people that appears to be coming from the top of the local college bell tower. Sure enough, when the police get there, they find the body of a college student who died from a bullet wound to the head. Interestingly enough, they not only fail to find a gun, but they also soon discover that nobody was seen leaving the tower after the gunshot was heard. So, with very little else to go on, the police then begin to question everyone who either knew the college student or had any relationship with him. And it's during this time that they find what appears to be the murder weapon in the bedroom of a young college student named "Lillian Voyne" (Shirley Grey) who has no solid alibi on where she was when the murder occurred. What she does have, fortunately, is a boyfriend by the name of "Bill Bartlett" (Charles Starrett) who just happens to be an investigative reporter for the local newspaper and is very skilled in his job. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that I honestly wasn't expecting too much from this film due in large part to the time period in which it was made and the rather mediocre rating on IMDb. That being said, while I will admit that this movie is rather dated and it suffers in that regard, I still found it to be rather entertaining--with the numerous twists and turns along with the dogged persistence of Bill Bartlett being particularly enjoyable. On the other hand, considering the date this film was produced, there are a couple of inherent flaws here and there with the rather abrupt ending being particularly noticeable. But even so, all things being considered, I enjoyed this film, for the most part, and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.