The Thirteenth Chair

This film is only a 5.x out of ten if you don't like the early sound films, in which case, what are you doing here? You get to see Bela Lugosi as a police inspector, two years before he becomes forever typecast in horror roles as a result of "Dracula", although his deep Hungarian accent in colonial India is unexplained. But that's alright, because there is also an mystic with a deep Irish accent who has somehow ended up in India and managed to raise a daughter without the same said accent. The mother and daughter have become estranged, but why and how are never explained.

Lugosi's character is investigating a murder - two actually. At the beginning of the film, Spencer Lee, described by his own best friend as a rotter, has already been murdered by person unknown. Apparently Lee was quite a lady's man and generally just a bad guy all around, so any number of people could have killed him. The best friend, Edward Wales, suggests a séance conducted by the previously named mystic. Meanwhile, the son of an aristocratic family (Conrad Nagel as Richard Crosby) is having trouble with his fiancée (Leila Hyams as Helen O'Neil) who says she has no right to marry him. Richard thinks it is because she is a secretary and he comes from a rich family, but there is obviously something else troubling Helen a great deal.

The séance is held in the Crosby home, and the participants see this mainly as an interesting diversion, but when the time comes for Wales to ask the spirit of his dead friend, Spencer Lee, who murdered him, there is a scream, and when the lights come on, Wales is dead with a knife in his back. Supposedly this was done by someone in the séance circle to prevent the spirit of Spencer Lee from answering his friend.

Several other reviewers note Bela Lugosi as the reason to watch this one, but I pick Margaret Wycherly as the psychic. She plays one of the oddest and most intriguing characters of any era of film. She acts more like a tour guide in her friendliness than a mystic, and then proceeds to show everybody all of her tricks when she is faking as a means of proving that this time she is not faking. She actually solves the crime with the help of Lugosi's character, who, upon hearing her idea to expose the murderer says "What you propose is too horrible to contemplate – but we will do it!" She gives such an odd but likable performance it is a wonder she wasn't nominated for best actress.

This early talkie is not too talkie - in that there may be quite a bit of conversation, but it is all for a purpose. It really is quite creative throughout and the plot twists will keep you guessing. I recommend it, just remember you are dealing with the limitations of very early sound film, which primarily was movement.

Directed by Tod Browning, The Thirteenth Chair is a well-written and acted murder mystery from a time (1929) when, due to primitive sound recording techniques, the camera had to remain in one place during a scene. The result is that the movie, while well-designed, is rather static visually. It more than makes up for this by having an exciting, if at times rather hard to follow plot, and an ingenious script with enough twists and turns in the plot to satisfy most mystery fans. For claustrophiles the movie is a delight: no one goes ANYWHERE in this film. There are some interesting visual and spatial peculiarities in the movie, such as very high ceilings on the sets, and more obviously fake than usual exteriors just outside the windows. People have a way of assembling in rooms rather than just sitting there or milling around, which gives the movie an offbeat, ritualistic feeling; probably typical enough in the theater of the time, but unusual in a film.

The actors, notably Margaret Wycherly, are quite good, with Bela Lugosi giving an energetic reading of a shrewd police detective in a quite different key from his later work. One can't help but wonder what sort of screen actor Lugosi might have become had he not been typecast in horror roles. Leila Hyams is radiant as one of the chief suspects, and it's remarkable that she didn't become a bigger star, on looks alone. There is no pace to speak of in the film, as the story proceeds by dialog, and by people entering and exiting rooms on cue. Nor are there any of the typical Browning flourishes, as the movie seems anonymously directed. But the script is very tight, and there are some surprises along the way, and moments of unexpected warmth and feeling that make this a watchable and satisfying antique.

Looking at the reviews, I saw that there was a group that loved the film and a group that hated it. When I see this kind of sharp dichotomy, I like to comment. I first saw the overall rating as 5.1, which seemed unfairly low. I liked the film because it was very superior writing and I was wowed by the performances of Margaret Wycherly and Bela Lugosi. The film was taken from a play with the dialog mostly intact. The writing for the play, as well as the play itself, was a critical and popular success - as was the film. Margaret Wycherly was a well-known and highly respected British actress who also appeared in the play. All reviews are valid if they honestly and clearly describe the reviewer's reactions. I don't like murder mysteries, but I took a chance on this one because I liked the story outline and I was pleasantly surprised. I happen to hate horror pictures so I was not a fan of Bela Lugosi, but he was great in this non-horror role. One negative review called it too "stagey" and indeed that's a valid observation as it was a stage play adapted to film. I have seen stage plays that were filmed as they were played on stage, but the filmed version never seemed right - however, this stage script was very well adapted to film - also keeping the high quality script intact. Perhaps, the most telling negative comment was that the film was "dull". And indeed if one really likes standard murder mystery films with lots of physical action (or if one is just in the mood for such), one might find the film "dull". The reader of reviews needs to find which reviews reflect his/her tastes and criteria and go with that review.

Given the numerous bad reviews I didn't expect to enjoy the film as much as I did. If you are an old classic movie fan, you can overlook the poor sound and visual clarity of a 1929 film, especially when the story and cast hold your attention. Leila Hyams and Margaret Wycherley are excellent, as is seeing Bella Lugosi in an earlier film role. For a movie shot in basically in two rooms, I think it was well done. I'm glad I didn't let some of the low ratings deter me from watching, it's nice to be surprised when you come across an old gem.

Recently saw this enjoyable little curio on TCM. Adding to the comments of others on the matter of style, I was surprised to notice several examples of short graceful tracking shots forward or back, just to break up the sense of staginess. (The mansion has very smooth floors!) So it's not that the camera is absolutely static. But Browning avoids close-ups for the most part. What was odd is the editing at certain times, which seems way off. There's one bizarre moment when the actors are clearly gathered in preparation for when the director calls "Action," and then after a few seconds, they abruptly begin speaking to each other in mid-sentence. (I'd like to see someone do a whole movie like that!) There's an equally strange edit when Margaret Wycherley walks out of the frame to confront Bela Lugosi (a few steps away), and then we cut to Lugosi sitting in his chair waiting an awfully long time beside dead space for her to walk into frame. I wonder what that was about?