Behind That Curtain

This 1929 film is included on Charlie Chan Volume 3 as part of the complete history of Chan's character at Fox. For that reason it is good to have it. Viewing it, however, is another matter entirely. It is a great example of a bad early talkie in almost every category except cinematography. Fox used sound-on-film versus vitaphone, thus their early talkies don't have that static claustrophobic quality other 1928 and 1929 talkies have.

However the dialogue in many ways is held over from the silents as is the acting. At one point Warner Baxter is declaring his love to the leading lady by repeating "I love you! I love you! I love you". In the words of Singin' in the Rain, did someone get paid to write this dialogue? The overacting is unbelievable and the speech is tortuously slow.

The point of interest for most of us watching this film, the first appearance of Charlie Chan in a Fox film, doesn't take up much screen time. He appears near the beginning to identify a crucial piece of evidence and for a few minutes during the end. The murderer is identified almost at the beginning of the film and most of the time is taken up by a poorly acted love triangle tale. This is not the first appearance of Warner Oland in the title role, though. That doesn't occur for another two years. This film is only for hardcore Charlie Chan fans the same way that "An Old Spanish Custom" is for Buster Keaton fans.

This is a globe-hopping film that begins in England, then moves to India, Iran and finally San Francisco. The story involves a sociopathic murderer who kills someone and then marries a nice girl. Once married, he treats her like dirt and cheats on her. She puts up with it until she discovers that he was a murderer. Then most of the film consists of her trying desperately to avoid him as well as scandal if the secret were be revealed.

This is the earliest Charlie Chan film known to be in existence and it is absolutely nothing like the later films--nothing. Apart from the name "Charlie Chan", there is no similarities to the later exceptional series.

Back in 1929, films were often a bit stilted and overly melodramatic. Because the studios weren't used to using sound, the actors tended to remain very stationary (due to poor sound equipment) and the dialog sounded more like plays than movies. I accept this and tend to rate these early talkies with this in mind. However, even keeping this in mind, BEHIND THAT CURTAIN is still a dreadful film--even for 1929. The main problem is not how constricted the actors were due to the sound equipment but how gosh-darn awful the dialog was. In fact, I would have to say that the love scene in the desert might just be the absolute worst love scene I have ever seen and heard--it was THAT overly melodramatic and stagy as well as laughable. I truly believe that most high school actors could do a better job today.

In addition to horrible dialog, the movie suffered from being way too slow--and the first half in particular crawled at a snail's pace. Later, despite the horrid dialog and acting the film did pick up a bit--but certainly not enough to make it even passable entertainment! I think the biggest problem is that the film clearly shows those involved with the movie weren't used to talking pictures. However, my complaints weren't just about the wretched dialog and pacing, but also the acting and direction. For example, the film starred Warner Baxter who was an exceptional actor. He was famous not just during the silent era but in sound pictures like the Crime Doctor series and such excellent films as PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND and KIDNAPPED. I loved how he played such realistic and likable "everyman" characters, but here in BEHIND THAT CURTAIN he was a simpering idiot who overdid the love scenes--making him one of the biggest liabilities in the film. The female lead, Lois Moran was perhaps even worse. The only actor who came off well (very well, actually), was Gilbert Emery as the Scotland Yard inspector.

One reviewer pointed out that the only good element was the cinematography, though I would differ. While it was exceptional seeing the sound outdoor shots of the caravan (for 1929 getting this right was VERY tough), all too often the camera was static. At one point it was even laughable, as the scene began with just the tops of the characters' heads showing--like the camera should have been several feet lower. This was because the couple were about to stand and instead of moving the camera or using a cut, they just left the camera on and created a very awkward and sloppy scene.

Now as for Charlie Chan, he was only a bit player who appeared in a very limited capacity in the last 12 minutes of the movie. Surprisingly, he was actually played by an Asian--something you'd never see in the 30s-50s. However, this isn't all positive as E.L. Park had the charisma and charm of a bag of lint. They simply gave this actor nothing to do--making him just a glorified errand boy for Emery. Also, Chan oddly was NOT a Hawaiian-based detective--instead serving in Chinatown in San Francisco. Also, Mr. Park didn't look as Chinese as Warner Oland (who was a Swede)--looking more like a native Hawaiian (though with a Korean name). Chan was supposed to be a Hawaiian but of Chinese descent. Because of these inconsistencies and a thankless part, the "Chanophiles" out there will no doubt find all this very disappointing.

In conclusion, the plot wasn't bad but due to horrid acting, dialog and direction this is one supposedly lost film that might just as well as have remained lost!

Also, in a small role is Boris Karloff. While it's not a huge role, this excellent actor acquitted himself well in the role of a devoted servant. It was nice to see him in a pre-Frankenstein role.

Behind That Curtain is based on the third Charlie Chan novel written by Earl Derr Biggers. The book was fun pulp with Charlie outsmarting three rival detectives in solving the murder of a Scotland Yard detective and in turn solving two 15 year old mysteries.

The film, however, is interested in the two 15 year old mysteries and re-works the plot, so the film ends up being about Biggers' back story rather than the Chan story. Fox must not have been confident in the Chan character, perhaps because this was the first real year of sound film or they felt the audience would be more interested in the lovers and not a Chinese detective. Indeed, there is little romance in the book and the film takes liberties in changing 3 non-romantic characters in the book into a love triangle in the film.

It is rather sloppily done and the film really would be of no interest at all today, if it did not have small appearances by Boris Karloff and the Charlie Chan character. It is unfortunately a typical early sound effort and is cinematically uninteresting. Therefore the plot, which is not a mystery as the killer is revealed in the beginning, is all about the overdrawn lovers. It was probably even boring in 1929, but it qualifies as a curio today and should be viewed as such. It is interesting to see E.L. Park play Chan, albeit for five minutes and Karloff looks as menacing as ever. What cruel irony though, that no one can find "The Chinese Parrot", by the brilliant Paul Leni, nor the 4 missing Warner Oland Chans, and this is the one missing Chan that was found!!! Fate works in strange ways.

As others have noted, this film is very dull. This is largely due to the extremely slow delivery of actor Gilbert Emery, who plays Sir Frederic Bruce of Scotland Yard. You can almost sense the impatience of the other actors whenever he's onscreen. If you're only curious about Charlie Chan, skip to the last 10 or 15 minutes.

According to THE FILMS OF BORIS KARLOFF, by Richard Bojarski, this was released in both sound and silent versions (a common practice during the early years of sound films). It would be interesting to see if the silent version, running at a faster film speed, is less dull.

An international orientalizing romance mystery from the pen of Earl Derr Biggers, author of the Charlie Chan mysteries. Chan is not really in this movie, except indirectly—instead there is a British-explorers-in-the-East theme, India and Persia and Tehran and pith helmets. Eve Mannering (Lois Moran) has married the wrong man, Durand (Philip Strange), who is a bounder and who has killed an agent, Hillary Galt, to prevent Eve's uncle from finding out. A watchman, blackmailing him, writes to Eve in India, and she confronts her husband, who hurts her and acts threatening, so she disappears into the desert with dashing, dependable Col Beetham (Warner Baxter) who has been longing for her all his life. Meanwhile, the urbane Scotland Yard detective Sir Frederick Bruce (Gilbert Emery) pursues the mystery with a clue provided by Chan, and the story winds up in San Francisco will all wrinkles ironed out. A very early sound movie, this one is marred not so much by the spotty sound recording as by the stagy acting style: thrilling and plummy tones ("ohhhhhhhhh Erik!") from Moran and Baxter. She's sometimes quite winsome, and Boris Karloff has a tiny part as Beetham's oriental servant. Later films focus on Chan, but not this one. Interesting use of title phrase, first to indicate why explorers explore, and then to preface Beetham's film-illustrated lecture at the denouement.