The Kiss Before the Mirror

Though Universal had acquired prestige with the Oscar-winning ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930), it was still not regarded as a major studio at the time; consequently, most of their productions were allotted a B-movie budget and barely lasted over an hour and a quarter (this one, in fact, clocks in at 68 minutes) – even those made by their top director of the era, Whale! In fact, this one is partly filmed on the memorable Expressionist sets from his first great success FRANKENSTEIN (1931) – notably the forest, laboratory and university auditorium, converted here to a private garden, prison cell and courtroom – which lends the whole added texture and renders it fascinating viewing for horror buffs!

Even so, this proves a melodrama with a uniquely tense and compelling premise: a lawyer defending his best friend, accused of killing his faithless wife, begins to suspect that his own spouse is cheating on him – so that his impassioned (and sensationalistic) speech, tinged with personal angst, results in the acquittal of the murderer! Marked by elaborate camera-work (courtesy of the renowned Karl Freund), the film also features constant mirror imagery (playing on the all-important theme of duplicity). The acting often resorts to histrionics (Paul Lukas, in his first of 3 roles for the director, as the defendant virtually spends the whole trial with face buried in his hands!) but is nonetheless impressive – especially Frank Morgan's protagonist lawyer, since he is mostly known for befuddled comedy roles!; also on hand are Gloria Stuart (appearing as the murder victim and, thus, killed off in the very first scene!: she also worked 3 times with Whale, including 2 of his horror classics), Walter Pidgeon (an early role as her lover) and Charley Grapewin (as Morgan's assistant, who is something of a frustrated philosopher!).

Interestingly, Whale felt he could improve upon the film and remade it just 5 years later as WIVES UNDER SUSPICION (in which Morgan's brother Ralph played the accused!); however, though I recall liking it quite a bit when I watched it 5 years ago {sic}, I feel this is the superior version (if still some way behind his seminal horror work)...since, by then, the director's career was already in decline and, so, the resources were even more meager!

James Whale, the director of FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN already proved that he was not only a horror and fantasy film maker, but also a solid director in any domain. This tremendous little and short film offers, proposes a very unusual and unpredictable plot which the scheme has not been used much since. I have rarely, if not never, seen this before. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, the much talking is unavoidable for a 1931 and it is the only flaw of this feature. The quality of the copy I just saw was excellent and this enhances the great photography of this film. Unfortunately the last part, last reel, smashes the whole material. The ending is awful, I expected far more. But this film remains a gem.

Ah yes, the old "he killed her because he loved her" defense. A wife cheats on her husband and he has a "right to avenge his honor," a literal quote from the protagonist. The attitude this film takes (or the mirror it holds up to 1933, if you will) is unfortunate, because it mars an interesting premise, some fine performances, and skilled directing. Despite the misogyny, I thought this small pre-Code film which flies by in 69 minutes was worth watching.

To open things, a society woman cheating on her husband is followed by him and murdered. Despite her small part, Gloria Stuart at 23, 64 years before Titanic, is enchanting. There's something romantic and dreamy about her scene with Walter Pidgeon, even though she's committing adultery, which is a distinctly pre-Code impression. Her husband admits to the crime and is then represented by a sharp lawyer (Frank Morgan) and his crack team (Jean Dixon and Charley Grapewin).

Where the film gets interesting is when the lawyer's wife (Nancy Carroll) begins acting in ways that eerily resemble those of the woman who was killed - that is, as she's getting dressed up, it seems as if she's going out to meet a lover, not her friends. His client described his wife at her dressing room table in front of the mirror, humming a tango, getting upset with his affections because it would muss her up, and so it happens with the lawyer, him knowing by her expression in a shocking moment that she reviles him. The transformation Carroll affects is very well done, as her pretty face goes from tenderness to anger brilliantly, and I liked the use of many mirrors in the scene as well. Even the two pairs of lovers (Stuart/Pidgeon and Carroll/Donald Cook) resemble one another, mirror images if you will.

The angst of the two men when they confer as lawyer and client, but also as two cuckolds, is amplified by the light and shadows that director James Whale gives us, which makes the film seem like a forerunner of film noir. The case takes on very dark tones as he pledges to get his client off even if he has to lie to do so, and then to kill his own wife.

While the setup is strong, it falters in how it plays out. As I mention above, there's a theme of women cheating on their husbands and then deserving to die, which is unpleasant. Even in its minor characters we see this. Early on, a prisoner looking out of a strange subterranean cell has no qualms over having killed his wife, and hopes she's now in hell. Later, when a man showing up to the court for his own case involving his longtime sweetheart's lawsuit involving "breach of promise" is told by the bailiff that this case involves murder, he says it's a "very good idea." Women are also shown to be crowding the courtroom and amorously clamoring to see the murderer. Women, ya gotta watch 'em and keep 'em in line, right?

It's in Morgan's character and his impassioned defense of the murderer that we see it most of all, however. He talks about a "personal law," an "unwritten law" of vengeance a betrayed husband may mete out, and then challenges the jury:

"Most of you, perhaps all of you, believe you know at this moment where your wife or husband is, for faith is the greatest element in love. And exclusiveness of possession is all that makes marriage worthwhile. Therefore, ask yourself, what you would do if both of these were destroyed, and if upon leaving here you found the one you loved and trusted disrobing at the bedside of a lover. What would you do?"

There are great performances here - Morgan in his vulnerable, hurt moments as well as his courtroom speech (much as I disliked its contents), and Carroll's as well, showing fear and guilt. Her character itself needed more depth, and the way she has to perform it has to match the way the film ends, but she did very well with the role she had. I just wish this thing had gone some other route, maybe something supernatural based on the similarities of the infidelity and all those mirrors, but unfortunately it slips into becoming a morality tale, something that should be apparent from the title of its 1938 remake, "Wives Under Suspicion."

In The Kiss Before the Mirror, both male leads are given the opportunity to play against type. Paul Lukas plays a murderer, and Frank Morgan plays a responsible lawyer who gets influenced by Paul's power of suggestion and starts to have very dark thoughts. This movie might not stand the test of time in many ways, but if you like the cast, you might want to rent it.

Paul starts off married to Gloria Stuart, but when he catches her with her lover, a very young Walter Pidgeon, he kills her. He tells his best friend and lawyer Frank that he started to suspect Gloria was being unfaithful when she dolled up in front of the mirror and he could tell it wasn't for him. As he describes his motives to Frank and the emotional torture he felt before the murder, Frank starts to notice similar behaviors in his own happy marriage to Nancy Carroll. . .

Yes, the subject matter and directing style is a bit dated in this film. Modern audiences might not find it appealing to watch a movie about a man killing his wife and justifying it; a gender-reversal would perhaps be more tempting. However, it is fun sometimes to curl up on a rainy afternoon and watch a very old movie to see how people acted back them and how films were made. Frank Morgan wasn't always the Wizard of Oz, and Gloria Stuart wasn't always the old lady who survived the Titanic. If you like this type of courtroom thriller, check out Night Court for a plot with three times as many twists and turns.

With a very serious and leading role by Frank Morgan. Not a trace of the harmless blithering bumbler he played over at MGM in the 30s and 40s.

Morgan plays Viennese attorney, Paul Held. Paul is called to be defense attorney to his good friend, Walter (Paul Lukas) who has shot his wife to death when he finds out she is having an affair. More than this, his wife was undressing in her lover's home in preparation for some passion when Walter sent her to her maker under most embarrassing circumstances. Paul tries to get out of Walter exactly what made him suspect his wife. Walter says it was how she was admiring herself in her mirror in a way that only a woman meeting a lover would do. So he followed her, and when he actually saw her infidelity he killed her.

Paul returns home and finds his wife (Nancy Carroll) doing the exact same thing - saying she is going out with girlfriends, but dressing and admiring herself in her big vanity mirror in a way a woman would only do for another man. Paul follows her just as Walter followed his wife, and discovers that his wife Maria is meeting another man.

Paul returns to Walter, says that he now knows what Walter feels and that he intends to use every argument available to get Walter out of jail. If he is a successful and Walter is acquitted, then he knows the argument works and he will kill Maria and know that he too can be acquitted. Lukas plays this well as the tortured killer. Paul's mistake is to think that the fact that they both have cheating wives gives them comradery, when in fact Walter is consumed by guilt.

It is so odd to see Frank Morgan playing such a dark vengeful character, tormenting Maria by wanting her in court each day, to tell her that death is the just fate of all such unfaithful wives. She knows he knows, she knows he might kill her, and yet he hasn't come out and threatened her or accused her.. It's all very Hitchcockian a decade before many people knew about Hitch.

There is a really interesting attorney who works for Paul - Jean Dixon as Hilda Frey. She has a kind of tough exterior with a wise cracking and confident persona that matches Eve Arden. She is somebody I would have liked to see more of, but she has a very small part. It seems like the film is hinting that she could be gay, but that was all you could do at this point in history was hint.

There is a very good score and art design in this one. Even Walter's prison cell is interesting to look at with excellent cinematography by Karl Freund.

What did I not like? The commentary on the Kino Blu talks of absolutely nothing but how the women characters in the film are such victims! OK, Walter's wife and her bullet riddled corpse - maybe some room for argument there. But both Paul's wife and Walter's wife seem to have married money and taken lovers because they were bored. But they had no intention of leaving their walking paychecks. To me this film was more about the strong connection between obsession and love. I guess I should be glad that Kino actually put a commentary track on this rather obscure film.