Murders in the Zoo

Released before the Hollywood Code began being reinforced, Murders in the Zoo is primarily interesting for how graphic a couple of the murders are and for the presence of Charlie Ruggles and Lionel Atwell.

Ruggles provides the same kind of comic relief he would provide five years later in Bringing up Baby, coincidentally interacting comically with big cats in both films.

Objectively, Murders in the Zoo is fairly slow going, and even the presence of Atwell in a typically villainous role can't make it as entertaining as it ought to be. The pacing is slow, and the script doesn't provide enough suspense and action as, for instance, Mystery of the Wax Museum did the same year. In addition, Wax Museum gives Atwell more to do and has a far more clever script. Zoo is more or less devoid of witty dialogue, whereas Wax Museum is packed with it. I'm comparing the two movie because both are famous examples of movies produced before the enforcement of the Code and both are of the same comedy thriller genre popular at the time.

Despite its shortcomings Murders in the Zoo is well worth watching for people interested in so-called (and incorrectly named) pre-Code flicks, comedy thrillers from that era, and certainly for fans of Atwell.

I'm extremely fond of ancient horror movies from the late twenties and early thirties, but admittedly they are usually rather soft and tame both in terms of tone and execution. A. Edward Sutherland's "Murders in the Zoo", however, is not! The concept of the film, and particularly Lionel Atwill's hunter/millionaire character are astonishingly crude and relentless for a 1933 production. Probably so crude, even, that the producers eventually backed off anyways and - unfortunately - decided to compensate the cruelty of the essential plot with far too much light-headed comical relief in the shape of contemporary popular jester Charlie Ruggles. Who knows, without Ruggles, "Murders in the Zoo" might have become as controversial and universally banished as "Freaks" was for several long decades, so I can certainly respect the producers' choice.

The opening sequence is as fiendish and twisted as they come. After he allegedly just 'wanted to kiss her', Eric Gorman (Atwill) blandly disposes of an admirer of his wife by stitching up his lips and leaving him behind in a dark jungle full of wild animals. Back in the US, the petrified wife still has plans to run off with another lover, but the diabolical Gorman uses the zoo to which he supplies exotic animals as a macabre disposal ground. In between, the hysterical Ruggles goofs around as the zoo's marketeer/PR-spokesperson who's afraid of animals. "Murders in the Zoo" benefices from several things, most notably the unpredictable script (you genuinely can't tell who will or won't survive), the classy cinematography of Oscar winner Ernest Haller and the bone-chilling performance of Lionel Atwill. This legendary underrated actor was an evil genius as Dr. Moriarty in "Hound of the Baskervillers" and a vicious psychopath in "Mystery of the Wax Museum", but he was never more terrifying as here in this 30s horror gem.

There's a famous gag that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee. Murders in the Zoo is a good, creepy early '30s thriller with one design flaw so wrong as to sink the whole thing. Every thriller has a little comic relief character. In this one it's the zoo's publicist who is afraid of animals. But somebody came up with the bright idea of casting Charlie Ruggles in this role. Now Ruggles is basically a one-note comic actor who inexplicably attained name-above-the-title stardom. And with his name in the cast, suddenly this supporting role became the starring role. You can see all the places where scenes were added or expanded to give the character more screen time. But he is still just the comic relief--he is not involved in any way with any major development in the storyline. He could be excised completely and never be missed. Randolph Scott is the hero and Lionel Atwill the villain, and both acquit themselves admirably. But every few minutes the forward movement of the story comes to a screeching halt while we are treated to the antics of the "star", and so the poor camel never quite gets his gait. The film has some genuinely classic "horror movie" moments, but it would be so very much better with a reliable character man providing the "comic relief" instead of making this relatively insignificant role into a star turn (for ANY star).

As is noted by everyone, the decision to soften this horror with extensive scenes of supposed humour from Charlie Ruggles is a shame. Still, this is to take nothing away from Lionel Atwill's fine performance nor the bewitching presence of that strange but beguiling lady, Kathleen Burke. There is a dramatic opening when after it looks as if we are to simply imagine what atrocity has been committed we are confronted with a poor man's sew up mouth in close-up. Nothing is quite as graphic afterwards but there are splendid scenes of the non-PC zoo and a fine, animals let loose scene, towards the end, before a rather splendid denouement even if it involves the wrong sort of snake. Far too much silliness from Ruggles and a rather bloodless alligator pool sequence, without even the hint of a human limb, but overall well worth a watch and pretty bold for the times.

Eric Gorman (Lionel Atwill) hunts down exotic wildlife for a zoo back in the States. He also has an intense jealous streak when it comes to men interacting with his wife (Kathleen Burke from THE horror film of the 30's, Island of Lost Souls). So jealous that he's more than willing to kill any man he deems a threat, and his weapons of choice are the animals that he has access to.

This is a solid 30's horror picture with a unique storyline. It also has a pretty potent mean streak for a film of it's time, one scene involving an alligator pit coming immediately to mind. Lionel Atwill has an effective screen presence as the sinister Gorman. As murderous as he may be, I found it hard to root against the man. What can I say? I'm not remotely sympathetic towards philanderers. His idea to utilize animals as murder weapons is both one of convenience and a clever way to be free of incriminating evidence. The animal attacks, including an encounter with a large python, are intense and believable.

My main qualm with the film is a problem that plagues many pictures of the era, that being the style of comic relief that was popular back then. The Peter Yates character is pretty annoying, and we're treated to a particularly absurd scene where he pops a lion on the head. Charlie Ruggles plays Yates, and he's about as unfunny as it gets. Why he has such a prevailing presence in an otherwise serious film is beyond me. The time taken up by his antics could have been used to further develop our main storyline.

However, this is worth seeing. It's also well-paced, clocking in at just a little more than an hour in length.