The Bat Whispers

Roland West first filmed the story of the Bat, a killer that steals money and jewels for their value as well as for adventure, in 1926. He then made The Bat Whispers in 1930, which is a sound version of his silent film. The transition is not entirely smooth yet rewarding. Let me first state that the silent film is easily the superior of the two. The silent film had a much more creepier feeling to it. The acting was far superior, and the sets were incredible. West does duplicate much of the sets and shots that were in his first version. The acting, however, is not very good as it is obvious that sound pictures have not been around too long. West tries to accommodate that new innovation which sometimes results in stagey scenes and long dialogue sessions. Chester Morris is...well, to say the least...a ham. His performance is a bit over-the-top for me. He does show glimmers of talent though. The story is pretty much the same and that is the film's strength. It's a fun mystery that by today's standards will seem crude and silly, but taken in context of its time should provide some entertainment. Oddly enough, the mystery seemed less mysterious in this version. I knew who the killer was with ease(trying to distance myself from the memory of the first film as I did this). West again has some impressive camera shots. The opening scene of the bat stealing a jewel from an apartment high in the sky was incredible as was the journey of the bat over a bank and following a man with a lot of money. The camera work of West is innovative, and it is a pity that his life was cut short and we did not get a chance to see him employ his talents in other projects.

I've watched the 1926, 1930 and 1930 wide screen versions many times over the years. However, the other day I finally watched the widescreen on my 5x6 foot screen which I usually save for 3D and football. The details really jumped out. There are so many wonderful camera tricks, many of which I cannot explain. As a professional modeler I can say that the miniatures were far ahead of their time, as was the skill in photographing them. They probably were only exceeded beginning with the Star Wars attack on the death star.

The fluidity of the camera was amazing for its time. The old lady and the maid walk down a long corridor, talking all the time as the camera moves ahead of them. They walk into a room and sit at a table which was right in the path of the camera. Later in the film a character vaults over a 3 foot wall and runs down a path with the camera following him, apparently right through the wall. The shadows of the Bat as he hulks on the floor are inhuman. On several startling occasions the characters jump right into the camera. These and more have been mastered for years but this film discovered them. If you are familiar with the climax of The Alibi, you remember the special effect that seemed almost real, not surpassed until CGI. The Bat Whispers is filled with such effects.

Yes, the film is static, despite all the goings on. And the acting, although unacceptable by 1932 standards was about average for 1930. However, I would gladly have strangled Maude Eburn who ruined every scene she was in. The Bat Whispers is really a guilty pleasure for modelers, cinematographers and horror fans.

Roland West's THE BAT WHISPERS was based on a hugely successful Broadway play, The Bat, widely credited for having created the vogue for thriller plays in the 1920's. (The 1927 production "Dracula" which starred Bela Lugosi on stage was part of the mystery vogue, and led directly to the 1930 Universal film which kicked off the 30's cycle of horror movies). West filmed The Bat in 1926 as a silent, with great success. The 1930 remake was a large production, shot simultaneously in standard 35mm and a new widescreen 65mm process. Theater owners largely rejected the expense of installing 65mm equipment, and most people who saw this film on its release saw the 35mm version.

Among them was Bob Kane, who credited it as a major influence in his creation of Batman in the late 30's. It's easy to see why. This is a stunning looking film (I'm referring to the 35mm version, which I saw at the 2004 UCLA Festival of Preservation) gorgeously photographed by Ray June. In an old dark house where the lights are constantly going off, and lighting is frequently provided by candles, or lightning, bizarre lighting effects start to become the norm, and the dramatic possibilities take off. The director used every conceivable angle to keep things visually lively, mirroring the ridiculous complexity of the plot with a visual complexity that always keeps the viewer slightly off balance.

Much has been made of the sweeping camera moves and the use of miniatures. The miniatures are a bit obvious, but their intent remains effective if you're willing to go with it. (Being willing to "go with it" is pretty much a necessity in general for this film, which was a wild and unrealistic ride in its time, and deliberately so.) The photography benefits from a number of technical innovations, including a lightweight camera dolly invented for this production that allowed the camera to be moved 18 feet vertically in a matter of moments.

The performances - both comic and dramatic characters - are deliberately hokey, very stagey turns that were the standard for this genre. Much of Chester Morris' mugging and squinting, however, are attributable to the violently bright underlighting that was used in his closeups, which eventually scorched his retinas (a condition which became known as Klieg Eye). Within that context, they are wonderful performances. Morris is particularly engaging, as is Grayce Hampton as the patrician Cornelia Van Gorder, the middle-aged spinster who refuses to be scared out of the house. (Hampton appears to be a very capable stage actress, and offers perhaps the most natural performance in the film. She had made one previous film – in 1916 – and made numerous subsequent ones, usually in bit parts, until she was nearly 80.) Her no-nonsense dowager centers the film perfectly, keeping the other characters (and performances) from plunging completely off the deep end.

The plot? A master criminal, The Bat, is on the loose, a half-million dollars have been stolen from a bank by somebody else, and The Bat is trying to get it. The money has apparently been brought to a lonely mansion in a rural town (apparently somewhere on then-rural Long Island) where a middle-aged woman and her made are renting for the summer. Someone is trying to scare her out of the house, so she has sent for detectives. From there, anything goes.

This is a great old black and white mystery/suspenser. If you have the capacity to enjoy films of the 30's and 40's and you like mysteries and fine film craftsmanship, see his movie. Chester Morris is very good as the lead. The plot is relatively true to the Hopwood/Rinehart original screenplay. The setting is an old mansion with a spinster and family members terrified by a super criminal known as the Bat. They get outside help, but the Bat strikes anyway. Who is the Bat? What does he want in the old mansion? The story answers those questions in a most old-fashioned, entertaining manner. Of the three movie versions of the Bat, the 1926 silent, the 1950's Vincent Price/Agnes Moorhead version, and this one, this is the best.

Great fun! The special effects are amazing for a 1930 movie. Miniaturized sets are used & although they're primitive by today's standards, keep in mind that this movie is over 70 years old. It's an excellent Old Dark House movie, complete with thunderstorms, secret passageways, a mysterious creature named "The Bat," comedic elements, a large old house, several murders, etc. It's been noted that the comic strip character, "Batman," owes some of his origins to "The Bat," & it's apparent in the outfit, the shadows cast from buildings, & in the name of the character itself. "The Bat" is indeed a pretty scary entity. The sound effects are good, camera work is excellent, & the ending is bizarre. It kept my interest throughout its 83 minutes. Well worth seeing for Old Dark House fans (this is one of the best). I rate it 9/10.