Murder at Midnight

Occasionally clever little early 30s multiple-murder mystery, with a killer stalking the Kennedy household and knocking off a half dozen victims. The cops don't seem especially perturbed by the continual corpses lying around and aren't very good at getting to the bottom of the mystery. Lots of telephone cord cutting and such; good example of how the telephone became the mystery writer's best friend.

The plot concerns a letter fingering the killer, which comes to light after a game of charades goes bad (after seeing this and The Death Kiss, I have some advice: do not agree to be shot by a gun filled with blanks during the 1930s). The head of the household, maid, the butler, and who-knows-who-else also fall victim to the clever murderer bent on getting his hands on the letter.

The acting is stagy and old-fashioned, but occasionally sharp and witty, and Alice White as the house maid Millie is a doe-eye peach. An absence of music makes this seem rather duller than it should be. It's okay if you like the genre and era, but it's not something to seek out.

Do you like 'whodunnits'? The other kind is a 'cat-and-mouse' picture, wherein the killer is known from the outset. I don't like those but am a sucker for a 'whodunnit', especially a well made one. "Murder at Midnight" is a whodunnit although a primitive one, but it holds your interest throughout - but just barely at times due to the ice-cutter pacing. Was thrown off somewhat by the lack of a music track, something we have become used to as the sound era wore on.

Hadn't seen Alice White before but will look for her from now on - cute as the proverbial button. Thought Aileen Pringle was a dead ringer for Ruth Chatterton, and that the film was helped a great deal by several distinguished actors in tuxedos. Makes you think what a shame it is that men rarely wear tuxes anymore except at weddings.

I'm trying to get through my gift box of old mysteries on DVD and I am always appreciative when I come to one worth the time to view it, as opposed to scads of 'quota quickies' and poorly made B's. I gave "Murder at Midnight a rating of 7, because it is a cut above.

This is another decent poverty row offering from Frank R. Strayer, the director of The Ghost Walks and Condemned To Live. It's a whodunit concerning the whereabouts of a missing letter that pertains to the will of a recently murdered man. While there really isn't anything overly of interest here, the mystery is compelling enough to keep fans of 1930's mysteries entertained. It follows the conventions of the old dark house mysteries that were so popular at the time, and it doesn't exactly break the mould. It has a typical convoluted plot-line. Like many films of its type, this one is pretty stagey too, with some stiff acting throughout. Although there is some imaginative cinematography and the audio is very clear. The tone of the film is generally light, with not much in the way of thrills. Although it does introduce death by telephone! But if you are a fan of creaky old mysteries I think you could well enjoy this early talkie.

The opening shots of this film are blurry with undefined shapes and objects, however suddenly a light is switched on and the change in lighting brings about sharper and more detailed images. The lighting techniques in the opening sequence are an indication of things to come in the film. It is an early experiment with lighting and varying the contrast levels from shot to shot. In some shots there are plenty of grey hues and details are easy to make out, while in other shots the faces and clothes of the characters are blown out to white. The blowing out to white is used most effectively when Aileen Pringle is interrogated by investigations - as her facial features can hardly be made out, it is hard for us as viewers to tell whether or not she is lying.

However, other than interesting lighting and camera techniques, the rest of the film is pretty flat. The mystery at the heart of the film is intriguing, but it is never really involving since the film lacks strong character development. Robert Elliott plays his hard-boiled detective as a one-dimensional stereotype too, which makes it hard to want to root for him and his desire to solve the mystery at hand. As an early sound film, the audio quality is not too great, with a bit too much atmospheric sound and perhaps some music could have helped. However, the timing of when a character says "and he fired" followed by a bang, and the timing between dialling for the police and a sudden siren sound, show that some thought was indeed put into what the film was going to sound like it. It is a flawed film, but other than a blatantly contrived ending it makes quite satisfactory viewing, and the lighting work is simply fascinating.

Frank R. Strayer directs this well acted 1931 who-done-it. What people won't do to have fun at a party. Accidental murder probably is a party pooper every time...but you can't say it isn't interesting. Way back when...a good party starter was a tame little game of charades. One particular night a staged murder in a game of charades turns to the real thing. The bullets weren't blank...leaving a man dead. The mood of the party guests takes on disbelief and a little paranoia. Inspector Taylor(Robert Elliott)puts the gathering of friends and lovers through their paces in search of the murderer's identity. Is it Lawrence, the butler(Brandon Hurst); Colton, the lawyer(William Humphrey); the maid(Alice White)or Aunt Julia(Clara Blandick)? Put disputed inheritance and infidelity in the mix...why wouldn't murder be the result? A long, heavy rainstorm could have made for better atmosphere; but all- in-all the 67 minutes running time is not wasted.