A Strange Adventure

I'm fascinated by what cinema does to people, and therefore interested in how it has become what it is.

Some things are quite obvious, like why justice is served as visually violent death; why war and crime seem entangled with romance; why certain gauzy and pastel images imply sentiment.

Much more interesting are the things that have a non-obvious reason to be as they are.

This is a mystery, a detective sort of mystery from the first few years of talkies when the genre was experimental. It has many standard elements: a death seconds before a punitive will is signed. A death in plain view. All the suspects collected in the house. A surprise as to the murderer, motive and method.

But its also got some elements that would break out on there own as sort or independent memes. One is the brash girl reporter, sexy and who has the hots for the chief detective. Her name is "Nosey Toodles." She's most of the entertainment, and its easy to see how this could develop a life of its own.

The other element is the one that interests me. All the suspects and the detectives are locked in the house, and the murderer skulks about in a black-hooded ghost costume. There are knives, young women at risk while sleeping, and an obligatory black servant who runs away bug-eyed and sputtering.

Now, the setup of the murder is contrived for the film audience in most details. But somehow that's of a less radical idea than having murderer conceal his or her face and body. There's only one reason to hide, and that's from the audience. There's only one reason to slither about with spooky gestures down a vacant hallway. Us.

I believe that these two theatrical devices, the murder and the "ghost" became linked in plays that were precisely copied in the early talking cinema, when plays could be appropriated.

What's interesting is that this hooded figure, slashing about has spun into its own genre, maintaining the mystery of identity, The cloak and mannerisms are precisely the same as in "Scream." The only difference now is that instead of the racist bug-eyed servant, we have the sexist bug-eyed and screaming slut.

The production here is poor, and there are better examples of this.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

This movie, known also as "Wayne Murder Case" is a typical drawing room murder mystery. A rich old man is sickly and dying, and before his death he decides to have a reading of his will to his family members. As he is about to read the will, in a room full of family members and police, he is murdered, but who did it? This film is a typical old dark house murder mystery, with Regis Toomey playing the lead detective. June Clyde plays the nosy reporter who will do anything to get the story. Dwight Frye has a very small role as a family member. Look for a degrading role played by Snowflake, of a black manservant.

This film was made in 1932 and is in the public domain and as such can be found on VHS and DVD.

A fairly good murder mystery of the Old Dark House variety. It has many of the cliches of the genre, but also avoids many of the usual cliches, & has an interesting storyline. June Clyde is cute & vivacious as a newspaper reporter. Regis Toomey is adequate as the police lieutenant. Dwight Frye is a bit nutty in a small roll (still recovering from his role in "Dracula"?). There are a couple of murders, but disappointingly, no secret passageways or doors & no thunderstorm. There is a mysterious figure walking around in oversized monk's robes, though, & that's pretty neat. Good effort by all, but falls a little short. I rate it 6/10.

This movie is a whodunit dressed-up like a mix of Midnight Faces (1926) with The Cat and the Canary (1927).

There is a clever twist to how the murder itself is effected, but unfortunately the story containing it is rather meager; it could have been presented in perhaps 20 minutes, rather than in the hour expended.

As in various other films, an independent investigator whose behavior is plainly illegal is tolerated rather than taken into custody or even expelled. The explanatory device, in this case, is that the officer in charge is in love with her, but credibility is over-stretched.

That officer ultimately solves the case using evidence withheld from the audience while in his possession; that evidence is not particularly surprising, but it also is not sufficiently strong, especially given that the officer had to rely upon testimony as to events at the time of the murder, rather that being himself a witness to it.

Another flaw in this story, common to a great many films of the period, is the presence of a stereotyped black servant -- dim-witted, superstitious, cowardly, and slow-moving except when terrified.

Old man Wayne is about to read his will, All of the heirs are gathered. When his secretary and nephew makes a run at stealing, replacing and re-stealing a valuable gem Wayne calls the police. After the police arrive Wayne tells them to wait while he goes to tell the heirs just what he thinks of them. However before that can happen the old man keels over and dies. When he's lifted up a knife is sticking in his chest. More police are called and a detective (soon to be aided by a smart mouth reporter) tries to solve the crime. Good mystery is hampered by the lack of music (this was 1932 and many independent producers didn't use it) this movie is a slow go for the first half. Once things get moving its a good ride to the end with almost all of the suspects coming under suspicion and the sudden appearance of a dark robed figure trying to kill off the heirs. As the story progresses and more murders occur there are a couple of nice pre-code touches as we rather graphic hanging as well the the graphic end of the killer. Worth a look if you run across it.