Strangers of the Evening

I'm a fan of Zasu Pitts, so then this came up on YouTube, I jumped. Zasu doesn't show up until the second half of the film - I call that false advertising. Today's audience should not expect comedy. There are scenes that hint at mild amusement, but don't expect more. It seems as if the writers came up with scenes with comic potential, but didn't know how to pay it off. 1932 was early in the talkie era, and they just hadn't worked out timing yet. There's a lot of the talk-pause acting that made the earliest talkies stiff to later audiences. I just didn't find this movie worth finishing - even when Zasu finally made her entrance.

Strangers in the Evening (1932)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Really bad and really confusing murder/mystery has a body come up missing at the local morgue but one of the workers claims the dead man moved himself. At the same time there's a murder investigation going on for the morgue worker who got into an argument with a girl's father when he disapproved of their relationship. Mean while the local detective (Eugene Palette) is dealing with a man who can't remember anything except for one woman (Zasu Pitts).

STRANGERS IN THE EVENING is a pretty bad movie on many levels but it's almost worth watching due to how bizarre and confusing it is. The film clocks in less than 65 minutes yet it headlining star Pitts doesn't show up until nearly thirty minutes into the movie. What makes matters even worse is that there are characters who come into the film and then disappear without any reason why and then reappear later. There are way too many characters in this short film and obviously something got lost in the writing because a lot happens that makes very little sense.

At the very end a few of the characters take the cheap route and explain what we've just watched but that's really no help. Pitts really isn't given too much to do so I'm going to guess the low-budget meant they only had her for a few days. Palette is fun as the detective but he too is pretty much wasted with the bad screenplay. Harold Waldridge deserves special mention as he plays a sissy morgue worker who is constantly scared. To say the character is annoying would be an understatement.

STRANGERS IN THE EVENING doesn't work as a mystery, a comedy or anything else for that matter.

The presence of Eugene Pallette flags a movie as worth a try for me, but not only are the goings-on in this film mechanically presented, the poor quality of the print I saw made the viewing even more tedious. The intended comedic elements should have made this a sure-fire entertainment, but my mind was caught drifting off more than once. Nothing here to remember.

I honestly don't know if this was meant to be comedy. It did have plenty of goofy little moments, but considering that the film isn't the least bit funny, I have my doubts.

This film begins with a man having an argument with a young lady's father. He wants to marry her, but her father is adamantly against it. You see them arguing and a few moments later, the father's body is found in the alley behind a mortuary. You assume the young man did this--and so do the police. Oddly, when the corpse is discovered, the bystanders drop it off at the funeral home and their reactions are very weird--not at all what you'd expect. In fact, many times throughout the film, weirdos (as well as corpses) appear and disappear regularly--but none of this is funny or helps much with the film--or has much to do with the mystery. This makes the film quirky--but not altogether satisfying. And, with this relatively dull script and most indifferent acting and directing, it's only a weak time-passer at best.

This is a movie that I didn't know about until looking through Letterboxd for horror from 1932. To be honest, this was the next one on my list that I'm working through so I didn't know much coming in. That was also the reason that I watched it when I did as well.

Synopsis: bodies start mysteriously disappearing from the city morgue. An investigator tries to figure out what is going on.

We have an interesting movie here. I saw from the credits that this was based off a novel. That didn't surprise me for the era. We start with a body being delivered to a funeral home. What they know is that the person brought in is named McNaughton. He was a lawyer that people think would have been governor. He died in a car accident and his face was mangled. Tommy Freeman (Harold Waldridge) receives him. This is his first solo time taking care of the body. He gets a call from the owner, Dr. Joseph Chandler (Warner Richmond). He's told to not let anyone handle the body, but him. Tommy spooked by everything.

The movie shows us a conversation with Dr. Chandler with unsavory individuals. It appears that things aren't as they seem and that how McNaughton died might not be exactly what is being said.

Dr. Ray Everette (Theodore von Eltz) also works at the funeral home. Tommy seeks him out to calm his nerves. He has problems of his own. He is seeing Ruth Daniels (Miriam Seegar). Her father doesn't want that and he follows her to the funeral home. Something happens and Ruth's father is attacked. Two people passing by take him for dead. They don't want to call the police, thinking they'll be blamed. They decide to take him to funeral home. They leave the body with Tommy. He freaks out again when this person sits up, causing him to flee.

The police get involved and Detective Brubacher (Eugene Pallette) tries to make sense of what is going on. This leads him to searching out Dr. Everette and Ruth who ran away to Chicago to get married. It is believed that Frank Daniels, her father, was murdered. There is also this Richard Roe (Lucien Littlefield) who can't remember who he is and was found in just a raincoat by Sybil Smith (Zasu Pitts). Det. Brubacher fingers him as the killer. There is much more going on and it leads all the way to the top for the truth.

That is where I'll leave my recap and introducing all these characters. Where I want to start is that this movie is another one that is light on the horror elements. We get more of a murder mystery that was popular for the era while also mixing in comedy. I guess the horror elements here is that we have murder and a criminal organization that could be behind everything. None of the murders on are screen though. If this was made today, it wouldn't be in the genre. It is more comedy than anything.

I want dig into the mystery here. It is quite deep and pulled my interest to figure out how everything fit together. I can't fully give credit to the movie as it is based on a novel. I'm not shocked to see that we have the undertone of organized crime. We learn from the beginning that Dr. Chandler is with a group of villainous characters. He fits right in with them. I like his explanation why he isn't handling McNaughton as it gives him an alibi. Instead, he wants Tommy to oversee it. He is a rookie whose never does this before, so that is perfect what they're doing. Going along with this we have the storyline with Ruth, Dr. Everette and Frank. He doesn't want his daughter with Dr. Everette, but something happens to him. We then get a bit more there by meeting Frank's brother of Robert (Tully Marshall) who isn't a fan of his sibling. There is also Sybil and Richard who Det. Brubacher is fingering for the crime since he is the wild card here by knowing that someone was murdered but can't explain why. He also claims memory loss. There isn't a lot that happens, but we have a couple bodies. Not everyone is dead that we think though.

Where I'll go next is a negative for me. I don't love that this has a comedic tone. It doesn't ruin the movie. I understand the era and this was more popular to do. We get these interactions with Richard and the police where he tells them that he knows about the murder. They think he's the one who did. What I don't like here is that they're trying to force a confession. There isn't things like forensics and the best way to convict is getting your suspect to admit what they did. Richard is off so I don't like that they're pinning this on him. I don't know if playing this straighter would add anything, but the change in tone when shifting to things with him doesn't necessarily work for me.

That is enough for the story so I'll take this to the acting. This is where it shines, even though we don't have a main character per say. I think that von Eltz is good as Dr. Everette. He has a stake in getting to the bottom of what is happening as a possible suspect. This is an element that gialli would take from movies like this. Seegar is given a lesser role and only here to have her father involved. I like Pallette as the main detective. I don't like some of his methods, but that is also the era. Richmond is fine in his role. Littlefield is here to add a comedy element. He does that well, but I've already said my piece there. I thought that Waldridge would have a bigger part, but he disappears from that opening scene as he goes into hiding from fear. The cast is solid overall. They bring all their characters to life with personality and making them distinct.

The last things to go into would be the filmmaking. I think that overall, it is good. We get different locations and cities to flesh out this story. The movie doesn't give much personality to these other places, but it does give us a bit of New York. We have the funeral home as well as the alley by it where 'deaths' happen. The other major location is the police station which is good. There aren't a lot in the way of effects, but it isn't a movie like that. Other than that, the soundtrack was fine for what was needed without standing out.

In conclusion, this is a fun murder mystery. We have different stories that are interconnected and come together to explain what happened. I like the acting across the board. Each person brings life to their character. If I have a negative, it is the comedy. I won't hold that against Littlefield as I think this performance was good. This is a well-made movie so I had no issues there either. For me, I would say that this is an above average movie. It is worth a watch, but just lacking elements to go higher. It doesn't necessarily stand out.

My Rating: 7 out of 10.