Shadows on the Stairs

Residents of a boarding house become suspects when one of the owners is murdered, the maid goes missing, and a mysterious easterner is involved in shady dealings. Romantic triangles, smuggled boxes, and a strange veiled lady complicate the plot.

Average whodunit, very much in the light-hearted style of the time. There's the amateur sleuth, the ingénue, the comical cops, and a collection of sinister and not-so-sinister types. Unfortunately, the direction lacks imagination or style. The dense, talky script is filmed in pedestrian fashion adding little to the stage play origin. Some suspense builds in generic fashion as we wonder who killed Joe. However, trying to cram the many story subplots into an hour's format squanders narrative focus, thus weakening suspense. Heather Angel as the ingénue Sylvia adds much needed spark, while Mary Field as the spinsterish Miss Snell manages a degree of pathos. The unusual ending is, I think, a matter of taste. All in all, as a mystery, the programmer doesn't live up to its opening scene, but might do for a rainy night.

SHADOWS ON THE STAIRS is an acceptable and light murder mystery from the era which is worthy of Agatha Christie or one of her imitators. It's an American production masquerading as a British one, although I admit the accents had me fooled, but the extra budget means that the camera-work is better and the film is of a higher visual quality throughout than to be expected.

The action is centred in and around a boarding house occupied by a number of guests, all of whom have their own motives and machinations. It's almost like the board game Cluedo put up on screen. After a time, one of the leading players is found murdered in his own bedroom, so the police investigate and learn one of the other inhabitants is responsible.

There are some solid mystery elements included in the film, particularly my favourite moment with the spooky figure in the black shawl who goes creeping in and out of rooms. Unfortunately some of the acting - particularly on the part of the female cast members - is rather overdone and histrionic at times. But there's a solid denouement and good work from the likes of character actor Turhan Bey, which keep you glued to the screen.

Shadows on the Stairs is a B mystery film from Warners and, despite some of the British accents, it was filmed in Hollywood on the Warners lot. It's a light mystery that probably was just what the Brits needed as war was raging.

Based on a Broadway play produced in 1929, the story concerns a boarding house, the Armitage, where a murder takes place. The victim is one Joe Reynolds (Paul Cavanagh), who was up to something no good with another lodger, Ram Singh (Turhan Bey) and also having a clandestine relationship with Mrs. Stella Armitage (Frieda Inescourt) herself.

Ram Singh, we learn, is a patriot attempting to free India from the British. His group is to get $500,000 British pounds with Joe's help, but Joe is a racketeer.

Mrs. Armitage is a wreck about Joe's business affairs and lets him know she's determined to put a stop to them. Little does she know that her husband Tom (Miles Mander) saw her and Reynolds embracing. So he's another suspect, right along with Stella and Ram Singh.

Other characters include a recently fired maid, Lucy (Phyllis Barry) who was also involved with Joe. The only ones who don't seem involved are the Armitage's daughter, Sylvia (Heather Angel), and a playwright (Bruce Lester) who is in love with her. Then there's the spinster, Phoebe Martin Saint John Snell (Mary Field).

With a second murder, the problem becomes even more difficult to figure out for the inspector.

And the denouement will surprise you.

Very well done mystery that will bring a smile to your face. The acting is delightful, with the exception perhaps of Frieda Inescourt, who seems to be playing to the last row of the National Theatre.

An unusual film for Warner Brothers, but entertaining just the same.

Witty little British Whodunit based on the Frank Vosper play "Murder on the Second Floor" has everyone in the cast suspected of murdering one of the tenants of the Armitage Lodging House where they all live in, but who did it? Joe Reynolds is found stabbed to death in his room and everyone in the lodge may have a good reason to have done him in.

Ram Sigh, Turhan Bey, who we saw at the beginning of the film together with Joe, at the London docks, working for an organization to free India from British rule. Singh as a patriot and Reynolds as a profiteer. They later got into an argument at the lodge about the money, $500,000.00, that was supposed to go to that organization. Singh is later attacked in his room by some thug whom he killed, who may have worked for Joe.

Sella Armitage, Fredia Inescort, the owner together with her husband Tom, Milles Mender, has been having an affair with Joe. Tom earlier in the movie caught her and Joe embracing without them knowing about it. Did Tom kill Joe in a fit of jealous rage? There's Lucy, Phyllis Barry, the lodge's maid who was also having an affair with Joe behind Stella's back. Did Lucy murder Joe because he broke it off and at the same time did Stella kill Joe for him two-timing her? The last three person residing at the Armitage Lodge are Tom & Stella's daughter Sylvia, Heather Angel, playwright Hugh Bromilow, Bruce Lester, and spinster Phoebe Martis St. John Snell, Mary Field.

On the surface the three don't seem to have any reason for killing Joe but there something in the past that we'll find out later in the movie that he did to one, or all, of them to make them murder him. All I can say is that even the great Sherlock Holmes would have a hard time solving this murder mystery much less the audience.

This is a stagy film with a group of idiosyncratic characters, roaming around a boarding house. Everyone is a suspect; everyone has some strange being about them. When a man is murdered, a group of buffoonish police infiltrate the house and act like Pirates of Panzance idiots. Don't even try to talk about motivations or realities because you won't find them here. We have, of course, the handsome smug young man who is "writing his play." If this is what he came up with the cop who implies that he has no profession is probably right. The acting is stilted. Some of the characters are strictly comic and there are those long pauses for us to laugh. Whether we should hold this to today's standards or not isn't the issue. There were well-done films in 1941 as well as now. This just lacked pizazz. And the ending is most disappointing.