O Mistério de Edwin Drood

Claude Rains, a consistently great actor, is reason enough to see any film. And Mystery of Edwin Drood is very good, it does a noble job adapting an unfinished book and works very well on its own. It does have pacing issues and the ending is far too melodramatic. The stylised Gothic sets though are very striking and the film is filmed most handsomely and further advantaged by generous direction from Stuart Walker. The atmosphere evoked really does give off a sense of unease. The dialogue is easy to follow and is written, while the story is tense and suspenseful. The film is short for a Dickens adaptation, but the mystery is always involving and respects the book, well with what they had to work with, rather than disembowelling it. The characters are believable, especially the tortured and creepy John Jasper. Claude Rains may have given better performances, but he is still exceptional, and from Rains you wouldn't expect any less. In fact all the cast acquits themselves well, particularly Douglass Montgommery and Heather Angel. David Manners doesn't have as much to do but is also good. To conclude, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Charles Dickens reputation did not need THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD to survive his death in 1870. He already had David COPPERFIELD, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, PICKWICK PAPERS, BLEAK HOUSE, OLIVER TWIST, A Christmas CAROL, A TALE OF TWO CITIES, and seven or eight other titles to remind the world of his talents. But he was a very jealous man. He edited a magazine, ALL THE YEAR ROUND, and had been lucky enough to get his friend, William Wilkie Collins, to write a novel for it to be serialized. It was THE MOONSTONE. It became the best selling series of issues for the magazine - outstripping issues that had contained Dickens' novel OUR MUTUAL FRIEND. Dickens did not care for that.

He had been accused of writing sensational novels by his critics. OLIVER TWIST was certainly a crime centered tale of gangs of youths trained to be thieves in London. Murders played parts in MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT, BLEAK HOUSE, A TALE OF TWO CITIES, and OUR MUTUAL FRIEND. In his lesser fiction, he had used characters based on real life poisoners Thomas Griffith Wainewright and Dr. William Palmer. But in all of his books Dickens used crime and criminal as an element, not the central element, of the story. He was a social critic, and he had to notice crime as part of the social scene. Collins did this too, but he centered his plots on the crimes in the stories. Dickens, who could plot as well as Collins, could not quite see how differently the two approached novel writing.

So Dickens decided he would write one novel where the center would be the commission of a crime: to wit, the disappearance (and probable murder) of the title character Edwin ("Ned") Drood. The novel's main figure would be Drood's young uncle (and rival) John Jasper. Both are in love with Rosa Bud, the ward of the lawyer Hiram Grewgious. Jasper, who is the choirmaster in "an old cathedral town" (based on Canterbury), is a secret opiun user. He loves his nephew, and yet cannot avoid hating him as a rival for the young woman. But they are not the only rivals here. Ned Landless, the brother of Helene Landless, is a headstrong young man who is courting Rosa (and it turns out he is actually the one she favors). There is a public scene between Landless and Drood, in which Landless threatens his rival, while a thoughtful Jasper looks on. Finally, Rosa and Edwin have a talk, and she firmly breaks off their engagement. Shortly afterwards, Edwin Drood vanishes.

Has he left to bury his wounded heart abroad? Has he met with an accident in which he has lost his memory, or is injured and unable to get notice to his friends? Has he been killed in an accident? Has he committed suicide? Has he been murdered...and by whom?

Jasper, of course, starts hinting broadly that his dear Ned has been murdered, and the murderer is Neville Landless. Landless insists that he and Drood have made up their quarrel (but there appears to be no witness to this). Jasper starts putting pressure on the local authorities (led by a beautiful example of Dickensian bureaucratic stupidity, Lord Mayor Thomas Sapsea) to arrest Neville, even though no body has been located. Neville flees.

Jasper has the situation in his hand ... except that Neville's sister Helene does not trust him (and she makes a smitten ally in a young naval officer, Lieutenant Tartar). Grewgious also has his suspicions, when Jasper faints when he hears from the lawyer that Edwin and Rosa had broken their engagement. Reverend Crisparkle, the local clergyman, keeps Rosa comforted - but he is worried because Neville's fleeing is not good for his reputation of being innocent. Then to add to Jasper's woes, the old lady running the opium den he frequents (known as "the Princess Puffer") shows up, apparently looking into possible blackmail after she overhears something Jasper said about the missing Ned while under the drug. Similarly a stranger with a long white beard, Dick Datcherly, comes to town, and is making many inquiries. He meets the Princess Puffer, and he also meets "Durdles", the keeper of the local cathedral's burial grounds, who tells him about Jasper's interest in quicklime, and in the Sapsea memorial, which is supposed to be empty.

After completing about two thirds of EDWIN DROOD, Dickens died suddenly. He left a literary puzzle that remains to perplex and bother his fans to this day.

From my description it looks like he was aiming at Drood being murdered, and the murderer being John Jasper. Most of the details that survive suggest that Edwin was not going to reappear. But was Neville to reappear? Or was he Datcherly (or was Tartar or Grewgious Datcherly...or was Datcherly a new character in his own right - sent by Neville)? Who would uncover the truth: Datcherly, Grewgious, Neville, Helene, Rosa?

In OLIVER TWIST the novel ended with a masterfully horror scene of Fagin in the death cell awaiting for his execution. Similar scenes were in BARNABY RUDGE, and (slightly changed) in A TALE OF TWO CITIES. It has beens suggested that DROOD would have ended with Jasper in the death cell, thinking about his crimes (he may actually have ended up killing at least two other characters before the end), and defending his conduct to his own satisfaction. If so, it would have been a true masterpiece of detective fiction. Instead it survives as a perplexing fragment which many people (including the actor, Sir Felix Aylmer) have tried to tear the secret out of.

I saw the musical version of this in the 1980s, which (ironically enough) starred George Rose - who would die by a planned murder within two years of my seeing him on stage. The musical concentrated on a "who-dunnit" with audience participation. It was okay, but missed the point that a detective story by Dickens had to be more than a "who-dunnit", but a sensible piece of literary craftsmanship.

This film is okay too. Douglas Montgomery, a forgotten actor, gave one of his best performances as Neville (and Datcherly in this version). Rains is masterful as the moody, and suspicious acting Jasper. One only wishes E.E.Clive were given more time to expand on the pompous Sapsea, but he touches on him well. But the melodrama is pushed here, not the treatment Dickens probably had in mind. As an entertainment, I'd recommend it. As a dose of Dickens...read the fragment he left, think about what I said, and weep for what we lost.

1935's "Mystery of Edwin Drood" was Universal's followup to their equally lavish Dickens adaptation "Great Expectations," on par with later efforts such as "Tower of London" and "The House of the Seven Gables." The unfinished 1870 story certainly begged for a proper solution, baffling bibliophiles over the decades, but this film's weakest flaw is that its depiction is fatally predictable. We are shown right away the drug-addled choirmaster John Jasper (Claude Rains), whose frequent illnesses are a mask for his addiction to opium (a welcome touch seemingly missed by the Hays code). Jasper's secret desire for his lovely young ward Rosa Bud (Heather Angel) is clearly no surprise to her, his piercing gaze sending her into paroxysms of fear, and since she has been betrothed since childhood to Jasper's beloved nephew Edwin Drood (David Manners), evil thoughts begin to grow in the older man's mind. Enter Neville Landless (Douglass Montgomery) and his beautiful sister Helena (Valerie Hobson), recent arrivals from Ceylon, allowing Jasper to foment an acrimonious rivalry over Rosa between the hot tempered Neville (who has quickly fallen for her) and her intended groom. There are precious few surprises in the script as written, so it's up to the excellent cast to carry the day. With so many Dickensian characters surrounding him, Claude Rains actually winds up in a subordinate role, while Douglass Montgomery, typecast in romantic parts, relishes the opportunity for some real scenery chewing in disguise (he enjoyed another in 1939's "The Cat and the Canary."). Heather Angel had two future genre titles ahead, 1942's "The Undying Monster" and 1962's "Premature Burial," while 17 year old Valerie Hobson was apparently Universal's busiest starlet of 1935, immediately rejoining director Stuart Walker on "WereWolf of London" (along with Zeffie Tilbury, Ethel Griffies, Vera Buckland, and J. M. Kerrigan). David Manners bid farewell to Universal here, completing just five more low budget features before quitting Hollywood by 1937. Look fast for unbilled bits from Will Geer, lighting lamps 44 minutes in, and Walter Brennan, gossiping about Neville Landless at the 30 minute mark. Despite its inclusion in Universal's popular SHOCK! television package of the late 50s, "Mystery of Edwin Drood" never once made the rounds on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater, a fate that also befell 1935's "The Great Impersonation," 1938's "The Last Warning," 1939's "The Witness Vanishes," and 1942's "Mystery of Marie Roget."

This film is now about 80 years old and it refers to a time about 80 years before that. Much of the dialog is kind of Dickensian and all spoken with British accents. Yes its slow developing at first but at least this gives you a good introduction to the characters, much as a novel might do. But it proves again one fact that has been well known for 150 years: Charles Dickens was a heck of a storyteller.

One of the foundation stones of mystery film making, "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" still holds up in its mystery elements (murder, cemetery, crypt, fog, etc.)

Claude Rains is bravura in a complex role. Sweet-faced Heather Angel, Douglass Montgomery and David Manners provide fresh, youthful energy. All of the performers bring Dickens' vivid characters to life.

E.E.Clive gives one of his gem-like performances in a small part. Its a pleasure to let yourself go back in time as you enter the long-lost world of Dickens and this long-lost film making art.

This adaptation of Charles Dickens' famous unfinished novel is made in the style of Universal's horror films: in fact, it not only features many of their participants (from both sides of the camera) but actually shares several sets with BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) –making the film all that more enjoyable and fascinating a viewing! The stunning opening sequence, depicting an opium-induced hallucination, is followed by the shocking discovery of the addict involved (Claude Rains) to be the choirmaster of the local church! Jealously in love with a girl (Heather Angel) about to marry his nephew (David Manners in the title role), he schemes to get the boy out of the way – unaware that the couple had mutually given each other up when she falls for hot-tempered newcomer Douglass Montgomery; the latter's own shaky relationship with Drood leads to his being suspected of foul play when Manners goes missing – a situation Rains encourages for obvious reasons. Montgomery, however, does not rest on his laurels – indeed, he makes himself up as an old man in order to conduct his own private investigation! The exciting climax – set inside the crypt so memorably utilized in the James Whale masterpiece I mentioned earlier – sees the villain engaged in a scuffle with the hero, eventually getting his just desserts in melodramatic fashion. The film, then, serves as an interesting companion piece to contemporaneous Dickensian adaptations (a star-studded David COPPERFIELD emerged from MGM that same year) and should also pique the interest of horror buffs for the reasons I delineated at the start