The Bishop Murder Case

I found all of the Philo Vance films watchable, with the zippy and witty Kennel head and shoulders above the rest. Bishop was pretty good too but suffered from a cast of actors stuck in the silent era and displaying the full range of intensely melodramatic emotions that are were so essential to the making of – and enjoyment of watching a silent film. Static cameras are as nothing to tortured eyes and semaphore arm histrionics.

Mr. (Cock) Robin is found flat out murdered, apparently shot with an incredibly long arrow but Vance played by skinny and incisive Basil Rathbone knows better. He predicts a series of ghastly and inhuman murders will follow conceived by a intellect bent on playing games with his pursuers by couching his dastardly deeds in very handy nursery rhymes. He and one of the suspects, evergreen Roland Young are the only two to act naturally throughout, if still very slightly stagey. The photography is occasionally startlingly good, if still static. None of these criticisms bother me, I love it just the same as a well crafted atmospheric entertaining potboiler. Favourite bits: The scene in Dillard's library with the thunderstorm raging outside; the sedate and well-mannered way Vance and the cops enter Dillard's aerodrome of a house to search for the murderer.

I hadn't seen this since 1995, the last time UK Channel 4 gave anyone interested their opportunity to watch it. TCM UK unlike TCM US will never have room for it in their admirably varied schedule either (hem). But it's worth hunting down with all its faults for 90 minutes in the company of the world of 1929.

Good effort given the primitive technology. This very early talkie does not creak like most of them did, and you believe that the same team could have done much better only a few years later.

Check out the innovative scene of Hyams at the three-way mirror. Beautiful scene that directors even today should view for technique. There are several little skilled touches added to this film that make you realize that the only limitation on the talent was the primitive lower-than-low tech.

Rathbone and Hyams seem more modern than the movie and they definitely do not creak.

Must reluctantly give it a "5" because of old set-bound look of the film and the lack of music but it is rewarding if you can overlook such drawbacks.

When you consider that sound had only come in a couple of years before THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, the fact that the film still has a soundtrack that needs restoration is no surprise. But I did manage to see a good print of the film on TCM and the gleaming B&W photography belied the fact that this was made in 1930.

But my sole purpose for watching was to see what BASIL RATHBONE looked like in an early detective role as Philo Vance. The mystery itself seemed a lot like an Agatha Christie whodunit because the murders were staged by a clever killer who just wasn't smart enough to outwit Philo Vance. The final revelation involves a glass of wine with poison in it ("the vessel with the pessel" film that Rathbone did with Danny Kaye comes to mind here). Rathbone's cleverness and manner of solving the crime is reminiscent of the way he played Sherlock Holmes so well in all those Sherlock films.

He also had a crisp delivery that was lacking in the other players. Only ROLAND YOUNG managed to sound as if silent films were a thing of the past. The others were clearly still in the silent mode of acting which makes Rathbone's performance even more remarkable.

Not a great mystery by any means and the sets, despite some fine photography, are on the primitive side--but addicts of detective stories should enjoy this one.

I recently learned that Willard Huntington Wright aka S.S. Van Dine the author of the Philo Vance mysteries sold the various screen rights to his stories one at a time to the various studios who would pay for them. It's the reason that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers and later the B independent Producer's Releasing Corporation all had a hand in the series and we have so many Philos to compare styles with.

Basil Rathbone takes his turn at Philo and the Philo he creates isn't too much different from Sherlock Holmes. He's got no Watson to be his scribe and record his genius, but otherwise he's the same clever fellow who found out the secret of that hound of the Baskervilles, etc.

S.S. Van Dine did create a dumb flatfoot of a police sergeant Heath for Vance to constantly show up. At Paramount and later at Warner Brothers it was Eugene Palette, here we have James Donlon who even the maid puts down regularly. I'm not sure what Heath is there for because the District Attorney just calls in Vance for help when there's an interesting case.

Here we have the discovery of a dead body found on an archery field with an arrow through him. Of course the minute Vance gets there he deduces all is not as it appears.

I will say this, the murderer here was a surprise to me and even more important four people die in this film, but only the first murder was a planned one. The others happened because of some unforeseen circumstances our culprit didn't see coming.

That Philo, he's a regular Sherlock Holmes when it comes to solving these murders.

This was the third Philo Vance detective film, and the only one to star Basil Rathbone. William Powell played Vance in the two previous films (1929 and 1930) and the two succeeding ones (1930 and 1933). It is fascinating to see the young Rathbone nine years before he made his first Sherlock Holmes film, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (1939). He is very much 'Sherlock before Sherlock'. There are two amazing character actors in this one, George F. Marion and Zelda Sears as the Drukkers, brother and sister. What faces! That was when people looked different, not the same as now when everyone is the same. The director makes the most of them, and they certainly add an eerie dimension to this story. A lot of people get killed in this tale, though of course we do not see the blood and gore because it is only 1930, and it is all we can do to hear the early sound sometimes. Cedric Gibbons as Art Director did some bold sets, with enormously high windows and huge rooms. The film is creaky in many ways, but it is a ripping yarn. Try and figure this one out! This is perhaps the cinema's earliest portrayal of a serial killer, which goes to prove that nothing is new. It is not a whodunnit, it is a whodunn'em.