It's noteworthy that the audio quality is less than stellar, though seeing as this was released only a few years after sound pictures first began to revolutionize cinema, one can't place too much blame on the feature itself. It's also noteworthy that the acting seems more than a little exaggerated, with delivery that's missing only an "and how!" to complete the effect; one might reasonably argue that this was the style or norm of the early 30s, but ninety years on, the more unnatural a performance is, the less it holds up. Consider silent star Priscilla Dean, appearing here in one of only a handful of sound films she made: while improved over the abject "deer in the headlights," "fish out of water" difficulty she had in 1931's 'Law of the sea,' between Frank R. Strayer's direction which informs all the acting, and Dean's own struggles with the new paradigm, her portrayal of Esther too often seems forced in some measure. Lastly, it's noteworthy that the storytelling in 'Behind stone walls' is rather direct; it's not so blunt and forthright as to be outright tawdry, but suffice to say that with an abbreviated runtime of under one hour, the flick wastes no time.
Whether one considers these matters pure flaws or just factors that may limit one's favor, one would be remiss not to take them into account. Still, though the resulting tableau is less than a riveting must-see, I don't think there's anything else here that one might point to as a specific criticism - well, maybe one thing, but we'll get back to that. Even minding the tenor of the acting in 1932, I think the actors still give earnest, appreciable performances, including Dean. George B. Seitz's screenplay may be simple and unsophisticated in all regards, but it's suitably well written to give us a compelling, satisfying tale of a love affair, a murder, secrets, and blackmail. Other facets, likewise, are appreciable, if overall unremarkable: costume design, hair, makeup, sets, and so on. And maybe "unremarkable" is the key word here. There's nothing so wrong about the movie to wholly dampen the viewing experience; on the other hand, save perhaps for its place early in the sound era, and late in Dean's career, there's also nothing special about this to really help it stand out in a crowd. Moreover, in addition to his guidance of the cast, Strayer's direction enforces a flat, tepid tone that somewhat diminishes the power of the narrative. Unless one has some special interest in 'Behind stone walls,' it's a title one watches and then easily forgets to go on with their day.
One way or another I don't think there's much disputing that this isn't especially significant, and all told it's less than great. However, there's no rule that says every picture needs to be a revelation, and sometimes it's enough for one to be engaging and enjoyable on only a very basic level. The only other issue I would mention - perhaps the most substantial weakness of all - is that the climactic speech, the supposed linchpin that draws the narrative to a close, is is bizarrely thin, ill-considered, and heavy-handed, broaching topics so sidelong in their relevance that the climax pretty much comes off as meager Movie Magic. Had Seitz put just a smidgen more judicious care and thought into this last major beat, the whole would only have benefited. Yet even at that, at large the feature is decent enough that I guess one could just wave off the final inelegance as a concession to the rigid mores of the 1930s. By no means should one go out of their way for 'Behind stone walls,' and one should be aware that it is neither perfect nor spellbinding. If one is receptive to fare of the era, however, warts and all, then it's good enough to check out on a lazy day.
