The Mark of the Whistler

This was the second of the eight self-contained Whistler films starring Richard Dix, still playing a goodie but this time with more bad in him. Also after the first my second favourite entry in the series.

Lee Nugent – mark that name – is a human derelict who hits upon the idea of impersonating a man whose bank is advertising for him to appear and claim his dormant bank account. He doesn't initially know how much money is involved but when he does get it he gives Porter Hall a fair price for the loan of his suits … Things start to get complicated when he bumps into Limpy the match seller and a determined newspaper reporter played by Janis Carter – just before she played a determined newspaper reporter in One Mysterious Night! Favourite bits: Signing his name but blotting his middle initial in the bank; Some of the sinister scenes with John Calvert chasing after Dix. The overall moral is Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide, with Dix you can believe it too. With one twist after another the last one is a little twee but still effective.

No cgi cartoonery, swearing, sex or violence, just b&w and an intricate story well acted make for a very pleasant hour.

The series is unique in that although Richard Dix stars in the first seven movies in the series he does not play the same character. As a result, each film has to stand on its own merits. There is no opportunity to introduce the audience to a suave character in the first movie or two and then ride the series out with a group of sub-par films. The quality of the movies throughout the series very good. The only character common to each movie is "The Whistler" who "knows many things". In the first movie Dix plays the hero haunted by the death of his wife. In this offering, Dix plays the anti-hero who perpetrates a fraud to come into money that is not rightfully his. He is then pursued by the sons of a man sent to prison by the father of the person with a legitimate claim to the money. Many of The Whistler movies have a unique or surprising "twist" close to the end that significantly changes the expected outcome. This has possibly the best.

Second in Columbia's Whistler series starring Richard Dix and directed by William Castle. In each movie, Dix played a different character in a film noir mystery thriller. This time around he plays a bum who tries his hand at identity theft to claim some money that belongs to someone sharing the same name as him. Good support from Porter Hall and Paul Guilfoyle. Dix is solid as our lantern-jawed "hero." Some nice twists & turns in this one. Castle does a fine job building suspense with scenes like when Dix is sitting in the bank, growing uncomfortable with everyone staring at him. I was on the edge of my seat about what's going to happen to this guy for awhile. Is he going to get away with it? Do I want him to get away with it? My only real complaint is the sucky ending, undoubtedly tacked-on because of the Production Code. Still, it's a pretty good B picture that kept my interest throughout.

This entry is the best in this above-average series from Columbia. All the stories had intriguing premises and clever twists, but this one even more so, since it was based on an original by Cornell Woolrich, that master of gloom, fate and paranoia. You definitely won't see the last curveball coming. There's a nice element of "Crime and Punishment"-like guilt infiltrating the protagonist's shady exploits, although it's not directly responsible for his downfall. The material is the essence of noir, but Castle filmed it straightforwardly for the most part. In his early days before churning out his gimmicky horror pics, he knew how to add telling little touches and include fascinatingly offbeat characters on the margins. All the same, one can't help thinking that this might have been a low-budget noir masterpiece along the lines of "Blind Spot" or "Fear in the Night" if the style had been more doom-laden and shadowy.

I don't know exactly why, But I prefer the series thru TV stuff, made in the fifties. Different stories but also lead characters each time, much gloomy and surprising too. I commented many of them in the past. This one, made for big screen release, I discovered it thirty years ago, before I knew the TV show. I liked it because it was made by William Castle, in his early years, before he went to direct westerns and adventure yarns for the infamous Sam Katzman at Columbia. Later he went to Universal for some crime films, then he found his best style in horror movies, but with his own trademark, very special trademark. He will remain famous for those horror features. So this movie is not the best of the whole, as far as I remember, and Richard Dix is surely the best help. The topic is intelligent, above average, in a way surprising, at least not the usual grade Z common junk. Only the ending is a disappointment. That's it, in the episodes of this series, there were more twists than in the long length movies. The audiences were not the same: home for TV and movie theaters for those who paid their tickets. And that explains many many things.