The Case of the Stuttering Bishop

We had two great evolutionary paths in the 30s. One was an amazing diversity of invention to settle some basic narrative devices that have since served us well as the basic vocabulary of cinema. The other, parallel path was the pulp detective novel, a master of which was Gardner.

The traditional, Holmes form is that you are linked to the detective. You discover what he does. Christie followed this form, but it is difficult to render in film. Gardner may be the first case — since common — of the novel adopting cinematic form. His formula does seem friendly to film: we see events that Mason does not, often before he gets seriously engaged. These events give us a false impression of what happened, so we as viewers start out with a deficit.

Then we have the detection; Mason and company are detectives in act two. The third act is always a courtroom, which is why our detective has to be a lawyer. Courtroom conventions have their own evolution in film, and this instance is limited to what in Christie's stories has to be a contrived assembly of the suspects.

This format allows for more complicated mysteries than were usual in film. My own preference for 30's detection is Philo Vance because the formula was not so strict. But this is a good one in terms of allowing complexity and surprise. We have that here in this solid instance.

One of the decisions in defining the characters is how intimate to make the relationship between alpha male Mason and his pretty and competent secretary. Why this matters has to do, as Mason would say, with motive. We like the guy. He is smart, as smart as other detectives, but why he does what he does…

In some renderings of the Mason format, he just likes to win. He has his own Lestrade who he likes humiliating. Justice is incidental, and truth merely a tactic. He just like to strut.

In other renderings, he does what he does because he loves his team, his closest friend Drake and his lover Della. Both are profoundly loyal and true. He struts for her and we imagine passion after the obligatory Italian restaurant scene.

Here, a delicate balance between the two is maintained.

Donald Woods takes over the role of Perry Mason in the last of the Mason series that Warner Brothers did in the 30s with Ann Dvorak as Della Street in The Case Of The Stuttering Bishop. Erle Stanley Gardner's lawyer/sleuth would have to wait for television and Raymond Burr for its next incarnation.

Edward McWade, a bishop who stutters comes from Australia to see Woods about a possible fraud being perpetrated on millionaire Gordon Oliver regarding a fake granddaughter being foisted upon him. Later on Myra McKinney, Oliver's estranged daughter-in-law is arrested and it's Perry Mason for the defense.

Hamilton Burger played by Charles Wilson and Joseph Crehan as Paul Drake also appear. Burger for his one and only time in the movie series and Drake is a more traditional private eye. Previously Drake was "Spudsy Drake" played for comic relief by Allen Jenkins in previous films.

Viewers of the classic TV series will note that this observes the Perry Mason paradigm about never having guilty clients and the killer being unmasked in court. Previous films strayed from that somewhat.

I have to mention Tom Kennedy who took a leave from the Torchy Blaine series and brought his usual thick as a brick detective character with him. He's a favorite so incredibly droll and so naive.

Watch it for Tom Kennedy alone.

Case of the Stuttering Bishop, The (1937)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Sixth and final film in Warner's Perry Mason series features a new guy in the lead role but the film turns out to be a rather entertaining entry. This time out, Perry Mason (Donald Woods) is visited by a bishop who asks him to investigate a manslaughter that happened twenty-two years earlier but the guilty party is still free. Perry starts to investigate, which leads him to a billionaire who eventually winds up dead and it seems the same person is behind the two cases. This is a pretty strong film that manages to be quite entertaining, although it would have benefited by a stronger supporting cast. Woods is actually very good in the role of Mason and brings his own charm and brains to the role. Ann Dvorak is entertaining as his secretary but the rest of the cast is so-so at best. The case is actually very well written and manages to be quite complicated, which ruins the ending when we get the typical easy way out and that's the guilty person getting away with it until they break down and admit everything.

Most of Edward McWade's roles were uncredited, but he certainly paid his dues in film-making; he had been making movies since 1919. Here he plays the stuttering bishop, who shows up at the office of Perry Mason (Donald Woods this time... Warren William had been playing Perry Mason for most of the 1930s.) with a case, then disappears. He makes accusations against the local rich man, Renald Brownley, played by Douglas Wood. Anne Dvorak and Joseph Crehan in supporting roles, as Mason confronts Brownley and tries to sort out the clues and what's going on. People start turning up dead, people are fighting, and then we're in the courtroom, like any good episode of Perry Mason. There are some comical moments, mostly between Mason and Della Street, and the names are a little confusing, with a Della, a Stella, TWO girls named Janice, and even an Ida. It's solid enough, with the usual court-room drama and outbursts. Directed by William Clemens, who had also directed many of the Nancy Drew and The Falcon films.

Donald Woods' portrayal of Perry Mason is the best of the 1930s movies and the one that is closest to the Mason character from the books and the Burr t.v. series. This doesn't make it the only or most entertaining of the Mason movies - the William movies are more fun, if much less accurate. A Bishop from Australia asks Mason to investigate an over 20 year old case of an accusation of manslaughter, a charge that the Bishop says the woman accused of did not do. The plot quickly moves to a question of "who is really the granddaughter of the wealthy (and arrogant and nasty) Renald Brownley?" There are two claimants. On the plus side for this movie are that, for the first time in this movie series, Paul Drake (played by Joseph Crehan) is not a doofus, but actually a competent private detective, Tom Kennedy is his usual dim, but funny detective (in this case a house detective who works part time for Mason and actually helps solve the case), and Donald Woods characterization is serious but still has a lightheartedness about it that makes the character so likable. On the negative side is that Ann Dvorak, a gifted actress, is absolutely wasted in the role of Della Street. It's not a negative for me that the plot was somewhat convoluted and certain plot elements laughable because the movie was still entertaining and well worth viewing, especially by Perry Mason fans - even though there is only one Perry Mason - Raymond Burr, of course.