The Hole in the Wall

I used to correspond with Robert Florey, who directed the early-talkie Paramount feature, "The Hole in the Wall" (1929). He told me that Edward G. Robinson, one of the many stage actors hired by the studios for their vocal ability, sound pictures then coming into their own, tended to, in this, his first talkie, "play to the camera"; hence Florey having to lie to him as to which of the multiple cameras on the set was the active one! He also mentioned that, upon learning of a train derailment, he and his crew rushed to the site and worked footage of the wreck into the movie. He kindly put me in touch with Ernst Fegte (1900 -- 1976), who was his Art Director (Paramount not crediting this in their films back then, one doesn't see Fegte listed as such in the numerous online articles dealing with his impressive career). Fegte, if I recall correctly, was working in television at the time, employed by Filmways. Aside from Florey haranguing him, in his pronounced French accent, for "my ghosts" he wanted for the eerie walls of the crystal-ball set (the medium enacted by Claudette Colbert), he recalled nothing of the large spooks he depicted. So, to refresh his memory, I sent him a rare 8 x 10 linen-backed keybook still of the scene, and that was the last I ever saw of my photo or ever heard from Fegte!

Cordially, Ray Cabana, Jr.

Poorly lit and poorly written but interesting from a historical perspective.You can watch on You Tube under The Charlatan. Colbert is young and not as confident as in her later films Robinson only shows glimpses of his gangsta persona but it is still interesting to watch The plot is very simple and unbelievable.

I was so excited to see Edward G. Robinson's first movie! He plays the ringleader in a gang of thieves, fronted by a psychic "madam". Together with Donald Meek, Alan Brooks, and Nellie Savage, they extort information out of wealthy clients and then rob them. Everything changes when Nellie is killed in a train accident and they go in search of a new madam. Enter Claudette Colbert, in only her second picture. It was before her Harlequin eyebrows, but she's still very beautiful. Her acting is very modern for its time. There are parts of the film that feel like a silent picture, but Claudette propels the audiences into the future with her different style. There are no grand gestures, no facial expressions intended to reach the back row, and no over-exaggeration of her words. I was very impressed; no wonder she became a star!

Eddie G, as much as I love him, wasn't much different in this picture than he was in Little Caesar. Watching this movie will be fun because it was his first, but it won't showcase his greatest performance. In fact, he sometimes takes the back seat (which he rarely did in his later movies) to the storyline, Claudette, or the creepiness of Donald and Alan.

There are some very eerie parts to this movie, and it might not be for everyone. I'd have a comedy on hand for later in the evening, to get you in a better mood. And try to remember the movie is 95 years old. Yes, there are silent passages where no sound was recorded, and yes, women didn't shave under their arms, but that was just the time period.

It's incredible to see how they managed to get every single aspect of filmmaking so wrong. Even the featured train wreck is a complete train wreck. It's so atrocious that you just keep watching to see if it can get worse - and boy, does it!

Just because this was made in 1928 is no excuse for how virtually unwatchable this picture is. 1928/29 productions from the likes of Von Sternberg, deMille, Arzner, Mamoulian and a few others are still watchable and entertaining today but this - this is so embarrassing you wouldn't want anyone to know you've actually seen it. People in 1929 can only have gone to experience this because of the novelty of seeing a talkie (even though much better alternatives were available). People today should simply avoid this.

The story, dialogue, direction, acting, photography, special effects are all as bad as bad can be. It's hard to which is worst but the story must be number one contender. Amazingly this is actually based on a real play which people actually paid money to see - apparently not a children's play either. It has to be one of the most stupid plots I've ever seen. I know that the police back then didn't have the highest of reputations but even my dog could have figured out what was going on with this bunch of con artists - the thickest bunch of criminals you'll ever see involved in the most unrealistic stupid, stupid racket ever.

If the plot isn't bad enough to make you wonder if you've been given LSD, wait until you've witnessed what Robert Florey considered acting. Yes that really is Edward G and Claudette Colbert but like the great Walter Huston in the equally awful GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS, this demonstrates that without a director who knew what he was doing, the most talented of actors can appear like five year olds in a school nativity play.

It's also shocking to witness that era's sensitive and caring attitude towards mental health issues. For reasons completely and utterly unexplained, the gang keep "a lunatic" in their basement. Other than screaming like an animal every now and then, he doesn't seem to have any purpose whatsoever in the story. To deal with this inconvenience, someone suggests: Why don't you send him back to the carnival where he belongs? Incredible!

As awful as this is, you can't tear yourself away from this nonsense.

There are several reviews posted here on the page which cover well "The Hole in the Wall," but I just want to with this comment encourage younger viewers who may be considering embarking on a look at this one to definitely do so. This film was released in April of 1929, so it was probably shot over the winter of 1928-29 or in Jan or Feb at the latest. I would conjecture that most films produced before the summer of 1929 do not hold up well for viewing today, in 2020. But this one does... it looks and feels good in its acting work, its direction, the sets, and the compelling story. Oh sure, the dialog may not be sparkling, but that's just the writing... we're not looking for something great when we are peering into history. We are looking for the joy of seeing what came before, to learn how things developed... to see what things were like back in the day. And "The Hole..." gives us that. Many films in 1928 were still being shot as silents, particularly before summer began, so here in these early days of talkies we have the actors placed around microphones that often dictated where the actors were placed on set. Much of the dialog was delivered deliberately and enunciation was important. The voices may be a bit louder than what would really be appropriate for the situation. For some actors the dialog offered could sound "stagey," and getting physicality to jibe with speech was tricky. Some actors coming in from silent pictures had exaggerated eye and hand movements, but that wasn't the case in this film. Just think how really exciting it must have been to be a part of this change from silents to talkies in the film industry.

It was fun to here see the apparent difficulty of trying to present the characters in conversation while in the nightclub with the band's music playing. For the most part they didn't even try. There was one short sequence where they did try and it worked out just so-so. And furthermore, no attempt was seemingly made to soundtrack the words of the cops who were gathering for the stakeout at the gangsters' den... we only see the mouths moving in apparent conversation while the soundtrack is dull static. This shouldn't be negatively criticized by us today; rather it should be enjoyed. The little girl in peril under the dock is shown in silence in her peril... we the viewers must supply our own sound for the situation she is in, including the splashing of the water by Donald Meek (I for one think silences such as this can add to the gathering concern felt by the viewer if one accepts some of the terms of watching a sound film from early 1929).

This film is a real treat for all the reasons listed above and also because, on good authority, it was Edward G. Robinson's first sound picture and was also his first gangster role, and additionally for it being Claudette Colbert's very first movie role. Youngsters and anyone interested in film history should indeed enjoy this very valuable motion picture. It is a worthy experience.