A Shot in the Dark

This is an entertaining murder mystery of the mid-1930s made on a budget so small it would fit in a child's pocket. The lack of production values and largely unknown cast do not however detract from the appeal of this unpretentious offering, for those who like creaky old mystery films and enjoy seeing the manners and mores of a bygone era. The only performance which really stands out is by Robert Warwick, who was a cut above the rest and does superbly well, old trooper and charmer that he was. The plot outline given for this film at the moment is entirely wrong, is obviously that of another film, and should be replaced, as this film is not about people in a room being murdered. It is set on a university campus, though no classrooms come into it, and it is all about someone inheriting when he turns 21 and whether he hangs himself or not. Some novel twists are introduced, an unusual murder weapon appears, and there are some far-fetched solutions. But it is all good fun for those who are not fussy. in other words, people who just like a good mystery film and do not demand modern stars, big budgets, car chases, and exploding buildings.

While many of the era's murder mysteries incorporated elements of other genres, such as comedy, action or those beloved old dark house kind of horror movies to shake things up a bit (or to make you forget about plot holes), this one uses no such things, which results in a quite serious tone and a very plot centered script. Which could be a good thing, but unfortunately the movie (which is now in public domain) fails in so many ways.

The budget was pretty low (the movie was produced by Chesterfield, shortly before it was merged into Republic, to avoid closure due to their debts), which would not be a problem itself, but the whole film is way too talkie, while the confusing plot drags around quite slow, with not much going on: the incompetent, but unfunny police officer admits that they don't know much about murder and do not really wish to be in charge (just what!?) and the son-and-father duo that ends up handling the case does not do much detective work either, as they often simply run into important evidence accidentally.

The acting is also pretty weak with people reacting to events in totally unlikely ways. For example when they discover the body of Byron, the first victim or when later others are told about his death, they are all like "Oh, really?" with almost zero emotion shown. Even when his mother learns about his death, we see her smiling, showing childhood pictures of the boy just moments later. The way the other murders are committed is rather unrealistic, the actors that are supposed to play collage boys are quite obviously much older than they should be and the plot, which revolves around some complicated family matters and a lot of money is just too muddled and uninteresting to keep up your attention for 70 minutes. Still, it is not a complete waste of time, but not really recommended either.

The summary of this film isn't quite right. It is NOT about an old mansion but students at a college are killed--the first in the dorm, another at an assembly. Will there be a third?!

When a student is found hung outside his room, the coroner rules it's a murder--as the body was already dead before he was hung. It seems some sort of deadly needle was shot into the base of the victim's skull! Surely this is a VERY sophisticated murder, so it seems odd that they'd use the clumsy ruse of a hanging to hide the killing. It seems even odder that they'd ask one of the student's fathers to help investigate the crime--especially since he's not a detective but a corporate lawyer! Non-police investigating crimes was common in 1930s and 40s films, but usually they are amateur detectives or adventurers such as the Saint or Bulldog Drummond--here, he's just some lawyer who has had dreams of becoming a gumshoe! This weird plot isn't helped any by the crime itself. While it's supposed to be a mystery, I figured out who the murderer was about halfway through the film. It also was silly how complicated the murders were--they just weren't very practical or believable--more like a B-movie murder than one that could really happen. Overall, a somewhat competent movie that isn't completely bad---it just isn't all that good, either. And, I had to laugh at the old cliché where EVERY TIME A PERSON WAS ABOUT TO TALK, they were soon killed!! Gimme a break! You could do a lot better than this one by watching any of the Charlie Chan films!

Midway through this Chesterfield mystery, I found myself wondering: Is this plot awfully complex, or just awfully muddled? A suicide that is a murder; a stolen letter; an old photo in an album; odd family relations and relationships….Various characters guard strange secrets of the past and present. But I'm still not sure how much sense it makes.

Three male leads are at the center of the story. Charles Starrett is of course the rather upright and dashing young student whose roommate is bumped off in the film's opening moments. Starrett immediately calls for assistance from his criminologist father, played by Robert Warwick in the best Holmesian style. It seems like a promising setup—a father-son team parsing clues, nabbing bad guys. But, for me at least, Starrett's character came across as overly deferential and Warwick's as annoyingly smug. Third-billed is the great Edward Van Sloan as a professor (naturally) interested in the parties involved; his character is darkly appealing but, alas, not on screen often enough.

Overall, it's not a bad film, exactly, but I just couldn't feel it gain any momentum. The comic relief supplied by the moronic sheriff and his deputy is rather lame, and the rest of the cast seem to take things altogether too seriously. And there's one large red herring that would have added intrigue had it been a "real" clue....Anyway, early practice, I guess, for director Charles Lamont, who would go on to bigger and better and less serious things.

Caught this film on Hastings Mystery Theater (YouTube) and was surprised at how good the mystery was. The only actor I recognized was Robert Warwick who plays Joseph Harris the father of the young male lead Ken Harris (Charles Starrett).

The film has a truly gruesome opening. After an evening out, Ken Harris returns to his dormitory suite on the Dartmouth campus. Ken is unable to open the door to his room, and his roommate doesn't respond to the knocking on the door. Ken goes down a flight and enters the dorm room below his. There Ken sleeps in an unoccupied bed, but he is awakened by the sound of a low banging on the window. Ken goes to the window, and opens it to see the dead body of his roommate with a noose about his neck. He wakes the student whose room he is in. Let's say the scene gets more gruesome as Ken goes to get a doctor while the other student hauls the dead body up. The relative calmness of both boys makes one wonder what is considered normal on the campus.

The university decides to ask Ken's father, Joe Harris, a well-known lawyer with an interest in criminology, to take on what turns out not to be a suicide but a murder.

As the story plays out there are numerous clues and two additional murders. It even seems possible that Ken's dad could be a suspect.

Some bad acting aside, the film provides a good mystery that will likely have any viewer, including me, making several bad guesses as to who the murderer is. Definitely worth a watch.