A Shot in the Dark

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.

"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings.

**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush

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.

The strength of this film is a pretty complex plot. There are a few layers we need to wade through and that's a good thing. Once that was established, the film becomes worthwhile. There are so many other things that are really hard for the modern viewer. First of all, most of the college students seem to be about thirty-five years old, fully mature, looking more like bank executives. We have the father who writes mystery novels who just moves in and takes over. The handling of evidence and the ignorance of the police force is all so contrived. We have the young woman who does nothing but sit in the shadows. We have a chance to solve the crime and they send her into a room where she is almost killed. There's no reason for this.

I did enjoy Everett Sloan, whom I remember as Van Helsing from the Lugosi Dracula. His voice is delightful. I also got a kick out of all the smoking that the self declared detective did. He was constantly blowing smoke in people's faces and couldn't seem to get through two minutes without lighting up. I wonder what the lung cancer rate was back then. This is worth a watch and has some surprises even with its rough edges.

Gasp! A student has died! And he appears to have been murdered! What a mystery!

It's not a very urgent mystery, mind you, as the course of events proceeds with a blandly flat tone. Very few people here speak with any major emotion in their voice, and one of the actors given the most dialogue (Robert Warwick) drones on with a near-complete monotone. Charles Lamont's direction generally results in blithely casual pacing and execution of even those moments that should be the most lively; some dialogue is somewhat senselessly grandiose both as it is written and as it is delivered. One might say that 'A shot in the dark' comes across as the type of dime-a-dozen mystery rushed out in paperbacks by the boatload, adapted to film. It's not bad, but it certainly doesn't make any real impression, either - nor does it try to.

Actors act, lights shine, four walls build a set, cameras move (a little bit), secrets are uncovered, and so on and so on. Except as it specifically serves to advance the plot, the dialogue and scene writing is frankly unimpressive, and the performances don't make much of a mark. Most troublesome of all is that while all the elements are here that could theoretically form a complete and compelling story, the plot development as we see it comes across as specious and arbitrary to the point that it feels like Movie Magic more than judicious storytelling. Oh, who am I kidding: this is kind of dull.

If you want to watch a mystery movie, and in particular one that won't cost you much more than an hour, then this just may fit the bill. Just don't expect anything more than that genre label portends on a rudimentary level, because you're quite unlikely to get it. 'A shot in the dark' is alright if you come across it, but definitely don't go out of your way.