Funny review headline for a 1929 clunker talkie called "Behind That Curtain"

"The movie giveth little, taketh away 91 minutes from life".

That cracks me up, 'cause I just watched this doggie on a DVD I had. It's a true stiffie (and I don't mean the good kind). It was filmed in 1929 but still, yikes. This review of the plot sez it all.

Behind That Curtain (adapted from the book by Earl Derr Biggers)



The story begins as noted with Sir George being assured by Mr. Galt - some sort of private investigator - that he has the evidence to prove that Eric Durand is a thorough cad and rotter unworthy of marrying Sir George's heiress niece Eve - and will bring it to him in the morning. Shortly after, Colonel Beetham and Galt have an argument in Galt's office witnessed by Galt's aide. Late that night, Galt is killed at his office, and a pair of Chinese slippers are placed on the dead man's feet by the murderer, who, when he flees, is observed and followed by the building's night watchman, a low, but cunning Cockney type, who will later blackmail Durand. Next day, Eve and Durand confront Sir George (who favors Beetham as an in-law and helps to finance his exploring expeditions) with the news that they have been married the night before - apparently Durand had saved Eve's life - "something any man would do." Sir George turns his metaphorical back on the couple, and they leave for India for no particular reason. Beetham prepares to leave for the "deserts of Persia." Meanwhile Sir Frederick of the Yard - who speaks more slowly than your average person on the edge of mortality - by the way, British and American accents are parceled out randomly among the characters - has called his friend Chan, the latter having explained that the slippers had been a gift from the emperor of China to Beetham for meritorious service and that their embroidery means, "Walk lightly, go far." This is odd because the film is made and ends in 1929 though it begins several years earlier, Beetham appears to be meant to be in his early thirties, and the last emperor of China (a child) was overthrown in 1912. Anyway, Sir Frederick notes, "The Chinese - they see things that we don't." In India, a year later, the Durands are living quietly, if unhappily for Eve. Her uncle has died, apparently of heartbreak. Her husband sits around drinking whiskey-sodas - "strong ones" and having an affair with their servant girl who fans him and sings the same song over and over. Eve serendipitously runs into Beetham in the market - he is leaving for Persia the next day. He swears to take care of her if she should need him. Eve goes home and finds a: one of the singing servant's earrings on her bed and b: a letter from the Cockney porter back in England who has not been receiving his 100 pound stipends and who hints strongly that Durand killed Galt. Eve confronts Durand, who more or less admits things. She says she will not make a scandal or divorce him, but he needs to stay away from her. He tries to break in her bedroom door, and she flees to Beetham and begs him to take her with him so that she can "totally disappear" in the dunes of Persia. Beetham reluctantly agrees - there is danger (which we never see) but he loves her. Sir Frederick (of the Yard) has been following these people around the world for the past year. He drops in on Durand (whom he suspects as the man is an obvious bounder) to talk to Eve. Then he, Durand and a Persian official fly a monoplane to Beecham's encampment. They search for Eve, but Sir Frederick (who knows a gentleman when he sees one) makes it clear that he really hasn't tried to find her, though he knows she is there because of Beetham's sketches of her on his maps. Beetham's servant (played by Boris Karloff) leads Durand astray. Dir Frederick enjoins Beetham on his honor to meet with him the next day in Teheran and to bring Eve. (If he is only a day away from Teheran, one wonders what Beetham is exploring.) Anyway, Eve has already fled on horseback, and Beetham's party make no attempt to go after her, though later Beetham will say that he had been searching for several days before he comes to see Sir Frederick. Another year passes. Eve is taking the ferry into San Francisco when she reads that Beetham is to give a lecture that night - she saves the clipping and goes to her job as an elevator operator. Durand comes on the elevator and stops it between floors. He has already killed the blackmailing cockney and tries to force Eve to give him the incriminating letter or he will kill her too. Under duress she agrees, takes Durand to the fifth floor, pushes out the door, plummets the elevator to the lobby and flees to her apartment. As she arrives, two Chinese detectives from the San Francisco Police who have ransacked her room and found the letter are leaving. (One of them is said to be Chan.) Eve determines to go to Beetham at his lecture. Sir Frederick has instructed Chan to have the place heavily guarded, but to allow Durand to get in. Eve quietly enters the back of the hall and takes a seat. Beetham sees her, and, instead of delivering his slide show, begins talking about love, much to the mystification of his audience. Durand appears at a side door with a gun and a bad twitch. He attempts to shoot Eve, but Sir Frederick takes the bullet - only a flesh wound. Beetham and Eve explain everything, and the news comes that Durand has been killed resisting arrest, probably because Chan (whom we do not see) thought the world would be better off without Durand. The lovers embrace (off camera), and Sir Frederick takes his leave for the hospital, saying, "We have walked softly, gone far, and now the journey is ended." Written by Jeff Schnitzer {[email protected]}

 

Yikes -- so many talkie clunkers from that 1929 to about 1936 or '37 era. (Clearly, there were some exceptions.) Starting around 37, 38, 39, there seem to be a lot more movies that seem "modern" in terms of acting, editing, photography, etc., rather than antique and "stiff." Not sure exactly why. (Using Hitchcock films as an example, "The 39 Steps," while a wonderful movie, looks and sounds like a museum piece, while "Rebecca," from only 4 years later, is a vast improvement, stylistically and technically. The same can be said when comparing two American films of the same time period, at least in many cases.)

Matt

PS - Seeing "Sir Frederick" above, I cannot help but think of Sir Frederick Gas from Spike Jones.

 

Oh, I disagree, there were some wonderful movies starting in 1932 when the camera was finally freed from the stationary sound box. However, I understand what you are saying. Two things happened in 1937.

First (probably means nothing to the acting style but it does to the quality of the voices) all the first generation sound gear was replaced with the new stuff including the microphones thereby removing that shrill early talkie sound. Second, there was a recession and the movie business suffered greatly, being the worst year of movie business since 1921.

Perhaps the studio heads decreed that the plots be more lifelike? Don't know. But 1937 is indeed the year that movies because modern sounding and in many cases, modern looking. It's also the first year that the "B" picture (like a Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto) made MORE money than the prestigious "A" pictures. A fact not lost on studio heads for a few more years.. The B's kept them in business at least until the war started..

 

Not that there weren't good movies earlier; just lots of clunkers (to clarify).

Speaking of B movies, I went to 10 of the 14 films in this excellent series last week in Seattle, and had a great time at every one. One thing that I really appreciate about so many of the "B" movies is the economy and efficiency of the whole thing, meaning: The credits start, and they last about 45 seconds (woo-hoo!), and within the first two minutes in many cases, somebody is killed for framed or set-up, and the story is off to the races -- no "fat" in these films, at least in the better ones.

Films in the series I attended last week are listed below, with my faves being "Cry Danger" with Dick Powell in full "Richard Diamond" sarcasm mode, and "Pick Up on South Street," and incredibly taut little film with the great Richard Widmark and some shockingly violent scenes that seem completely realistic. Also, FLY-BY-NIGHT was a great little comedic rip-off of THE 39 STEPS -- really a fun movie. These were all shown in beautiful 35mm prints:

Friday, February 19
Double Feature!
Pitfall
Larceny

Saturday, February 20
Double Feature!
Cry Danger
The Mob

Sunday, February 21
Double Feature!
The Postman Always Rings Twice
He Ran All the Way

Monday, February 22
Double Feature!
Inside Job
Human Desire

Tuesday, February 23
Double Feature!
Red Light
Walk a Crooked Mile

Wednesday, February 24
Double Feature!
Deported
Fly-by-Night

Thursday, February 25
Double Feature!
Slattery’s Hurricane

Pickup on South Street

A very similar festival (same series, same host, some variation in titles presented) is coming to the Egyptian in Hollywood in April. I highly recommend that you go!

http://www.noircity.com/

Matt

 

If I could come back in another life, I'd like to be a "B" director in Hollywood in the 1930s-40s ( I mean at a major studio, not Monogram or PRC, etc). Wish I could, that must have been a fun time... A director with talent like "Lucky" Bruce Humberstone...

Those 1950's programmers were pretty intense. What was the name of the one about the race track betting guy? Had Sterling Hayden in it. Was their an armored car in it or am I thinking of another movie? The photography in that programmer was as good as anything in Citizen Kane...

 

I think you are talking about "The Killing." Great little movie, directed by Stanley Kubrick! ("I can't make that bet, Dave.")

Matt

 

Yeah, my wife just hipped me to that. Silly, forgot it was Kubrick....

 

Well, it's certainly not his usual schtick, so all is forgiven. (I try to forget that STAR TREK was Robert Wise....)

Matt

 

Just meant that it didn't come across as a Kubrick film. (2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon, it ain't!)

I love Lost Horizons, too. Good choice!

Matt