10 Reasons I Love The Ten Commandments (1956)

The Ten Commandments has become a fixture during the Easter holiday that it’s only a natural a backlash would eventually happen. Many film historians have made it their goal to put Cecil B. DeMille in his proper place by constantly bad mouthing the famous director every chance they get. One of the latest culprits is Michael Sauter, who in his book, The Worst Movies of All Time: Or, What Were They Thinking?, includes three DeMille movies(Sign of the Cross, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Ten Commandments)  on his list. Which makes me suspect that Sauter  hasn't seen too many movies! Sure, DeMille’s movies are corny and absolutely lacking in subtlety, but it’s a bit of stretch to claim that they are among the worst movies EVER MADE! No one will ever mistake Cecil B. DeMille for being a David Lean, or an Orson Welles, but there’s no denying that his films are immensely entertaining, and that he was an extremely influential director. In fact, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, DeMille was a huge star in his own right; he was one of the few directors that audiences instantly recognized. What I find appealing about DeMille is the lack of irony in his films; everything is done in a straightforward and sincere manner.  There is no sense that anyone involved with the film is sending it up, rather it’s done out of genuine love for the material. Sure, it often leads to some unintentional funny moments (the lesbian seduction scene in Sign of the Cross comes to mind), but it’s preferable to the nonstop winking in today's blockbusters. It is extremely irksome how modern day directors constantly pay service to the fan boys by referencing the source material, regardless as to whether or not it is relevant to the plot (see the Star Wars prequels). 

The Ten Commandments is a vastly flawed film, but it still remains one of my favorite movies. This is interesting given that I have fairly agnostic when it comes to the existence of God, but even I can’t resists the films many charms.  It’s nearly four hours long, but moves at an extremely swift pace. It’s one of the few “epics” where I’m not constantly checking my watch to see how much time has passed. I could write an elaborate and long winded review defending The Ten Commandments; instead I have opted to list ten reasons why I love the movie.

So, without further ado, here they are:

1) Charlton Heston as Moses. 

It's become rather trendy to blast Heston for his politics, however, for the sake of this article, I could careless that he was once the president of the NRA, rather I'm more interested his performance as Moses, and it is truly a memorable one at that.  It's really hard to imagine any other actor in the role, because Heston completely dominates the proceedings with his chiseled looks, towering presence, and booming voice; it's easy to believe that his Moses is, indeed, as messenger from God. 

2) Yul Brynner as Rameses.

Yul Brynner is a perfect foil for Charlton Heston with his eagle like stare, bald head, and ripped physique. He was only 5'8", but he was one of the most intimidating actors to grace the screen. His Rameses is an absolutely fearless, and stubborn, ruler, yet Brynner some how manages to brings an air of vulnerability (and sympathy) to the character that is often lacking in  DeMille villains; the most telling scene is  Rameses praying at the altar of his Egyptian God after the death of his son. 

3) Anne Baxter as Nefretiri.

Baxter has often been criticized for camping it up in the role of Egyptian princess Nefretiri, I personally like her performance and think her over top portrayal is perfect for this movie. In The Ten Commandments, almost everything is larger than life, and if Baxter were to have given a more restrained performance, she would have been lost in the shuffle. It's just not that type of film. I also find it interesting how Nefretiri does a complete 180 as the film progresses; at the beginning she is a rather warm and loving person, but by the movie's end she has been transformed into an icy villainess (as a result of having been scorned by Moses and losing her soon to a plague). Baxter is absolutely chilling in these latter scenes, especially when she taunts Rameses for being weak willed and manipulating him into going after Moses and the Hebrews. 

4) Vincent Price as Baka. 

Vincent Price rules!!! That's really all I have to say about that! Okay, fine, I shall elaborate. Price is an absolutely blast to watch as the slimy overseer Baka, who has his eyes sets on the comely water girl Lilia (Debra Paget). He does a lot of leering and a lot of sneering in his performance and then comes to an untimely end at the hands of Moses; it's not the kind of acting that will give you rave reviews, but it's certainly a lot of fun to watch. Plus, Price is certainly far more livelier than the ultra stiff, John Derek, who plays Lilia's love interest (and Moses right hand man) Joshua. It should be noted that Price and Paget would later be reunited in two Roger Corman movies, Tales of Terror and The Haunted Palace, where they played a married couple.  Take that, Derek.

5) Cedric Hardwicke as Sethi. 

Hardwicke might actually give the most impressive performance in the entire film; he manages to take the rather thankless role of Sethi (Rameses father and Moses' adopted father) and breathe life into it; he brings a lot of warmth to the role, and surprisingly, humor as well. The most heart breaking scene in the entire movie is when Moses is brought before Sethi in chains (after having killed Baka) and he must, reluctantly, punish Moses for his crimes. Yet, he can't bring himself to name a punishment and leaves it to Rameses.  Sethi could have easily been a cold hearted tyrant, yet he is a rather likable character thanks to Hardwicke. 

6) The plagues of Egypt.

When I was a kid, this was also the part of the movie that I looked forward to, because this is when all the neat special effects start to kick in;  from turning the Nile into blood to the Angel of Death (in the form of a green fog) slowly creeping upon the city of Egypt, it makes for some extremely compelling (and often eerie) cinema. Sure, some of the special effects have shown their age, but they are still rather effective in conveying the point DeMille was trying to make. My favorite bit is when Moses picks up a snake and it transforms into a wooden staff. It is a very simple special effect, done with a dissolve, but extremely convincing as well.

7) The Exodus.

The spectacle that is put on display is completely awe inspiring. It's also interesting to note all the mini story lines that are going on in this scene; a woman giving birth, a donkey that refuses to budge, Bithiah (Moses' adopted mother) promising a dying old man that she will plant his fig tree in the new land. Even in all this pageantry, DeMille was able to include the human element. These bits don't have much impact on the main narrative, but they help make it a much more involving experience.

8) The Parting of the Red Sea.

When I first saw this scene when I was six, my jaw completely dropped to the floor. I couldn't believe my eyes. How did they do this special effect? I can only imagine the impact it must have had on audiences in the 1950s, viewing it on the big screen. It is one of the most iconic moments in cinema history. 

9)  The Writing of the Ten Commandments.

This moment is rather fun to watch, despite the rather chintzy effects on display; God appears as a pillar of fire (done with animation) and proceeds to etch out the Ten Commandments on a nearby stone, while Moses is completely awe stuck by the experience.This is juxtapose with the Hebrews wallowing in one huge orgy, after having lost faith in Moses (he has been on the mountain top of Mt. Sinai for forty days).  The lecherous traitor Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) has convinced them to make and  worship a Golden Idol (a calf), under the ruse that the Egyptians would welcome them back with open arms once they saw the gold calf. Naturally, all hell breaks loose once Moses returns and sees just how far his people have fallen. It's over the top to be sure, but all the better for it. Who wants to watching a religious epic where people calmly talk out their problems?  

10) Cecil B. DeMille's direction.

It needs to be said that DeMille's direction is absolutely first rate. I know the very idea of DeMille being a competent director is blasphemy in many film circles, but I stand by my point. DeMille keeps things going at rather brisk pace and allows manages to keep the audience's attention. He also able to create great tension in many scenes simply by showing a character's face, or their body language. In the beginning of the film, Rameses I (Ian Keith) is told about the prophecy of the deliver and orders the execution of every newborn in the slave quarters, this is then followed by the shot of a mother in a complete shock after having just witnessed the murder of her child. This is an extremely effective, and understated, piece of direction; we don't see the murder itself, just the after effect. The camera lingers on the grieving mother's face and that's all we need to know. The other moment is when the Angel of Death descends upon Egypt; what really stands out in this scene is DeMille's use of sound. Moses and company are having dinner indoors, but their meal is constantly interrupted by the sound of chaos emanating from the streets; we hears screams and, at one point, the sound of a chariot crashing. It's an extremely unnerving sequence and it's done without a single special effect. That mark of a good director. 

 Credits

Cast: Charlton Heston (Moses), Yul Brynner (Rameses), Anne Baxter (Nefretiri), Edward G. Robinson (Dathan), Yvonne De Carlo (Sephora), John Derek (Joshua), Debra Paget (Lilia), Nina Foch (Bithiah), Cedric Hardwicke (Sethi), Martha Scott (Yochabel), Vincent Price (Baka), John Carradine (Aaron), Olive Deering (Miriam), Henry Wilcoxon (Pentaur), Judith Anderson (Memnet), Eduard Franz (Jethro), Douglas Dumbrille (Jannes), Julia Faye (Elisheba), Donald Curtis (Mered), Lawrence Dobkin (Hur Ben Caleb), Frank DeKova (Abiram), H.B. Warner (Amminadab), Ian Keith (Rameses I), Woody Strode (King of Ethiopia), Eugene Mazzola (Rameses’ Son), Francis McDonald (Simon),Ramsay Hill (Korah), Joan Woodbury (Korah’s Wife), Henry Brandon (Commander of the Hosts), Babette Bain (Littlie Miriam),  Esther Brown (Princess Tharbis), Fraser Heston (The Infant Moses), John Miljan (The Blind One), Mike Connors (Amalekite Herder), Onslow Stevens (Lugal), Clint Walker (Sardinian Captain), Peter Coe (Egyptian Soldier).  Narrated by Cecil B. DeMille.

Director: Cecil B.DeMille
Screenplay: Æneas MacKenzie, Jesse Lasky Jr., Jack Gariss, Fredric M. Frank.
Running Time:  220 min. 

House of Wax (1953)/ Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)

Vincent Price is one of the few screen actors that was able to make a completely loathsome character likable.  Take House of Wax, for instance. Price stars as Henry Jarrod, a mad sculptor who murders people (who resemble historical figures), covers their bodies with wax, and then puts them on display at his wax museum.  He is the kind of character that audiences love to hate! Yet, we don’t hate Henry Jarrod, rather we find him sympathetic; he maybe the kindest villain ever to grace the silver screen.  When the meddlesome Sue Allen is taken aback by how much his Joan of Arc sculpture resembles her recently deceased friend, Cathy, Jarrod tries to put her mind ease by telling her he modeled his Joan of Arc after a picture of Cathy  he saw in the newspaper. Does she buy the explanation? NO! Her nonstop snooping (((SPOILERS))) eventually leads to poor Jarrod’s untimely demise. I remember watching House of Wax for the first time with my friend Joe and we kept getting annoyed at how Sue Allen kept sticking her nose where it wasn't wanted. Whenever she would touch the Joan of Arc wax figure, we would scream at the television, “He just told you not to touch the damn sculpture!”  The audience wants Jarrod to succeed, despite his homicidal tendencies.  This is entirely due to Vincent Price’s charismatic performance; Henry Jarrod is the most likable character in the entire film. It certainly doesn't help that Phyllis Kirk gives a rather stiff performance as Sue Allen.  If it was different actor portraying Jarrod, then chances are the audiences would cheer when he plunges head first into a vat of ((((AGAIN SPOILERS))) boiling wax.

 

House of Wax was a remake of the 1933 film, Mystery of the Wax Museum, and is one of the few remakes that is superior to its predecessor.  Mystery of the Wax Museum is fun horror film, highlighted by a wonderfully sinister performance by Lionel Atwill as the mad sculptor, Ivan Igor. However, it’s littered with too much comedy relief, provided by Glenda Farrell (as wisecracking reporter, Florence Dempsey), to be considered a true classic of the horror genre. I actually like Farrell’s performance, she is a lot of fun and energetic, and is certainly more interesting than Charlotte, the damsel in distress portrayed to perfection by Fay Wray. It is also interesting to note that it is Florence who drives the narrative of the story; she is investigating the disappearance of a body from the city morgue, and her fact finding leads her directly to Igor’s wax museum.  She’s a tough as nails reporter and is able to hold her own in a man’s world.  

The problem is that Farrell’s character seems more at home in a film like His Girl Friday than in a gruesome horror film.  The comedy is so prevalent that the horror is almost secondary; Farrell probably has more screen time than Atwill and Wray combined, and I am not exaggerating.  The comedy has the effect of defusing any tension that the filmmakers were hoping to build up, because Farrell is too busy trading barbs with her editor (Frank McHugh), or flirting with a murder suspect (Gavin Gordon), that there’s never a sense of urgency. It’s not until the movie’s last fifteen minutes (Charlotte finds herself in the clutches of the mad Igor) that the audience is given a time element. Will Florence and company save Charlotte? Or will she be turned into a permanent resident of Igor’s wax museum?

Fay Wray is given second billing in the credits, but probably has less than twenty minutes of actual screen time. The character of Charlotte doesn't first appear until the half hour mark, roughly the middle of the film. She isn't given much to do except scream at the top of her lungs. This, unfortunately, is what Miss Wray is best remembered for. Yet, Charlotte is an infinitely more appealing heroine than Sue Allen in the remake.  While Fay Wray’s acting was limited, she did have a genuine screen presence that usually made up for her short comings. She radiated warmth and sincerity when she was onscreen, which explains why she has become a film legend.  That and the fact that she starred opposite a giant ape the same year Wax Museum was released. She is the kind of woman that most men in the audience (excuse the sexism, ladies) would want to protect from all harm. We genuinely fear for her life, because she comes off as being so vulnerable. Sue Allen is a fairly distant character that we find ourselves less engaged in her peril.  Also, Charlotte unwittingly stumbles into Igor's web by happening to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, she is dating one of his assistants. Sue Allen, on the other hand, practically is asking for trouble by constantly sticking her nose where it isn't wanted. Sue Allen is a stronger heroine than Charlotte, but even she is relegated to being the damsel in distress at the film's climax.

Mystery of the Wax Museum takes many of it's cues from the previous year's Doctor X, made by the same cast and crew. Like Wax Museum, Doctor X's central character is reporter investigating a string of murders that happen on the night of a full moon.  Unlike Wax Museum, the reporter is a bumbling male, who not only serves as the film's comic relief, but as a love interest for Fay Wray as well. Poor Miss Wray! The comedy in  Doctor X is completely jarring given how gruesome the subject matter truly is: a murderer who dabbles in cannibalism. Doctor X has essentially the same strengths and flaws as Mystery of the Wax Museum; they both are wonderfully atmospheric and have exciting endings, but can be fairly tedious at times. Florence, however, is infinitely more likable than Lee Taylor, the male reporter who stumbles into the role of hero.

House of Wax improves on the original by writing out the reporter character and focusing more on the Henry Jarrod/ Sue Allen storyline.  There is a greater sense of danger in the remake then there was in the original film. The first victim in Mystery of the Wax Museum is Joan Gale, a young woman who apparently committed suicide, but it is later revealed to have been murdered. The problem is that Gale’s murder happens off screen and the only connection we have with her is a photograph printed in the newspapers obituary column. In House of Wax, the murder of Cathy Gray, close friend of Sue Allen, is genuinely shocking, because the audience empathizes with her.  Cathy, despite her brief screen time, is a fully developed character, wonderfully played by Carolyn Jones.  When we first meet Cathy, we assume that she is a dumb blonde, given her tendency to giggle at just about anything. However, her ditzy demeanor is just an act; a ruse into attracting potentially wealthy suitors.  House of Wax’s setting is in the 1890s, which was not a particularly kind time for single women.  Cathy does whatever she can to survive, even if means playing dumb and using her body to win the favor of Mathew Burke, Jarrod’s former partner, who hopes to be collecting insurance money really soon.   However, in span of five minutes, Cathy is dealt two blows:

1) Matthew Burke is murdered. He is hung by a horribly disfigured man dressed in black. Cathy dreams of being in a stable relationship are shattered.
2) Cathy suffers the same fate as Burke. She is murdered in her bedroom.

The murder of Cathy is genuinely surprising, because there is absolutely no build up to the moment. Sue Ellen returns to her apartment building from a job interview, only to find her landlord demanding her rent. Sue Allen is penniless at the moment, but Cathy has offered to lend her some money. Sue Ellen enters Cathy’s apartment and finds her asleep in the bedroom. She calls out Cathy’s name a few time, but gets no answer. She walks closer to the bed, only to find, much to her horror, that Cathy has been strangled.  Just when things couldn’t get any worse, a black figure emerges from behind the bed and chases after Sue Ellen.  It is a surprising turn of events, given that a few minutes earlier the two of them were enjoying each other’s company and having a few laughs.  It is very much the anti-thesis of the slasher films, which slowly builds to a victim’s inevitable death; the unseen killer has his target in sights and does them in any extremely protracted manner.  In the House of Wax, there is nothing to tip us off that Cathy is going to come to such a gruesome end; no POV shot of the killer looking outside apartment, etc.

House of Wax is remembered for two reasons, it jump started Vincent Price’s horror film career and it was made in 3D. I had the privilege of seeing House of Wax in 3D a few years ago at the Times Cinema in Milwaukee and it was a lot of fun. I think part of the fun is that director Andre de Toth is absolutely shameless with his use of the gimmick; there’s a scene in which Sue Ellen and Scott Andrews (her boyfriend) are at a Can Can and all the dancers stick their butts right out at the screen. Probably, the most famous scene is the paddle ball man; Jarrod hires a barker to drum up business for his wax museum, the guy’s specialty is doing tricks with a paddle ball. It’s a gratuitous scene, but extremely effective, at least in the 3D version, especially when the ball keeps bouncing at your eyes. 

Vincent Price would continue to make horror films throughout his career with varying success, but in House of Wax he is frightening, yet simultaneously sympathetic.  Henry Jarrod is slightly crazy at the film’s beginning; he talks to his sculptures and thinks of them as his children. When Burke sets fire to Jarrod’s wax museum (to collect insurance money), it not only scars Jarrod physically, but mentally as well. He completely losses any sense of reality; in his mind he is doing his victims are great service by immortalizing them in wax.  There is a lot pathos in Price’s performance that was lacking in Lionel Atwill’s no nonsense portrayal in the original film. Lionel Atwill was a terrific actor and his Igor is truly menacing, but his straightforward performance is at odds with the nonstop humor in the film. It is shame that Atwill constantly has to play second fiddle to wisecracking Glenda Farrell, when he should have been given his own starring vehicle to shine in. On the other hand, the comedy relief in the remake is not nearly as jarring, because Price allows for humor to creep into his performance; at point a woman becomes overwhelmed by the horrific waxworks and faints, Jarrod interrupts his tour of the wax museum and offers her friends some smelling salts.

 

Credits:

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)
Cast: Glenda Farrell (Florence Dempsey), Lionel Atwill (Ivan Igor), Fay Wray (Charlotte Duncan), Frank McHugh (Jim), Allen Vincent (Ralph Burton), Gavin Gordon (George Winton), Edwin Maxwell (Joe Worth), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Sparrow – Professor Darcy), Holmes Herbert (Dr. Rasmussen), Claude King (Mr. Galatalin), Thomas E. Jackson (Detective), DeWitt Jennings (Police Captain), Matthew Betz (Hugo), Monica Bannister (Joan Gale).

Director: Michael Curtiz
Screenplay: Don Mullaly, Carl Erickson.  Charles Belden (story).

Running Time: 77 min.

House of Wax (1953)
Cast: Vincent Price (Prof. Henry Jarrod), Frank Lovejoy (Lt. Tom Brennan), Phyllis Kirk (Sue Allen), Carolyn Jones (Cathy Gray), Paul Picerni (Scott Andrews), Roy Roberts (Matthew Burke), Dabbs Greer (Sgt. Jim Shane), Paul Cavanagh (Sidney Wallace), Angela Clarke (Mrs. Andrews), Charles Bronson (Igor), Nedrick Young (Leon Averill), Reggie Rymal (The Barker), Philip Tonge (Bruce Allison), Frank Ferguson (Medical Examiner). 

Director: Andre de Toth
Screenplay: Crane Wilbur.  Charles Belden (story)

Running Time: 88 min.

The Bat (1959)

Is there a cooler actor in the history of cinema than Vincent Price? The answer is no! Vincent Price had the magical ability to transform the most putrid of scripts into something watchable; his presence alone often elevated many of the films he starred in.  He was a fun actor to watch and one never got the impression that he simply phoned in his performance, regardless of the material. The Bat is not a Vincent Price vehicle, despite his top billing. He is relegated to the thankless red herring role of Dr. Malcolm Wells; a character that we are constantly lead to believe is the villain of the title. There's a lot of damning evidence against him, which means that he cannot possibly be The Bat.

The Bat was the third adaptation of the 1920 Broadway play by Mary Roberts Rinehart and Avery Hopwood, and it is by far the weakest out of the three. The play was adapted twice by Roland West in 1926 (as The Bat) and 1930 (as The Bat Whispers).  The first version is probably the best of the three, largely because the story is so old fashioned that it is best suited as a silent film. It's main flaw is that it lacks a strong lead. Emily Fitzroy gives a poker faced performance as Cornelia van Gorder, while Louise Fazenda mugs it up as Cornelia's cowardly maid, Lizzie Allen. The rest of the cast is adequate, if unremarkable.
 The Bat Whispers is notable in that it was one of the earliest attempts at widescreen and stars Chester Morris as the strong jawed Detective Anderson. Morris has great screen presence and livens up the proceedings with his no nonsense performance. The film greatly suffers during the stretch he is off screen, because, other than Una Merkel (as Dale Van Gorder), none of the other cast is nearly as interesting. The Bat Whispers has some truly eye popping visuals; in one scene the camera glides up the side of a building, goes through an opened window, and stops on a man sitting at a desk. It's an extremely cinematic movie, unfortunately it creaks along at a very slow pace. It's a film that cries for a soundtrack, as there are many long stretches of absolute silence. It's not nearly as bad as Tod Browning's Dracula, but it is a chore to sit through at times, though it gets back on track towards the end. It also has an amusing afterword in which Chester Morris breaks the fourth wall and implores the audience not to give away the true identity of The Bat to potential future audience members.

By 1959, The Bat was extremely old fashioned and Crane Wilbur didn't do anything to "modernize" it. The 1959 version is the weakest of three, because it is, cinematically, a very bland movie. Sure, the earlier versions may be creaky at times, but both are visually stunning movies with great sets and eye popping camera movements. The 1959 version often resembles a television play that was popular during that time; characters deliver their lines while facing the camera, and scenes end in a traditional fashion, with characters exiting the frame. This could be overlooked if The Bat was remotely menacing, but unfortunately he is a rather dull villain. He wears a fedora hat, a black mask, and plods around the scenery in a business suit - not exactly the type of uniform you would expect a notorious jewel thief (and murderer) to wear. However, despite wearing a mask, the audience knows The Bat's identity from the get go, because we get a good look at his body shape, and let's just say that it's too short to be Vincent Price and too pudgy to be the red herring in the film, Warner, Cornelia's chauffeur/ butler.  The earlier Roland West films obscure The Bat's identity by never giving the audience a good look at him; in The Bat Whispers the audience only sees his shadow for the majority of the film. He also avoids detection not only donning a mask, but a fake limp as well. In the silent film, he dons a bat mask. Granted, modern audiences will probably figure out the Bat's identity fairly early on, but to audiences of the late 20s/early 30s, his unmasking must have come as a complete surprise.

The earlier versions also have a prologue that gives the audience a good look at just how cunning and devious The Bat truly is. In both films, The Bat writes a note to the police bragging about how he is going to steal a jewel necklace from it's owner, Gideon Bell, at midnight and they won't be able to stop him. This boast seems practically impossible; Bell's apartment is located on one of the building's upper floors (no fire escape in sight) and the place is swarming with police officers. Yet, despite all of the precautions, the Bat not only steals the necklace, but strangles Bell as well. The 1959 film drops this prologue altogether, hence the audience is never given a sense at just how dangerous The Bat truly is. We are told about his past exploits; the characters ponder his past crimes for a second and move onto more cheerful things. The movie is extremely lacking in urgency. The majority of the previous films take place over one night, while the action in the 1959 film unfolds over the course of a few days. It follows this pattern:

1. The Bat strikes, but is eventually scared off.
2. The characters sit around a table and have a conversation. Despite having a killer lurking about, they are rather cheerful.
3. Bat strikes again. Gets scared off again.
4. More cheerful banter by the cast.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Even after the murder of Judy (Darla Hood), the film flash forwards to a scene of Cornelia van Gorder dictating her memoirs to her new secretary, Dale. Dale hangs onto Cornelia's every word and then writes it down. This goes on for a nearly a full MINUTE of screen time, effectively diffusing all tension in the process.

It's really a questionable decision by director (and screen writer) Crane Wilbur. You can definitely find fault with the Roland West films, but at least he keeps ratcheting up the suspense to the point that it becomes almost unbearable. Wilbur's approach will make you shrug with complete indifference, "Eh! So what?"
The death of Judy illustrates this point; she is such a peripheral character that her death fails to resonate with the audience. Hell, even the characters in the film don't seem too bothered by her untimely demise. Sure, Dale screams, "NOT JUDY!" But less than two minutes later the audience sees her in the flash forward with Cornelia and she is all shits and giggles. What the hell was Crane Wilbur thinking?!

The Bat gets a lot of mileage out of Agnes Moorehead's performance as Cornelia van Gorder. The one of the few improvements Crane Wilbur made from the source material was making Cornelia a murder-mystery author, instead of the humorless spinster she was in the earlier films. Cornelia in the film knows her business, she's not timid when it comes to using a gun for her protection, and she figures out that there must be a hidden room somewhere in the Oaks, the mansion that she is renting for the summer. Moorehead brings a lot of humor and (more importantly) warmth to the role that was lacking in the earlier incarnations. It's also a complete joy to see two pros like her and Vincent Price banter with one another on screen; it's too bad they weren't given better material to work with, because there's a great dynamic between them.

All three versions basically share the same plot: Cornelia van Gorder has rented out a mansion for the summer that is owned by banker Courleigh Fleming (John Fleming in the 1959 film). Fleming has embezzled a million dollars from his bank and has stashed it in a hidden roomed located in the mansion.  The Bat has learned about the stolen fund and stalks the mansion hoping to find the loot for himself. However, he is not the only interested party. The earlier versions slowly dole out this information to the audience, while Crane Wilbur spoon feeds us everything from the get go. In the original version, Fleming has faked his death and is in cahoots with Dr. Wells. They try to frighten Cornelia van Gorder and her associates from the mansion, so they can claim the loot for themselves without any hassle. In the 1959 version, after Fleming has confided in Dr. Wells that he has embezzled the funds, Dr. Wells murders Fleming so he claim the stolen loot for himself. Granted, he's extremely lackadaisical when it comes claiming the money and getting rid of Cornelia and company; he makes a few asides to her about the potential danger of the mansion and then goes about his merry way. At times, it seems Dr. Wells has completely forgotten about the money, especially when he is seen drinking tea and shooting the breeze with Cornelia and her lovely, much younger female guests (Dale and Judy). As I mentioned before, this film is completely lacking in urgency, even the villains are in no hurry to get anything done. Price, for his part, brings a lot of charm to the role, which is about all he can do with a completely underwritten and thankless character. His main function is act suspicious, so the audience can shout out from their seats, "HE'S THE BAT!!!" Or at least, that's what the filmmakers had in mind.

Crane Wilbur added the characters of Judy and Warner, the suspicious butler, to the screenplay, while limiting the roles of Fleming and the character Victor Bailey, Fleming's clerk who is wrongfully accused of embezzling the money. Bailey has much more significant screen time in the earlier films; Dale and him (his fiancee) are in cahoots and are trying to locate the stolen money to clear his name. In the 1959 film, Dale and  Victor are already married, and he is given a brief scene at the beginning of the film, only to be never seen again; his arrest and subsequent release happen off screen. This is another instance in which Wilbur vastly improves on the source material, because, in both of the Roland West films, Bailey brings nothing but dead weight to the proceedings. He is really has nothing to do, except provide Dale a romantic interest. Dale is Cornelia's niece in the earlier films as well. Here, she is just Victor's long suffering wife and Cornelia's future secretary.  On the other hand, killing off Fleming was a mistake, because the alliance between him and Dr.Wells brings more tension to the proceedings. At one point, Wells attempts to kill Detective Anderson, because he knows too much. Dr. Wells and Fleming do everything in their power to scare people off, which in turns, bring a sense of urgency that the 1959 remake completely lacks.

The Bat was a common fixture on local television in the 80s and 90s, probably because it plays a lot better on small screen than its more cinematic counterparts. The only way one could fully appreciate The Bat Whispers is seeing it on the big screen. Ditto 1926 silent version! On the other hand, the 1959 film is so cinematically dull that almost nothing is lost when it is viewed on television.  There's no startling compositions! There's nothing that jumps out at you! It plays like a television drama, so not surprisingly it fares a lot better on the boob tube (preferably on an analog set with a 13 inch screen).

Credits

Cast: Vincent Price (Dr. Malcolm Wells), Agnes Moorehead (Cornelia van Gorder), Elaine Edwards (Dale Bailey), Gavin Gordon (Lt. Andy Anderson), John Sutton (Warner), Lenita Lane (Lizzie Allen), Darla Hood (Judy Hollander), John Bryant (Mark Fleming), Harvey Stephens (John Fleming), Mike Steele (Victor Bailey), Riza Royce (Jane Patterson), Robert Williams (Detective Davenport).

Director: Crane Wilbur
Screenplay: Crane Wilbur. Based off the Broadway play by Mary Roberts Rinehart and Avery Hopwood.
Running Time: 80 min.