Behind That Curtain (1929) User Reviews

Stiff, but still interesting

[the_mysteriousx · 4/10 · 16 July 2001]

Behind That Curtain is based on the third Charlie Chan novel written by Earl Derr Biggers. The book was fun pulp with Charlie outsmarting three rival detectives in solving the murder of a Scotland Yard detective and in turn solving two 15 year old mysteries.

The film, however, is interested in the two 15 year old mysteries and re-works the plot, so the film ends up being about Biggers' back story rather than the Chan story. Fox must not have been confident in the Chan character, perhaps because this was the first real year of sound film or they felt the audience would be more interested in the lovers and not a Chinese detective. Indeed, there is little romance in the book and the film takes liberties in changing 3 non-romantic characters in the book into a love triangle in the film.

It is rather sloppily done and the film really would be of no interest at all today, if it did not have small appearances by Boris Karloff and the Charlie Chan character. It is unfortunately a typical early sound effort and is cinematically uninteresting. Therefore the plot, which is not a mystery as the killer is revealed in the beginning, is all about the overdrawn lovers. It was probably even boring in 1929, but it qualifies as a curio today and should be viewed as such. It is interesting to see E.L. Park play Chan, albeit for five minutes and Karloff looks as menacing as ever. What cruel irony though, that no one can find "The Chinese Parrot", by the brilliant Paul Leni, nor the 4 missing Warner Oland Chans, and this is the one missing Chan that was found!!! Fate works in strange ways.

The sound premiers of Boris Karloff and Charlie Chan

[brianina · 4/10 · 3 September 2001]

The first half of "Behind That Curtain" is a excellent example of the drawbacks of early talkies. Except for Warner Baxter, all the actors indulge in over-enunciation to the extent that they often sound as if English is not their first language. The camera is nailed down in one long interior scene after another with the occasional mike boom shadow crossing faces. The second half, however, is a strong improvement. The lead actress learns how to properly emote and there are a number of excellent exteriors in the desert and in downtown San Francisco of 1929. Also livening events in the last half are cameo appearances by Boris Karloff and the character Charlie Chan, both in their first talkie appearances. Chan is played for once by an actual Asian person and Karloff has a good scene where he has to pretend to be mute, giving a glimpse of his later masterful work as Frankenstein' monster. He is also given the horrible line, "the desert gives and the desert takes away" but imparts a wonderful sense of mystery to it.

"One never knows what lies behind the curtain."

[classicsoncall · 4/10 · 30 July 2005]

Other than being based on a story by Earl Derr Biggers, this film offers little in the way of mainstream Charlie Chan familiarity, even down to the portrayal of the Oriental Detective by Asian actor E.L. Park in the closing minutes of the film. By then, the mystery behind the murder of Hilary Galt is no mystery at all, as one's early suspicion of Eric Durand (Philip Strange) behind the deed is confirmed a number of times as the movie proceeds.

More so, the film involves a love triangle between Durand, his wife Eve Mannering (Lois Moran), and jilted lover Colonel John Beetham (Warner Baxter). Presumably, Galt had information for Eve's uncle Sir George Mannering (Claude King) that would threaten the marriage, so Durand enters Galt's study, murders him, and places a pair of slippers on Galt that were once connected to Beetham. However Durand was observed leaving Galt's study by night watchman Alfred Pornick (John Rogers), who attempts to blackmail Durand with the information. Eve learns of her husband's involvement in the murder, and runs to Beetham for comfort and support, not to mention his help in running away from Eric.

As an early talkie film, the movie suffers from it's actors trying to find their place in a new medium. The players seem to over enunciate and over emphasize their dialog, almost to the point of extreme tedium. From today's vantage point it would seem like they were purposely going for "over the top" in their performances. It's especially apparent as the movie progresses; for example in the Persian Desert scene when Eve finally gives in to her feelings for Beetham, she drags on with a simple sentence - "Whatever....happens....John,....remember,....I....love...you".

If you need a reason to watch the film, consider the appearance of a young Boris Karloff in a pre-Frankenstein role as Beetham's Indian servant. He's not given much to do, but his stamp on the film is undeniable, particularly in a scene when ordered by Beetham to protect his lady's secrecy. Karloff plays dumb in two different languages by saying nothing.

Ultimately, the film stands as a curiosity piece for Charlie Chan fans, and for that reason should be viewed at least once. However one should not expect the usual signature items of a Chan film, such as the Chinese proverbs, the help of numbered sons, or the exposition of the crime solution by Charlie in the finale. In fact, the off screen Chan is virtually derided by Scotland Yard detective Sir Frederick Bruce who handled the case, stating that a tighter surveillance at the Cosmopolitan Club may have captured Eric Durand alive. At the same time though, his satisfaction in closing the case seems to be the over riding sentiment.

More Historical than Entertainment Value

[gftbiloxi · 3/10 · 28 March 2005]

Author Earl Derr Biggers (1884-1933) was among America's most popular writers of the 1910s and 1920s and many of his works, such as 'Seven Keys to Baldpate', were translated to stage and screen with great success. About 1919 Biggers encountered stories about Hawaii's celebrated Chang Apana (1887-1933), a police officer of Chinese heritage who was noted for his fearlessness in dealing with criminals engaged in the opium trade. Apana, who carried a whip as his weapon of choice, was more noted for courage than detective skills--but he proved the inspiration for Charlie Chan.

Between 1925 and 1932 Biggers wrote six Chan novels. HOUSE WITHOUT A KEY and THE Chinese PARROT were filmed as silents in 1926; the first sound film to feature Chan was BEHIND THAT CURTAIN. But although it is generally based on the Biggers novel, the film takes a very strange direction: instead of presenting the mystery novel that Biggers wrote, it dispenses with mystery and presents the story of a runaway wife as a melodrama pure and simple, and Chan (played here by E.L. Park) is only a cameo role tacked on at the film's finish.

The cast sports several notable actors of the era, most particularly Warner Baxter, who had a distinguished career, and it offers an early and very brief role to Boris Karloff in his pre-FRANKENSTEIN era. But the cast struggles a great deal with the new technology of sound and they read as stiff and mannered. The direction and cinematography are only serviceable, and even for an early sound film BEHIND THAT CURTAIN feels extremely slow and heavy-handed.

BEHIND THAT CURTAIN is not presently available to the home market in the form of a studio release, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the near future. Although it is generally credited as "The First Sound-Era Charlie Chan Film," it is not really a part of the series that would become so popular between 1931 and 1942. Hardcore Chan fans will want to see the film at least once, but once will be more than enough.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

A typical very early talkie or "Pierre, you shouldn't have come!"

[AlsExGal · 2/10 · 28 December 2007]

This 1929 film is included on Charlie Chan Volume 3 as part of the complete history of Chan's character at Fox. For that reason it is good to have it. Viewing it, however, is another matter entirely. It is a great example of a bad early talkie in almost every category except cinematography. Fox used sound-on-film versus vitaphone, thus their early talkies don't have that static claustrophobic quality other 1928 and 1929 talkies have.

However the dialogue in many ways is held over from the silents as is the acting. At one point Warner Baxter is declaring his love to the leading lady by repeating "I love you! I love you! I love you". In the words of Singin' in the Rain, did someone get paid to write this dialogue? The overacting is unbelievable and the speech is tortuously slow.

The point of interest for most of us watching this film, the first appearance of Charlie Chan in a Fox film, doesn't take up much screen time. He appears near the beginning to identify a crucial piece of evidence and for a few minutes during the end. The murderer is identified almost at the beginning of the film and most of the time is taken up by a poorly acted love triangle tale. This is not the first appearance of Warner Oland in the title role, though. That doesn't occur for another two years. This film is only for hardcore Charlie Chan fans the same way that "An Old Spanish Custom" is for Buster Keaton fans.

A pre-Chan international romance mystery

[netwallah · 4/10 · 29 January 2006]

An international orientalizing romance mystery from the pen of Earl Derr Biggers, author of the Charlie Chan mysteries. Chan is not really in this movie, except indirectly—instead there is a British-explorers-in-the-East theme, India and Persia and Tehran and pith helmets. Eve Mannering (Lois Moran) has married the wrong man, Durand (Philip Strange), who is a bounder and who has killed an agent, Hillary Galt, to prevent Eve's uncle from finding out. A watchman, blackmailing him, writes to Eve in India, and she confronts her husband, who hurts her and acts threatening, so she disappears into the desert with dashing, dependable Col Beetham (Warner Baxter) who has been longing for her all his life. Meanwhile, the urbane Scotland Yard detective Sir Frederick Bruce (Gilbert Emery) pursues the mystery with a clue provided by Chan, and the story winds up in San Francisco will all wrinkles ironed out. A very early sound movie, this one is marred not so much by the spotty sound recording as by the stagy acting style: thrilling and plummy tones ("ohhhhhhhhh Erik!") from Moran and Baxter. She's sometimes quite winsome, and Boris Karloff has a tiny part as Beetham's oriental servant. Later films focus on Chan, but not this one. Interesting use of title phrase, first to indicate why explorers explore, and then to preface Beetham's film-illustrated lecture at the denouement.

Dull film due to dull actor

[bradnfrank · 17 June 2003]

As others have noted, this film is very dull. This is largely due to the extremely slow delivery of actor Gilbert Emery, who plays Sir Frederic Bruce of Scotland Yard. You can almost sense the impatience of the other actors whenever he's onscreen. If you're only curious about Charlie Chan, skip to the last 10 or 15 minutes.

According to THE FILMS OF BORIS KARLOFF, by Richard Bojarski, this was released in both sound and silent versions (a common practice during the early years of sound films). It would be interesting to see if the silent version, running at a faster film speed, is less dull.

Red herring in beginning points to wrong man as killer.

[rclolson · 6/10 · 8 May 2008]

I, too, was disappointed that there was very little Charlie Chan in this movie, but I found the small part by Boris Karloff entertaining. The most confusing part of the film was the beginning, where the Colonel was seen attempting to recover damaging papers from the same person who (also?) possessed damaging papers concerning the man who eventually murdered him. The Colonel's papers were never discussed, and they became a red herring. I found myself going back to the beginning to see if I had the characters confused. As far as I could tell, the actual murderer never knew that the man he murdered had any damaging papers. Also, the film didn't establish that the murderer was aware that the Colonel had visited the murdered man. How would the murderer know to frame the Colonel? And why do something as dumb as putting the Colonel's Chinese slippers on the murdered man? As though the Colonel, if really guilty, would put his own Chinese slippers on someone he just murdered!

Pretty dreadful, even for 1929 and ONLY of interest to die-hard Charlie Chan fans

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 26 May 2008]

This is a globe-hopping film that begins in England, then moves to India, Iran and finally San Francisco. The story involves a sociopathic murderer who kills someone and then marries a nice girl. Once married, he treats her like dirt and cheats on her. She puts up with it until she discovers that he was a murderer. Then most of the film consists of her trying desperately to avoid him as well as scandal if the secret were be revealed.

This is the earliest Charlie Chan film known to be in existence and it is absolutely nothing like the later films--nothing. Apart from the name "Charlie Chan", there is no similarities to the later exceptional series.

Back in 1929, films were often a bit stilted and overly melodramatic. Because the studios weren't used to using sound, the actors tended to remain very stationary (due to poor sound equipment) and the dialog sounded more like plays than movies. I accept this and tend to rate these early talkies with this in mind. However, even keeping this in mind, BEHIND THAT CURTAIN is still a dreadful film--even for 1929. The main problem is not how constricted the actors were due to the sound equipment but how gosh-darn awful the dialog was. In fact, I would have to say that the love scene in the desert might just be the absolute worst love scene I have ever seen and heard--it was THAT overly melodramatic and stagy as well as laughable. I truly believe that most high school actors could do a better job today.

In addition to horrible dialog, the movie suffered from being way too slow--and the first half in particular crawled at a snail's pace. Later, despite the horrid dialog and acting the film did pick up a bit--but certainly not enough to make it even passable entertainment! I think the biggest problem is that the film clearly shows those involved with the movie weren't used to talking pictures. However, my complaints weren't just about the wretched dialog and pacing, but also the acting and direction. For example, the film starred Warner Baxter who was an exceptional actor. He was famous not just during the silent era but in sound pictures like the Crime Doctor series and such excellent films as PRISONER OF SHARK ISLAND and KIDNAPPED. I loved how he played such realistic and likable "everyman" characters, but here in BEHIND THAT CURTAIN he was a simpering idiot who overdid the love scenes--making him one of the biggest liabilities in the film. The female lead, Lois Moran was perhaps even worse. The only actor who came off well (very well, actually), was Gilbert Emery as the Scotland Yard inspector.

One reviewer pointed out that the only good element was the cinematography, though I would differ. While it was exceptional seeing the sound outdoor shots of the caravan (for 1929 getting this right was VERY tough), all too often the camera was static. At one point it was even laughable, as the scene began with just the tops of the characters' heads showing--like the camera should have been several feet lower. This was because the couple were about to stand and instead of moving the camera or using a cut, they just left the camera on and created a very awkward and sloppy scene.

Now as for Charlie Chan, he was only a bit player who appeared in a very limited capacity in the last 12 minutes of the movie. Surprisingly, he was actually played by an Asian--something you'd never see in the 30s-50s. However, this isn't all positive as E.L. Park had the charisma and charm of a bag of lint. They simply gave this actor nothing to do--making him just a glorified errand boy for Emery. Also, Chan oddly was NOT a Hawaiian-based detective--instead serving in Chinatown in San Francisco. Also, Mr. Park didn't look as Chinese as Warner Oland (who was a Swede)--looking more like a native Hawaiian (though with a Korean name). Chan was supposed to be a Hawaiian but of Chinese descent. Because of these inconsistencies and a thankless part, the "Chanophiles" out there will no doubt find all this very disappointing.

In conclusion, the plot wasn't bad but due to horrid acting, dialog and direction this is one supposedly lost film that might just as well as have remained lost!

Also, in a small role is Boris Karloff. While it's not a huge role, this excellent actor acquitted himself well in the role of a devoted servant. It was nice to see him in a pre-Frankenstein role.

Much better - and different - than I expected

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 6 August 2017]

"Behind That Curtain" is not really a part of the Charlie Chan series (Chan himself appears in a minor role, for maybe 2 minutes), and it's not even a mystery, but if you want to get technical, it's probably a better movie than any of the Monogram Chans, and some of the Fox ones as well! Some aspects are dated, of course, but I was expecting a film full of talk enclosed in rooms, and I got plenty of exotic outdoors footage, camel and horse riding, creative use of sound and foreign music, and a palpable sense of illicit passion in a prolonged will-they-kiss? scene. Lois Moran gives a sympathetic portrayal, and is quite hot to boot! **1/2 out of 4.

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

[Mike-764 · 3/10 · 19 August 2004]

Sir George Mannering disapproves of the relationship of his daughter Eve and Eric Durand to a point where he hires Hilary Galt to investigate Durand's previous activities. Galt is found murdered and Eve announces to her father that she and Eric eloped and they will be moving to Egypt, devastating Sir George and American explorer Col. John Beetham, who is infatuated with Eve. Scotland Yard inspector, Sir Frederick Bruce, believes Durand had a hand in the murder of Galt, and tracks him down in Egypt, while in the meantime, Beetham meets up with Eve in Egypt, she runs away from him (its been implied that Durand has been hot-n-heavy with the maid), but then Durand goes after her to prevent Eve from telling the police what she knows about Galt's murder. If you are looking forward to this film as a Charlie Chan or Boris Karloff fan, you might be disappointed considering both have very little impact or to do in the story. The movie could use a better mystery angle, but the movie is faithful to the style of the Biggers books (romantic plot, with Charlie Chan as the secondary character solving the mystery). The performances and production are stale, but the fact that its 1929, with the emphasis on the movie being a talkie must be considered. Still director Cummings should have informed Philip Strange that melodrama was dead by this time. Rating, 3.

I enjoyed it greatly.

[zozm-10043 · 8/10 · 19 August 2019]

Hey, it's an old movie in a bygone style but I took it for what it was and had a good time watching. Being of English heritage may have helped. Eve, damn it, I love you! Fun! Nice to see Boris Karloff too and some nice location shots.

An early example of the talking picture.

[marquisdeposa · 7/10 · 25 September 2006]

This is an early example of the talking film. The delivery of the lines and emotions seem to be in slow motion. I am not sure if this was shot as a silent film as well. I tend to believe it was because much of the acting is done with eyes and face.

Overall it is faithful to the plot line of the book, but characters have been removed and that lessens the "mystery" of the film. We know "who done it" about 30 minutes into the picture.

Boris Karloff has a small role as a servant and Charlie Chan is seen even less (somewhere around the 42 minute mark).

For film enthusiasts only. The regular "tv mentality" person won't be able to sit through it.

Bad Acting By Lead Gilbert Emery, Helped By Bad Script, Sink This Chan Movie

[gerrythree · 3/10 · 1 September 2006]

When Fox decided to make "Behind That Curtain," the studio picked as leads Warner Baxter, Lois Moran and Gilbert Emery. Of the three, Emery's role was the most important, since his actions kept the story moving to its eventual outcome in San Francisco. Although the scriptwriters gave Gilbert Emery terrible lines for his part as an upper class Englishman, Emery can take all the credit for his strange pseudo-British accent as he slowly enunciates every word of dialogue, pausing at every chance to lend gravity to the moronic dialogue. At about the 80 minute mark, Emery's character discusses a plan with Charlie Chan of the SFPD. In one exchange, both actors talked in exactly the same way, as if they memorized their dialogue phonetically. Unlike E.L. Park, the actor who played Chan, for Emery English was not a second language, but it sure sounded that way. At 90 minutes, this movie is about 30 minutes too long. Had the producer just cut out Emery's part entirely, this movie would have been much better. The story would still have been a mess, with the characters played by Warner Baxter and Lois Moran traveling in the desert with camels, for no reason I can see, except to save money on sets. Lois Moran has the best scene in the picture, as she runs through San Francisco while passersby look at her. This apparent cinema verite look at 1929 San Francisco is interesting, but not long enough. Maybe if there were more running scenes with Lois Moran, they could have renamed the picture "Run, Lois, Run." It is beyond me how Gilbert Emery could continue to have a career in Hollywood, while John Gilbert was almost laughed off the screen for having a voice with the wrong pitch for the roles John Gilbert first played in talkies.

Only if you must have every Chan film!

[lyrast · 2/10 · 27 November 2008]

This film is a real oddity. It's supposed to be the first "Charlie Chan" film but that's like calling Casino Royale {1967} the first James Bond film. In a sense it is, but it's certainly not in the tradition established by Sean Connery. Likewise here, only more so. Chan is only in the film a few irrelevant minutes and isn't played by Warner Oland. "Behind That Curtain" is an example of how poor the early talkies could be--even if they had an acceptable plot. In this case the actors are very uncomfortable with dialogue, often sounding artificial and stilted. Sometimes they seem to be projecting their voices and enunciating each word with excessive care as if making sure that an audience could hear them. The result is that a sense of emotional spontaneity is completely absent in scenes where its presence is vital. Perhaps the best scene in the film is at the point where the heroine, Eve, {Lois Moran} discovers her husband's infidelity. There is no dialogue and Moran conveys more feeling than at any other point in the film because she is playing, in effect, a silent part. There are other moments when she seems to be expressing a sensitive emotional reaction. Then she talks and the moment is shattered. She is quite beautiful and expressive, and if this film had been made as a silent, I think it would have been quite acceptable--if no classic. An interesting feature is the presence of Boris Karloff as a manservant. He has the best voice in the film!

Singularly unsatisfying

[skoyles · 3/10 · 26 September 2007]

Among the necessary attributes of any motion picture, old or new, colour or black and white, widescreen or television, is that the presentation must be satisfying on some level. "Citizen Caine" satisfies our sense of balance; "Gone With the Wind" our sense of honour; "Star Wars" our sense of adventure; "LA Confidential" our sense of justice while numerous mysteries satisfy our need for a neat solution to the problem presented. The satisfaction need not be poetic nor even to our liking but we must be able to say, "At some level this movie was a satisfying experience." "Behind that Curtain" is not. While the historical interest of the exotic locales is fun, the acting is acceptable for the time, seeing Karloff, Baxter, and Park as Chan is fine, the satisfaction factor is zilch. IMDb is rightly leery of "spoilers" in reviews; no such warning is necessary for this creaking amateur script. As one looks for possible solutions to the "whodunit", one wastes one's time. Alas, a disappointment which proves yet again that without a good story no motion picture can succeed.

Globe-trotting mystery.

[michaelRokeefe · 2/10 · 23 July 2010]

Irving Cummings gets the job of directing this murder mystery involving Earl Derr Biggers' Charlie Chan. Fans of the unflappable detective will be disappointed that Chan, played by E.L. Park, is merely an adviser to a veteran Scotland Yard inspector(Gilbert Emery) and only appears in several scenes. The story begins with a murder in London and the only clue is a pair of Chinese slippers. The investigation moves to Persia then India and ends in San Francisco. The prime suspect is an adventurer(Warner Baxter), who is hiding his long-time friend and heiress(Lois Moran)from her gold digger and womanizing husband(Philip Strange). This movie offers nothing out of the ordinary for this time period; but of note is the introduction of Boris Karloff, who has a very small part as a Sudanese manservant.

The oldest still existing film in which Charlie Chan... appears...

[binapiraeus · 7/10 · 1 March 2014]

This early talkie crime melodrama, just like so many other films at the time, still had to cope with many problems: the actors not yet having been adequately trained for talking pictures, the poor sound quality, and the scripts that also were written by people who'd written either silent movie scripts or stage plays before, but never any TALKIE script.

So this 'old' story of a lovely young girl marrying the wrong man who soon turns out not only to be a cheat and an egoist, but also a murderer, and her faithful friend, famous explorer Beetham, coming to her rescue at his own life's risk may look a little pale today - and especially for those who know that it's the oldest still existing movie in which the great Chinese detective Charlie Chan appears, and is even actually played by an Asian! Well, E.L. Park does quite nicely - in the few moments he appears toward the end of the movie... All the rest of the investigation is being done by British detective Sir Frederick Bruce (Gilbert Emory).

Well, if we - even as really fervent admirers of the 'Charlie Chan' movies - accept that fact (anyway, his name isn't mentioned in the title to lead us astray and make us think that this is an 'actual' Charlie Chan movie), we can see "Behind That Curtain" simply as a late 1920s' murder and love drama, not one of the best ones for sure, but still with quite a lot of suspense, an exotic atmosphere which takes us all the way from England via India to China (in fact, Boris Karloff can be seen in one of his early roles as Beetham's Indian servant), fascinating shots of the desert, and - even IF they're becoming a little melodramatic at times - a loving couple, Lois Moran and Warner Baxter (one of the big matinée idols in silents as well as in early talkies), for whose fate we really DO care!

An interesting document of early tries at sound cinema; and a quite entertaining and suspenseful one, too, for the friends of classic Hollywood.

Walk...softly...Talk...slowly...Go...nowhere

[Rosabel · 4/10 · 24 February 2008]

This film is of historical interest, as the first appearance on film of the Charlie Chan character, even though he doesn't appear until about 50 minutes into the movie, and is in only 3 scenes. But as a movie, it is almost intolerably bad. The actors were obviously very unsure of themselves, making the transition from silent to sound movies. I've seen Warner Baxter in silent films, and he was by no means as frozen as he was in this movie. Now and then he relaxes, and his dialog becomes a bit more natural, as it would be a few years later in a film like "42nd Street". But here, he seems flummoxed by the need to actually MEMORIZE lines - there are several moments where he speaks hesitantly, for all the world as if he just couldn't remember the line, and can no longer just say whatever he wants, as one could in a silent film.

Baxter is not the worst offender - the character of Mr. Galt (destined to play the melancholy role of "The Body") speaks so slowly and with such exaggerated pronunciation, is just terrible. Many of the actors appeared to be falling back on stage performance techniques, with loud emoting and over-enunciation, and as a result they over-powered the camera - or they would have, if their loud, artificial voices hadn't been combined with near-immobility. Everyone seems afraid to move - they plant themselves in one spot, then roar out their lines.

The camera-work is also very unimaginative for the most part, with one notable exception - the camel caravan traveling over the desert was quite beautifully photographed. It's probably not a coincidence that the scene was purely visual - when the filmmakers could fall back on the more familiar silent movie techniques, they seemed much freer and imaginative. The new technology, by contrast, introduced awkwardness and seemed burdensome.

The plot and the script were both very lame. The murderer is revealed very quickly, and mystery is replaced by a love triangle and a romance. Eve, the heroine, overacts horribly, with lots of head-bobbing and wriggling to convey her anguish. Her motivation is completely unbelievable - married to a murdering psychopath who has every reason in the world to kill her, she persists in fleeing from the police, and refusing to help convict him, even when her own life is at stake, and the police have hard evidence anyway, and there is no chance he can escape justice.

The script does deserve some credit for treating a theme like adultery in a rather surprisingly hard-edged way. There's no softening of the despicable betrayal, or of the heroine's painful discovery that her husband has been sleeping with their Indian maid - she even finds the latter's earring in her own bed! She has her own moment of temptation later on, but resists with the time-honored line, "After all, he IS my husband!" It's a good reminder that the '20s were by no means a strait-laced decade - the tasteful expunging of sex in the movies came later. But then the movie ruins it by having Eve shrinking from divorcing her cad of a husband (one of my favorite lines, by the way: "Are-you-going-to------DIVORCE------me???") because she is afraid of the scandal. Divorce wasn't THAT big a scandal in the '20s, especially among the rich. Eve is always veering between put-upon, shrinking damsel in distress and unpredictable, capable woman on her own. The movie would have been far better if she had been portrayed as a strong, modern woman throughout, but that Eve would never have been so stupid and sentimental as to leave a murderer roaming the streets.

"Walk Softly, Travel Far"

[profh-1 · 6/10 · 25 March 2023]

An heiress foolishly marries the wrong man, then deeply regrets it when he's abusive and cheating on her, but when she learns he murdered a P. I. her now-late father had hired to investigate the man, that's one line crossed too many! So she runs off with her old friend, a noted explorer who deeply loves her, but REFUSES to tell him what her husband did that was so bad, since she wants to "avoid a scandal". WHAT? Meanwhile, a die-hard, determined Scotland Yard inspector goes to insane lengths to somehow both find the truth-- and protect her honor.

Let's get this out of the way: this is NOT any normal kind of "Charlie Chan" film. In fact, since we pretty much KNOW who the murderer is early-on, this is more of a "Columbo", where the focus is on a detective trying to prove what he ALREADY knows to be the truth. But Peter Falk never took this much time doing so!

The main criticism of this film-- and it is an extremely-valid one-- is that nearly every actor in the film is talking in slow motion, as if they're all on downers. This is especially true of Gilbert Emery, who plays the hero of the film, Scotland Yard Inspector "Sir Frederick Bruce". I've seen him in a few films where I found the characters he played intensely annoying in the extreme (THE SAINT STRIKES BACK, DRACULA'S DAUGHTER), but here, despite his slow-motion delivery of every single line, I genuinely ENJOYED his character! I could tell early-on he always seemed to know more than he said, he was the one heaping praise on his long-distance colleague in San Francisco who found the all-important clue (though we never learn how he managed that), and on chasing down the blackguard husband and the two errant lovers in the desert, he showed such great restraint and concern, it just put a smile on my face whenever he was onscreen. These days, I cannot believe there is even a single real police officer anywhere on Earth with this much sense of humanity about them.

Warner Baxter is "Colonel John Beetham", the explorer who foolishly "left the field open" for the girl he loved to go off and marry someone else... then, agreed to help her when she was in distress, despite her abject refusal to explain the circumstances. Somehow, I never warmed up to the CRIME DOCTOR films (compared to so many other mystery series from that era), but I found myself really relating to his character here. In my life, I've know TWO different women who married the wrong guys, and I was unable to do anything to help. At least Beetham got a chance, and had a happy ending, eventually.

Lois Moran is "Eve Mannering Duran", the heiress whose life becomes an unending hell-- though, frankly, to a large degree due to her own stubbornness. WHY refuse to help the police once she knows the truth? WHY drag things out for more than a year? It's like she's asking to be dumped on. On his blog, Dennis Schwartz describes her as having "the dubious honor of being one of the most obnoxious and dumbest heroines ever in films." I'm afraid I must agree! Despite this, I was somewhat mesmerized by her beauty. She reminded me a lot of Denise Crosby-- who, in later years, reminded me of my Aunt Cecilia (my Mom's sister), an amazing women I always wished I'd gotten to know better than I had. If nothing else, watching this film had me remembering her.

A real highlight of the film, halfway in, was when I suddenly recognized Beetham's servant was none other than BORIS KARLOFF. What a FACE! What a VOICE! He has pitifully little to do in this (his 1st speaking role!), and yet, like his appearance in SCARFACE, he seems to be the most "natural" actor in the entire movie. NO WONDER he became so popular and had such a long career. He just about steals the film in one scene without saying a single word!

It's not until the last act that we finally set eyes on "Inspector Charlie Chan", played by E. L. Park in what seems to have been his ONLY appearance on film. One reviewer poses the question, was Park even a professional actor? Hard to say. For myself, I was reminded that one of my pharmacists is a Chinese girl also named Park. Of course, she's a lot cuter...

According to the "Faded Page" blog, the 1928 novel this was based on was a much-more traditional "murder mystery", which focused on Charlie Chan trying to solve a murder that happened 15 years earlier. WHATEVER possessed the people at Fox to completely jetison that in favor of showing the story from the point-of-view of the 3 people involved in the "love triange"? I admit, I enjoyed this film for what it was... but now, I REALLY wanna track down the NOVEL and read that!

The 20th Century-Fox "Cinema Classics Collection" had 3 boxes to cover the Warner Oland era, with the films, for whatever reason, spread out almost RANDOMLY across the 3 boxes, with this one on Box 3. They're out of print and getting pricey, and I was considering for more than a year going after them... when suddenly, I didn't have to anymore. OnesMedia has just put out a box set with EVERY available Warner Oland film in chronological order-- PLUS, 2 audio reconstructions of missing Oland films-- and, "ERAN TRECE", the Spanish version of the missing "CHARLIE CHAN CARRIES ON"-- and, "BEHIND THAT CURTAIN". I put off buying this film separately, or watching it on Youtube, and having now seen it in the OnesMedia box, I was stunned at how CRYSTAL-CLEAR so much of the film was, with only 2 reels near the end (around the 70-minute mark) being from a lesser source. I'm now so much looking forward to re-watching the entire series, for the first time on DVD. And, they've announced they're doing Box 2 with all 22 Sidney Toler films-- and Box 3, with all 6 Roland Winters films, PLUS, the 2 horrible, ghastly ones from the 70s, PLUS, all 6 "MR. WONG" films as extras. Wow! I don't know if what this company puts out are "bootlegs" or not, but their packaging continues to blow me away. If I were putting films series out on DVD, I'd be doing the way they are.

Oh yeah, and just to be clear... whatever its faults, BEHIND THAT CURTAIN is at least 10 times better than THE RETURN OF CHARLIE CHAN... and 100 times better than CURSE OF THE DRAGON QUEEN. Take that for what it is.

London to Persia to San Francisco

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 12 April 2013]

After a couple of silent screen films, Charlie Chan was introduced to the talking picture with Behind That Curtain. Someone at Fox films had some faith in the character because after this film, it was that faith that created a series.

To put it bluntly this was a stodgy overacted mess by a lot of the players who were just getting used to sound film. Except for Warner Baxter who would win the second Best Actor Oscar for In Old Arizona, the rest chewed the scenery, possibly to breathe some life into this story.

Lois Moran has been swept off her feet by the dashing Philip Strange who is a real swine of a human being, a fact her father Claude King recognizes. He much prefers explorer Warner Baxter as a suitable husband for his daughter, but she's made her mind up and Baxter steps aside jolly good sport that he is.

Afterward it's discovered that Strange has murdered a detective who King had hired to get dirt on him. And it's certainly alluded that there was dirt to get. Moran runs off to the Persian desert on Baxter's expedition, but Strange won't let her go.

The end is in San Francisco where their top homicide cop Charlie Chan helps set the trap to nab Strange. E.L. Park plays Charlie who only has one real scene of consequence.

Behind That Curtain is melodramatic, overacted, and dull. Good thing that Fox Studios kept the franchise for Warner Oland. This really doesn't deserve to be included in Charlie Chan films, but I suppose it has to be.

A good reason to watch this movie.

[gcube1942 · 8/10 · 22 August 2020]

Most of the other reviews pan this film to such an extent that you might pass over it. Please do not. In the 1920s Miss Lois Moran was one of the most beautiful ladies on earth and she shines here. No, not in the acting department, the director forced her to give in to melodrama. But the camera is in love with her and that transcends all the silliness of the plot. We are fortunate indeed to have this relic as a testament to her charm.

Early Talkie Mystery!

[bsmith5552 · 5/10 · 29 October 2014]

"Behind That Curtain" is notable in that it was the first appearance of Charlie Chan at Fox who would go on to produce the long running series of Chan films between 1931 and 1942. It's rather dated but is not as bad a film as some would have you believe.

The story is adapted from an Earl Derr Beggars novel about murder, love and deceit among the well to do. Sir George Mannering (Claude King) has hired investigator Hilary Galt (Edgar Norton) to dig up dirt on his niece's Eve's (Lois Moran) intended Eric Durand (Philip Strange). Explorer Colonel John Beetham (Warner Baxter) has concerns, that are never explained, over Galt's findings. Against her uncle's wishes Eve marries Durand. Then Mannering learns that Galt has been murdered and his files stolen.

A pair of Chinese slippers are found on the body which implicates Beetham in the murder. Mannering disowns Eve and the couple go off to India to live. Eric Durand's occupation by the way, is never revealed. Anyway, Durand turns out to be a woman chasing rat, among other things and is caught by Eve fooling around with the house servant Nuna (Mercedes DeValacco).

Beetham meanwhile has embarked on an expedition in India and runs into a distraught Eve in the market place. Eve tells him of her troubles and eventually leaves Durand over his affair and a mysterious letter that she has received. She joins Beetham's expedition and over a four month period the two fall madly in love. Beetham you see, has been carrying a torch for Eve lo these many months.

Scotland Yard detective Sir Frederick Bruce (Gilbert Emery) meanwhile has taken up the chase in the murder investigation. Eve guarding a deadly secret, flees the camp and disappears. Fast forward a year and Eve turns up in San Francisco still on the run. Both Durand, and Sir Frederick have followed her there. Purely coincidentally, Beetham turns up to deliver a lecture. Sir Frederick working with Chinese Inspector Charlie Chan (E.L. Park) set a trap to capture the murderer and...................

Although this is supposed to be a Charlie Chan mystery, he doesn't show up until near the end of the film. The detective work in this story is handled for the most part by Sir Frederick. Chan is portrayed by Asian actor E. L. Park who was a bald middle aged gentleman who has little to contribute to the overall story.

Boris Karloff in his first sound film, plays Baxrer's Indian manservant. He would appear in another Chan film, "Charlie Chan at the Opera" in 1936.

The desert gives and the desert takes away - wish it had taken it

[blanche-2 · 3/10 · 17 February 2013]

"Behind That Curtain" can be described in one word: agonizing.

Some caveats. Historically it is wonderful to see. It is the sound debut of Boris Karloff and of Charlie Chan, who has a very small role in this.

Back in 1929, actors were still learning how to handle talkies. It was an awkward time. The camera was stationary, for one thing.

The style of acting was different, and so was the style of script.

"Behind That Curtain" is a good example of flowery, maudlin dialogue ("Do you know what it's like for a man like myself to envision you every night in that other tent? Looking upon the same desert?") and actors over-enunciating - worse than that, speaking slowly with huge pauses. "Did...you...find...any...thing." Also there was a lot of a dramatically stated "Do you mean..." without finishing the sentence -- usually regarding something sexual.

In the story, a man hires a detective to investigate his niece Eve's (Lois Moran) fiancé Eric (Philip Strange). Her uncle believes he's only interested in her money. An old friend, John Beetham (Warner Baxter), who is in love with Eve himself, visits during this time. The detective is found dead. Eve and Eric marry anyway and move to India.

It turns out uncle was right - Eric is a lazy brute who has moved his mistress/maid into the house and is constantly taking Eve's money. Desperate to get away from him, when John passes through India on an exploration, she begs him to take her along. Separate tents. The police haven't given up on the detective's murder, and they find Beetham to question him, and know that Eve is with him. Eve hides from them and then disappears, winding up in San Francisco. That's where Chan (E.L. Park) comes in.

In the second part of the film, Lois Moran's rhythm picks up. Attractive and somewhat androgynous with her short haircut, she is an appealing actress saddled with over-dramatic speeches - I would love to see her in something else. Back then, Warner Baxter was tall and dapper, not the older, somewhat defeated personality of later years. He handles the dialogue pretty well, probably the best of everyone. Karloff plays his manservant and gets the big line "The desert gives and the desert takes away." Just know what you're in for if you decide to watch this. It's interesting to see how acting styles have changed since then, becoming much more subtle now, but also how someone like Baxter could seem more modern, as could Barrymore, Fairbanks Jr., and others.