"Behind Stone Walls" is an interesting drama made in 1932 and directed by reliable Frank Strayer. It was made by Action Pictures, a poverty row studio, and is far from a classic, but the writing and performances are good. One reviewer "hates" the film and states over and over again that it does not make any sense, which is not quite true. It brings up the question of why does one watch these low budget films and write bad reviews constantly if you dislike them so much? Isn't there a better way to spend your time?
6 Reviews
Modest, imperfect, and unremarkable, but decent enough
I_Ailurophile2 December 2023
It's noteworthy that the audio quality is less than stellar, though seeing as this was released only a few years after sound pictures first began to revolutionize cinema, one can't place too much blame on the feature itself. It's also noteworthy that the acting seems more than a little exaggerated, with delivery that's missing only an "and how!" to complete the effect; one might reasonably argue that this was the style or norm of the early 30s, but ninety years on, the more unnatural a performance is, the less it holds up. Consider silent star Priscilla Dean, appearing here in one of only a handful of sound films she made: while improved over the abject "deer in the headlights," "fish out of water" difficulty she had in 1931's 'Law of the sea,' between Frank R. Strayer's direction which informs all the acting, and Dean's own struggles with the new paradigm, her portrayal of Esther too often seems forced in some measure. Lastly, it's noteworthy that the storytelling in 'Behind stone walls' is rather direct; it's not so blunt and forthright as to be outright tawdry, but suffice to say that with an abbreviated runtime of under one hour, the flick wastes no time.
Whether one considers these matters pure flaws or just factors that may limit one's favor, one would be remiss not to take them into account. Still, though the resulting tableau is less than a riveting must-see, I don't think there's anything else here that one might point to as a specific criticism - well, maybe one thing, but we'll get back to that. Even minding the tenor of the acting in 1932, I think the actors still give earnest, appreciable performances, including Dean. George B. Seitz's screenplay may be simple and unsophisticated in all regards, but it's suitably well written to give us a compelling, satisfying tale of a love affair, a murder, secrets, and blackmail. Other facets, likewise, are appreciable, if overall unremarkable: costume design, hair, makeup, sets, and so on. And maybe "unremarkable" is the key word here. There's nothing so wrong about the movie to wholly dampen the viewing experience; on the other hand, save perhaps for its place early in the sound era, and late in Dean's career, there's also nothing special about this to really help it stand out in a crowd. Moreover, in addition to his guidance of the cast, Strayer's direction enforces a flat, tepid tone that somewhat diminishes the power of the narrative. Unless one has some special interest in 'Behind stone walls,' it's a title one watches and then easily forgets to go on with their day.
One way or another I don't think there's much disputing that this isn't especially significant, and all told it's less than great. However, there's no rule that says every picture needs to be a revelation, and sometimes it's enough for one to be engaging and enjoyable on only a very basic level. The only other issue I would mention - perhaps the most substantial weakness of all - is that the climactic speech, the supposed linchpin that draws the narrative to a close, is is bizarrely thin, ill-considered, and heavy-handed, broaching topics so sidelong in their relevance that the climax pretty much comes off as meager Movie Magic. Had Seitz put just a smidgen more judicious care and thought into this last major beat, the whole would only have benefited. Yet even at that, at large the feature is decent enough that I guess one could just wave off the final inelegance as a concession to the rigid mores of the 1930s. By no means should one go out of their way for 'Behind stone walls,' and one should be aware that it is neither perfect nor spellbinding. If one is receptive to fare of the era, however, warts and all, then it's good enough to check out on a lazy day.
Whether one considers these matters pure flaws or just factors that may limit one's favor, one would be remiss not to take them into account. Still, though the resulting tableau is less than a riveting must-see, I don't think there's anything else here that one might point to as a specific criticism - well, maybe one thing, but we'll get back to that. Even minding the tenor of the acting in 1932, I think the actors still give earnest, appreciable performances, including Dean. George B. Seitz's screenplay may be simple and unsophisticated in all regards, but it's suitably well written to give us a compelling, satisfying tale of a love affair, a murder, secrets, and blackmail. Other facets, likewise, are appreciable, if overall unremarkable: costume design, hair, makeup, sets, and so on. And maybe "unremarkable" is the key word here. There's nothing so wrong about the movie to wholly dampen the viewing experience; on the other hand, save perhaps for its place early in the sound era, and late in Dean's career, there's also nothing special about this to really help it stand out in a crowd. Moreover, in addition to his guidance of the cast, Strayer's direction enforces a flat, tepid tone that somewhat diminishes the power of the narrative. Unless one has some special interest in 'Behind stone walls,' it's a title one watches and then easily forgets to go on with their day.
One way or another I don't think there's much disputing that this isn't especially significant, and all told it's less than great. However, there's no rule that says every picture needs to be a revelation, and sometimes it's enough for one to be engaging and enjoyable on only a very basic level. The only other issue I would mention - perhaps the most substantial weakness of all - is that the climactic speech, the supposed linchpin that draws the narrative to a close, is is bizarrely thin, ill-considered, and heavy-handed, broaching topics so sidelong in their relevance that the climax pretty much comes off as meager Movie Magic. Had Seitz put just a smidgen more judicious care and thought into this last major beat, the whole would only have benefited. Yet even at that, at large the feature is decent enough that I guess one could just wave off the final inelegance as a concession to the rigid mores of the 1930s. By no means should one go out of their way for 'Behind stone walls,' and one should be aware that it is neither perfect nor spellbinding. If one is receptive to fare of the era, however, warts and all, then it's good enough to check out on a lazy day.
Decent Early Melodrama Sunk By Bad Performances
boblipton7 January 2018
Priscilla Dean married District Attorney Robert Elliott months after his first wife died giving birth. that son, Eddie Nugent, thinks she is his mother. When her lover, Robert Ellis, tells her he wants to end the affair, she shoots him. Nugent walks in moments later, tells her to leave, and is trying to make it appear that a burglar shot Keene, when butler George Cheseboro walks in and calls the police. Eddie refuses to peach on his mother and is condemned to life imprisonment. Meanwhile, Cheseboro discovers letters Miss Dean has written to Keene....
There are a few plot holes in this Poverty Row shorty, but the story is basically sound, and visually well directed by Frank Strayer. The same cannot be said about the line readings. Miss Dean is particularly wooden in her early scenes, everyone is wooden and Cheseboro's sides seem to have been punctuated at random. It pretty much put paid to Miss Dean's attempted comeback. She had been off the screen since 1927, before making three talkies in 1931 and 1932; this was the third. I'm not sure how she spent the rest of her life, but she lived well into her 90s. I hope they were good years.
There are a few plot holes in this Poverty Row shorty, but the story is basically sound, and visually well directed by Frank Strayer. The same cannot be said about the line readings. Miss Dean is particularly wooden in her early scenes, everyone is wooden and Cheseboro's sides seem to have been punctuated at random. It pretty much put paid to Miss Dean's attempted comeback. She had been off the screen since 1927, before making three talkies in 1931 and 1932; this was the third. I'm not sure how she spent the rest of her life, but she lived well into her 90s. I hope they were good years.
A Dusty Relic With Some Merit
OneView5 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Compared to most of the big studio films of 1932 (say, Red Dust from MGM or even The Mummy from Universal) this looks and sounds a lot more primitive like some of the early sound efforts from three years earlier. The actors are just a little too emphatic with their line deliveries and issue all of the dialogue like proclamations. It engenders a feeling of something from another world that is simply not quite right.
That said the film does offer some compensations. Frank Strayer always directs with a sure hand and his 1930s films include some good low budget fantasy works like The Devil Bat (1933), Death from a Distance (1935) and Condemned to Live (1935). The same stylistic treatment is evident here with careful compositions and at times powerful closeups.
The story is mostly about a disreputable wife who cheats on her husband, commits murder and allows an innocent person to be jailed for her crimes. It contains some of the elements of pre-code films including frank admissions of adultery but also the later restrictive practice of ensuring that all who do wrong are punished.
Nevertheless, once past the stilted acting this proved to be a brief but memorable film and worthy of rediscovery.
That said the film does offer some compensations. Frank Strayer always directs with a sure hand and his 1930s films include some good low budget fantasy works like The Devil Bat (1933), Death from a Distance (1935) and Condemned to Live (1935). The same stylistic treatment is evident here with careful compositions and at times powerful closeups.
The story is mostly about a disreputable wife who cheats on her husband, commits murder and allows an innocent person to be jailed for her crimes. It contains some of the elements of pre-code films including frank admissions of adultery but also the later restrictive practice of ensuring that all who do wrong are punished.
Nevertheless, once past the stilted acting this proved to be a brief but memorable film and worthy of rediscovery.
None of this makes sense...and how can Bob be this big a boob??!!
planktonrules8 August 2018
The Clay family is very powerful. The father, is the District Attorney and his son Bob recently earned his law degree. Because of this, you know that they are smart and well-educated folks. That's why what happens next really makes no sense at all.
Bob does not know that his mother is actually his step-mother. Regardless, this woman is cheating on her husband and when her lover wants to break things off, she shoots him. Bob catches her and agrees to clean up the crime scene to protect her. However, he's caught and assumed to be the killer. Bob says nothing about his mother and ends up being sent to prison.
As I said, this story really makes no sense. Bob is either a total idiot or....well, there is no 'or'. How could a lawyer do this AND how could they let themselves go to jail?! Does this make sense at all?! What's worse...the father then prosecutes the son for the crime...something that would never happen in real life. In fact, this is THE reason I hated the film....the terrible writing. It looks as if they didn't do their homework and made an impossible situation...one that viewers couldn't help but find ridiculous. Add to that some wooden acting and you've got the recipe for a B-movie that is not very good nor very entertaining.
Bob does not know that his mother is actually his step-mother. Regardless, this woman is cheating on her husband and when her lover wants to break things off, she shoots him. Bob catches her and agrees to clean up the crime scene to protect her. However, he's caught and assumed to be the killer. Bob says nothing about his mother and ends up being sent to prison.
As I said, this story really makes no sense. Bob is either a total idiot or....well, there is no 'or'. How could a lawyer do this AND how could they let themselves go to jail?! Does this make sense at all?! What's worse...the father then prosecutes the son for the crime...something that would never happen in real life. In fact, this is THE reason I hated the film....the terrible writing. It looks as if they didn't do their homework and made an impossible situation...one that viewers couldn't help but find ridiculous. Add to that some wooden acting and you've got the recipe for a B-movie that is not very good nor very entertaining.
Vile Woman
www11251 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Priscilla Dean had been a big name in the silent era, acted alongside some great comedians, worked under the great Tod Browning many times, and held her own with Lon Chaney more than once. Unfortunately, she's not remembered today, despite her obvious skills. Her career came to an early end with the arrival of talkies. Her voice, while by no means a bad voice, just didn't register well, and she soon faded away, finally retiring in her thirties. One can only hope her years after were happy.
As for the film in question, it's an enjoyable little court drama with Dean playing a rather vile step mother, willing to let her son be locked up for her crime, simply because he isn't her real son. This film seems to get mostly negative reviews, but I found it very interesting, and certainly the best of Dean's talky era films. I felt the ending and some of the court setup was hokey, but the plot itself held my interest. 9 stars from me. Definitely good to see Dean in something worthwhile during a dark point in her career.
As for the film in question, it's an enjoyable little court drama with Dean playing a rather vile step mother, willing to let her son be locked up for her crime, simply because he isn't her real son. This film seems to get mostly negative reviews, but I found it very interesting, and certainly the best of Dean's talky era films. I felt the ending and some of the court setup was hokey, but the plot itself held my interest. 9 stars from me. Definitely good to see Dean in something worthwhile during a dark point in her career.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
