'The Law of the Tong' is saved by its interesting main characters

The Law of the Tong (1931)
Starring: Phyllis Barrington, Jason Robards, John Harron, Frank Lackteen, and Dot Farley

Director: Lewis D. Collins

Rating: Four of Ten Stars

An honorable Chinese gangster (Robards) has a chance encounter with a dancehall girl (Barrington) that ends up changing both their lives forever.

"The Law of the Tong" is a somewhat dull affair with a story that features a mix of interesting and inexplicably stupid characters, as well as equal parts halfhearted moralizing, nonsensical Orientalism, and underdeveloped intrigue.

The film would be unwatchable if not for a pair of interesting characters at its center--Joan (Phyllis Barrington), and Charlie Wong (Jason Robards). Wong is a Chinese gangster whose agendas and ultimate goal is utterly inscrutable. He is clearly operating a human smuggling ring, and he is involved in a gang war, but he claims that his objective is to bring poor Chinese people into the United States where they can enjoy the better life he has found. He is also never anything but courteous and respectful toward Joan and he goes FAR out of his way to help her and turn her life away from an inevitable slide into prostitution. Meanwhile, Joan emerges as a fascinating character when she become caught in the middle between her friendship with Charlie Wong and the nerdy, self-righteous undercover detective Doug (John Harron) who is going to get himself killed while trying to bring down Wong's smuggling ring. In a better, slightly longer film, there would probably have been more development of Wong and Joan... I for one would have enjoyed getting to know both of them better.

I think this film also shows that it's a shame Phyllis Barrington only made a dozen or so movies. She lights up the screen whenever she appears, and her charisma shines brightly both opposite Robards and Harron. 

And speaking of Harron: The third main character in the film, Doug, is interesting only insofar as he is not as bland and uninteresting as the supposed romantic leads in these sorts of films tend to be; otherwise, he is merely the catalyst that leads to Joan's fateful first encounter with Wong. I might have included Doug in the reasons that makes the film worth watching, but the usual blandness is replaced by self-righteousness augmented by stupidity. (He follows Joan to work at the dancehall and then gets outraged--OUTRAGED!--when she dances with customers.)

Aside from its underdeveloped main characters and story, this film is also harmed by the habit of having white actors in "yellow face" portray Asian characters. It's something that looks strange to modern viewers, and, as good as Jason Robards is as Charlie Wong, and Frank Lackteen is as the villainous Yuen, I've no doubt that there were equally talented actors of some East Asian extraction that could have filled those roles. (Heck, one only has to look to "The Secrets of Wu Sin" (1932) for proof of that. Both films are on the same double-feature DVD from Alpha Video.)

I want to warn you off of 'Midnight Warning'

Midnight Warning (1932) (aka "Eyes of Mystery" and "The Midnight Warning")
Starring: William Boyd, Hooper Atchley, Huntley Gordon, Lloyd Whitlock, Claudia Dell, John Harron, and Phillips Smalley
Director: Spencer Gordon Bennett
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

After Dr. Walcott (Atchley) is nearly killed by a sniper, ace detective Thorwalt Cornish (Boyd) sets out to find the culprit, as well as why someone would want to assassinate his good friend. He discovers that the staff of hotel is keeping a secret... a secret someone is apparently willing to kill for.

For about half of its running time, "Midnight Warning" is a by-the-numbers detective film, with William Boyd serving as a low-rent Sherlock Holmes and Hooper Atchley doubling as the Dr. Watson figure and the crime victim that is "the client." Then, as one mystery is solved, the film moves into thriller territory, as the heroes uncover an apparent and mysterious conspiracy between hotel managers and city officials that involve a vanishing guest and an apparent effort to make the world believe that Enid Van Buren (Claudia Dell) insane, to the point of attempting to drive her truly mad. Finally, as the conspiracy begins to unravel, the film moves into horror territory, as the conspirators make one final push to keep their secret and silence Enid for good.

The progression through genres as the plot evolves is interesting and it would make for an excellent movie if not for two reasons: First, the horror portion of the film comes with a level of silliness that must have been eye-rolling even back in the 1930s; and, second, the film's ultimate resolution is so outrageous that it should offend the sensibilities of even the most hardcore believer in the notion that the government and our "betters" are always right. I'm going to break with habit and spoil the ending of the film and reveal that not only do the villains get away with their abuses, but virtually every character in the film becomes aware of the full scope of what they did, and they all apparently go "oh, okay... whatever."

No matter how generous I try to be, I can't suspend my disbelief to accept that a woman who was deliberately targeted for destruction by a group of rich and powerful men would just let them get away with it; I can't believe that her protective fiance would just let them get away with it; I can't believe a police consultant they manipulated to further their ends would just let them get away with it; and I can believe the seemingly upright Dr. Walcott would let them get way with it. I CAN believe that the Great Detective of the story would let them get away with it, because, while he seems to be in the Sherlock Holmes model, he seems to be utterly lacking in Holmes' sense of morality and desire to see justice done. He seems more interested in just solving mysteries and seeing his name in the papers. I can easily accept this character taking the stance that the hotel owners and city officials should get away with a cover-up and trying to destroy an innocent woman's life and sanity, because he has all of them over a barrel for future blackmail.

"Midnight Warning" is, until its last few minutes a moderately entertaining film that gets a bit wobbly towards end... and then goes off the rails like a train crashing into an oil refinery and exploding. I have a sequel in my head where Enid and her fiance (possibly aided by Walcott) take their revenge, and that imaginary film is probably why I'm rating this the lowest possible Four. The ending is so atrocious that it soured me on everything that came before.

This is not a film I can recommend... unless you've set yourself the goal of watching every Claudia Dell movie, or are doing a scholarly paper on the differences in films from before and after the implementation of the Hays Code for production standards.

'Murder in the Museum' is a smokin' mystery

Murder in the Museum (1934)
Starring: John Harron, Henry B. Walthall, Phyllis Barrington, Donald Kerr, Steve Clemente and Joseph W. Girad
Director: Melville Shyer
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When a city councilman is murdered while on a fact-finding mission to a local "museum of oddities", the police commisioner (Girard) emerges as the most likely suspect. However, crimebeat reporter Jerry Ross (Herron) sets out to prove his innocence in order to impress tthe commisioners niece (Barrington), a beautiful young lady he's taken an interest in.


"Murder at the Museum" is a nicely executed who-dunnit with an unusual and unpredictable setting of a Skid Row freak show. Everyone in the establishment has a dark history with secrets, but which of the them had enough darkness in their background to murder the holier-than-thou crusading councilman? And how was the crime committed?

In addition to its convincingly drawn seedy sideshow setting, the film is blessed with a fast-moving plot, well-crafted dialogue and a cast of talented actors. The characters are all engaging and interesting and the usual annoying traits of the stock character of the wise-cracking reporter who outsmarts the police are not quite as nerve-grating as they often are, both due to the writing and to the inherent charm of actor John Harron.

There is one odd bit in the film that made me curious about where Monogram Pictures might have received funding for the film. Smoking is a part of every day life, so characters smoking in a film do not cause me to throw hysterical fits the way it does some people, but there's a scene in the film that feels like it should be in a cigarette commercial. It is so strange and so out of place that I can't help but wonder if it's there at the demands of an investor. (I can't really say more about the scene without giving away part of the movie, but if you see the film you'll know exactly what I'm referring to.)

As far as I've been able to determine, "Murder at the Museum" is only available on DVD from Alpha Video, and the print they used had some unfortunate damage to it... like the key couple of seconds missing where a masked killer is throttling the life out of Jerry Ross. It's not unusual for old films from long-gone studios to be in bad shape, but it's something I feel obligated to point out when it disrupts the flow of the story.