Bat Whispers (1930)

Technically and Historically Fascinating, But Unlikely To Appeal To Most Modern Viewers

THE BAT WHISPERS has a convoluted history more interesting than the film itself. Mary Roberts Rinehart (1876-1957) created this tale of a master criminal skulking around a creepy country mansion as the 1907 novel THE CIRCULAR STAIRCASE. Critics were not impressed, but the public loved it--and in 1917 Rinehart joined forces with playwright Avery Hopwood to adapt it to the stage. Retitled THE BAT, in 1920 it took Broadway by storm with its mixture of crazy characters, corny situations, and spooky atmosphere, and in 1926 film director Roland West brought the play to the screen. Once again it proved a great success; not only was the film an audience favorite, it was critically well-regarded too.

It was also made just as sound began to roar. In 1930 West decided to remake the film as a "talkie." He also decided to add a few innovative bells and whistles in a visual sense as well. Many directors of early sound films had enough to do in coping with sound technology--and so they tended to lock the camera down, a circumstance that gave most Hollywood films made between about 1929 and 1933 a visually static quality. Not so West: THE BAT WHISPERS would be noted for a remarkably fluid camera that made the most of detailed minitures and lavish sets. But more than this, THE BAT WHISPERS would truly stun audiences of the day via a widescreen format.

Widescreen format? In 1930? Surprising, yes, but true. Directors had tinkered with widescreen formats since the silent era, with French director Able Gance's 1927 masterpiece NAPOLEON a case in point--but although interesting, the results were hit and miss. With THE BAT WHISPERS, cinematographer Robert H. Planck nailed it flawlessly. He also left something of a puzzle: film historians are still not entirely sure how he brought it off. Most records seem to indicate that Planck actually shot the film on 35 mm, and then somehow managed to paste, cut, process, and reprint the original footage onto 70 mm. Regardless of how it was done, the result is astonishing, and every one who saw the film was amazed.

Unfortunately, those who saw it were few and far between. Theatre owners were still recovering from the expense of buying audio systems and they were not in a mood to pay for an expensive new screen and projection system as well. When the film went into general release, it went in standard ratio filmed by cinematographer Ray June. Again, it is hard to say exactly how this was done, but looking at both versions it would seem that June took a fair amount of Planck's footage, cropped it, and then re-shot most key scenes directly onto 35 milimeter stock.

We now come to something of a paradox. Planck's widescreen version is both visually beautiful and innovative--but Planck and director West were pretty much working without any precedent and they weren't quite sure of what do with the effect once they had it. Virtually everything is done in long shot, and when the camera isn't in motion THE BAT WHISPERS feels dry as dust and twice as slow. The June version, however, makes solid use of close-ups and medium shots, and while it sometimes feels a bit jumpy it has a better flow and a significantly better pace. Ironically, the June version is actually the more watchable of the two.

But I use the word "watchable" in a comparative sense here. The style of acting that worked so well for silent film proved horrifically awkward in sound film, and directors and actors struggled for several years to find a new acting technique. Both versions of THE BAT WHISPERS find the cast struggling in the gulf between old and new. The Planck version tends to highlight the difficulties involved; the June version softens them--but whether it be Planck or June, the performances are chiefly notable for their awkward quality.

The plot is also antiquated. Part of the charm of the novel, the 1920 play, and the 1926 film was the use of already old-fashioned plot ideas that had not yet worn out their welcome--but by 1930 the whole thing was wearing very thin, and it emerges here as overworked and lacking the necessary light touch. Every thing about the story had become very cliched, and two years later director James Whale would wickedly spoof the entire genre with a film aptly titled THE OLD DARK HOUSE. Although the Rinehart story received one more major turn before the cameras in 1959 with Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead, the type of plot involved is now more often done tongue-in-cheek, with such films as MURDER BY DEATH and CLUE cases in point.

So what, exactly, is the value of THE BAT WHISPERS for a modern, casual viewer? The answer, rather sadly, is "not much." Hardcore fans of early 1930s film will likely enjoy the film, and film students interested in the history of cinematography cannot afford to miss it--but few others will be able to see beyond the awkward acting styles and now-absurd plot to experience the charm this film--in both widescreen and standard versions--had in 1930.

In terms of picture, the standard ratio version has the occasional blip and blemish but has weathered very well. Although it has been restored, artifacts abound in the widescreen version; even so, the picture is very clean and they do not significantly detract from the film. Sound quality is a problem in both versions, less so in the standard ratio version, more so in the widescreen version. To some extent, this may be due to the recording technology of the era (actors tend to become fainter as they move away from the center of the sets), but it seems safe to say that the entire sound balance is off on this DVD release. You'll have to turn up the volume all the way to hear it--and where the widescreen version is concerned you'll also have to sit by the speakers.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer June 25, 2007

An old dark house, a clever bat, some outstanding tracking shots. Just don't say rubeola is a plant

When you hear the Bat whisper, you don't know whether to smile at the dated melodrama or admire some classy scenic set ups and camera work. The film may show its age with acting that is over the top, broad comic relief and a solution that for modern audiences is fairly easy to anticipate, but it looks great. The film was shot in an early version of wide-screen as well as a standard release version, using different cinematographers, cameras and set-ups. The wide-screen version is the one to watch. This is an old-dark-house creeper-thriller, with a stormy, thundering night, lots of shadowed stone staircases, massive doors and fireplaces, things that bump and thump, and, of course, a hidden room which may contain thousands of dollars stolen from a bank. More to the point, the film has a master villain who creeps and slides around wearing a bat outfit. He can shimmy up a rope in a flash or hang head down while he tips a victim out of a high window. And for fans of Bob Kane's Batman comic books plus all those Batman movies, this Bat is the grandaddy of both. He...it?...casts harsh, disturbing shadows of a tall figure with huge bat wings attached to unnaturally long arms. Is this just the work of the shadows or are his victims dispatched by some hideously deformed creature? And it whispers. All we know for sure is that the Bat is determined to frighten...or kill...his way to the stolen fortune.

The movie was based on a hugely popular stage play. The number of characters is almost large enough to make its own crowd scene. Whenever things get really tense, it seems a new character suddenly pops up. In this old mansion is the owner, a grande dame named Cornelia Van Gordon (Grace Hampton), an imperious woman with a vast bosom, a sturdy waist and a shrewd mind. How shrewd? She knows the new gardner is not what he seems when she asks him what he thinks of rubeola and he says it's a nice plant. Mrs. Van Gordon has a niece, Dale Van Gordon (Una Merkel), who seems a typical brainless flapper until we realize she's in cahoots with the false gardner. There is also a loyal maid, Lizzie (Madge Eburne), who has hysterics, rolls her eyes, prepares bear traps, sits on funny objects and acts like a cross between Patsy Kelly and Harpo Marx. There's a mysterious doctor, a small town elderly police lieutenant, a butler, a handyman who shakes violently when the Bat whispers, and a smart, big city cop, Detective Anderson, who is determined to catch the Bat and solve the bank robbery. We are faced with a question as simple as the plot, just who among all these characters could be the Bat?

Anderson is played by Chester Morris. If you're familiar with Morris' work you may recall him as a tough-guy leading man in a lot of Thirties movies. He never quite got both feet firmly on the A-level actors' list but never entirely was considered just another B-level lead. He exuded no-nonsense confidence, a kind of tall Jimmy Cagney without most of Cagney's empathy. He was always, in my opinion, an interesting actor. Then in 1941 in Meet Boston Blackie, he played Blackie, another tough, good guy detective. He was so good in the role he was instantly type cast. He played Boston Blackie in many movies during the Forties, each one a little worse than the other as the studio turned the series into a cash cow. By the time the string ran out, Chester Morris, who could be a fine actor, found himself doing television and regional theater. He killed himself with an overdose of sleeping pills in 1970 while starring in The Caine Mutiny Court Marshal at a theater in Pennsylvania. As Detective Anderson, Morris gives an odd performance that combines a clipped, sort of semi-off-and-on British inflection with a high degree of intensity.

The thing that makes The Bat Whispers of interest is the use of miniatures, especially at the beginning, the use of camera tracking shots that pull us away while walls slide back or that take us from a clock tower down to a street. Considering the weight of cameras in 1930, these shots are a tour de force. Some stunning lighting shows up, particularly when the Bat is framed against back lighting that is almost blindingly bright. And it is genuinely unnerving when the giant shadow of the bat shrivels down toward the floor and a dark, hunched shape rises up and starts slowly to limp towards us.

On balance, I think The Bat Whispers is something more than just an old and odd curiosity, but just barely. It's only out on VHS, as far as I know. Be sure you get the wide-screen version which was restored by the UCLA Film and Television Archive. May 19, 2007

Definately worth a look.

The Bat Whispers is definately best of the "Old Dark House/Clutching Hand" type film I have ever seen (and that's covering about 53 years of movie viewing). This film held my attention from beginnning to end with creative model work, active camera movement and very imagenative camera angles and cinematography. This film is best viewed in the "Widescreen" version (This DVD contains both the 65MM experimental Widescreen version and standard Fullscreen versions)because it broadens the expanse of the settings and give you a broader view of what is taking place.
The characters are quite interesting and enjoyable and the acting is pretty straight forward for a film that was made right at the beginnig of the sound era. I also was amazed at how well the movie was able to keep the "Bats'" identity a secret. Neither I or any of my movie loving friends were able to figure out who he was until he is unmasked.
I had seen the original silent version titled "The Bat", by director Roland West also, some ten years ago and thought that it was a very creative film. But with the original "The Bat" the effect was lessened by its silence so director Roland West realized this and refilmed a whole new movie with "Sound".
If you are a fan of classic cinema "The Bat Whispers" should be on you list because they did not make many that are as creatively artistic or as well made as this one. March 25, 2007

Hard to FInd

I tried for months to purchase this and each place said it was out of print or unavailable. Then I came here and here it was and in stock. So I quickly purchased it. I must say I was pleased after reading up on all the hype of this movie. There were parts of it that were comical only because of the difference in time and when this was made. But you need to take all that into consideration when you watch this. If you can, put yourself back into the year this came out and just marvel at it. January 9, 2007

This Movie is not out of print no more.................

Is there any reason why these sellers are selling this movie so much still? apparently it is in print again. Anyhow this is a artistic classic I Highly Recommend this movie. December 26, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...