Woman in the Dark (1934)

Powerful

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

"Woman in the Shadows" AKA "Woman in the Dark" (1934). It's not a bad lighthearted crime drama - would have been much better without the comedy - would be better as a serious piece but it's not bad as it is. It's not a complicated story - it's simple but effective for what it is.John Bradley is a man out of prison for manslaughter. He decides to live alone - he simply wants to be alone because he's afraid of his own bad temper hurting someone again. And for a man that wants to be alone he sure attracted a lot of company and that company leads him to fear he's killed someone again so he and his newfound female company goes on the run together. And for a tough guy that doesn't like chicks to well because they are trouble he sure turned out to be a soft romantic. 5/10

Fay Wray, Ralph Bellamy and Douglas, plus R. Ates for humorous relief, players you feel good with, in this drama by Rosen, enthralling '30s cinema, with poignancy and Pre-Code verities: it was good, sharp, with a knack for powerful scenes, like those at the parolee's home (with the three leads), and for freshness, as in the couple's getaway, from his home to Logan's, for a movie shot indoors and within a car, it has a plain-air feel and a sense of possibilities, not unlimited, but thorough, the romance seems meaningful, it's cinema with a basic sense of dignity, something of this style will be rediscovered decades later, perhaps in the '70s or '80s, there's also the understatement, the snappiness, the quickness, as when the fugitive is shot, and the realism, as with the players' exchanges, then the attorney's advances; a very good role from Fay, with the freshness for its aftertaste. Kudos to Rosen as well, for a sensible directing. Given the plot, the movie's title, both versions, is beautiful. The movie has the cast, the understated style, the script, nothing seems fake, phony, untrue, there's a sense of intelligent directness; for the '30s, the movie's qualities weren't so unusual as they may seem today. I don't remember having seen Bellamy young ever before; he resembled Newman, though he was maybe more embittered and sneaky, as in streetwise. His role here, as the paroled guy, has something impressive.Bellamy reminded me of P. Newman, a sleazier and perhaps gloomier one.

Woman in the Shadows (1934) *** (out of 4) Lightweight but entertaining crime/drama about a man (Ralph Bellamy) released from prison and deciding to stay alone in his cabin so that his bad temper won't get him back into prison. Everything's going well until a woman (Fay Wray) shows up being chased by her psychotic lover (Melvyn Douglas). There's nothing overly special about this "B" film from the Biograph Company but the three stars make it well worth watching. The pre-code elements with Wray's dress slipping down or the close-ups of her legs being shown are nice touches. Also known as Woman in the Dark. Directed by Phil Rosen who would go on to direct several Charlie Chan films as well as Spooks Run Wild and Return of the Ape Man.

I've known of Ralph Bellamy for most of my life. During the fifties and sixties, he was a bit of a staple in television dramas and had a fairly extensive movie career. Rediscovering him in some of these old films, he appears to have a quality that was utilized. He was frequently used as a very masculine character, a kind of dominator of women. He seems to be characterized as a person who once he makes his mind up, won't listen to anyone. This is no exception. He has been framed and put in prison for manslaughter, his temper getting the best of him. It isn't long before he is in trouble again, hooking up with Fay Wray (who really was quite beautiful) and alienating a few people in his community. The problem with all this is that we are expected to believe that people will act in such knee jerk ways, not looking at evidence. Of course, the good guys don't help because instead of pleading their cases, they just take off. Shootings occur and people end up making deals when a simple explanation would have probably circumvented the whole thing. This is a sort of pleasant movie, but not worth a whole lot. There is some pretty bad comic relief that only distracts from what is supposed to be serious.