Fri 12 Jun 2015
THE SPHINX. Monogram Pictures, 1933. Lionel Atwill, Sheila Terry, Theodore Newton, Paul Hurst, Luis Alberni, Robert Ellis. Director: Phil Rosen.
If you’re a fan of Lionel Atwill, you’re sure to enjoy his sly and almost creepy performance as the deaf and dumb mastermind killer known as “The Sphinx” in this early, low budget crime film. If not, you may end up scratching your head when it’s over and asking yourself what on earth were they thinking?
The gimmick is that after killing his latest stockbroker victim, the latest in a series of stockbroker victims, he walks up to the night watchman, asks him for a match and then what time it is. When the case goes to trial, an unimpeachable medical witness verifies that the accused killer can indeed neither speak nor hear, and he is obviously and immediately acquitted.
Not believing the medical evidence for a minute is reporter Jack Burton (Theodore Newton), while his would-be girl friend Jerry Crane (Sheila Terry), the society and/or special features writer for the same paper, thinks Atwill is being unfairly persecuted. Well, one thing we know is that she will be in danger in way or another before the movie is over, and that in spite of their minor tiffs, the two lovers will be in each other’s arms when it is.
That much is a given, and it’s about as much fun to wait and watch for both of these eventualities to occur as it always is, no snark intended. But the Sphinx’s modus operandi makes little sense, and he deserves to be caught as easily as he is, which you should also take as a given.
But Lionel Atwood’s performance is worth a watch. Even if he has no dialogue for most of the movie, his body language, eye movement and the muscles in his face are so finally tuned they deserve an award in themselves, even if there’s category they would fit into.
NOTE: For a re-evaluation of the story line on my part, be sure to read Comment #3.
June 12th, 2015 at 11:41 pm
I do love Lionel Atwill. I must chase down a copy of this one.
June 13th, 2015 at 1:11 am
Atwill is great, if the film isn’t. You have to wonder about the career of the specialist whose testimony got him off the first time.
I see one problem off the top. Double Jeopardy means once acquitted Atwill couldn’t be tried for that crime again, so unless they have hard evidence for other crimes he could warble like a bird afterward and no one could do a thing.
If they do have that kind of evidence then they could try him over and over for each individual crime until they got him.
Obviously no one thought this over.
June 13th, 2015 at 7:46 am
It is difficult to respond without giving the whole plot away. The first time arond the scheme may seem extremely clever, but it’s one of those plans on the part of the villain that are far too complicated, and poorly worked out in the details to hope to succeed. On the other hand it is undone only the sheerest of accidents, involving one of those movie cops whose brain power is questionable, so maybe on that level, the playing field is equal and it all evens out and makes sense.
I will say this. The medical specialist was not wrong. No career in jeopardy in that regard. And since there were four murders committed, the Sphinx could have been tried for the other killings, but the results would be the same, for the same reason, and the authorities would not have bothered to go the expense of additional trials.
My original unhappiness with the story was the question of why such an elaborate scheme in the first place. But reading the detailed synopsis on the AFI page, there was a connection between the Sphinx and he four dead stockbrokers that I had missed, so if they were all killed off, he would be the obvious suspect. Hence the scheme, and the Double Jeopardy aspect, or its equivalent, would have worked.
Given a longer running time for the movie — it’s only an hour long — the killer’s plan and his rationale for it could have been laid out in more detail. No matter. After thinking it over, I think my judgement on the deficiency of the plot may may have been too hasty myself. It works better than I thought it did. Far-fetched, but far from nonsense.
June 14th, 2015 at 12:42 am
I like Lionel Atwill also and just watched the film on YOU TUBE. I was ok with everything until the end which utilized one of the oldest and silliest tricks in detective fiction. It never ceases to make me groan with exasperation. Wish I could state what I’m talking about but everyone would complain about spoilers, etc.
June 14th, 2015 at 12:58 am
Now, I think I need to go see this one for myself!
June 14th, 2015 at 7:46 am
Jonathan, my advice is Don’t Bother; David was right–Atwill is great, the film isn’t.
By the way, Lionel Atwill had a rather -um- interesting personal life…..
June 14th, 2015 at 8:06 am
What I’m sure Walker is talking about in Comment #4 is that one of Ronald Knox’s Rules of Detective Fiction is broken in this film.
It s sometimes said that Rules are meant to be Broken, so I didn’t bring it up in my meandering comment #3, but I tried to write around the Rule to see if the story still held together.
My conclusion still holds: “Far-fetched, but far from nonsense.”
Knox’s Rules were set up in 1930, I think, and the movie was made in 1933. Whether they producers of the film know about the Rule, I don’t know, but I imagine probably not.
PS. Dan is quite correct about Lionel Atwill’s personal life. You can look it up on Google.