Cinevent Restrospective: Secrets of the French Police (1932)

We will be blogging about films that were shown at past Cinevent conventions until the Picture Show in May. This week we review a movie shown in 1989.

RODNEY BOWCOCK: Well, what have we here? Is it an authentic crime procedural? Is it a sensational horror picture? Yes. Yes, it is. The story starts as what seems to be a simple crime drama, as a detective sets out to find the killer of an undercover police officer. Soon after, the foster father of Eugenie, a flowergirl is murdered and she is kidnapped and she is hypnotized into impersonating a Russian princess. But in addition to that, there is a plot in which Eugenie is to have the blood drained from her body and embalmed into a “sculpture”. Make sense? Of course it doesn’t. That’s kind of the point though. This is a 57 minute movie with no less than three plots weaving throughout it.

SAMANTHA GLASSER: This is based on a series written by H. Ashton Wolf and published in the American Weekly magazine, so it was a familiar property when it was made. The two stories they used for the script are “Secrets of the Surete” and “The Lost Empress.” The stylishness of this film from the beginning gives the impression that it is something more highbrow than it is. It devolves into the silliness of a movie serial. The supernatural elements morph the result into horror rather than a straight crime drama.

There are pre-code elements including nudity and abuse of a corpse.

RB: There is definitely a tone of “pushing the envelope for the sake of pushing it” in this movie. I mean, the basic concept of embalming a woman when you can’t control her anymore is pretty wild. Certainly beyond the pale of your average pre-code, and that’s not even taking into account the six murders and one suicide (per the VARIETY review…I didn’t count them myself).

SG: The officers think they’re going to sneak up on the bad guy, but they’re using a buzzsaw.

RB: You know, in a lot of movies this would give me pause. In this one, I didn’t think anything of it. The New York Times felt that the “Illustrations of the way the French Police attack their problems causes one to wish for more.” Your example makes their use of the word ‘attack’ seem quite appropriate.

Besides I didn’t want to be in bad taste so I just took two quick looks. Are you always in such good taste? Oh no, only when I’m in a hurry.”

SG: Arthur Forde of the Hollywood Filmograph wrote, “Edward Sutherland is credited with the direction, which was not outstanding by any means. While Radio Pictures assembled a great many players with fine reputations, there was not one that stood out and none of them got into the spirit of the story at any time. This is the first time we have seen Gwili Andre on the screen, and while she undoubtedly is a beautiful girl, she seemed to be in a trance most of the time.” Although I understand his meaning to be that her performance was stiff, it made me laugh to think he missed the plot point that her character was indeed meant to be in a trance, so her acting was quite convincing.

On her way to a movie preview in Pomona, Andre got pulled over for speeding. The officer took pity on her and escorted her to the screening.

New Movie magazine wrote, “Frank Morgan… plays a French detective who is more believable than most screen sleuths and Gregory Ratoff aids him in some of the best scenes in the picture… Secrets of the French Police is entertaining all the way through and though a little too melodramatic for its own good, it is worth spending your evening seeing it. Those Andre gowns will be enough for most women.”

RB: William K. Everson noted, accurately, that the film borrows more than a little from Mystery of the Wax Museum, which had not been released yet. Warners had to alter the plot for their similar film, which somewhat worked.

The neighborhood theaters enjoyed the melodrama, in fact, even noted it as a selling point in some cases.

“Good hokum melodrama and we don't get nearly enough hokum since the producers have gone decadent. Gwili Andre should play leads in a wax works. Business good. Talk about the "Sphinxlike City of Paris" and its wonderful system of secret police in your advertisements,” felt Herman J. Brown of the Majestic and Aselaide Theatres in Nampa, ID.

“Entertaining, well-acted by a competent cast, different and therefore refreshing to patrons satisfied with snappy love histrionics,” was the take of E.D. Hilsinger at the Liberty Opera House in Marathon, NY.

SG: I found the movie to be fine, but nothing special. The best part was the beginning of the film when the characters and relationships are first established. We get a sense that the couple is truly in love in spite of their obstacles. When the kidnapping happens, though, any heart or sentiment is abandoned in favor of thrills, and it made me less engaged. Three stars.

RB: Differing from you, except in the ultimate analysis of the movie being “fine”, I felt that the best of the movie is in the second half, when we get a taste of Han Moloff’s hobby of embalming women after a long day of trying to rip off the Russian government. There are a couple of striking scenes and extremely cool visual spots, but at the end of the day, yup, I’m with you. Three stars.