How to Be a Detective (1936, Felix E. Feist)

How to Be a Detective is a disjointed Robert Benchley miniature. He sets it up as a lecture on detecting practices and director Feist (and Benchley and his co-writers) miss the jokes. Towards the end, Feist mimics detective movie filmmaking techniques, which gives the short a boost, but it’s too little too late.

There simply aren’t enough good jokes and Detective drags out one’s set-up for over a minute. It’d be a decent gag if the viewer hadn’t been told to anticipate it for so long.

The final gag’s predictable too–and breaks the short’s narrative logic, which is otherwise pretty neat. Feist uses wipes to distinguish time change, but he keeps folding Detective in on itself. Makes for an interesting time.

Benchley’s fantastic (even he seems to realize the material isn’t the best) and keeps Detective amusing.

The great cameo from Dewey Robinson is an immense help.

A Shriek in the Night (1933, Albert Ray)

For the first twenty minutes or so–it runs just over an hour–A Shriek in the Night seems like it might be a decent, b mystery. Ginger Rogers is appealing as the reporter undercover as a murder victim’s secretary and Purnell Pratt is great as the police inspector on the case.

Unfortunately, it isn’t about the two of them solving the case, which would have been amusing. Instead, Lyle Talbot is playing her newspaper rival slash boyfriend and it’s about him and Rogers on the case. Only there’s not much of a case. I can’t really think of a less interesting mystery than Shriek, as it has none of the genre’s compelling components. There isn’t a large cast of suspects, the motive for the murder is lame and the killer’s method is lame too.

Maybe the film could have still succeeded, even with those three strikes (I’m actually not sure–a mystery without any suspects seems a little handicapped) but it’s also got Talbot to contend with. I’m not sure what’s worse–Talbot’s performance in general or his lack of chemistry with Rogers in particular. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more mismatched couple–and this film was their second as a pair, so someone must have thought they got along well onscreen; that someone was wrong.

The rest of the cast is weak too. Arthur Hoyt and Harvey Clark, in particular, are awful.

The film seems to be unable to decide if it’s a farce or a serious mystery.

But, who cares?