Dangerous Corner (1934) User Reviews

let sleeping dogs lie!!!

[kidboots · 6/10 · 5 March 2009]

Virginia Bruce was a vision of blonde loveliness, who started off at Paramount in bit parts (lady in waiting to Jeanette MacDonald in "The Love Parade", one of the chorus girls in "Safety in Numbers") When she married John Gilbert, strangely her career took off (he was at the end of his career and sadly almost at the end of his life). "Dangerous Corner" was made around this time and paired her with Melvyn Douglas.

This is an interesting "what if" film from an intriguing play by J.B. Priestley. The action takes place one night at a dinner party, a year after the suicide of one of the partners in a publishing firm and the theft of some bonds. Gordon (Henry Wadsworth) is tuning the radio when a fuse goes and a game of tell the truth goes horribly wrong.

I found it a fascinating film definitely helped by a superior cast. Not only Virginia Bruce and Melvyn Douglas but Conrad Nagel, with his beautiful speaking voice (he was a founding member of the Academy of Motion Pictures). Erin O'Brien Moore was an underrated actress from the stage who was very memorable as Humphrey Bogart's wife in "Black Legion" (1937). Betty Furness was also good as the sweet young wife, whose life wasn't as happy as everyone thought.

Recommended.

Thought-provoking Mystery Ahead of It's Time

[sobaok · 7/10 · 13 August 2001]

This film is full of surprises, twists and turns. The whodunit theme has the added plus of making the viewer think about big issues like, "what is truth?" The Dangerous Corner is taken when the main characters "spill their guts out" -- telling secrets and hidden feelings that lead only to conflict, hurt and despair. The film supports the theory, "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie" -- purporting that the mind can only come up with meager "small truths". The mystery is eventually solved in this innovative, intriguing film. Wonderful Virginia Bruce is on hand to admire, along with dapper Melvyn Douglas, Conrad Nagel and hammy Ian Keith. I've watched this film many times and had great conversations with friends afterwards. Unusual!

Two "Movie Different Than Original Play" Plot Points

[TomInSanFrancisco · 6/10 · 15 April 2011]

Did anyone else notice that as the movie goes on and all of the characters' secrets are revealed, the character of Gordon (Betty's husband) is left with nothing to say -- and that when Betty reveals that her marriage to Gordon has been unhappy, we're not told why? That's because Hollywood left out what the original play revealed: Gordon was in love with Martin.

Knowing that fact helps you understand why Betty was unhappy, and unhappy in a way that someone might hide from friends and family (particularly in that era).Leaving that plot point out doesn't ruin the movie, it just leaves Gordon standing around a lot at the end.

Also, the play ends as soon as you get past the point where Gordon gets the radio going -- the secrets will not be unraveled after all, but you're left with the sense that these "happy" people have merely avoided what will eventually all come out with devastating results. It's not a happy ending.

In the movie, we do get a happy ending of sorts, a marriage proposal. It changes the tone completely, and I'd say weakens the effect.

Things are seldom what they seem ...

[GManfred · 5 April 2011]

That's the start of a song from HMS Pinafore, and this picture goes on to prove just that. "Dangerous Corner" is a filmed stage play and is a fascinating character study of a group of people with skeletons cascading out of their respective closets. On the surface, it seems one of their number has committed suicide over some embezzled funds. Please note that 'on the surface' is the operative term in this engrossing film.

All concerned turn in good performances and the dialogue ranges from clichéd to the profound to the philosophic, and you can't leave the room or else you'll lose the thread of the story - remember, it's only 65 minutes long and with a lot of plot squeezed in.

This is a timeless parable about human frailty and appetites and layered relationships. Nevertheless, it becomes all the more interesting to consider that it was made in 1934. They think like us, exhibit our own doubts and weaknesses but all are in evening clothes and smoke and drink at all hours, all of which gives the proceedings a surreal feel, that we are eavesdropping on a living museum scene. You think of how alien such a lifestyle seems today.

"Dangerous Corner" turned up on TCM the other morning and is not available in any format. If it comes on again, you should do yourself a favor and watch it.

When the music's over

[sol-kay · 7/10 · 8 April 2011]

****SPOILERS**** It's just a typical day at the office with Ann and Charles, Virgina Bruce & Melvyn Douglas, horsing around with each other as the guy running the place, a big time New York publishing firm, Robert, Conrad Nagel, is hard at work in his business of getting clients with interesting and money making manuscripts to have him put their work on the market. It also happens to be Robert and his wife Frida's, Erin O'Brien-Moore, fifth wedding anniversary and the absent minded Robert, in him being reminded by Charles, had forgot to buy Fridaa a wedding present. What soon spoils everything is that one of the firm's client a Mr. McIntyre who's on a sea cruse sends a telegram wanting his payment for a book he's to have published. Looking for the US Government Bond locked in the company safe that to be McIntyre's fee it's found to be missing!

This sets off a panic between those responsible for keeping McIntyre's money in a safe place with among the four who have the key to the safe Charles Robert Godon,Henry Wodsworth, and Martin, Ian Keith, it's Martin who's not accounted for at the office. When Martin is finally tracked down, by phone, at his country getaway he has no idea where Mr. McIntyre's bond is. With Charles driving over to Martin's place to see if he's holding something back from him Robert & Gordon he's found lying on the floor shot to death with a bullet in his chest!

It's now a year later with Martin's death ruled a suicide by a court of inquiry everyone who was around on that fateful day including Gordon's 18 year old wife Betty, Betty Furness, get together for a nighttime tea party to talk over events of the day. It's when Gordon turns on the radio,the Victrola was on the brink, to have some music to listen too and sooth everyones nerves that things take a turn for the worse. The radio suddenly conks out and Gordon can't find a tube to replace the burned out one. With no music to relax and dance too all the people at the party start to run off their mouths about the only person not there Martin and what they did on the day of his death one year ago when he killed himself! And it's that loose talk that brings out the real truth of Martin's death that everyone at the party had kept hidden from both the court of inquiry as well as themselves!

****SPOILERS**** The film "Dangerous Corner" brings out how people when not occupied with the trivial things in life can really put their minds to work and come up with thought-provoking ides and insights in their lives and the lives of others! Martin was dead and buried for a year with no one wanting to go beyond the fact that he killed himself when it was about to be discovered that he stole McIntyre's Bond. As the truth started coming out among those at the party the truth was far more different then what was publicly known about the dead Martin. And that truth would have never came to see the light of day, even though the events took place at night, if Gordon somehow found a new tube for the radio to keep the music playing and keep his as well as everyone else at the party occupied with it!

*****MAJOR SPOILER**** It's then when you think that it's all over with the films sad and depressing ending you unexpectedly find out that there's another side to it! And then like radio commentator Paul Harvey used to say "Now here's the rest of the Story".

Good, but confusing!

[Norm-30 · 5/10 · 30 October 2000]

This is an intriquing mystery of a bond theft and a suicide (?) that is discussed by a group of people (connected with both) over dinner. There are sooo many flashbacks and plot twists/changes, that it becomes quite confusing as to "what's what"! The ending leaves you with a feeling of "that's IT?!?!",

& I'd recommend that you see it SEVERAL times before everything "sinks in"!

Study Maude Mockeridge

[esmereldajones · 7/10 · 1 May 2006]

I passed by the bond theft and supposed suicide which were a spin of accusations,(secret loves are disclosed; sham marriages revealed; questions about who shot Martin fly everywhere) preferring to ponder on the character of Maude Mockeridge, famous author. (She reminded me of Joan Hickson as Miss Marple, though in a more glamorous tone).

In the opening scene: Ann (a partner in a publishing business) is about to host a breakfast interview on her apartment balcony for romance author Maud Mockeridge. She carefully arranges the author's books in a flattering display. The English lady novelist has already published "A Flame", "Scarlet Flowers", "Burnt Wings" and "Paradise For Two". They discuss her new book "Ecstasy" and a possible contract.

Later that morning Ann joins the publishing group and joyfully announces that she has secured a three year contact with Miss Mockeridge. Next month "Ecstasy" will be ready. Six months later "Emma The Passionate" and in one year "Sleeping Dog".

The twist at the end? How it might have been followed by how it really ended… no body revealed anything!

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 5/10 · 31 May 2005]

A very young Melvyn Douglas gives quite a solid performance in this screen drama adapted from a successful stage play. The film's origins are not at all disguised, and even the nice trick ending looks like the type of thing one would expect in theatre. There are a number of curious ideas that are spread throughout the film, especially in terms of distorting the truth, however there's relatively little action, with events told through dialogue, which makes it a bit overly talkative and a tad confusing. It is also inappropriately slow to build up and melodramatic, although never poorly done. It is hard to know what to make of the film, but by the end I did not feel like much had happened, and therefore I can only half-heartedly recommend it, although Douglas fans are sure to delight at seeing him here so young.

Very modern and sophisticated

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 10 April 2011]

This film is a breath of fresh air compared to other films released immediately after the production code went into effect. It manages to retain a realistic depiction of human behavior without actually breaking the code.

The film has to do with five young people working at a publishing concern. They are apparently good friends on top of everything else. Ann (Virginia Bruce) is "burning the publishing business at both ends" and has a frustrated and long term suitor in the person of Charles (Melvyn Douglas). Two of the other members of the firm are married, the final member of the firm, Martin, is unseen except in flash-back and is single. One of the members of the firm (Conrad Nagel as Chatfield) has forgotten his anniversary, and the other guys help him out by arranging a party at the office for the couple. While everyone is celebrating a call comes in to cash a government bond that is being held in the office safe. Chatfield asks Charles to get the bond from the safe. Charles opens the safe and declares that the bond is missing. Everyone at the party denies knowing what happened to the money and all four men who worked in the office had keys to the safe. Only Martin is not at the office that day, and Charles drives out to talk with him about the matter the next morning. When Charles arrives at Martin's house he finds him dead from a gunshot wound, ruled a suicide by an inquest. Everyone thus assumes Martin stole the money.

A year passes and the young people running the publishing concern along with their wives are having another party. A tube in the radio burns out and there is no spare. The conversation then turns to Martin and the events of the year before. Confession follows confession as a true picture of what really happened comes together and friendships and marriages are smashed. We're then told via title card that what we just saw is what could have happened. What really happened is that there actually was a spare tube for the radio and the festivities continued unabated by probing conversation.

What is interesting is that all that is being admitted here is that the conversation never took place - that doesn't mean that the dirty dark secrets in the alternate chain of events weren't necessarily real, it just means whatever secrets there are pertaining to the events of the year before remain unspoken. The movie raises the interesting question - if knowing the absolute truth does no good and only serves to break everyone's spirit and faith in what they hold fast to in life, does it serve a purpose in having it known? It's an interesting question that is left as open as the resolution of this film. Highly recommended.

Truth Will Out

[Lejink · 7/10 · 3 June 2023]

I'm an admirer of J B Priestley's "Time Plays" of which this was in fact the first and from which this Americanised version was adapted. I also made a point of reading the actual play just before I watched it too, even if it did reveal the ingenious twist the writer employs at the end.

The film could have been subtitled "Let Sleeping Dogs", the title of a book the visiting novelist Mrs Mockridge has written, especially when one of the characters correctly asserts that what won't lie is the truth. Gathered with her in the lovely country house where they're all assembled are effectively three couples, two married, the other comprising an unattached female and her ardent but unrequited pursuer. The three men are partners in a successful business but the real connection between all of the six main characters is the deceased brother of one of them, an apparent suicide by his own gun a year past and all of their connections to him.

When the older brother drunkenly fires a gunshot out the window, thoughts turn back to their prismatic memories of the dead man's influence on their lives, now, just as much as then and just for good measure, around the time he died, there was an unsolved theft of a substantial amount of money from the business, attributed not only to the dead brother but also as the justification for his self - destruction.

A lull in the evening caused by a malfunctioning radio is filled by a conversation, sparked by a chance remark about a music box, which goes progressively deeper and darker enveloping all six of the protagonists until another gunshot is fired at the climax, when all is revealed...and hidden away again.

I did notice some notable excisions from the original play, most notably the homosexuality of one of the male characters, confirmation of a physical liaison between his sham wife and the character who actually stole the money as well as the drug use of the absent but omnipresent Martin character. There's also a flashback to the night of his death showing us his character in person.

Unsurprisingly given the source material, the fact this was an earlier talkie and probably crucially the Hays Production Code had just been introduced, the film naturally has a stagey appearance and feel about it. The women are all in evening dress, the men in suits and tuxes but the themes of the play, exposing the hypocrisy of all the well-to-do participants and at times surprisingly modern dialogue among them, still make it very watchable even today.

mildly interesting talkathon

[mukava991 · 3/10 · 3 May 2011]

"Dangerous Corner" transfers J. B. Priestley's talkathon stage whodunit (or "howdunit") to the screen with a handsome cast and slightly expanded environment (from a single large room to three different rooms and a patio). The play suggested that the little dishonesties of everyday social life are preferable to unabashed truth telling, which if unhindered would cause mayhem and suffering. The problem with the original play was that it was populated by an after- dinner gathering of undistinguished characters (partners in a publishing firm and their spouses) conversing endlessly about whether one of their colleagues stole a sum of money before committing suicide one year previously. As the individuals speculate dryly on this past event, certain revelations come to the surface that expose each one of them to the group as deeply dishonest on some level. The concept and execution are mildly interesting at best, rather like a Noel Coward drawing room play minus the wit and humor. At his best, Priestley wrote beautifully about ordinary people but was also fascinated by paranormal theories of Time. He plays with Time a bit here too, in ways I won't detail, in order to explore what might have happened had certain people kept their mouths shut. Conrad Nagel and Virginia Bruce, previously paired in "Kongo," try their best, as do Erin O'Brien Moore, Doris Lloyd, Betty Furness and others, but the results are never more than mild. Ian Keith, who plays the dead man in flashback, has the most colorful role but the production code enforcement which took effect the year this film was made cannot refer to his drug addiction, so he comes off as just wacky.

An undiscovered gem

[gridoon2024 · 8/10 · 5 September 2017]

It's a little surprising to see that "Dangerous Corner" was released in late 1934, because it has the kind of openness, honesty and cynicism about love and marriage (and crime) that is usually associated with pre-code movies. Then again, if the IMDb trivia is true, there were even more daring elements in the play (like homosexuality and drug addiction) that were taken out of the film (and it probably is true - after all, Gordon is the one character whose "secret" we never learn and Martin acts too bizarrely to be merely "drunk"). It all starts fairly lightheartedly, but it soon develops into something deeper, as it removes layer after layer of superficiality and deception and reveals everyone's hidden self. The ending twist is awesome - something like a 1930s "Run, Lola, Run"! An excellent example of "chamber cinema", with fine performances in every role. Many people will probably see themselves in this movie - and then prefer not to talk about that! ***1/2 out of 4.

"Let Sleeping Dogs Lie"

[greenbudgie · 6/10 · 22 March 2021]

A bond goes missing from the finances of Chatfield Publishers. One of the Chatfield brothers isn't present for most of the film. He is the one who would seem to get the blame especially after he is supposed to have committed suicide. But then there is a torrent of revelations and accusations from other characters concerned with the publishing business. Suspicions of theft and murder pass from one suspect to another.

A potentially interesting character is novelist Maude Mockridge. I felt she should have been in it more especially with her book title of 'Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.' This phrase takes on significance with the younger characters and their secret longings and unhappy marriages. And what exactly was their feelings towards the dead man and why does everybody seem to be lying?

A good reason to watch this film is to see the natural performance of Melvyn Douglas who plays Charles Stanton. His is the only 100% natural performance throughout the film. You may find the complications irritating at times and it is certainly an atypical murder mystery. Be prepared to retrace your steps through the story towards the end. Although I have to admit this is not really my type of mystery I will probably re-watch this at some point to try and unpick the confusing thread of feelings running between the characters.

an oldie but not particularly a goodie

[blanche-2 · 5/10 · 9 April 2011]

Definitely based on a play, "Dangerous Corner" from 1934 is a dated melodrama starring Conrad Nagel, Melvyn Douglas, Virginia Bruce, Betty Furness, and Ian Keith. The story begins with the suicide of Martin Chatfield; eventually, the film goes into flashback about what really happened on the night he died. The film has an odd, twist ending.

The premise is "let sleeping dogs lie," except during most of the film, they don't, with the various people who knew and worked with Martin revealing feelings and actions that are often painful. I imagine this worked very well on the stage. It's a film about the upper class, as plays were before the "working man" plays of Odets.

Conrad Nagel, who had been a matinée idol in the silent era, stars here. Melvyn Douglas is very young and gives a good performance, and Virginia Bruce is absolutely beautiful. The acting as can be expected is a little on the melodramatic side as was the style then.

The problem with this story as a film is that it is very static and all talk with no action.

Certainly worth seeing for the young Douglas, Bruce, and the small role played by Ian Keith who was so fabulous in "Nightmare Alley."

The past is a different country!

[andy.marshall · 9 February 2004]

It's amazing how different 1934 looks to us now, on the evidence of this movie. An ensemble cast of no more than eight, all with speaking parts and none of them filmed anywhere but the standard three sets. Camera angles are static and rigid, only the occasional pan out when confessions are being made and these are legion. Clearly this script could not have been filmed without the invention of cigarettes - they are central to almost every scene and crucial to the turn of the plot itself.

The plot is strong and rather typical of J B Priestly in that much of the drama consists of revelations and contradictions. No-one is quite what they seem!

A bit talky and stagey but clever surprise twist at the end

[meaninglessname · 7/10 · 11 July 2020]

A partner in a publishing firm seemingly commits embezzlement, then suicide. A year later three couples involved with the firm drift into an after-dinner conversation about the circumstances in which new facts continue to surface.

The film is based on a stage play, there's more talk than action, and some incriminating facts are admitted a little too readily, so you may find stretches of it a bit slow or unconvincing.

However there's quite a clever twist at the end with, in true pre-code fashion, a somewhat unexpected moral.

So if you're looking for slam-bang action, forget it, but considered as an old-fashioned mystery with a twist at the end, the film moves at a reasonable pace and delivers as promised.

BTW "Plot Keywords" on the IMDB main page includes "homosexual subtext." I have nothing against homosexual subtexts but any homosexual subtext in this film exists only in the imagination of someone who created a list with that title.

A historical artifact, but little more

[paulbpage · 4/10 · 27 December 2014]

Largely of interest only as a historical piece, a document of movies made from the factory mill of drawing room stage plays of the period. It's part domestic drama, part detective movie, with supposedly sophisticated repartee with drinks, mild references to sex, affairs, marriage and relationships, with some high-minded talk about truth and - perhaps self-referentially - plot devices holding it all together. Except for a few slight flourishes, it's little more than a filmed play, with full shots interspersed with a few two- and three-shots. That said, the performances are expertly delivered, with Melvyn Douglas particularly good and charismatic as the single-man charmer who is after the leading lady, well played by Virginia Bruce. It goes down fairly easily, and the 'smart' lines, many expertly delivered as slight aphorisms by Doris Lloyd - playing a writer and so a kind of bemused commentator and proxy for the author on the unfolding drama. It was clearly meant as not much more than a diversion at the time, with production and performances a pale echo of better pictures or the era.

Terrible...simply terrible.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 10 April 2017]

When you watch "Dangerous Corner", you can't help but see that it was originally a play...and the screenwriter did a poor job translating it to the big screen. The film is very talky, poorly paced and is above all...dull. You would think a film beginning with a suicide would be exciting...well, you'd be wrong. What follows is a very mannered film where slowly various skeletons come tumbling out of the various characters' closets. What makes it all worse is come very bad and thoroughly unbelievable dialog...dialog that no real human beings EVERY spoke in real life...ever.

See this mystery film if you'd like. All I know is that I had a hard time even paying attention after a while because so little of it made sense.

By the way, it's not a huge gaff but they call a semi-automatic pistol a revolver. A revolver and semi-automatic are very different sorts of guns and you would have thought the writer would have bothered to learn the difference.

On the dull side!

[JohnHowardReid · 5/10 · 25 April 2018]

Copyright 17 October 1934 by RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. No recorded New York opening. Australian release: 20 February 1935. 7 reels. 67 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: A publisher's wastrel brother commits suicide. Why? Are the publisher's wife and his associates involved?

NOTES: The highly acclaimed Priestley play opened in the West End at the Lyric on 17 May 1932, running a most satisfactory 151 performances. Not unexpectedly, the play did even better on Broadway - at this time, British shows were all the rage on the New York stage, often to the exclusion of native talent - opening at the Empire on 27 October 1932 for a set engagement of 210 performances. When the lease on the Empire expired, the play was still drawing such huge crowds, it was moved to the Waldorf, where it ran a further 93 performances. Naturally, such a huge success was eagerly snapped up by Hollywood, but by the time the film appeared, interest in the play had lapsed to such an extent that RKO was unable to secure a New York showcase, despite the film's top-drawer cast of popular players. COMMENT: I've always thought J.B. Priestley an over-rated writer. Mind you, he was admired - adulated even - by press and public in his day. Early in his career, he hit upon the device of playing around with Time. Everyone praised this little stratagem as a masterstroke of genius. What do you think?

In Dangerous Corner, the action hinges on a valve. One of those gadgets like an elongated electric light globe that formerly powered radios. When one of these valves "blew", it was necessary to replace it, or the wireless wouldn't work. So what Priestley presents is two stories. In the first, he tells what happened to our merry group of partying characters when the radio was silenced and they were forced to sit around and tell a few home truths to each other concerning their relationship and dealings with a former partner of their publishing firm who committed suicide. In the second version of the same story, a replacement valve is available, the radio sparks back into life and the actors are silenced. The party continues...

I'm afraid that, despite this novelty, it's all rather dull stuff of the talky, talky, talky kind. Your turn, Melvyn. Now it's your turn, Virginia. And now it's your cue, Betty, for your big dramatic revelation of the evening. Ho-hum.

Beyond two prologue scenes, the adapters have done nothing to open out the play. Worse, Poverty Row director Phil Rosen, here making his first of three pictures for RKO, has handled the wearisome proceedings in a thoroughly pedestrian manner.

True, the players do try their hardest to overcome both the heaviness of their dialogue and the disinterest of their director. Doris Lloyd succeeds best. But then she has by far the most colorful role. Melvyn Douglas is charmingly gallant, while Virginia Bruce - despite odd make-up, presumably designed to make her look older - and Betty Furness furnish "soul".

Clever Turnaround

[dougdoepke · 7 April 2017]

Plot— elite members of a publishing house gather for a celebratory evening only to find out one of their staff has apparently committed suicide. In the emotional aftermath, a number of hidden truths emerge.

There are elements of a mystery in the story, but overall, the film amounts to considerably more. The narrative appears fairly conventional until the upshot. Then the threads that have accumulated are exposed in an unexpected manner, and we're left with considerable food for thought. As a lesson in "sleeping dogs" the film succeeds brilliantly; as movie however, the narrative requires real patience. There's no action and darn few scene changes. Instead, the cast stands around in evening clothes and talks and talks-- it is, after all, a filmed stage play. At least a few interesting personal embarrassments get revealed as the story moves on, but how interesting you find the characters themselves is, I think, a matter of taste. Except for actor Keith's overdone Martin, the acting helps by being nicely accomplished.

Anyway, as a dramatized lesson in social truths, the movie rates highly. As a form of sheer entertainment, however, the movie's average, at best. My advice is to exercise patience because the upshot does furnish timely food for thought.

Conventional Morality again takes it on the chin

[ScenicRoute · 13 September 2011]

Watch this movie from 1934 (from a 1932 English play by J.B. Priestley)to see how early the English-speaking elite began to smash up their values, with a direct path to the mayhem and anomie of the 1960s/70s, and now the politically correct straightjackets of the early 21st century. I don't give it a 10 because of the excisions made to satisfy the censors - too bad for that, as it would have made the movie even more delicious.

For delicious it is, watching people throw up on their values as they wear magnificent gowns, even if we are living with the consequences now. Watch it to see what we need to recover...

Priestley is of the GB Shaw school - tradition and the wisdom of our ancestors is out the window, with no one knowing at the time what great new world awaits us. Unfortunately, we know now, and owe it all to these misguided geniuses for dramatic dialogue.