Shadows on the Stairs

Rarely in films do we find a murder plot that misdirects viewers with the finesse of "Shadows On The Stairs". What a delight. Beginning with one particular early scene, the plot cleverly leads viewers down the garden path. And a second twist delightfully compounds the misdirection.

There are eight major characters. At least one is murdered, leaving seven suspects. I was sure I knew who the killer was. I was dead wrong, owing mostly to the shrewdly written script.

Most of the action takes place inside a multistory boarding house. People come into and leave rooms rather often. And the script is quite talky. The film has the look and feel of a stage play, except for the first few minutes. The title is a bit misleading, implying noir lighting that doesn't really exist in the film. There's not much in the way of spine-tingling suspense. The main selling point is the stunning ending wherein viewers learn how they have been duped into making multiple false assumptions. Clearly, that upsets some viewers. But one cannot deny that the misdirection is clever.

B&W lighting is acceptable though conventional. Background music is a tad manipulative, which is consistent with many films from that era. Casting is fine. Acting inclines toward the exaggerated, yet that is subtly consistent with the underlying story concept. The film does not take itself too seriously, and it should be watched as slightly comical.

There's no great thematic depth to the story. The appeal lies entirely in the film's entertainment value. But the surprise ending makes "Shadows On The Stairs" one of the better whodunit mysteries from the 1940s.

Witty little British Whodunit based on the Frank Vosper play "Murder on the Second Floor" has everyone in the cast suspected of murdering one of the tenants of the Armitage Lodging House where they all live in, but who did it? Joe Reynolds is found stabbed to death in his room and everyone in the lodge may have a good reason to have done him in.

Ram Sigh, Turhan Bey, who we saw at the beginning of the film together with Joe, at the London docks, working for an organization to free India from British rule. Singh as a patriot and Reynolds as a profiteer. They later got into an argument at the lodge about the money, $500,000.00, that was supposed to go to that organization. Singh is later attacked in his room by some thug whom he killed, who may have worked for Joe.

Sella Armitage, Fredia Inescort, the owner together with her husband Tom, Milles Mender, has been having an affair with Joe. Tom earlier in the movie caught her and Joe embracing without them knowing about it. Did Tom kill Joe in a fit of jealous rage? There's Lucy, Phyllis Barry, the lodge's maid who was also having an affair with Joe behind Stella's back. Did Lucy murder Joe because he broke it off and at the same time did Stella kill Joe for him two-timing her? The last three person residing at the Armitage Lodge are Tom & Stella's daughter Sylvia, Heather Angel, playwright Hugh Bromilow, Bruce Lester, and spinster Phoebe Martis St. John Snell, Mary Field.

On the surface the three don't seem to have any reason for killing Joe but there something in the past that we'll find out later in the movie that he did to one, or all, of them to make them murder him. All I can say is that even the great Sherlock Holmes would have a hard time solving this murder mystery much less the audience.

Keeping in mind that this movie is totally American and the UK had been at war for quite a while, most people everywhere were looking for something to enjoy and smile about. Those who critique this movie as lacking some action/adventurous mystery just don't understand the feelings and thoughts of the early 1940s when the US would be facing Pearl Harbor in just 9 months from this release. And for the Warner Bros. to send a kind and light-hearted film to the UK when they were facing bombs and death was a good thing. Some of the critiques here went as far as criticizing the actors - all of whom did their jobs very well. But then I'm familiar with those who think they know more than they actually do know. The bumbling police, the silly portrayal of the women were all designed in the story to bring that light-heartiness to the viewer. I'm surprised there wasn't a cute Scottish Terrier running around. So if you like a Light movie without the blood and guts as some people here wished to have seen, this is a pleasant stage play turned into a cute movie for a hour's time.

This is a stagy film with a group of idiosyncratic characters, roaming around a boarding house. Everyone is a suspect; everyone has some strange being about them. When a man is murdered, a group of buffoonish police infiltrate the house and act like Pirates of Panzance idiots. Don't even try to talk about motivations or realities because you won't find them here. We have, of course, the handsome smug young man who is "writing his play." If this is what he came up with the cop who implies that he has no profession is probably right. The acting is stilted. Some of the characters are strictly comic and there are those long pauses for us to laugh. Whether we should hold this to today's standards or not isn't the issue. There were well-done films in 1941 as well as now. This just lacked pizazz. And the ending is most disappointing.

With a cast like this, a B-movie mystery just can't miss. But first you must skip over the juvenile leads, both male and female, and look beyond them to the talented, polished and very-experienced supporting cast.

Frieda Inescort, past her girlish good-looks stage, gives an outstanding performance as the duplicitous, cheating landlady of the boarding house where the murder takes place. Turhan Bey, then a young actor of considerable skill with an already notable acting history, plays another ethnic role-- the sort in which he was most typecast- that of the mysterious "easterner" --turban and all.

Veteran actors Paul Cavanagh and Miles Mander round out this superb cast. You may recognize both from many 1940's supporting roles; Mander was also a director of early silents.

Beware of nay-sayers who are always trying to compare films of this era with today's output-- Phrases like "it does (or doesn't) show it's age" or "it does (or doesn't) hold up today" are meaningless when viewing films of this genre. In fact, such comparisons are boring and tedious.

This is a fun low budget effort, with an able cast, a crazy plot-line (why not?), and a few hysterical scenes (like the boarder who won't talk to the police because she's lost her false teeth).

Recommended. Don't miss it.