Who’s Guilty?

Who's Guilty titles
Columbia, 15 Chapters, 1945. Starring Robert Kent, Amelita Ward, Tim Ryan, Charles Middleton, Minerva Urecal, Davison Clark, Sam Flint, Belle Mitchell, Bruce Donovan, Jayne Hazard, Jack Ingram.

When wealthy and unscrupulous Henry Calvert (Davison Clark) dies in a car crash, his greedy relatives assemble to collect his fortune, but find it has apparently been mislaid. State Police detective Bob Stewart (Robert Kent), believing Calvert was murdered, investigates the “baffling case crowded with intrigue” (to quote Knox Manning’s opening narration), despite the uncooperativeness of all the parties involved. These secretive potential culprits include Calvert’s sister Mrs. Caldwell (Belle Mitchell), Calvert’s nephew Curt Bennett (Bruce Donovan), Curt’s wife Rita (Jayne Hazard), lawyer Horace Black (Sam Flint), housekeeper Mrs. Dill (Minerva Urecal), butler Patton (Charles Middleton), and mysterious Ruth Allen (Amelita Ward)–allegedly the daughter of a late partner of Calvert’s. Calvert’s twin brother Walter (Davison Clark again), missing since Calvert’s death, is also a prime suspect; could he be the mysterious figure who keeps ordering Patton the butler to perform sinister deeds? Despite the obscurantism practiced by the suspects, and the bumbling of his reporter “friend” Duke Ellis (Tim Ryan), Stewart doggedly tries to determine Who’s Guilty.

Who’s Guilty sounds like great fun in theory, with its use of stock characters and plot devices often seen in whodunit features but seldom featured in serials. Unfortunately, Guilty hardly makes inspired or interesting use of its offbeat “Old Dark House” theme–being too leadenly paced, cheaply produced, and poorly written to impress as an atmospheric and puzzling mystery. It recalls nothing so much as a severely elongated version of one of the dull, static, and too obviously low-budgeted mystery/comedy B-films that its producer Sam Katzman turned out for Monogram during the early 1940s before moving his production setup to Columbia. These echoes of Monogram were all too common in Katzman’s first few years as Columbia’s serial producer; they also resound loudly (and irritatingly) in Brenda Starr, Reporter and Chick Carter, Detective.

Who's Guilty--Mrs. Dill Who's Guilty--Patton Who's Guilty--Black Who's Guilty--Ruth Allen Who's Guilty--Kirk and Rita Bennett Who's Guilty--Mrs. Caldwell
Above: The suspects–whodunit archetypes one and all–as featured in the overview at the beginning of each chapter: left to right (top row) are the Eccentric Housekeeper (Minerva Urecal), the Sinister Butler (Charles Middleton), and the Urbane But Untrustworthy Lawyer (Sam Flint). Left to right (bottom row), we have the Mystery Woman (Amelita Ward), the Spendthrift Nephew (Bruce Donovan) with his Glamorous Wife (Jayne Hazard), and the Overbearing Dowager (Belle Mitchell).

Writers George Plympton and Ande Lamb try to make amends for a thin and predictable plot by piling on pointless mystifications, a device utilized in many an hour-long B-mystery, at Monogram and elsewhere–and one that proves completely ineffectual in a five-hour serial. The “mystery’s” ultimate solution becomes obvious in the first chapter, which makes all the subsequent obfuscation so transparent that it quickly gets irksome; to make matters worse, the killer’s motives are never really explained, and the motivations of the characters who withhold information from the hero are flimsy at best. The weakness of the mystery element isn’t the thing that sinks Who’s Guilty, however; many Mascot serials managed to be entertaining with even weaker plotlines. The real damage to the serial is done by its tedious pacing; in order to fill the aforementioned five hours, characters waste far too much time in conversations that lead nowhere, variously plotting their moves, pondering over suspicious incidents, or vehemently but pointlessly bickering with each other. The dialogue in these scenes is so mediocrely written and (in some cases) so poorly delivered that it’s not even interesting, unlike similarly oversized portions of talk in Universal’s serials from the same era.

As in most other Katzman serials, the directors (B-western veteran Howard Bretherton and Republic-serial alumnus Wallace Grissell) take care to supplement verbal padding with physical padding, from protracted scenes of people walking or driving to a needless dance number in a Mexican cantina. The serial’s plodding pace is quickened on occasion by a handful of reasonably well-handled fight scenes, but most of these sequences are not only scarce but very brief. The Chapter Twelve warehouse fight is perhaps the most interesting–partly because of the energy that villain Terry Frost and Robert Kent’s stunt double (probably either George DeNormand or Eddie Parker) put into it, and partly because of the impressively (and amusingly) careful way in which the brawlers avoid knocking over the barrels and crates that fill the warehouse (the economical Katzman obviously didn’t want to risk damaging any props). The hillside shootout/chase in Chapter Four is also fairly exciting, while the attempted rescue of a hostage at another shack in Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen would have worked well enough, had it not been marred by an extremely weak cliffhanger sequence that breaks up the flow of the action (obnoxious sidekick Tim Ryan stumbles into a room full of steam pipes).

Who's Guilty--hills pursuit Who's Guilty--fight
Above left: Robert Kent races for cover during the Chapter Four shootout. Above right: Terry Frost looks like he’s taking a prop-toppling fall during the Chapter Twelve warehouse fistfight, but will nimbly manage to twist away from those stacked oil barrels.

Most of Guilty’s other cliffhanger sequences are not much better than the steam-pipe one; most of them are not only unspectacular (the hero is shot by a desk gun, the heroine is grabbed from behind by the villainous butler) but also suffer badly from a complete lack of suspenseful buildup.  The elaborate Chapter Six ending–in which a bound Tim Ryan and Amelita Ward are dropped into an apparently boiling lake by a platform that’s released when a suspension rope is burned through–is at least memorably novel, but is resolved in absolutely ridiculous fashion; the pair walk out of the lake almost immediately because, it seems, the water was cold instead of hot and instantly loosened their bonds.

Who's Guilty--cliffhanger 1 Who's Guilty--cliffhanger 2
Above: Shots from the Chapter Six cliffhanger sequence.

The serial’s exterior and interior mansion sets, including a mammoth front porch seen in many of Columbia’s features, are good ones, but they dominate the action so much that they start to wear out their visual welcome; other interiors, like the hero’s office or some of the “apartments” visited during the chapterplay, are far more chintzy-looking than the mansion’s halls and rooms. The serial’s many indoor visuals are varied at intervals by outdoor sequences shot at Corriganville, most of them taking place during the good guys’ extended trip to Mexico in the earlier chapters. These “Mexican” sequences provide welcome relief from indoor antics at the mansion and elsewhere, but the Mexican sojourn itself is so carelessly linked to the main “plot” that its function as padding becomes painfully obvious.

Who's Guilty--mansion outside Who's Guilty--mansion inside

Above: A long shot of the Calvert mansion front, and an interior shot of one its oft-seen interiors (filled with investigators and suspects).

The serial’s cast is a very mixed bag; some of the players manage to bring energy to their poorly-defined roles, while some make no effort to perform at all and others actively damage the serial. Robert Kent is quite good in the lead, giving an unusually tough and hard-boiled air to his character while still remaining likable; it’s easy to sympathize with his gruffness, since we in the audience share his frustration with the serial’s roundabout plot.

Who's Guilty--Robert Kent
Above: Robert Kent.

Amelita Ward, on the other hand, is one of the most unsympathetic heroines in any serial; much of this is the fault of the script, which keeps her motivations in the dark until the final scene and has her character not only keep refusing to assist the hero’s investigations, but also keeps her snapping at him angrily even after he’s saved her life multiple times. She certainly doesn’t make any effort to take the edge off this scripted nastiness, however; she goes through the serial with an almost perpetual scowl.

Sidekick Tim Ryan is even more irritating than Ward, however; his presence positively stinks up the serial, by providing it with the same extensive and unfunny “comic relief” that marked far too many Monogram features (in many of which Ryan appeared). His cocky swagger, clumsy pratfalls, and dialogue delivery (alternately smirking and blustering) have us longing for his character to be murdered by the third chapter; the insistently “funny” music that accompanies his antics doesn’t help his case. His performance is even more annoying than the “comic” turns by the likes of Lee Ford (SOS Coast Guard) and Sonny Ray (Perils of Pauline); Ryan looks much more normal and intelligent than these earlier serial buffoons, and his antics thus come off as deliberately offensive rather than merely mindlessly stupid (picture Pat O’Brien behaving like a cross between Milton Berle and Huntz Hall, and you have an idea of the impression Ryan creates).

Who's Guilty--Patton and Duke
Above: Charles Middleton’s Patton literally splits hairs, to show Tim Ryan’s mugging Duke the sharpness of his knife in a publicity still (just cut a little deeper, Mr. Patton, and you’ll save us all a lot of annoyance).

Charles Middleton has relatively little to do as the sinister butler Patton, but his performance is one of the brighter spots in the serial; whether he’s ominously sharpening knives or hypocritically affecting a respectful “servant” pose, he gives his hoary melodrama character (the butler who did it) the right combination of menace and subtle humor. Veteran character actress Minerva Urecal is also entertaining as the daffy housekeeper Mrs. Dill, who’s convinced she’s in contact with the spirit world; though she has even less screen time than Middleton does, she makes the most of it, dropping the no-nonsense grumpiness she used in most of her other roles in favor of a ghostly manner that seems to be a deliberate imitation of Gale Sondergaard’s many “creepy housekeeper” characterizations in various Old Dark House movies.

Sam Flint, as the shady lawyer Horace Black, seems to be delighted with the opportunity to cast off his usual upright serial persona; his slick, unctuous delivery and his sly facial expressions are very entertaining. Belle Mitchell is similarly lively as grande dame Mrs. Caldwell, but is saddled with some embarrassingly flat attempts at witty lines; she also overdoes her character’s “high society” accent to a comical extent. Bruce Donovan as Curt Bennett is bland and underenergized, and often seems to be sleepwalking through his part. Jayne Hazard as his wife is only a little more energetic, but her pulchritude is so strong that she’s a lot easier to watch than her screen husband. Davison Clark is on the periphery for most of the serial, but is colorfully cranky in his dual role as the Calvert brothers; Milt Kibbee plays a Calvert relation killed off in the first chapter.

Who's Guilty--Davison Clark
Above: Davison Clark as Henry Calvert.

Wheeler Oakman pops up in the middle chapters as a gangster named Smiley, who’s owed money by the Curt Bennett character and insinuates himself into the main action; his delightfully swaggering manner peps up several scenes, but he’s killed off much too soon. Richard Cramer, Oakman’s fellow 1930s badman, plays another heavy during the Mexican sequence, and, like Oakman, enlivens the proceedings a little before dropping out. A characteristically forceful Terry Frost figures prominently in the serial’s last third as yet another “guest star” crook by the name of Edwards. I couldn’t identify the stocky actor playing Burk, the crooked mine foreman in the Mexican scenes–but he’s definitely not Charles King, despite a credit in Les Adams’ index of King’s roles on the Old Corral. “Burk’s” cohorts and Richard Cramer’s attractive but amateurish-sounding female accomplice are also unfamiliar to me–I’d guess them to be players who worked with Katzman over at Monogram.

John Merton has a brief bit as a policeman, while Jack Ingram has a much more extended part as Kent’s police-sergeant aide. Robert Tafur plays a Mexican police officer who aids Robert Kent during the latter’s detour to Mexico, and is the recipient of comically fawning Good-Neighbor-Policy-inspired praise from both the hero and narrator Knox Manning (who pointedly reminds us that Kent is receiving “the efficient aid of the Mexican police”). Nacho Galindo is one of Tafur’s men, while Eddie Parker is a thug working with Richard Cramer.

Who’s Guilty, with its noxious Monogram-style comedy relief and its elementary Monogram-style mystery plot stretched out to pointless and painful lengths, is a prime example of the dire results of Sam Katzman’s attempts to crossbreed the Columbia movie serial and the Monogram B-mystery feature; neither the better members of its cast (Kent, Middleton, Flint, Urecal) nor the competent action-scene direction by Bretherton and Grissell manage to make it more than fleetingly entertaining. Instead of a “baffling mystery crowded with intrigue,” it ultimately proves to be a tedious non-mystery crowded with tiresomeness.

Who's Guilty--last

17 thoughts on “Who’s Guilty?

  1. Thanks for the good words. This one wasn’t easy to write, just as watching the serial itself wasn’t easy–I find it hard to resist the temptation to say simply “this stinks” and explain in greater detail just why something stinks.

    • Alan Barbour once told me he thought this was the dullest serial ever, until he saw CHICK CARTER, DETECTIVE. I recently bought WHO’S GUILTY just to see Charles Middleton as a suspicious butler. Now I am again scared to watch it.

  2. Pingback: WHO’S GUILTY (15-chapter serial, 1945) | Kendra Steiner Editions

  3. Just got around to this one. Right on review. I didn’t find it quite as bad as you did, but pretty bad. The old, dark house phantom scenes and Charles Middleton were good, but the plot went way off the rails too often, I found it easy to figure out the guilty party and the twists, while the characters on the whole were uninteresting and the action flat. *1/2 out of *****. Not quite the worst but bad.

  4. Incredibly tedious, with a few decent performances to alleviate the boredom. I love your description of Tim Ryan’s character (“Pat O’Brien behaving like a cross between Milton Berle and Huntz Hall”). That really nailed it! It might have been interesting to see Jayne Hazard playing the “mystery woman” part instead of Amelita Ward; at least she would have been a lot more pleasing to look at, instead of the scowling Ms. Ward.

  5. Just recently I done a study of this serial “Who’s Guilty?” for IMDb. You say in your review, (that I think is very good BTW), that Charles King is not Burke. I have to kindly disagree. I say it is him from all the information I gathered about this serial. What definitely proves he did play Burke are photos of the time. If you look at Charles King when he was credited playing in “The Adventures of Sir Galahad” (1949) he looked just how he does in “Who’s Guilty?” There are photos of him on IMDb and around the Internet, I truly believe he plays Burke. Burke with a “e” at the end according to script info. Hope you can use this information.

      • Two clearly different actors. I was going from memory in my earlier post, and I actually see that I was wrong about the mysterious Burk’s face being rounder than King’s–it’s actually slightly thinner. His nose is longer as well, and he lacks King’s jowls and unmistakable basset-hound-like eyes. Anyway, facial comparisons aside, I just rewatched a bit of Who’s Guilty in which “Burk” appears, and knew it wasn’t King as soon as I listened to his voice; there’s no mistaking King’s grumbly drawl, and Burk’s drier, less accented voice sounds nothing like it. Without trying to sound rude, I’m guessing that you’re basing your identification purely on pictures, which can often be deceptive–try listening to King in any of his roles, and then to “Burk” in Who’s Guilty, and you’ll see at once they’re not the same man.

      • In your photos its the same person. Look on IMDb photos for Who’s Guilty and Adventures of Sir Galahad. You will see him in a photo without the head dress. Then look at the photo of him in Who’s Guilty? There is a photo of just him wearing white. Its the same face. Its got to be him. I wish I could post photos here for you to see.

        Do you have a Facebook page I could post on? Maybe photos?

      • I assume you mean these IMDB pictures:

        Who's Guilty

        Sir Galahad

        The Sir Galahad picture makes it even more obvious that King is not “Burk”–again, their noses alone are enough to establish they’re two different people. However, I know from long experience that it’s hard to convince anybody of identity based solely on pictures. With all due respect, have you actually seen “Burk” in Who’s Guilty, as opposed to pictures of him? Have you ever seen King in Sir Galahad or one of his many other serials, or are you going purely by stills? If you watch one of “Burk’s” scenes and then watch King in any of his speaking roles, you’ll immediately see they’re two entirely different actors.

  6. Yes that’s the photo from Sir Galahad that I mentioned. Now in Who’s Guilty there is a photo of him wearing a white hat and holding a gun. His face is much closer in the picture. It’s the same guy in the photo above.
    I‘m working on the voice analysis. I believe the sound for Who’s Guilty? is out of pitch. Somethings not quite right. I noticed Richard Cramer’s voice didn’t sound normal in the movie. It could be why we think it’s not Charles King.

    I would like to make it clear, I take no offense that we disagree on this. I’m just trying to help you. When I find something that may be incorrect on IMDb, I check it out to the fullest. Since your FILES are connected with IMDb, thought I would let you know of a possible mistake.

  7. Instead of comparing photographs of the supposed “Charles King” from “Who’s Guilty” to those of King in his role in “Sir Galahad” (made four years later), it might be much more instructive to look at film and stills from the 58 other verified appearances King made between 1944-1946, a much closer time period to the film in question.

    It’s possible that it really IS King in Who’s Guilty. If you’re willing to discount acting style, build, facial appearance, mannerisms and voice, he’s a perfect match!

    • Even though I myself am not 100% certain about this actor being Charles King. I would say I’m about 90% sure it’s him. Several reasons I think it is Charles King, is that he wears a ring that looks like the same ring King wore in some of the movies he was in. He didn’t alway wear a ring, but when he did you can see that it has a large dark stone. Pretty noticeable if you’re looking for it. Most of the time he wears it on his right hand ring finger, but I have seen him wearing it on his left hand ring finger. Here are a few of the movies that his ring can be seen in. Inside Information (1934), The Crooked Trail (1936), Red River Valley (1936), Fuzzy Settles Down (1944), White Gorilla (1945), Outlaw of the Plains (1946), Thunder Town (1946), to name a few. Looks like the same ring in Who’s Guilty? Believe me when I say I have studied this actor and his background. If you look at his early work, you wouldn’t believe it is the same guy. Someday check out his silent shorts. His acting style changes over the years. Maybe that’s what is going on here. Could be that’s what the director wanted from him? There are subtle … I guess you would call them mannerisms, that tell me its him. There are too many coincidences, like the ring and facial look. I’m trying to find out more about him. Like injuries he may have had around that time. His acting style was definitely changing again. And I take into consideration that he was getting older.
      I may be entirely off on all this, but it makes for some good conversation.
      If you think I should drop this subject, I will say no more about it here.
      Thanks for listening.
      Ken Kwilinski

  8. I still disagree with your basic conclusion about King being in this film, but I very much admire your detailed research and your enthusiasm for the subject. Anything that keeps interest alive regarding serials in general and specifically, anything that promotes interesting discussion here at Daniel’s website, is definitely encouraging. Keep up the search; who knows what you might discover in the future.

Leave a Reply to Kenneth Kwilinski Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s