The Case Of The Black Cat

The Paws That Refreshes

The Case Of The Black Cat
USA 1936
Directed by
William C. McGann and Alan Crosland
Warner Archive DVD Region 1

The Case Of The Black Cat is the fifth of the six Perry Mason feature films made by Warner Brothers in the 1930s but the entire regular cast, such as they were, including Perry Mason himself, were changed. Mason is played in this one by Ricardo Cortez, who had already played another famous fictional hero, Sam Spade, in the original 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon (the third version had Humphrey Bogart in the role, of course). He’s actually quite good as Perry Mason in this but it helps considerably that this is a much straighter adaptation to the spirit of the source material and hasn’t been turned into some kind of 1930s screwball comedy like three of the previous four, which starred Warren William as the lawyer.

In addition we have his secretary Della Street now being played by June Travis and Garry Owen as Mason’s detective Paul Drake (now no longer being referred to as ‘Spudsy’ in the films). In the last movie, The Case Of The Velvet Claws (reviewed here), Perry and Della had been married but, I guess the studios expected the public to have very short memories in those days because, although this movie was released in the same year, there is absolutely no indication that they are married here and it’s obviously been dropped in favour of being more like the novels.

And it’s a convoluted affair where Perry Mason takes on a cat as his client, on behalf of its owner who is one of the people soon murdered in the film which, because he has the cat on retainer, allows Mason to both discover, in one case... and uncover, a number of murders (kind of) and make sure that he can build enough evidence to defend the innocent to pursue the guilty parties.

So yeah, the film is quite serious in tone but the - perhaps too smooth - Cortez makes a good go of it, although he really does seem to be a little too over confident and easily amused as he goes about his business. I have to say that, although Warren William’s version was absolutely nothing like Perry Mason, I kind of preferred him. That being said, I’m pretty sure this is probably much closer to the character in the books and so it’s a good move that the series of films tried to get itself back on track, although author Erle Stanley Gardner similarly disliked Cortez in the role, which may or may not have something to do with the fact that Cortez only played the character this once.

Unlike all but the first of the movies, this one actually does go much nearer to the structure of the books, with the last quarter of an hour or more of the picture being devoted to the big court case where Mason is defending a young man who has been framed by someone who, it turns out, wasn’t even the murderer. This includes a nice twist moment in which a mystery witness is arrested and produced half way through the trial, something which Perry is as surprised at as the rest of the people in the trial but which he takes advantage of, to get the case thrown out of court. It also gives him his next client and, it has to be said, is something of a twist reveal which I’m very pleased to say, I actually didn’t see coming.

The film is not badly shot but, again, lacks the boldness and experimentation of the Michael Curtiz directed entry in the series, The Case Of The Curious Bride (reviewed here). That being said, it’s certainly not too complicated to follow the edits, is clearly lit and is easy on the eye. I did have trouble keeping up with the plot in one or two instances but this was down to the convoluted nature of the storyline on this one, rather than the way it was presented, I think. The acting is all fine too, with the chemistry between Mason and Street being quite well played, although Della’s not in it as much as she could have been. It also sees the introduction of one of the more regular characters in the books from what I’m told... the District Attorney Hamilton Burger, played here by Guy Usher. Again, like the other new recruits in the cast, he would only play his part the once.

The only other thing of note which I will throw in here is the fact that the cat in the film isn’t actually a black cat. It’s white and partially black and certainly not what one would think of as a black cat. Reading up on it, I’ve found out that the story this one is actually based on is The Case Of The Caretaker’s Cat so... yeah... why the change to Black Cat in the title? Especially since, you know, it’s clearly not a black cat. The answer is, apparently, that the film was released around Halloween of 1936 and the studio were trying to cash in on the ‘witching season’ to push their film. Well, okay maybe... it’s as good an explanation as any I guess and so I’ll swallow that one until a better explanation comes along which, let’s be honest, isn’t likely to turn up now.

And that’s me done with The Case Of The Black Cat... not a bad picture and certainly it’s pretty entertaining for the hour and six minute running time. I have only one more of these left to watch and then I’m done with the entire run of Perry Mason cinema movies, it would seem. So I’ll get on to that one as soon as possible.