A Shriek in the Night: Old School Scoops and Shaky Shadows

Is it worth your time?

If you like old-school, snappy mysteries where people talk like they’re being paid by the word, you’ll have a good time here. If you need your thrillers to make actual sense or have high-budget lighting, you’re probably going to be bored by the second act. It’s definitely not for the 'prestige drama' crowd, but it’s got a weird energy that keeps it from feeling like a dusty relic.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of A Shriek in the Night (1933) through its definitive frames.

Ginger Rogers is really carrying the weight of the world here. She’s playing this sharp-tongued reporter, Pat Morgan, and she’s honestly just more fun to watch than the entire murder plot combined. Watching her try to out-scoop Lyle Talbot is pretty much the whole show.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of A Shriek in the Night (1933) through its definitive frames.

The apartment building setting is drenched in gloom. It feels like every room was designed by someone who really, really likes velvet curtains and dark hallways. There's this one moment where someone is hiding behind a door and the shadow is so long it looks like a giant spider. It’s probably a mistake, but I loved it anyway. 🕷️

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of A Shriek in the Night (1933) through its definitive frames.

Some random notes

• The dialogue moves at a pace that would give a modern screenwriter a headache.
• I’m not entirely sure why the murders are happening, but the police seem mostly interested in drinking coffee and looking confused.
• There’s a weird bit involving a telephone that goes on way too long.
• Ginger Rogers looks like she’s already waiting for her next big break in the middle of some of these scenes.

It’s not as polished as something like Winner Take All, which has a different kind of scrappy charm. This one feels a bit more like a stage play that someone decided to film on a Tuesday afternoon. The pacing is weirdly uneven, too. Sometimes the movie is sprinting toward the next corpse, and other times it just stops for a chat.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of A Shriek in the Night (1933) through its definitive frames.

The supporting cast is mostly just guys in hats standing around looking suspicious. It’s almost funny how many times a guy in a trench coat walks into a frame just to look guilty for three seconds before vanishing. If you're counting, I think there are about six people in this building who look like they could be the killer. By the time they explain who did it, I had almost forgotten the actual murder happened in the first place.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of A Shriek in the Night (1933) through its definitive frames.

It’s not a masterpiece. But there’s something nice about a movie that doesn't try to be anything more than an hour of mystery and banter. It’s a bit messy, sure, but it’s human. And honestly? I've seen way worse. 🎞️