Paularoc Donald Woods' portrayal of Perry Mason is the best of the 1930s movies and the one that is closest to the Mason character from the books and the Burr t.v. series. This doesn't make it the only or most entertaining of the Mason movies - the William movies are more fun, if much less accurate. A Bishop from Australia asks Mason to investigate an over 20 year old case of an accusation of manslaughter, a charge that the Bishop says the woman accused of did not do. The plot quickly moves to a question of "who is really the granddaughter of the wealthy (and arrogant and nasty) Renald Brownley?" There are two claimants. On the plus side for this movie are that, for the first time in this movie series, Paul Drake (played by Joseph Crehan) is not a doofus, but actually a competent private detective, Tom Kennedy is his usual dim, but funny detective (in this case a house detective who works part time for Mason and actually helps solve the case), and Donald Woods characterization is serious but still has a lightheartedness about it that makes the character so likable. On the negative side is that Ann Dvorak, a gifted actress, is absolutely wasted in the role of Della Street. It's not a negative for me that the plot was somewhat convoluted and certain plot elements laughable because the movie was still entertaining and well worth viewing, especially by Perry Mason fans - even though there is only one Perry Mason - Raymond Burr, of course.

tedg We had two great evolutionary paths in the 30s. One was an amazing diversity of invention to settle some basic narrative devices that have since served us well as the basic vocabulary of cinema. The other, parallel path was the pulp detective novel, a master of which was Gardner.The traditional, Holmes form is that you are linked to the detective. You discover what he does. Christie followed this form, but it is difficult to render in film. Gardner may be the first case — since common — of the novel adopting cinematic form. His formula does seem friendly to film: we see events that Mason does not, often before he gets seriously engaged. These events give us a false impression of what happened, so we as viewers start out with a deficit.Then we have the detection; Mason and company are detectives in act two. The third act is always a courtroom, which is why our detective has to be a lawyer. Courtroom conventions have their own evolution in film, and this instance is limited to what in Christie's stories has to be a contrived assembly of the suspects.This format allows for more complicated mysteries than were usual in film. My own preference for 30's detection is Philo Vance because the formula was not so strict. But this is a good one in terms of allowing complexity and surprise. We have that here in this solid instance.One of the decisions in defining the characters is how intimate to make the relationship between alpha male Mason and his pretty and competent secretary. Why this matters has to do, as Mason would say, with motive. We like the guy. He is smart, as smart as other detectives, but why he does what he does…In some renderings of the Mason format, he just likes to win. He has his own Lestrade who he likes humiliating. Justice is incidental, and truth merely a tactic. He just like to strut.In other renderings, he does what he does because he loves his team, his closest friend Drake and his lover Della. Both are profoundly loyal and true. He struts for her and we imagine passion after the obligatory Italian restaurant scene.Here, a delicate balance between the two is maintained.

Michael_Elliott Case of the Stuttering Bishop, The (1937) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Sixth and final film in Warner's Perry Mason series features a new guy in the lead role but the film turns out to be a rather entertaining entry. This time out, Perry Mason (Donald Woods) is visited by a bishop who asks him to investigate a manslaughter that happened twenty-two years earlier but the guilty party is still free. Perry starts to investigate, which leads him to a billionaire who eventually winds up dead and it seems the same person is behind the two cases. This is a pretty strong film that manages to be quite entertaining, although it would have benefited by a stronger supporting cast. Woods is actually very good in the role of Mason and brings his own charm and brains to the role. Ann Dvorak is entertaining as his secretary but the rest of the cast is so-so at best. The case is actually very well written and manages to be quite complicated, which ruins the ending when we get the typical easy way out and that's the guilty person getting away with it until they break down and admit everything.

Breck As someone who has read all 82 of the Perry Mason novels, I have to say that this is the best I've seen of the Warner Brothers Perry Mason films. Readers of Gardner's mysteries will appreciate how faithfully the screen writers were able to keep to the essentials of the original plot in this short 70 minute film.This film is far superior to the turkeys WB made with Warren William (although that's not saying much.) And Donald Woods was more like the literary Mason than Raymond Burr, who was almost fat enough by the end of the TV series to play Nero Wolfe!And, of course, there's the great 1930's atmosphere in this film, something the TV series could never hope to reproduce.