Face of the Frog



AKA: Der Frosch mit der Maske

Scotland Yard is knee-deep in a very troublesome case. For years now they’ve been trying to track down the leader of a mysterious criminal organization known only as “The Frog”. But with no leads and little to show for their years of effort, the public is quickly losing their faith and patience with the police force and their inability to catch the leader. And now things are about to get more complicated. The gang usually focuses on large targets, like stealing large sums of money from banks or businesses, or even breaking into the safes of rich homeowners. But now The Frog seems to have set his sights on a singular person, one Ella Bennet, and no one can seem to figure out why. Even worse, The Frog doesn’t seem to care who he has to go through in order to get to her either, including harming her aimless younger brother, Ray, whom the organization tricks into aiding them in one of their heists. With the stakes growing ever higher, Scotland Yard’s clever Inspector Elk must rely on his wits and the help of amateur detective Richard Gordon to help him solve this puzzling case.



Face of the Frog is a West German/Danish crime drama from 1959, and was the first in a series of Edgar Wallace book adaptations that ran from 1959 through 1972. Known popularly as “Krimis”, the movies would become influential for containing ideas that would, at least in part, inspire familiar motifs in other popular genres, perhaps most notably 60’s spy thrillers and Italian giallo films. So, similarly to my previously viewed College Girl Murders, if you enjoy those genres then you can expect to see several familiar ideas featured here, such as creepy and highly questionable motives on behalf of the killer, flamboyant villains, the occasional gaudy outfit, lots of people wearing gloves (black and otherwise), and of course a strong emphasis on the ‘whodunit’ aspect. So historically speaking, the films are significant and, thankfully, most of them are also fairly entertaining, considering they were made pretty inexpensively.



Overall, I honestly have very little to complain about, as this film, the one that started it all, apparently, is actually a very solidly put together little outing. As it’s in black and white, there is a high emphasis on lighting and contrast, so you can always see everything quite clearly. The cinematography is good, and occasionally even excellent. The choreography feels a bit simple, but is shot in such a variety of creative angles that they end up looking more engaging than they might be otherwise. My only real qualms are that some of the establishing shots look like they were shot on ‘lesser’ film stock, as they don’t always quite mesh with the rest of the picture, and that a couple of the actors weren’t up to par with the rest of the cast (the dub I watched was fine, though.) Oh! And I often thought that parts of the soundtrack felt a little out of place. But that may well have just been me though.



The one thing that did sort of irk me about the film was how…. Not convoluted, because it is easy to follow and all of the questions do get answered by the end. But perhaps just a touch needlessly confusing, simply because of the way the filmmakers decided to frame parts of the story.



And mostly this centers around Richard Gordon’s involvement in the narrative, because the movie doesn’t bother fully explaining what the hell he’s doing, or WHY he’s doing it, until literally the last few minutes of the film. So if you skimmed the explanation in almost all of the film’s summaries online and missed the part that clearly states that he’s the nephew of the head of Scotland Yard and that he’s just helping out because he’s rich and bored (it also frequently mentions that he’s a ‘playboy’ but I saw no outwards signs of that), then you have no earthly idea what this fool is doing for most of the film. Because he’s introduced in a way that almost feels like the film already expects you to know who he is, since he pretty much just randomly shows up with his butler and starts looking for clues. Almost like this is a sequel to something and you should already know who they are. But this isn’t a sequel to another movie. The book it’s based on IS the sequel to Wallace’s first book, The Nine Bears, but the main connecting character in those two stories is Inspector Elk. Gordon and his butler, James, were made up entirely for this film. So they have no backstory, nor a proper introduction to either of them. So you’re just sorta given his name and the name of his butler and then you spend 90% of the movie wondering “who the %$&* is this Batman wannabe and why the hell is he involved in any of this?” It’s kinda weird.



Other than that narrative oddity though, Face of the Frog is a fine little film if you’re interested in crime dramas. It’s engaging, easy enough to follow, and answers all your questions by the end. Well, almost all of them, anyway. I still don’t know why the villain went with a frog motif, or why his mask was so crappy looking if he supposedly had so much money at his disposal. But I guess those weren’t really pertinent to the story. The important thing is that this is a good crime drama and it had enough frogs to fit into my theme for the month, so I am content. And if you enjoy such crime dramas, then you very well may be too.

Face of the Frog is available on a variety of streaming services.

Face of the Frog is also available on DVD in certain territories as part of the Edgar Wallace Collection, but they are long out of print

Helpful Links: