|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 5, 2023 13:43:27 GMT
This neglected film is from 1942.
Unrecorded history
By mid-1942, American studios and British studios were turning out quite a few wartime propaganda films. UNPUBLISHED STORY is a noteworthy British example. Leading man Richard Greene– who started his career at age 15 (he was from a theatrical family)– had already been to Hollywood and back. At this point, he was an established box office name on both sides of the Atlantic.
When he was making films at 20th Century Fox in the late 1930s, he played more mature characters. For example, in THE LITTLE PRINCESS, he was cast as Shirley Temple’s father, though he was only nine years older than her! Greene probably would have continued his career at Fox if not for the war, though he did return to Hollywood in the postwar period. But since he was unable to enlist in the military in the U.S. or in Canada, he went back to his native Britain in 1941 to join up with the Lancers, an army regiment.
During his time with the Lancers, Greene would occasionally be given leave to make films in London. These were usually flag waivers that helped boost the morale of movie goers. In 1942, he starred in UNPUBLISHED STORY with Valerie Hobson, in what may be seen as a variation of Hitchcock’s FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT.
Both Greene and Hobson are reporters for a fictional London newspaper whose attempts to write about the war are often censored by the boss, for different reasons. In Hobson’s case, it is because she’s a woman who is supposed to be sticking to a column about fashion; and in Greene’s case, it is because he has found out about a Nazi group that could pose a danger to national security.
Of course, Hobson teams up with Greene behind their editor’s back, since she is still angling for her own glory and a chance to report something more meaningful than the season’s newest dresses. Part of the duo’s work undercover has them joining a pacifist group run by Nazis whose goal is to instill anti-war sentiment among the British people, so that Britain will be politically divided and easier for the Germans to conquer. It’s an interesting theme to explore in a motion picture.
While ferreting out the Nazis, our lead characters naturally fall in love and get put into increasingly dangerous situations. Especially when the Nazis realize what they are up to in trying to expose the so-called pacifists.
It all leads to an exciting turning point, with a few betrayals along the way. The film’s title comes from the fact that Greene and Hobson are unable to publish the big story they’ve written during this time, because the war is still not over and counter-intelligence strategies depend upon keeping the Germans off-guard as things progress from here.
Greene and Hobson do a splendid job in the main roles. Greene, only 24 at this stage, is playing a character closer to his actual age for a change. As always, he has a nice way of delivering his lines, combining authoritarian qualities with sarcasm. Whereas Hobson excels at playing an early feminist type character who is eager to go outside her normal comfort zone to make a difference.
UNPUBLISHED STORY was produced by Hobson’s husband Anthony Havelock-Allan. Together they would go on to make several more highly regarded features...including BLANCHE FURY (1948).
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 15, 2023 16:00:57 GMT
This neglected film is from 1936.
The latest production of Othello
This is a film with a fundamentally sound premise. But unfortunately, it has too many flaws to be considered a classic. Some of the individual performances are great…especially the ones rendered by the two leading ladies, Miriam Hopkins and Gertrude Lawrence.
Miss Hopkins appears on a loan out from Sam Goldwyn, traveling across the pond to work on what would be her only British motion picture. No explanation is given why a gal with a Georgia accent is living in London and employed as a secretary at a newspaper office.
While socializing with a colleague (Rex Harrison), it is her job to type up the latest reviews of the plays that are premiering in the city. These reviews are written by her boss, a stuffy drama critic (A.E. Matthews) who delights in tearing actors to shreds.
Hopkins ends up rewriting Matthews’ latest diatribe, a scathing tirade about a new production of Shakespeare’s Othello. This is because she’s been approached by the actress wife (Lawrence) of the lead actor (Sebastian Shaw) to intervene, and help prevent the play from becoming a flop.
Hopkins goes to see the play herself and soon becomes smitten with Shaw. She gets drawn into an unusual triangle with the actor and his wife. It’s kind of a lopsided farce that has a novel angle– behind the scenes of the play, life is the opposite of what occurs in the play. On stage Othello is jealous of Desdemona, but off stage the wife who plays Desdemona, is the jealous one.
While Hopkins deals with this situation and its increasing intensity, she occasionally bumps into Harrison. He’s sweet on her, but she doesn’t seem to have much time for him.
He looks on while her infatuation with the Shakespearean actor turns into a full-blown affair. Mr. Harrison makes the most of his screen time, but his character is not at all a part of the story’s resolution. This means he doesn’t win the girl in the end.
Hopkins has above-the-title billing and she gets the most important moments. She goes from naive and lovestruck to adulteress, then finally to flat out hysterical. She must have realized the unevenness of the script and wisely chooses to turn her character into a caricature rather than a flesh and blood person. We can at least be entertained by her despite the illogical aspects of the writing and direction.
The writing would have been better if the guy playing Othello had been foreshadowed as having a hint of instability. It is unrealistic that he suddenly goes mad in the last act while performing before a packed theater. Ronald Colman provides a much better interpretation of this in A DOUBLE LIFE (1947).
What does work for me is the fairly muted idea that an outside person, Hopkins’ character, can have an effect on what happens between performers who exist in an alternate reality. She becomes a force in their specific melodrama, exceeding the limitations of the proscenium arch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 15, 2023 16:20:24 GMT
...What does work for me is the fairly muted idea that an outside person, Hopkins’ character, can have an effect on what happens between performers who exist in an alternate reality. She becomes a force in their specific melodrama, exceeding the limitations of the proscenium arch. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 23, 2023 7:19:32 GMT
This neglected film is from 1955.
All for love
The title character Mary is a beautiful attraction, but she is not the central focus. Mostly she just sets up the story, then reappears to remind viewers what the two male leads are competing over. Mary is played by Jill Day, a performer who had success as a pop singer.
Miss Day had only been in one feature prior to this, and in that earlier production she did a specialty number. So technically, this is her first major role in a motion picture. It seems as if she’s been hired for her looks and her ability to croon a tune, since she has a musical number here too.
The lead male characters couldn’t be more different from her, or from each other. But this discrepancy is undoubtedly intentional and gives the film much of its surreal charm. Nigel Patrick, who typically excels in dramatic parts, is cast as a blowhard sportsman who’s vacationing at a Swiss chalet. When he meets Miss Day, he falls for her and decides she will be his latest game. However, a few obstacles get in the way. More on that in a moment…
The other male lead is played by David Tomlinson, who usually handles comedic roles. Tomlinson is cast as a rather meek guy, also staying at the Alpine resort, who falls for Miss Day too. He probably wouldn’t stand a chance of getting the gal, except fate intervenes in a most peculiar fashion.
This is when both men suddenly come down with a case of the chicken pox. They are contagious and must be kept away from guests who haven’t had the disease before. They are quickly moved into a secluded suite under quarantine together. Of course, the men dislike each other intensely and both intend to get well as soon as is humanly possible, to resume their respective pursuits of Miss Day.
But Tomlinson has an advantage. He summons his old childhood governess, called Nannie, to come nurse him back to health. She will help keep Patrick at a disadvantage in the pulchritude sweepstakes and work her magic to convince Day to choose Tomlinson.
The scenes were Nannie turns up at the inn and takes over are uproarious. A role like this has to be played by only the most skilled comedic actress. And since the producers have brought in eccentric Kathleen Harrison as Nannie, they’ve snagged one of the best.
Miss Harrison is so funny, so memorable with all her line deliveries, that she steals the picture. In addition to the antics, she provides a tender melancholy portrayal. We come to understand that Nannie thrives when she is feeling useful…she likes helping people and doesn’t want this time to end.
Ironically, David Tomlinson would interact with another caregiver later, in the form of Mary Poppins. This movie is a pleasure to watch, and I am itching to see it again. Scratch that, I will re-watch it right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 6, 2023 7:03:52 GMT
This neglected film is from 1949.
Nothing less than masterful
Some performances are so good they’re nothing less than masterful. Claude Rains gives such a performance in this film. It works on more than one level– as an actor connecting with his audience; as an actor following through on what the director and screenwriter intends; and as an actor to be watched by other actors (to see how it can be done).
The film shares similarities with David Lean’s earlier romance drama BRIEF ENCOUNTER. Both productions feature Trevor Howard as the “ideal” lover. Here he’s the heart’s desire of a woman played by Ann Todd (Lean’s real life wife), but she is married to Rains. It’s a triangle with all the usual complications, but not one with a predetermined outcome. Nor is it one that suggests Howard and Todd are the central focus, while Rains is made to play the jealous husband in the background.
In fact, it is very much Rains’ picture, with the other two contemplating each other in ways that their fantasy may have a profound, real effect on Rains. Eric Ambler’s screenplay, based on a story by H.G. Wells, makes them all human and Rains just as much a part of the action and the outcome as he should be.
There are several flashbacks that recount the story of how Todd knows Howard, revealing why she may have loved Howard or thought she loved him, but really loves Rains more. Rains is put through torturous paces when he finds himself turning to mush around his potentially adulterous wife– a kind of sentimentality and devotion he assumed he was beyond. But while things may seem to spin out of control, there is a smoothness and an assuredness that these are adults who can figure it all out in the end.
Though the film does lead to a sensible romantic conclusion, it keeps pulling us back into a fantasy world with Todd’s character. Her daydreams and her friendship with Howard always seem to signify more, as if she’s on the cusp of experiencing something greater and deeper.
By the time she realizes what a mess she’s made of everything– how she’s put her marriage to Rains in jeopardy as well as Howard’s marriage to his wife– she tries to do what is right for each person concerned. In the process, she reaches a near-tragic point, where she is brought back to reality by what she really wanted and needed from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 6, 2023 12:50:13 GMT
I love the movie "The Passionate Friends" and the H.G. Welles book it is based upon.
I enjoyed reading your take on the picture, which has me wanting to see it again. But to be honest, I'm always ready to see this movie.
It's quite an auspicious combination for a movie - Welles source material, Lean directing and Rains, Todd and Howard starring. It's like someone in 1949 crawled into future me's head and made a movie. Plus, my brain goes into a dream-like state whenever I see beautiful Ann Todd.
My comments from several years ago on the movie here: "The Passionate Friends"
My comments from several years ago on the book here: "The Passionate Friends"
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 15, 2023 14:27:07 GMT
This neglected film is from 1938.
Becoming a better human being
I’ve tried to figure out why this story remains a perennial favorite. I doubt many of today’s viewers have read the Greek myth of Pygmalion…or that they have even seen George Bernard Shaw’s play from 1913. The 1938 British screen adaptation of the play was a hit in its day, and it paved the way for the popular musical version.
Maybe we don’t need to know why a story like this is successful, though I suspect at its core, it has something to do with the whole notion of making someone over. In this case, the main female character Eliza Doolittle (Wendy Hiller) is made over from a gutter snipe into a lady. She goes from one extreme to the other, and her highly dramatic metamorphosis would be just as interesting if we were to look at it in reverse.
Incidentally, the 1941 motion picture THAT HAMILTON WOMAN accomplishes the exact opposite, where Vivien Leigh’s character goes from being a woman of high class standing to a pitiful wretch living on the streets.
Here we have Wendy Hiller as the pitiable creature being pulled from the gutter and given elocution lessons by one professor Henry Higgins (Leslie Howard who also directed). She is not only taught how to speak properly but how to behave properly and dress properly.
Her transformation is, of course, fascinating to watch. You might say this is what actresses do when taking on a new character…they have to get the sound, mannerisms and look down correctly in order to convince an audience. The audience reaction testing whether Professor Higgins has succeeded in completely making over Eliza into a new person will involve the attendees at a swanky society function.
It’s shades of Cinderella going to the ball without any trace of what she was before the magic wand was waved and she hopped into the carriage. Fortunately for Henry and his pal Colonel Pickering (Scott Sunderland) with whom he has placed a bet, Eliza manages to impress others the way she has been trained to impress them. In fact she causes quite a stir.
It occurs to me watching the film that there is an undercurrent of sexism in the story. Did the Greek myth have that element of sexism in it? The main idea is that a woman cannot be someone without a man, and that she cannot criticize the man who is already a higher species.
I do think Shaw’s slant on the material would have been better if there was a revised final act where Eliza, now exalted, is the one who has to transform Henry into becoming a better human being. So that his saving her or pulling her up, results in her saving him and her pulling him up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on May 15, 2023 15:01:38 GMT
This is a great point, "So that his saving her or pulling her up, results in her saving him and her pulling him up." I think there is a touch of this in the story as Howard does learn, a tiny bit, to be nicer to people and that he needs people in his life, but not much. Had they done what you said would have made for a much-more satisfying ending.
Pygmalion from 1938 with Wendy Hiller, Leslie Howard and Scott Sunderland
I stayed away from Pygmalion because I was turned off a bit by My Fair Lady, Pygmalion's 1964 musical remake with Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn. That's a shame as 1938's Pygmalion is smart, witty and charming in all the ways that the remake, often, isn't.
In early 1900s London, a professor of linguistics, played by Leslie Howard, bets a friend he can take a "low-class" cockneyed "flower girl" (she crudely hawks flowers on the street), played by Wendy Hiller, and, with three months of training, pass her off as a well-bred society lady.
Howard blithely and snobbishly treats Hiller like a lab rat as he takes her into his townhouse and puts her through an intense training in diction and etiquette. The early fun in this one is watching these two worlds smashing into each: Howard's intellectual aloofness trying to reason with Hiller's brassy defensiveness.
Also fun is a pitch-perfect scene when Hiller's crude but street-smart father tries to bargain some money out of the refined and condescending Howard over who gets to "keep" Hiller. They both know they're playing and being played and they're both enjoying it. Hiller's father has none of Howard's education, but he knows how to negotiate a deal as well as Howard does.
The story really hits its stride later when a partially trained Hiller is taken for a dry run at Howard's mother's very proper society tea. Here, a nervous Hiller, in over-studied diction, utters memorized expressions at just slightly the wrong point in the conversation. It leaves everyone confused, but too polite to say anything.
In moments like that, Pygmalion is Hiller's movie, as her transformation is joyous but very believable because a bit of "the street" stays with her. She's an actress who completely understands, and is having fun playing her character.
Then Howard takes control of a scene as her mentor with his bemused detachment from real life and you quickly realize no one owns this movie as each performer gives that extra something talented actors bring to those special roles. Howard and Hiller, perfectly matched antagonists, are having a hoot playing opposite each other.
After the piquant tea and, now, back at Howard's townhouse, Hiller and he prepare for the night of the big test - a diplomatic reception. After a few close calls, Hiller sails through the night leaving Howard high on success when they get home. Hiller, though now secretly in love with Howard, is depressed knowing he no longer has any use for her.
From here, the movie slips into basic rom-com mode where it takes Hiller leaving and dating another man for Howard to realize his true feelings for her. The climax pivots on whether Howard can now act in time to get Hiller back.
Despite the slapped-on Hollywood ending, Pygmalion is a fun twist on the opposites-attracts story as these two "opposites," effectively teach the other to be less opposite and more human.
Pygmalion is also a subversive commentary on the British class system as it says anyone can be a lady or gentleman with training. America's meritocracy is even referenced as a counterpoint to England's early-1900s rigid social-and-class structure. To truly appreciate Pygmalion, though, it's better to let that high-brow philosophy stuff float by and just enjoy the fun story and charming characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 25, 2023 15:13:48 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
Bogarde and Whiteley
Dirk Bogarde had a long and varied career as an actor. In the later years of his life, he reflected on his screen roles and said HUNTED was his personal favorite of all the motion pictures he made. It’s easy to see why it was such a special experience for him.
All of Bogarde’s most important scenes in the movie occur with young Jon Whiteley, who was six years old at the time. Whiteley was a novice in the moviemaking business, but he was clearly a natural and would be awarded a Juvenile Oscar in 1954.
On screen the relationship between their characters evolves considerably. At first, Bogarde is a bit rough with Whiteley (not unlike the boy’s abusive adoptive father). But gradually Bogarde softens.
Bogarde plays a violent killer who is on the lam from the police. He crosses paths with a lost boy (Whiteley) in the street and is moved to help him. They wind up running away together.
Nobody they meet seems to suspect them of being runaways. But things get dicey when Bogarde’s picture as a wanted man makes the front page of the newspaper. They don’t stay in one place very long, since Bogarde is paranoid about the police catching up.
They are two lost souls traveling the countryside together. Though they are of different ages, they develop an unusual support system for each other.
Society in late 1951 when this movie was filmed, was obviously very different from society today. It would be a tough sell to make this picture now…people might assume Bogarde’s character is holding on to the boy for sexual reasons. It probably wouldn’t seem so innocent.
One of the main themes in HUNTED is postwar poverty. Director Charles Crichton seems to have been influenced by Italian neorealism. The story conveys a sense of gritty realism and there’s very little sentimentality, except in a few key scenes. Whiteley’s character doesn’t smile until halfway into the movie. Then he gets sick, so his sunny disposition doesn’t last.
The scenes at the end are particularly effective– the part where Bogarde decides to stop living as a fugitive, and he carries the sick boy off for help.
The long tracking shot where he brings Whiteley up from a boat they’ve been hiding on is certainly memorable. A crowd of spectators looks on and the police show up along the docks. We know Bogarde will hand the boy over to them. We also know Bogarde will be arrested and go back to stand trial.
A few plot points are left unresolved– will the boy go back to live with his adoptive parents where he had been abused, or will he be placed in a new home? Also what will happen to Bogarde, since his problems with the law are enormous. Will he be sentenced to die? It’s an interesting movie that leaves us with a lot to consider.
Mostly, it causes us to think about how two people might be able to help each other during a mutually difficult period in their lives, when everything is tumultuous and needs sorting out. They form a strong bond they will always remember.
When I sent an email to Jon Whiteley a few years ago and asked him about his movie career, I got the feeling he still thought highly of Dirk Bogarde. For a time, they had shared part of the same cinematic journey together. If you watch HUNTED and find it an interesting film, seek out THE LITTLE KIDNAPPERS (1953) which earned Whiteley his Oscar…and also take a look at THE SPANISH GARDENER (1956) since it once again reunited him with Mr. Bogarde on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 4, 2023 14:08:05 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Waiting to live, waiting to die
Without having already seen the movie or having read what it’s about, an astute viewer can easily guess which characters will remain trapped in the submarine when this British naval flick ends. Mostly because the storytellers focus on only a few of the men at the beginning, showing them interact with their wives and other assorted loved ones.
The early domestic scenes depict how relatively happy they are, balancing home life with a career at sea. They will “survive” longest on screen, because when the bulk of the story takes place on the sub, they are the characters who get most of the dialogue and screen time.
I think it would have been better if one of the top name stars left the story halfway through the picture, as one of the men who escaped death. To ensure adequate screen time, he could have gone up during the initial rescue efforts, then remained on board the other ship when efforts had to be abandoned later due to the weather. Then, we would have seen what it was like for one man to face grave danger, escape, but then deal with losing his coworkers at the end.
The way it is told, we only get reaction shots from the rescue crew. They are such negligible characters with no real emotional connection to the ones who’ll die, that the film loses some of its power in the last part.
We do get a sense of who the men are that remain inside the sub; we get an overall idea of who they are as men; and we come to know their limitations as well as their bravery. But the storyline is a bit too predictable, despite the stellar acting; and the grimness of the closing shot is almost heavy-handed. To balance out the morbid ending, there should have been one whose story we followed all the way through, that made it to the other side as a survivor.
The actor who steers the drama is John Mills, who turns in one of his best performances. He is cast as the lieutenant commander who must make difficult decisions, and nobody envies what he has to do. After their sub is damaged by an exploding magnetic mine they’ve run across, Mills must take decisive action to protect the crew who weren’t immediately killed and are now hunkered down in airtight quarters.
While waiting for help, one important decision is which men should leave the sub first. Mills doesn’t give orders or take any volunteers. Instead he asks the men to draw cards, aces high, to determine who goes and who stays. During these scenes, there is fine acting by Mr. Mills’ costar Richard Attenborough who portrays a stoker with mental issues. Attenborough draws a low card and is not allowed to leave, which triggers an outburst from him. He is quickly subdued, though he is now considered a threat to everyone.
As the story continues, Attenborough redeems himself by helping a first lieutenant (Nigel Patrick) who is suffering from recurring malaria and has trouble breathing in the confined quarters. Patrick’s illness brings out the nurse maid in Attenborough which gives Attenborough a renewed sense of purpose. The writing doesn’t exactly head into homoerotic territory, but Attenborough spends a lot of time touching and tending Patrick, revealing a strong bond between the two men.
During the scenes that follow, they all demonstrate patience while the rescue crew works to save them. Attenborough and Patrick bond not only with each other, but also with Mills, as well as the other man still down there– a low-class seaman (James Hayter) who provides some needed comic relief. During moments when they eat, drink and deal cards, the four men learn more about each others’ respective backgrounds. When Patrick dies, they try to put what’s happened into perspective.
The film’s screenplay is based on a hit play that was filmed by the BBC for television in the late 1940s, when television was still a new entertainment medium. MORNING DEPARTURE was a hit on stage, a hit on TV, and an even bigger hit in movie theaters. Director Roy Ward Baker had previously collaborated with John Mills on the classic noir THE OCTOBER MAN in 1947; Baker would direct Mills a few more times in the 1960s, as well as for a TV movie in the 1980s. But despite this being for all intents and purposes a John Mills film, a lot of the best bits belong to Richard Attenborough who is allowed to develop his character more than Mills and the others.
The final scene is a somber one. The three “survivors” realize it is Sunday morning. Mills reads aloud from a prayer book. Sitting together in the confined, claustrophobic space they inhabit together, they realize that rescue efforts have completely stopped due to bad weather. They are now living the last moments of their lives. There is nothing really hopeful as the camera pulls back and the image blurs into a memory. But we are expected to admire their courage and stoic attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 4, 2023 15:59:51 GMT
Howard was a loss - a very talented actor and filmmaker. Plus, while a bit of a rapscallion with the ladies, he seems like a good guy otherwise. He's one of the few actors for whom I will watch a movie simply because he's in it.
There is a similar sounding movie, "Millions Like Us" (comments here: "Millions Like Us" ), that was produced the same year.
I know I'm late to this party but kudos for working the word "rapscallion" in here. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jun 4, 2023 17:05:11 GMT
Reviews for British films will be placed here.
 Late to the proverbial party here as well, I like your representative image choice here, TopBilled. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 4, 2023 17:30:43 GMT
Reviews for British films will be placed here.
Late to the proverbial party here as well, I like your representative image choice here, TopBilled. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jun 4, 2023 22:08:25 GMT
Late to the proverbial party here as well, I like your representative image choice here, TopBilled. Still, an excellent choice, TopBilled. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 20, 2023 13:08:14 GMT
This neglected film is from 1959.
Girl comes of age
TIGER BAY provided Hayley Mills with her first major role in a motion picture. Initially, we glimpse her fighting with a bunch of boys in the streets of a seaside town. She’s not like other girls her age. She’s tough! The character softens considerably later in the story, but in the beginning she’s certainly a tomboy.
I think screenwriter/producer John Hawkesworth does a good job establishing the character. Her aunt (Megs Jenkins) says right up front that girls wanting to play with bombs and wanting to dress up like gangsters are a disgrace. We also learn she’s a thief and a compulsive liar. Plus a neighbor calls her a little devil.
She’s what we’d call unruly, and she’s what we’d call a latchkey child. She has no parents, just the aunt she lives with, and there’s very little supervision. Yet we instantly like her, and so does a killer (Horst Buchholz) who crosses paths with her. I am not sure if what people feel for her is sympathy for the devil or if there is something genuinely good in her, despite her circumstances and rough exterior.
The murder scene that occurs a few minutes into the film is important for a variety of reasons. She hears a fight on the stairway of her rundown apartment building; goes up and peaks through a mail slot and gets a view of Buchholz quarreling with his unfaithful girlfriend (Yvonne Mitchell). Voices are raised. Buchholz grabs a gun and fires.
The shooting and subsequent death seem to happen rather quickly. We’re observing this crime, first-person, along with Miss Mills. The editing of the murder scene feels like something in a Hitchcock film. The images of her eyes and the gun, as well as the killer’s face when he realizes someone is out in the hall– are all very memorable.
The gunshot is mistaken for the sound of her little bombs, which explains why tenants do not seem to notice at first that a neighbor has been shot and killed. The girl tries to run off, but suddenly wants to get the gun, when she is discovered by Buchholz.
In some ways this film reminds me of THE WINDOW (1949)…where we have young Bobby Driscoll witnessing a murder but nobody believes him since he is a chronic liar. Hayley Mills in this film is also a liar, but the key difference is that she’s lying to cover up the crime.
Hawkesworth and director J. Lee Thompson manage to draw us into the story, despite the unsympathetic nature of the main characters. As Miss Mills becomes attached to Buchholz, we get caught up in their blossoming friendship. Though I did wonder why she wanted the gun. Did she plan to use it? Also, why did she want to protect a killer without really knowing him?
Ultimately, I chalked this up to her being attracted to him and liking him…that he was her first real crush, despite these circumstances.
She ends up taking the gun with her to church, where she sings in the choir. Then she gives another kid one of the bullets from the gun (without anyone seeing this).
A short time afterward, Buchholz shows up, since he intends to get the murder weapon back. After the others have left, he corners her in a dark storage area. He is able to reclaim the gun from her, then takes a moment to pray.
This is followed by her wanting to go to sea with him, since he’s a sailor. She has a strange desire to work on a ship with him. It’s all highly improbable, but it works as black comedy though there is a serious murder investigation going on.
TIGER BAY was Horst Buchholz’s first English language film, and I think he did rather well with an offbeat role. He conveys the necessary hardness for a guy of this type, but also injects the character with tenderness at key intervals. As a result, we get an unusual rendering of a murderer.
There’s an interesting scene where he almost considers pushing Miss Mills off a boat and into the water. In a way this foreshadows the sequence at the end when she falls off the side of a ship, and he saves her life (which costs him his freedom). It is almost as if there’s something sweet about her demeanor which causes him to do right by her. Even the inspector (John Mills, real-life father of Hayley Mills), has to acknowledge this close bond at the end of the movie.
The inspector gives a speech where he tries to get her to tell the truth about everything, about how she witnessed Buchholz kill someone. He explains to her the difference between lies that prove loyalty and lies that are wicked and allow an unjust person to go free. Yet she is still fiercely loyal to Buchholz. It’s not your ordinary story about a girl coming of age.
|
|
