CANDLES AT NINE

UK, 1944, 75 minutes, Black and white.
Jessie Matthews, Elliot Makeham, Beatrix Lehmann, John Salew, Joss Ambler, Vera Bogetti, Andre van Gyseghem, Winifred Shotter, Reginald Purdell, Hugh Dempster, Patricia Hayes.
Directed by John Harlow.

This is a British curiosity item, a supporting feature from England in World War II. Whether it will satisfy curiosity is another matter…

The film is basically a star vehicle for Jessie Matthews, so celebrated in British films of the 1930s, the romantic lead, with touches of comedy, and a song and dance star. She enters the film rather later but does have a musical number to introduce her.

The basis of the film is one of those where there’s a will, there are relatives… An eccentric old man gathers his family around him. He is cantankerous, is later revealed to have been a murderer of his brother. But he is wealthy – and dies. There is a gathering of the relatives plus his housekeeper and butler who are expecting legacies.

The special news is that he has left all his money to a young dancer, the Jessie Matthews character. She is surprised, has no great desire for the money, has a life of her own, and ambitions for singing and dancing. However, she is persuaded by the relatives to join them at the house – which is an opportunity for the expected areas to display their characters, their limitations, some sinister touches. The unexpected heiress is all charm – that she does have a comedy scene where she is persuaded to drink too much, with expected consequences.

However, the sinister touches are more with the housekeeper, Beatrix Lehmann, a sinister schemer on screen if ever there was one, aided and abetted by the butler.

On the other hand, there are two brothers, who seem to complement each other, a kind of Tweedledum and Tweedledee who may have been funny at the time but are not so funny later.

Evil schemes afoot, plans going wrong, villains unmasked and all’s well that ends well.

The director, John Harlow, began work on silent films in 1928 and continued making small-budget features until the mid-1950s.

SIVAS

Germany/ Turkey, 2014, 97 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kaan Mujdeci.

Very mixed reactions to this film.

On the one hand, it was screened at many festivals to some acclaim and was Turkey’s nomination for consideration for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar of 2014.

On the other hand, the characters and plot have a certain savagery about them which was alienating to many audiences.

The setting is in the countryside of Turkey, not very attractive in itself, hills and plains, farms and small villages. There are poor homes as well as the local school.

In this context, the film shows the children at home and at school, some rivalry, some bullying, some friendships. One of the key episodes involves who will play Prince Charming rather than the seven dwarfs in the performance of Snow White.

However, the focus is on one of the boys, his life at home, clashes with his brother, rivalry with other boys but, especially, his finding a dog, Sivas, who has been brought to fight in local dog clashes. The dog is abandoned but the little boy fosters him, brings him home and cares for him.

The father is critical. The older brother is an opportunist and wants to sell him after the dog’s success in fights. The little boy is very protective.

Other fights are arranged and graphically filmed, the dog finally winning out and bonding once more with the young boy.

The people in this story are quite fierce in themselves and in their relationship with others, in their work on farms, with horses and abandoned horses and, especially, with the dogs.

The English subtitles are particularly crass and crude, putting all kinds of swearing into the mouth of most of the characters and, most especially, the young boy.

INSIDE MEN/ NAE-BU-JA-DEUL

Korea, 2016, 130 minutes, Colour.
Byung-hun Lee, Seung-woo Cho.
Directed by Min-ho Woo.

Inside Men is very interesting in the themes but for those outside Korea, rather difficult to follow.

It is a film about political corruption – a bit prophetic in so far as in 2017 the president of Korea was found guilty of corruption and activities exposed.

The film opens with a speech condemning candidates for elections by a man who raises his artificial hand to the crowd. The film then goes back two years, showing that this man was working for Korean gangsters and politicians, was betrayed and had his hand sawn off. Full of resentment, he survived the attack on him and began scheming against his enemies, even while he is in prison.

The candidates for election are older, very comfortably off, presumptuous in their authority and power. Also in the mix is a significant journalist who works for candidates and participates in their wealthy way of life – including sex parties which are filmed and later distributed on social media.

Also in the mix is an earnest young man, a prosecutor. In contact with the gangster in prison, they plan to bring down the candidates, the young prosecutor infiltrating the power groups and finally exposing them.

There have been many Korean films about political corruption, raising the consciousness of the Korean audience about abuse of power.

BAD EGGS

Australia, 2003, 98 minutes, Colour.
Mick Molloy, Bob Franklin, Judith Lucy, Alan Brough, Bill Hunter, Marshall Napier, Steven Vidler, Nicholas Bell, Shaun Micaleff, Robyn Nevin, Dennis Moore.
Directed by Tony Martin.

Bad Eggs is an entertaining comedy, Melbourne and Victorian comedy with reference to politics and the police at the beginning of the 21st century.

It was written and directed by comedian, originally from New Zealand, Tony Martin.

Mick Molloy and Bob Franklin had successful comedy careers, especially in television. The same is true of Judith Lucy. The supporting cast has a number of strong character actors – including Shaun Micaleff, who had written many comedy productions, wrote a number of television crime films and had great success with political satire, Mad as Hell. There is also a very humorous turn from Robyn Nevin.

The film starts with some ridicule of police who are accused of being bad eggs. However, despite their moments of dumb and dumber, they eventually work out what was happening, unmask a political conspiracy led by the Premier, Shaun Micaleff, who is hypocritical and leads the Family First party, and is in league with the police chief, played with his effective bumptiousness by Bill Hunter. Nicholas Bell is also good as his sinister associate.

There are a lot of humorous turns on the characterisation but also in the verbal comedy and the range of satire and spoof.

1. An Australian comedy, comics style and characters?

2. The Melbourne settings, landmarks, police officers, parliament, streets, homes? Victoria and the early 21st century?

3. The title, the reference to types to spoil situations? For the police? The irony of who was hero and who was villain?

4. The Australian humour, characters, dialogue and wit, satire, and the parallels with actual characters?

5. Mike and Ben, the slapstick opening, the car, the dead man, going downhill, through the more, the raffle car, the police shooting, the man dead already? And the collage of Tribune articles denouncing Mike and Ben?

6. Mike and Ben as characters, dumb – yet? Mike and his wife, the relationship, the jokes about Tantric sex? Ben, relationship with Julie, memories of the past? The special squad instituted by the Premier to attack corruption? Years of work? The Gillespie and his responsibilities, tolerant of Mike and Ben, but being killed? And the jokes about Mike and his accident on Most Wanted? Ben, the work, the role of the Premier? Ted Pratt as the boss? Political and financial corruption in the state?

7. The situation, the casino owner, gambling interests, payments to the politicians, the role of the Premier, the irony of his campaign of Family First? Ted Pratt, in hospital, out, his special squad, Wicks as his special adviser and hitman? The investigation? Wicks and his shooting the officer and Doug Gillespie? The framing, the pursuit?

8. Julie, the background, the arrest, her career, the flashbacks and the training, the relationship with Ben? Suspicions, being held? With Ben and Mike, the connections? The truth? Her being taken, held as hostage?

9. The dead man’s wife, Mike and Ben, the interrogation, the fire, the destruction of her house? The headlines? Making contact, her decision, the phone call and her dramatic performance?

10. Mike and Ben, the setup, the taping of Wicks? Getting out of the house, Wicks and the blowing up of the house? The car pursuit?

11. Mike and Ben, disguise, going to parliament, accosting the Premier, the accusations, giving him the grenade, getting out, the encounter with the casino lobbyist, going to the Calder Highway, the two bands, the buildup to the confrontation, the exchange of Julie and the Premier, the sign on the Premier, Julie getting the gun and reversing the situation?

12. Everybody arrested? The Tribune and the condemnation of Ben, now making him the hero?

13. The aftermath, Mike and his wife, Julie and Ben dancing?

14. Australian humour, the blend of the real, the ironic, the spoof?

A NIGHT FOR CRIME

US, 1943, 68 minutes, Black and white.
Glenda Farrell, Lyle Talbot, Ralph Sanford, Lina Basquette, Donald Kirke.
Directed by Alexis Thurn Taxis.

A slight film for its time, a supporting feature during World War II noting the situation in Los Angeles especially with the blackout.

The film is a pleasant star vehicle for Glenda Farrell, character actress at Warner Brothers during the 1930s and the star of the series, Torchy Blaine. Lyle Talbot is a standby stalwart for hero.

During the blackout, there is a scream and a murder, with Susan Cooper, Farrell, a newspaper reporter and solver of mysteries, with Talbot, advertising man and promotions to a Hollywood studio. A starlet has been killed.

The film follows the investigation of the crime, the chief of police being sensible and extraordinarily tolerant of his assistant, Hoffman (Ralph Sanford) who would have to be one of the dumbest and intrusive police officers, drawing instant conclusions from lack of evidence!

In the meantime, the head of the studio finds that his star has disappeared and he has invested a lot of money in a production. He then disappears and brings back footage from allegedly older films with his star. Susan and Powell look at the footage with Susan recognising Reno and everybody making their way there.

There are other murders and attempted killing of both Susan and Joe. The only real possible suspect is the film star’s chauffeur – and he is. And, the screenplay pulls the old trick at the end of the star having a mad twin sister. And Susan solves the case.

NO MAN'S WOMAN

US, 1955, 70 minutes, Black and white.
Marie Windsor, John Archer, Patric Knowles, Nancy Gates, Jil Jarman, Richard Crane, Louis Jean Heydt.
Directed by Franklin Andreon.

This is a brief supporting feature from Republic Studios in the 1950s. It is reminiscent of episodes of television series both then and in the future.

The situation is created, the focus on a selfish woman who manipulates men – and makes her out to be extremely murdererable, the audience sympathetic to her being got rid of!

Marie Windsor is expert at this kind of role. We see her reactions with a range of men and then, her murder.

There are six suspects: her former husband whom she refuses to divorce and makes demands for alimony and cash payments, his father who wants his son to be rid of her, the new girlfriend whom the son wants to marry. There is also an art expert who works in collusion with the woman, helping her with art acquisitions and writing them up in his newspaper column, the young assistant who is engaged to a young man with a small yacht.

The femme fatale antagonises the husband, his father, the potential fiancee, attempts to seduce the man with the boat, causing a quarrel with his girlfriend – and there is always the journalist.

1. Entertaining murder mystery? Plenty of suspects? And even the audience wanting Carolyn dead?

2. The luxury settings, mansions, art studios, Laguna Beach and the ocean? Police precincts? Apartments? The musical score?

3. The title, the tone, the focus on Carolyn and her independence? The men in her life? Manipulation and use?

4. The portrait of Carolyn, Marie Windsor’s screen presence, seductive and sure? With Wayne, the car ride, the paintings, her art dealings? His column and his promoting of her gallery? His guidance in her purchases? Her centre, display? Betty working for her? Otto as the caretaker? Her relationship with her husband, no love, her greed, unwilling to divorce him, stipulating huge alimony and cash grant, and antagonising her husband’s father? Her attitude towards Louise? Meeting Dick, setting her I on him? Lying to Betty? Going to the marina, getting on the boat, the day with him, attempted seduction, wanting a date?

5. Grant, the situation with Carolyn, the separation, his relationship with Louise? Support of his father? Carolyn’s visit, her financial demands? His scenes with Louise? Wanting to marry? His drinking at the bar, till early in the morning, his rash remarks to the bartender? Sleeping in the car, sleeping it off?

6. Wayne, Carolyn deceiving him, his relationship with her, personal, business? Telling her he had lost his job? Blacklisted? Her callous attitude?

7. Betty, going to the marina, learning about Dick and Carolyn, leaving her ring, the breakup? Dick, his attitude towards Carolyn, upset about the return of the ring, rectifying the situation with Betty?

8. Louise and her visit and confronting Carolyn?

9. The murder sequence, the key, entry, Carolyn the stairs, the shooting, the breaking of the glass?

10. Otto, discovering the body, discussions with the police? Suspicions? The various suspects?

11. The role of the detectives, the interrogation of Grant, not having an alibi, going to the bar, the bartender and his remembering the words? Motivation? His father confessing to save him?

12. Grant and Louise, packing up the artwork? Grant going to find Betty, confronting her, her lies, Dick’s arrival, finding the truth? The information about the gun?

13. Wayne, giving the information about Betty to Grant, his own motivations, having the key, going to the apartment, hiding the gun, confronting Louise, her trying to ring the police, the gun, Grant’s arrival? Wayne holding Louise hostage with the gun? The arrival of the police?

14. The brief and routine murder mystery – but well-acted and offering a puzzle? (Not too difficult to solve.)

IT

US, 2017, 135 minutes, Colour.
Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfahrd, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Oleff, Bill Skarsgaard, Nicholas Hamilton, Owen Teague.
Directed by Andy Muschietti.

Stephen King has been publishing novels for over 40 years, an extraordinary career, considered the doyen of horror writing. He has sold millions of copies and so many of his novels and short stories have been made into television series and films.

It was made into a television series in 1990. There is an intrinsic piece of information in the film, that the murderous clown, Pennywise, and his associates appear every 27 years. So, in 2017, 27 years later, here is It again.

As most frequently with Stephen King, the setting is in his own state of Maine. So many of his stories might be subtitled, Malevolence in Maine. Certainly the case here. And, remembering his other story and film about youngsters, this one could be Stand by It – or, rather, Stand against It!

This version of it has done extraordinarily well on release in the United States, over $100 million in the first week, and parallel box office in other English-speaking countries.

If it’s horror atmosphere you want, then It certainly provides it. While the setting is the American summer, and a lot of the action takes place in the sunny streets of the town, out in the countryside, quite a lot of it is dark, very dark, in sinister drainpipes, in sinister seemingly haunted houses, in dark wells and, literally, a vast underground.

The film is quite long and the early part spends quite a bit of time establishing the characters of the young boys who are at the centre of the action, especially in Bill’s younger brother, George, is seen with a paper boat at the opening of the film, following it down the rainy streets where it floats into a drain opening – only for the horrible clown, Pennywise, to appear, to tantalise George and then to devour him.

Bill (Jaeden Lieberher, the boy so effective in Midnight Special) and his friends, age 13, are tormented by the 15-year-old bullies of the town, one of them doomed, not a moment too soon, and the ringleader eventually getting his gruesome comeuppance.

The group of boys includes Richie, loudmouth and crude, Eddie, small and pampered health-wise by an overlarge mother, Stan, Jewish and preparing him for his bar mitzvah, Mike, African-American?, working for his grandfather in an abattoir, Ben, the large new boy to the school who is more particularly the subject of bullying. Ben is helped by Beverly (Sophia Lillis in a strong performance), also tormented by the local girls, kind, despite her abusive father, and, emerging as a significant leader of the group.

There are a number of parents, teachers, police – but they tend to be minor characters because all the attention is given to the youngsters.

As Bill gets his friends to investigate where George might have disappeared to, each of the children is confronted by the personification of their fear, especially by that horrifying clown and in room collection of venomous associates. Their fears come to life as malevolently aggressive, building up to a climax in the extraordinary underground set, dead children floating in a tower, sudden apparitions, and a great deal of physical violence.

And, at the end, the credits announce that this has just been chapter 1. We won’t have to wait another 27 years for the sequel’s release because the setting of this film is 1989 and so the sequel will have to be set in 2017! Just wait a year or two…

(And a word of complaint about the 13-year-olds and their incessant swearing, wearing and wearying – and a challenge to the screenwriter to be more creative with language.)

1. The popularity of Stephen King’s novels? Film versions? For over 40 years? His imagination and horror stories?

2. The popularity of It, as a novel, as in 1990 miniseries for television, for this film? The prospect of Chapter 2?

3. The credibility of the plot, the characters, the situations? And terror and horror?

4. The premise, the person’s fear, fears being personified? The embodiments of fear, malevolent embodiments, threatening, dangerous, violent, causing death?

5. Historical background of the town, the research, the events of the death of the children? 27 years apart? Leading up to 1989 and the threat to the children? Children disappearing, notices around the town, the reaction of the parents, the lack of searching?

6. The state of Maine, the town, summer 1989, homes, the synagogue, the streets, the countryside, the lake, the drains? The underground drains, bars, sewage? The haunted house, exterior, the horror interiors? The underground caverns and wells? The musical score?

7. The introduction, George, Bill, the making of the boat, the rain, George going to the drain, is sailing the boat, going down the drain, the appearance of the clown, George in conversation, the cheery chat of the clown, yet sinister, the teeth, biting George’s arm, his disappearance?

8. The portrait of the different boys, Ronnie, cheeky, foulmouthed? Stan, his father, the preparation for the Bar Mitzvah and his singing in Hebrew, Eddie and his large mother, her concern about his health, possessiveness? Mike, African- American, working for his grandfather, the abattoir, the bolt and the killing of the animals, his unwillingness? The deliveries? Ben, the new boy, large, being bullied, in the library?

9. Beverly, her being mocked by the girls in the toilet, encountering Ben in the library, sympathetic, signing his book? His infatuation with her? The later revelation of her back story, the abusive father?

10. The picture of the bullies, their age, the three together, as individuals, the cruelty of their bullying? The bully and his going down the drain and his being trapped? Henry Bowers, his cruelty, pursuing the group? His father the policeman, his father and his violent dominance?

11. The background of adults in the town, at the school, the police, the glimpses of parents, including Bill’s and George’s – and their giving up on the search for the children? The atmosphere of the missing children, the posters around the town, yet people accepting it?

12. The research, the events happening every 27 years?

13. Bill, his search for his brother, the map, the coordinates, the places for disappearance, the finding of the old house? The sense of mission? Loyalty of the friends, the difficulties, the bullying, upsets, pulling out?

14. The atmosphere of the drains, the search for the missing children, the experience in the drains?

15. The old house, the sinister interiors, the experiences in the house, the well and people falling down the well, being rescued and lifted out, the complete underworld in the house? Henry Bowers and his being destroyed?

16. Beverly, her being taken, the bodies of the children floating on air? George and his encounter with Bill – and his being possessed?

17. The range of evil, the ghostly appearances, Pennywise and his continued presence, the distorted picture, the variety of monsters? The struggles with the children, the rescues? Courage? The special effects and stunt work?

18. The resolution of the situation in 1989? But the announcing of Chapter 2 – and another 27 years – 2017 as a setting for the sequel?

BLUE MURDER KILLER COP

Australia, 2017, 240 minutes, Colour.
Richard Roxburgh, Toni Collette, Matt Nable, Justin Smith, Emma Booth, Tony Martin, Aaron Pedersen, Dan Wyllie.
Directed by Michael Jenkins.

In the 1990s, Blue Murder was considered one of the best television series, written by Ian David and directed by Michael Jenkins. The focus was on police corruption in New South Wales (where even one of the premiers, Robin Askin, was later revealed to be corrupt). The central character was Roger Rogerson – and played by Richard Roxburgh who bought quite some physical resemblance to the policeman.

The film dramatised various cases in New South Wales and the role of Rogerson, his corruption, his contacts, the protection. One of the cases involved Neddy Smith, played by Tony Martin.

This 2017 miniseries incorporates flashbacks from the previous program enabling audiences see the younger Roger Rogerson and glimpses of Neddy Smith.

The film goes back to Rogerson and his corrupt dealings, the various contacts he had, especially in King’s Cross and with criminals and the drug world. The film fleshes out characters in various police and drugs and corruption.

Richard Roxburgh takes up his performance again, an extraordinarily strong performance, intense, Roxburgh embodying the determination, the ruthlessness and the superficial charm of Rogerson. In 2015, Rogerson and an accomplice were charged with the murder of a Chinese student connected with drug deals. There were found guilty and imprisoned.

This gives this series the opportunity to go back to the old days, Rogerson’s imprisonment, his experience of jail, his getting out, his marriage (his wife played by Toni Collette), and his independence and gradually, with supreme self-confidence, getting back into the drug world.

Part of the dynamic of this series is the pursuit by a squad of internal investigators of the police, led by Matt Nable as Mark Standen, some strong confrontation sequences, but Standen himself with a gambling problem gradually getting deeper into debt and crossing the line concerning money and finance.

In a sense, this series has to be seen to be believed, seeming more like a contrived fiction rather than the fact and facts that it was.


1. True story? The original television series and its contemporary impact? The 1980s? The next 20 to 30 years? A perspective from 2017?

2. Audience knowledge of Roger Rogerson, New South Wales police, corruption? The other personalities? Situations and events?

3. The performance of Richard Roxburgh, his likeness to Roger Rogerson, the excerpts from the the past, in the presence series, and the make up and his ageing?

4. The television series, its realism, the impact of the 90s? Rogerson’s career and corruption? His imprisonment, the next 20 years? The incorporation of flashbacks?

5. The strong cast, police, criminals, Rogerson’s wife?

6. This series presupposing the earlier series? Information about the New South Wales police force? The experience of corruption, the dramatising of corruption? Police enquiries, confrontations?

7. 2015, Rogerson and his associates, the murder of the Chinese drug dealer? Court case? Found guilty? Prison?

8. Rogerson, supreme confidence, the episode with Neddy Smith and its being visualised? Testament against him? Mark Standen, internal affairs investigations, the establishment of the squad? Rogerson and his clique? Michael Hurley, friendship, clubs? His later illness? Confidantes?

9. Standen, his character, intensity, relationships, confrontations with Rogerson, guns and possibilities? His gambling, covering, illegal behaviour, descent into gambling, money needs, those trying to help him? dismissal and disgrace?

10. Rogerson’s wife, the meeting in the street, her knowing about him, the attraction, her accepting him? Marriage, daily life? His going to prison, her visits in support? The years? Her humanising Rogerson?

11. The prison sequences, the range of prisoners, life in the prison, the variety of types, clashes, power struggles, the guards?

12. Rogerson out of prison, not in the force, the changing times, his getting older? The connections, drugs, his greater involvement?

13. His accomplice, as a police officer, the issue of the cash, his becoming dirty? Against Rogerson? His subsequent career, working privately, collections, and collaborating with Rogerson?

14. The risk, the drug dealer, Rogerson and his confidence, the murder and disposal of the body?

15. Rogerson, in jail – an episode in New South Wales history, police history? And Rogerson as an icon of this kind of corruption?

THE SUSPICIONS OF MR WHICHER: THE TIES THAT BIND

UK, 2014, 90 minutes, Colour.
Paddy Considine, Nancy Carroll, Helen Bradbury, Alex Robertson, Luke Thompson, Joanna Horton, James Northcote, Gwyneth Keyworth,
Directed by Geoffrey Sax.

This film is the fourth in the television series about Mr Whicher, initially based on a true story and a book by Kate Summerscale, then writers taking the character and inventing murder mysteries. The setting is England in the 1860s, especially in London with excursions, in this case very attractively, to the countryside and country towns, film with lavish detail.

Mr Whicher was in the police force, had failed, has taken up private detection and has been commissioned to follow a wife and her lover, reporting back to the husband who wants to initiate divorce proceedings. Mr Whicher also tracks down the lover, interviews him – and then tracks down his body in the woods.

The initial suspects are the couple who commissioned Mr Whicher, then a young woman with a child who was engaged to the murdered man, her brother who was angry and confronted the man.

There are quite some complications, including the visit of the murdered man’s father, a preacher.

There are some revelations about the couple with whom Mr Whicher was boarding, which leads to scandal, potential blackmail, and a murder and suicide.

Some of this is quite shocking for Mr Whicher who believes in justice and the truth. However, in the previous film he had gone to board with Mrs Piper (Nancy Carroll) and shown some affection for her – and at the end of this film, wanting to step out with her, to which she readily agrees.


1. The popularity of the series about Mr Whicher? Murder mysteries? Investigations? London in the 19th century?

2. The importance of the settings, sunlight in London, the countryside? The scenes in London, Hampstead, the flats, the streets? The country town, the streets and buildings, the elaborate sets? Interiors? The mansion in the countryside? The woods, the river? The 1860s, costumes and decor? The musical score?

3. Paddy Considine as Mr Whicher, the developing character during the series? His past, in the police force, detective, his failure? Leaving the police force? Available for private hire? Mrs Piper and his boarding with her, some tensions between them? The attraction?

4. The opening, Lady Jane and Matthew, the tryst, Mr Whicher following them, the hotel, the affair? His visit to her husband, giving the report? The presence of the lawyer, the issue of divorce? Judges and evidence? Joshua and Ruth and their witnessing? Mr Whicher going to see Matt, the discussion with him, his being willing to be a witness for the divorce? The irony of his not arriving for the divorce proceedings, the reaction of the husband, Jane, the lawyer?

5. Mr Whicher and his visit to Matt, tracking him down, his room, his situation? The relationship with Jane, the plans? Mr Whicher going into the countryside, finding him dead?

6. Boarding with Joshua and Ruth, the talk, Joshua and his work with the horses, Ruth and her hospitality? Mr Whicher returning and staying with them – leading to the solution?

7. Matt’s friend, with the horses, the accusations that he was the murderer, robbery?

8. Emma, the child, her concern about Linus, her relationship with Matthew, fiancee? Linus and the scenes of his anger? His being arrested, angry in jail, Mr Whicher visiting him?

9. The visit of Matthew’s father, interviews with Mr Whicher, going through his son’s belongings, a minister of religion, the revelation of stories from the past?

10. Matthew dead, the husband and his being under suspicion, Lady Jane, the reactions? The true story about the husband, his affairs? Jane, the unhappy marriage, decision to go to the US? Joshua wanting to go with her?

11. Joshua and Ruth, characters, the revelation of the truth, their history, pregnancy, the father kicking the baby and death, their leaving, setting up their life, being detected, Matthew? Ruth and her anger? Joshua and his explanations? The blackmail, Ruth following Matt, killing him, taking the money? Her confession, hanging herself? Joshua and his dismay?

12. Mr Whicher, his experience of the story, his stances for truth and justice, the shock, his saying goodbye to Jane at the station?

13. His return, Mrs Piper, the attraction – and stepping out with her in the future?

THE LIMPING MAN

UK, 1953, 76 minutes, Black and white.
Lloyd Bridges, Moira Lister, Alan Wheatley, Leslie Philipis, Helene Cordet.
Directed by Charles De Lautour (Cy Endfield).

This is a small British film of the mid 1950s, written and directed by site and field but directed under the name of Charles De Lautour. Enfield directed some small-budget films at this time, especially in England and was later to have some success, in the mid-1960s, with Zulu.

By the end, audiences for this thriller may feel somewhat cheated – Lloyd Bridges, the hero who was in England during the war flies back to England after seven years to make the woman he loved, but, after an hour or more of sensational dreaming, wakes up!

Ignoring this ending might be best. When Bridges arrives in London and asks for a light for a cigarette on the tarmac, a sniper kills the man he was talking to. He is interrogated by the police (including a young Leslie Phillips), tracks down his actress friend (Moira Lister) who is not at the airport to meet him. There are quite some connections. She has been in liaison with the dead man who has a disreputable reputation, is a smuggler and, with her sport skills, has collaborated in trafficking using her yacht. He has formally been married to a dancer who performs with a magician on stage and has formally identified his body. The door manager of the theatre is the limping man and has a walking stick with a rifle.

Lots of complications with Bridges and Lister, remembering old times, going on the river in her yacht, having suspicious meetings at a waterside pub, her holding a party, trying to escape, her confiding that letters she wrote to the criminal are being held for blackmail payment – and the revelation that he is not dead!

Just as it was getting all complicated, Bridges wakes up.

1. Small-budget supporting feature of the 1950s? American star? British cast?

2. The London settings, the airport, apartments, the theatre, backstage, on the river, pubs, the police? The musical score? The songs and the theatrical performances?

3. The credibility of the plot, the complications and intrigues – and audience reaction to it all being a nightmare on the plane? And the interrogating police being the pilots!

4. Frank Pryor, his war career, in Britain, his friendship with Pauline, the years passing, his return? On the flight? On the tarmac, the death of the man, Frank being interrogated by the police? The address, Pauline? Her not turning up? His going to find her, renewing their friendship, her sport skills, on the boat on the Thames?

5. The police, clues, the dead man, the photo, going to his house, Pauline hurrying away from the police? Her being an actress? The theatre?

6. The anonymity of the dead man, the photo in his pocket, leading to his identity, his flat and the police visit? His relationship with the singer? The separation? Suspicions of his criminality?

7. Frank, the visit to the theatre, the suspicious man at the pub, talking with Pauline?

8. The party, Frank and his visit, Pauline telling the truth, her letters to the dead man, the singer and her wanting the money? Escaping from the party, watching the television with the family? Going to the theatre? The singer and her control of Pauline? The revelation that the dead man was actually alive? His deal of the letters, wanting Pauline to smuggle him to the continent?

9. The arrival of the police, the suspicious limping man, the wife falsely identifying her husband, the theatre, the fight, his death?

10. Almost resolution – and Frank waking up in the plane?