Cause célèbre

Mirren is excellent, Suchet in a minor role is excellent, and wait until you hear his spoken English for a terrific contrast with his Poirot...helps you appreciate his acting ability. This 1987 t.v. movie is presented in one part, but there is an obvious editing break right at the halfway mark for it to have perhaps been originally shown in two parts. It opens outdoors on a 1030's London street. One immediately notes, and appreciates, that it was filmed using video. The entire movie is filmed on video tape and it avoids the jarring effect so common in earlier t.v. mini-series and movies which were filmed on the set using video and the outdoor scenes were made on film. Production is quite satisfactory with details of the interior designs of the house, and of the house itself, all period correct. The house is very appropriate for a once-successful middle class architect. Decorative pieces through the house add interest and are very appropriate. However, filmed on video, one is always aware we are watching a set. Still the set has a most satisfying mix of arts and crafts with art deco. The acting is very good all around, as are the costumes, sets, and photography, all adding a texture to this drama based on a true story. Good direction does service to the fine script which does not present the story in a dry straight forward narrative. I do fault the script in being so lacking in details of the young man's home life. We know he lives 30 minutes away on a bicycle, needs a job at during hard times, is 18 and tall, making him look older than he is, few friends, can drive, and his father is very strict. That is about it. We never see a member of his family or any scene of him at his home. The script is rich with subtleties, and who actually did what is answered when Mirren is question during the trial, in a subtle way. If Poirot was there he would be repeating it at the end explaining who did the dastardly deed indeed! However, it is up to you, (as this is not an Agatha Christie formula story), to figure out who did what. You are never clearly told. The answer I assure you is there. If you like Prime Suspect for Mirren, or Poirot for either Suchet or just the period art deco apartment interior, or both, I highly recommend Cause Celebre. Video: 1:33, few minor smear defects from original use of video, otherwise, sound and image is fine. No English subtitles, which I found needing occasionally.

Terence Rattigan liked to do plays based on actual crimes. He is best known for THE WINSLOW BOY, based on the 1911 Archer-Shee Case involving the social ruin of a naval cadet and his family when the cadet is accused of stealing postal money orders from his fellow cadets. It was twice filmed (both times quite well). CAUSE CELEBRE is based on the 1935 Alma Rattenbury - George Stonor murder case. Alma was a somewhat talented woman (she composed popular songs) who married Francis Rattenbury, an architect (his various public and private buildings in Vancouver are still part of the city's skyline). Francis was older than Alma, and she began an affair with Stonor, a handyman they hired. One night Stonor shot Francis, and he died in a couple of days. Stonor was arrested, and then so was Alma. It sort of resembles the Thompson-Bywater tragedy in 1922, but Alma was shown to have had nothing to do with the shooting. Stonor, however, was found guilty and condemned to death. Alma could not stand the loss of her young lover. She went down to a river near her home, and stabbed herself to death. Ironically, due to his age, Stonor's sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. Eventually he was released. However, in the 1980s (he was still alive) he was arrested on a morals charge. The play of course only deals with the events in 1935.

Is it any wonder that the Brits kick our butts when it comes to putting out good theater? Look at this cast: Helen Mirren, David Morrissey, Harry Andrews and David Suchet in a pre-Hercule Poirot role as a barrister. The story based on a defense of a woman's (Mirren) live-in handy-man lover (Morrissey) who violently kills her elderly impotent husband (Andrews). The barrister mounts a defense of how this younger, naive man misinterpreted the woman's involvement with him. The case takes strange twists as the woman winds the unwilling other victim whose only crime is one of indiscretion. Fine, fine acting and a gripping, well-written drama. I'm amazed it is not available on video. If it rolls around on PBS, be sure to check it out.

As usual, Helen Mirren has it all wrapped up. I knew it would be great when she goes from smiling to weeping in the course of 10 seconds at the piano scene near the beginning of the film. Amazing how she does that. THis character seemed lighter than most of the characters she plays--but underneath you know that she is suffering and drowning in her despair from the very beginning. You think that the woman is hopelessly flawed because of her seemingly superficial need for money and status, and for her interest in a much younger man. Then you realize she is playing such a complicated character that you can't even imagine how she did it. Helen mirren. Amazing.

If you are thinking about watching this movie, just be aware that it is NOT a murder "mystery" as such. Unfortunately, I got the DVD thinking it was more of an Agatha Christie type story, and spent the entire time trying to figure out who really "done it." I was very disappointed when the typical twists and turns of a true mystery didn't materialize.

If my expectations had been different, I might have enjoyed this movie more. The set design was superb, as was most of the acting and the dialog (although, without subtitles, the British accent was a bit difficult for me to understand at times).

On the other hand, I might have been disappointed anyway, since the story is somewhat disjointed and I never bought into the relationships between the characters (the two mismatched lovers, the husband and wife, the wife and 'companion' etc.) The story might have been true, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good movie.