They Met in the Dark

The career that James Mason had before being discovered by Hollywood was quite prolific. Thanks to TCM, audiences have had the opportunity to see some of his British films. This one, "They Met in the Dark," is a 1943 noir, and has both elements of drama and humor. The film begins with a trial, after which, found guilty of treason, Richard Heritage (Mason) is stripped of rank and thrown out of the Navy. He sets out, with one of his crew who believes in him, to prove his innocence. He backtracks, repeating his actions from the day he was arrested.

He finds one woman (Patricia Medina) dead, another woman (Joyce Howard) positive that he had something to do with it, and a talent agent (Tom Walls) who has some interesting acts on his roster as well as a sophisticated singer (Phyllis Stanley).

Mason is handsome, elegant, and vital in the lead role. He handles the lighter moments very well and has lots of charm. It's easy to see why he eventually went to Hollywood. Stanley does some nice singing, and Ronald Chesney plays a great harmonica.

Different and enjoyable, with a good plot and British atmosphere that will keep the viewer interested.

I know nothing about Director Karel Lamac, other than he was born in Prague, capital of the former Czechoslovakia, and he directed THEY MET IN THE DARK at the height of WWII.

The script by Anatole Grunwald and well known British supporting actor, Miles Malleson, rates trite more than memorable. The acting by young James Mason, David Farrar and Joyce Howard is strictly standard. Good old Edward Rigby steals the show as Mason's sidekick.

Photography and art direction are competent but do not exactly lift the film to any unusual heights. In the end I will always remember it as an enjoyable ally vs axis spy yarn, with a few nifty touches and situations along the way.

The atmosphere is lightened by a magician/singing show featuring Phyllis Stanley, a harmonica player who sounds like Larry Adler, and a couple of rabbit- and pup-producing artists.

No masterpiece, but I liked it. 7/10.

Reading the synopsis of They Met In The Dark I was expecting quite a different film. The plot outline made it sound incredibly serious and this was wartime Great Britain.

Instead I got a rather lighthearted treatment of the plight of courtmartialed Naval Commander James Mason. Seems as though he was given a Mickey Finn and left with false orders in his pocket that led to his ship being sunk by the Nazis. Now cashiered from the Royal Navy, Mason's looking for answers.

So is Joyce Howard who is over from Canada looking for her girlfriend who has disappeared. She finds the girlfriend's corpse with Mason in a mysterious house.

After this They Met In The Dark is a variation on what Alfred Hitchcock did much better with The Thirty Nine Steps. In fact the method used by the bad guy spies for transmitting messages involves a theatrical performer.

I guess I'm not used to seeing James Mason in material as light as this. He and Howard do have some good chemistry. When he would do Hitchcock in North By Northwest he was not the light leading man there.

Not one of Mason's classic films, but something different.

"They Met in the Dark" is like the first draft of a Hitchcock film, before the better plotting, interesting camera-work, and Hitchcock wit is added. In fact, it's a blend of "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes." With many of the same elements:

Man and woman meet during a mysterious incident. Check. They are forced to stay on the run together. Check. The "McGuffin" is a secret message about the military. Check. The secret is conveyed by a music hall entertainer. Check. The unlikely couple end up in love. Check.

It's interesting to see the difference between a perfectly fine movie and a great one. Hitchcock created striking lighting effects, innovative camera moves, and darker, more menacing threat.

"They Met in the Dark" is a perfectly charming diversion and a nice, little movie. But pales in comparison to the Hitchcock films of the same era.

A rather fishy intrigue going at any lengths to cause as much confusion as possible, as it basically only consists of loose ends all over, but it all starts at sea in the second world war, then proceeds to a court martial where James Mason appears to be convicted and dismissed from service, whereupon he shaves his beard and tries to get hold of a girl 'Mary' who has some awful things to tell him, which she never gets a chance to, as the old lorn house she has made an appointment with him in is empty except for a dead girl with a mysterious paper note clutched in her hand, which body is discovered by another girl, leading them to some circle of spies disguised as an entertainment company with mind readers, harmonica players and another singing girl, while James Mason is more interested in one girl than another, or is it the other way around? Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the acting or the intrigue-making, James Mason is always worth enjoying, but that's about all in this film - the death mystery in the desert house provides the only excitement, which never is satisfied, as the body disappears and never is recovered... Is it a comedy, a satire, just an entertainment made for kicks, is it seriously meant at all, or was it just made to fill some gap? The film inspires as many questions as an almost total lack of answers, but it provides at least some momentary entertainment...