Un giro de la suerte

British filmmakers faced what they thought was a problem. They spoke English (of a sort) which meant that they should be able to make some money in the US . This was necessary because UK returns weren't enough to make really big money. The problem, as they saw it then, was that they needed some star appeal for the Americans. Even going back to the twenties they would import American film star to headline the production and hope that people would go to the theaters expecting a first class Hollywood picture and buy a ticket before they found out it was a cheapo British movie by which time it would be too late.

Their big mistake is importing a 'star' with no box office appeal, or more, likely one who was over the hill, a bit passe, the news of which hadn't caught up in London. Of course it was the alternative that worked, (such as Ealing comedies) - unknown but superb actors in a well written and directed film was more successful and wound up with the unknown star going to Hollywood- e.g. James Mason, Maureen O'Hara, Richard Harris, Richard Burton ad. infinitum.

Along with the star it was common practice to import a director and a cameraman. Many of the best British cameramen of a generation started as assistants to some Hollywood 'old pro.' The British had an inferiority complex about their own directors.

For this film they imported Ginger Rogers and David Miller. Rogers was 40+ and her career was winding down. She made a picture with Fred Astaire THE BARKLEYS OF Broadway in '49 and MONKEY BUSINESS with Howard Hawks and Cary Grant in '52 but it was the co-star that everybody noticed and I don't mean the chimp (I.e. Marilyn Monroe). Miller was a superior hack, fully capable of rendering a good script like SATURDAY'S HERO but not able to save a turgid one like BACK STREET.

The script for BEAUTIFUL STRANGER (TWIST OF FATE) is a derivative rehash of what was mildly popular as a second feature a few years before. In other words - a noir. The dialogue seems to be the type where one expects an actor to turn to the camera and remark 'We're all in a movie, aren't we?' The real potential star of the picture, Stanley Baker, is miscast and badly used as the heavy of the piece, the fifteen year age difference between Rogers and him poorly covered up with grey streaks in his hair. Herbert Lom is a thief and a foreigner and crazy and doing none of them well. Jacques Bergerac was the nominal hero because he was the best looking etc. This was his film debut and was Ginger Rogers fourth husband at the time. Bosco, I believe, is the Italian word for wood and a piece of wood could have done a better acting job. I'm sure he must have had some other talents.

To make matters worse the film was shot on location on the French Riviera. Not a classic noir location. Once away from the Hollywood Studio system Miller seems unable to stage even the simplest fight or action sequence. Never has the Riviera looked duller (the film is shot without any inspiration or colour). I'm not too sure if it wasn't shot in Devon. A stinker but an educational one.

This is worth watching for the fine, understated performances by Stanley Baker and Herbert Lom, each of whom exudes menace: a coiled snake and a desperate weakling respectively. The story strains credibility to achieve its effects and keep the plot moving, notwithstanding its reliance on the familiar trappings of melodrama - e.g., greed, betrayal, characters who are not what they seem to be. For a "kept woman," Ginger Rogers displays remarkable innocence. And is it actually possible to open the combination lock on a wall safe by merely turning the dial slowly and listening for clicks? The picture is minor-league Hitchcock (without Hitchcock), and it shows.

This is problematic from the start. Stanley Baker seems okay but while he enthuses over his young love we are only too aware that poor Ginger Rogers is a little old for her role. Another problem arises almost immediately when we realise just how flat and uninteresting this is going to be. Baker looses it as he has to become more two faced and Rogers doesn't stand a chance as she has to take on another lover. Only Herbert Lom stands a chance of saving the day and as things hot up towards the end it seems as if he might but then the story unravels and we don't care about anything at all.

A rather smart plot ,gambling on the mistaken identities; the characters are cardboard, except for Herbert Lom's , the loser flesh on the bone with a lot of self-pity : Lom ' s performance gives the story a little substance , his playing often resembling Peter Lorre's .As for Johnny , to put it mildly ,her generosity verges on naiveté.

French Jacques Bergerac only made two movies in his native country where he remained virtually unknown ; and abroad,he could never become the French lover, as Charles Boyer and Louis Jourdan did : a pretty face and a slight accent are not enough.

In fact, there are so many coincidences and misunderstandings in this movie it looks as though the makers of 1986's "Ruthless People" looked to this film for inspiration in writing that comedy.

Ginger Rogers plays Johnny Victor, an ex-showgirl who has become the mistress of Louis Galt (Stanley Baker). Everything she thinks she knows about him is wrong. She thinks he's been long legally separated from his wife and waiting on the divorce to become final - in fact he is estranged from his wife but very married. She thinks him to be head of a family business - he is, but it's his wife's family business, and any divorce would be the end of his executive life and the end of the front for his real business - counterfeiting illegal coins.

Now that's the straight-forward part of the film. The rest of it is one long string of coincidences and misunderstandings. First off, Johnny is friends with Emil (Herbert Lom) who is a con artist. She gives him money because she thinks the money is going to his sick wife. Emil is also working for Louis (several flights down in the chain) selling the counterfeit coins. Neither Louis nor Johnny know that the other one knows Emil. Emil owes Louis a bunch of money he can't pay back because he gambled it away, so he thinks he can get the money back by robbing Johnny's safe when she's away from home. He does so, and escapes detection by Johnny, but he takes something that was a personal gift from Louis. When Louis sees the bracelet up for hock and realizes Emil hocked it he thinks Johnny has a lover and it is Emil. Well, Johnny does have a new love, one she met after she found out Louis was permanently married, but he is an artist in the village, not Emil.

The end result is all of these people are arguing with each other yet none of them are on the same page. Emil is the only one who has most of the facts, and he's perfect as the cowardly little weasel. Somehow this not too bright piece of inhuman slime manages to steal even more loot, commit what seems to be the perfect murder, and frame unknowing suspects. One piece of advice here from years of watching Perry Mason - if you are ever in such a catbird seat, just walk away from the scene of the crime and act like you were never there - that's what people who want to appear innocent do. Do not follow the people you framed to see how it all turns out.

This is a European noir so there are certain techniques in style and acting that make it different from its American counterparts, but it is still an edge of the seat viewing experience. Only Ginger Rogers and maybe Herbert Lom will likely be familiar to American viewers. If those of you who recognize Lom know him only as Inspector Dreyfuss from the Pink Panther movies you'll find Lom's portrayal of the slowly emotionally unraveling Emil a revelation. Highly recommended.