L'amour d'un inconnu

Sylvia Sidney falls in love with a mysterious charmer (John Hodiak) in "Love from a Stranger," from 1947.

This is a remake that originally starred Basil Rathbone and Ann Harding, and was set in modern times. For some reason, this film is set in Victorian England. A young woman has just won a lottery and is planning what to do with her winnings. When a man, Manuel Cortez (Hodiak) comes to look at her flat as a possible rental, she finds herself attracted to him.

Unfortunately, she's engaged to someone else (John Howard). She breaks up with him and winds up marrying Cortez. He spirits her away to an isolated cottage.

There were a few signs along the way that all was not as it seems, but the happy bride doesn't seem to notice.

Okay film with not much chemistry between the two leads. The story is predictable. There are a couple of exciting moments. The film is incredibly atmospheric, particularly the cottage scenes.

Based on a story by Agatha Christie, this lacked the usual Christie pizazz.

In 1937 Basil Rathbone and Ann Harding were directed by Rowland V. Lee in the film LOVE FROM A STRANGER, based on a short story turned into a play by Agatha Christie. Set in contemporary England, Rathbone played a "gallant" type who sweeps the recently enriched Harding into a sudden marriage, and then plots to kill her. She gradually realizes her danger, and at the last moment turns the tables on him. It worked well, and so it was re-shot in 1947. Now it is John Hodiak and Sylvia Sidney who play the ill-fated couple, with John Howard as Sidney's one ally on the outside trying to help her.

It is odd for two reasons. First it was reset into late Victorian, early Edwardian England. The reason seems to have been based on the success in the last few years of Victorian melodramas at the box office (GASLIGHT, THE LODGER, HANGOVER SQUARE, THE VERDICT, THE WOMAN IN WHITE). This should not have been too difficult to do, for murders for profit has occurred in every time period and era. But it leads to a bit of historical theft (see below). The other reason is that the end was altered. The Harding/Sidney character's last trick was weakened in the remake, and Hodiak did not meet quite the same just deserts that Rathbone did. In fact, it becomes something of a steal from Robert Louis Stevenson's TREASURE ISLAND in the end.

The bit of historical theft was concerning Hodiak's background. Like Rathbone, he is a serial killer of wives (usually wealthy ones). In the earlier film, it turns out that Rathbone's earlier career was written up in a book of true crimes, including a photograph of him (with a beard), that was subject to his character trying to get possession of the book before a crime connoisseur could see the picture and go to the authorities. The same plot twist is in this film, but the picture is a newspaper drawing of Hodiak with a beard. But it mentions his earlier crime as being in South Africa (Hodiak's character is given a Spainish name). The possibility exists that Agatha Christie or the screenplay writers were acquainted with the late 19th Century career of wife murderer Frederick Bayley Deeming. Deeming murdered (as far as we know) two wives, and his four children in Liverpool, England (in 1891), and Melbourne, Australia (in 1892). Although money was not involved in either case, he was a con-man, who was extradited from Uruguay in South America in 1890 to serve time for fraud in England. He also tried to confuse witnesses at his murder trial in Melbourne by first shaving off his mustache, and then growing a beard at his trial. It did not work - he was hanged in Melbourne in May 1892. Not quite a fit, but close enough to make one wonder.

This was a rather pedestrian version of the Agatha Christie short story thriller (Philomel Cottage). Of course, the original short story confined itself to the time the couple spent on their honeymoon, although the subsequent adapted theater play expanded on the plot. Sylvia Sidney came off as a kind of Betty Davis type with a distracting edge to her delivery. John Hodiak's performance started off with subtlety but towards the end it deteriorated into melodrama. I agree with another reviewer that I couldn't help thinking that this would have gotten a much better treatment from Alfred Hitchcock. The plot development was implausible at times. Although the beginning was cogent and mood-setting, I was disappointed by the lack of subtlety in the ending, which differed from the Christie ending. The story should have been about the psychology of predator and prey, but that aspect was muted. I have not read the theater play, so I don't know how its ending compared to the wonderful Christie ending.

Unlike many of the writer's plots,it is not a whodunit but pure thriller ;"Philomel cottage" was a short story which was often transferred to the screen (there's another version featuring Ann Harding );It's possible that the author was inspired by Charles Perrault 's fairy tale "Bluebeard" ,the basement replacing the bedroom the heroine must not enter.(a dark room in the 1937 effort) They also hint at "Blue beard " (reportedly inspired by one of Joan Of Arc's companions,Gilles de Rais) in this adaptation.

Probably to capitalize on the success of "gaslight" ,they set the action in the Victorian era and the hero became "Manuel Cortez ". But,and it's the main flaw :one knows from the start that the handsome soon-to-be-husband will do away with his spouse to latch onto her fortune;only "where " and "when" remain and it spoils the suspense which could have been successful ,a la "suspicion" ;John Hodiak is efficient with his beaming mile and his strong appeal,and ,furtively ,a hard look in his face .But Christie buffs will be better off with the first version (aka "a night of terror")starring Ann Harding and Basil Rathbone.

Hodiak overacts and Sidney does an adequate job in this dark Franju remake of 1937 movie (based on a play based on an Agatha Christie novel). Overstuffed with English local color & symbolic stormy weather. Entertaining.