Meurtre à crédit

Yet another enterprising production from Louis H. Jackson's ill-fated British National Pictures is this extraordinary drama from the brief period when William Hartnell was commanding film leads.

During the course of the film Hartnell ages 15 years with the application of white hair which has the striking effect of transforming him into a dead ringer for Dr Who. Another later TV favourite is John Slater, looking exactly the same as he did during the seventies in 'Z Cars'. One of several other surprises is a fleeting glimpse of a very young Pet Clark who in a truly bizarre twist grows up into Dinah Sheridan (appearing opposite her husband Jimmy Hanley) without the latter ever becoming aware of the fact.

Dock worker Tom Masterick chases his wife's lover out of a pub one night, and is later convicted for his murder.

I've seen many, many films from this era, this genre, but there was something about Murder in Reverse that was a little different. It's an excellent storyline, it's very well produced, the acting is excellent. It's well paced, it doesn't drag out, it moves along quickly, and features some impressive scenes.

How lovely to see William Hartnell as the leading man, of course I will forever adore him as The First Doctor, but he was a super talent, he's rather captivating here. Poor Hartnell is once again wearing a wig. The scene where he gets to shout about his justice was excellent.

I'm so glad I've finally gotten to see this forgotten gem, I thoroughly enjoyed it, 7/10.

Fifteen years before the events of the movie, stevedore William Hartnell (in his last performance credited as "Billy Hartnell") was married to Chili Bouchier, with Petula Clark their daughter. His wife was carrying on an affair with John Slater. Hartnell found out the hard way, when Miss Bouchier left him for her lover. The men ran into each other in a pub, and Hartnell chased him into the docks with a big sword, then suffered a fugue state and forgot about it, until neighbors grassed him to the police. As they took him away, he thought he spotted Slater on the deck of a ship, but that didn't stop them from convicting him of murder. It was only through the intervention of then reporter Brefni O'Rorke that a capital offense was commuted to life imprisonment; O'Rorke also adopted Miss Clark.

Now Hartnell has been released on a ticket-of-leave. O'Rorke, risen to editor, assigns Jimmy Hanley to go interview the man. Hanley -- who seems thoroughly inept as a reporter, probably kept on staff because O'Rorke's daughter, now grown into Dinah Sheridan, is in love with him -- can't find him, because Hartnell is in O'Rorke's office, asking after his girl, and explaining he's going to find Slater.

It's a very nice little movie, a first feature for writer-director Montgomery Tully. Hartnell is excellent in a leading role, and his old-man make-up makes him look as he would during his run in Doctor Who. DP Ernest Palmer offers some nice, dark lighting. It's a good story about high-sounding principles running up against official indifference, and worth a look.

Murder in Reverse, or Query, presents an interesting concept. It's a British film from 1945, directed by Montgomery Tully. Frankly, maybe due to the print I saw, it comes off more like an early '30s film.

William Hartnell plays Tom Masterick. His wife (Chili Bouchier) is having an affair with Fred Smith (John Slater). Masterick is accused of killing Smith, though no body was recovered. He is sentenced to 15 years, though he vehemently proclaims his innocence.

His young daughter Jill (Petula Clark) is adopted by newspaper publisher Sullivan (Brefni O'Rorke). As a cub reporter, Sullivan was responsible for Masterick getting a lighter sentence.

Now Masterick is released and determined to find Smith and prove he's alive. He's helped by his daughter (now Dinah Sheridan) who was too young when adopted to remember him, and her boyfriend, reporter Peter (real life husband Jimmy Hanley).

There are several plot holes, but one remains interested in whether or not Masterick will get justice. In the beginning of the film, Hartnell uses an East End accent and, when released, has a cultured voice.

As he states in the film, he learned a good deal in the prison library. Somehow he was divested of his accent. I think we are to realize he is a deeply changed man. Hartnell gives a sympathetic performance in a tough role.

Dandy ending. You won't know what's coming.

This film has a great deal going for it, including an excellent performance from silent-era siren Chili Bouchier in the fairly thankless role of the wife, an effective child performance from Petula Clark, and a rather charming lolloping-puppy act from Jimmy Hanley in what could otherwise have been an irritating role as a none-too-successful cub reporter. There is a nail-biting (although credibility-stretching) chase which doesn't end up as we have been conditioned to expect, and an ingenious plot twist based on the original source, a short story called "Query". The flashback section also provides the spectacle of post-war production waxing nostalgic over 1930s Limehouse, with its references to the novel 'talkies', its thriving docks and its Chinese laundry.

I mainly went to see this film on account of the advertised starring role of William Hartnell, whom I have always found to give good value on screen.. Here he takes the lead in an impressive character performance which involves his playing the whole of the first half in an East End accent and the second half as a prematurely aged man combining both wizened malevolence and the vague kindness of a silver-haired uncle. Masterick is a tough act to pull off, a man obsessed and bitter, and yet still human, and Hartnell largely manages it, although I felt that his interpretation of the two scenes where the voice-over requires him to behave abnormally -- when he reads his wife's note, and when the verdict is given in the courtroom -- was unconvincing. Presumably this what was the director asked for.

Masterick's final scene with his wife (whose history is skilfully implied without ever being stated outright) is moving and effective, and the relationship between the two young lovers -- with the girl obviously being the leading light of the pair! -- is both sweet and amusing. I did feel that there were some plot holes (do neither Masterick or young Rogers ever learn who Jill really is?), chief of which is the fact that it never occurs to Masterick that his target might have changed his name... or, even more oddly, to the offender! However, overall it is an effective and atmospheric piece of entertainment that rarely rings false. One to recommend: but perhaps it might have been even better.

It is perhaps worth adding, for clarification, that there is no 'crimelord', no 'London gang' and no 'prison grapevine' in the film: the IMDb plot outline is accurate so far as it goes.