Guet-apens

Excellent young adult performance by 18-year-old Elizabeth Taylor playing newlywed American living abroad whose soldier husband is up to no good: he's living a double life and is really a communist traitor! Underpopulated, underwritten melodrama does have one strong aspect: a surprisingly strong, spunky woman at the center of the story. Robert Taylor is solid as Taylor's 30-ish husband, but any psychological conflicts are not quick to come out (there is a tense duck-hunting scene where the couple runs into trouble, but it's just shucked off). Liz looks beautiful and gives a fairly complex portrayal here--her eyes glinting with suspicion and anger. The film isn't a classic--nor is it swill--but as a quickie product from MGM, it's probably better than it had to be. **1/2 from ****

Most of the anti-Communist films of the 1940s - 1950s are crap. No doubt about that. Thrown together they had preposterous plots emanating from the Kremlin to sap our national resources or strength. For example one film has Lee Marvin heading a major atomic spy ring outside a missile range from a hamburger/hash stand! The best films of the period dealing with communist threats were the science fiction films like THE THING or THEM wherein the monster was a symbol for the threat to Americans (from an "alien" source). Occasionally a semi-documentary might attract attention, but not much.

Oddly enough this early movie was somewhat above average. First it correctly looked at our wartime friend and partner England as a possible source of leakage. This turned out to be somewhat true (but the Rosenberg Case would soon show homegrown spy rings existed as well). Secondly it showed something usually ignored or rendered minor in most of these films. Here it is developed into the issue: who are you going to show greater loyalty to, the Communist Party or your naive spouse?

What I really like about CONSPIRATOR is that Robert Taylor plays the central figure - whom American and British audiences were to hiss at. He had tackled a few ambiguous characters before World War II, most notably William Bonney in BILLY THE KID (but that screenplay, like Darryl Zanuck's film of JESSIE JAMES, whitewashed a great deal of the bad out of the central character). But after the war MGM treated Taylor (now a seasoned leading star of theirs) to a wider variety of parts, including more villainous characters. Think of him in the somewhat earlier UNDERCURRENT with Kate Hepburn and Robert Mitchum. Both of these films could not have been made with Taylor in the 1930s.

I also sort of enjoy the idea that Taylor, a friendly, but sincere witness for the H.U.A.C subcommittee against Communist infiltration into the movie industry actually did this film. It is his only chance to show what he thought of a Communist agent, and his interpretation (and the screenplay's) show he saw them as naive fools.

Also it is the first time in his career that Taylor starred with the only female star of his rank (or higher) with the same last name: Elizabeth Taylor. Just leaving such films as NATIONAL VELVET, LITTLE WOMEN, and LIFE WITH FATHER, she finally came of age here as a young bride. In some ways I have always felt that Ms Taylor's glorious beauty was at a pristine height in films of the early 1950s like this one or FATHER OF THE BRIDE. Here she is in love with her dashing wartime hero husband, whom she gradually realizes is not as heroic (for England) as she thought (though he would disagree - witness his scene telling her about how he has joined one of the great causes of all time!).

The film follows their courtship, their marriage, and the discovery of his treason by her. The issue of course is whether or not he will be turned in by her, or will he love her enough to withstand pressure by his Kremlin bosses to (errr)...eradicate his error totally.

The film (as mentioned in another recent review) is above average. Taylor does play this English "Col. Redl" (of an earlier war, in a different country - but serving another Russia) as a man torn apart, but refusing to acknowledge his error of judgment. In fact his final decision puts to stop to any type of acknowledgment. The one flaw in this film is similar to the later, wretched ROGUE'S MARCH with Peter Lawford and Leo G. Carroll. The omnipotence of the British Secret Service in ferreting out traitors is shown at the tale-end. I may add that in 1949 that Secret Service (MR5) contained such "patriots" as Burgess, McClean, and Philby. Yeah they really would have been watching Taylor closely!

Fans of early and obscure Elizabeth Taylor vehicles can't get much more obscure than this early cold-war drama set in 1949 London. As a Yank in postwar Britain, she meets and falls for another Taylor, Robert, dashing in his uniform. Once married, however, hubby grows secretive and borderline abusive, and is forever disappearing on mysterious nighttime errands. Playfully kibitzing, young Liz stumbles onto the truth that he's a Soviet operative, possibly the clumsiest and most careless ever. Orders come down that he must eliminate her.... About two-thirds of the way through, this tepid romance decides it's going to be a Suspicion-like thriller, and not a moment too soon. But it has its moments (the male Taylor covering his tracks as he takes the tube to an assignation, for instance) and reflects the rather restrained concerns of the British Empire in the wake of the Gouzenko defection in Ottawa in 1945.

This is as much a response to samhill5215's review of CONSPIRATOR as it is a review of the film itself. Sam Hill seems to think that paranoia about Soviet infiltration of the West was unjustified, even though around the same time this film was being made (1949) the Rosenbergs were selling nuclear secrets to the Russians and Philby was funneling intel to them from his perch over in England.

Sam wonders why Elizabeth Taylor's character -- who the film paints as being naive and apolitical -- would be rattled to discover that she'd married a Soviet spy. I wonder if Sam would be making the same observation if the time line were adjusted to World War II and Taylor had learned her husband was a Nazi.

I suppose it matters not to Sam that Mao and Stalin together killed approximately 94 million people.

94. Million.

Nine-four, Sam. Million. The number is beyond staggering. It defies belief.

Adolph Hitler, one of the most evil humans of the 20th century, was a piker by comparison.

But according to Sam, regardless of this kind of unprecedented barbarity, Liz's character was just a Silly Billy to care so much.

Unbelievable.

The movie itself is okay, but far from great. It's well photographed and professionally acted... the story is intriguing... but it all feels rather insubstantial, as if several important scenes were missing.

Perhaps it got butchered in the editing room.

Too bad. Like samhill's review.

I hate the word "dated", because it can only sensibly apply to a work in which the characters or plot don't reflect the era.

So, actually, what most of the internet educated IMDb users claim to be "dated" are often the only films not "dated". "Dated" means watching a movie about Wyatt Earp, and getting the feeling he has played video games instead of thinking about local events.

Here, we have a film that is definitely not dated. It deals with a handsome Communist spy who has to work his dealings around his personal life.

Robert Taylor's character is very credible, and multi dimensional. If this movie was made by one of the beavis and buttheads of today, he'd simply kill everyone who coughed when he told a lie. Yes, you're right. This would mean the world population would be zero humans within a month, and it makes no sense.

Here, in "Conspirator", he is a real person, and so is his wife, who is onto him. In dramatic style, they still want to work their relationship, and honestly, this is what people do, when they find something out about each other. Real people don't murder each other each time they find out a secret about each other.

We're shown early that the pace of the film skips over minor details, which modern writers deem so important. In one sense, some would say that "dates" this film, since it is more plot oriented, more Shakespeare than Tennessee Williams. Intricacies aren't explored as much. We're given the story line and the story, and the length of the movie allows for that.

Is it completely perfect? I don't think so. However, the characters are more credible for the time than people today can handle, so it probably isn't safe to show friends. People will have a problem with the iconoclastic attitude towards today's "everyone is a psychotic killer" philosophy.