Hostile Witness

If you like Perry Mason you'll like this film. But not as much. It follows a similar path, where we see some events around the crime but not who the guilty party is. Of course the truth comes out in the end. As the setting is in England, there is much more courtroom decorum, with few objections by the lawyers. Yet we see some classic Perry Mason tactics. My main disappointment though, came when the film had no epilogue. After Perry Mason won his case, he would always have a chat with Della and Paul and explain how he figured it out. You would then slap your brow and wonder how you missed that. But in the film, this doesn't happen, so it's not at all clear how the crime was solved. At least not to me.

1967's "Hostile Witness" was the last of five feature films to be directed by actor Ray Milland, who also starred in each one, dating back to his 1955 Western "A Man Alone" (his best known was AIP's "Panic in Year Zero!" in 1962). The experience of starring in Jack Roffey's successful Broadway play (which he also toured in the US and Australia) led Milland to helm this movie adaptation at London's Shepperton Studios, the stationary camera reminding us of its stage origins yet still engaging with a veteran cast of stalwarts like Felix Aylmer (as the presiding judge), Raymond Huntley (as the prosecutor), Richard Hurndall (as the investigator), and especially Sylvia Syms as Milland's promising young clerk, whose services are sorely missed once he begins to defend himself. His barrister Oliver Crawford is as arrogant as he is confident in his victorious ways, only to see his world come crashing down with the unexpected death of his only daughter, the victim of a hit-and-run right outside his home. After spending three months recovering from the tragedy, the barrister returns to work but is quickly sidetracked by the murder of a trusted friend who is presumed to have been guilty of the crime, circumstantial evidence pointing to Crawford as the guilty party. At this point we never leave the courtroom, and the viewer cannot be certain if a nervous breakdown could be responsible for turning Crawford into an undeniable killer. Milland acquits himself well though the story tends to bog down near the end of its 102 minutes, his screen career only picking up again three years later as Ryan O'Neal's stern father in the hugely successful "Love Story."

I am not that big a fan of courtroom drama but quite enjoyed this one, probably because of the decent cast, especially Milland in the lead. I see that it is based on a Broadway play but is transposed to London. I suppose British courts have a more pictorial value in the gowns and wigs than do American courts. Talkng of wigs, though, the one adorning Milland's head when out if court is no more real-looking than the lawyer's wig he wears in court !

Hostile Witness (1968)

When Hollywood was shifting to a new mode of movie-making, Britain was apparently still able to make what you might call a routine, early 1960s styled film. And no wonder, with old school Ray Milland as both leading actor and director. It's a modern England, including some terrific Mod fashion on the women (and nice suits on the men, to be fair). But this is a relatively stiff affair, and for a 1968 film, rather old fashioned, pleasurable and unexceptional.

It's worth adding, quickly, that this is a dull film cinematically, too. It's widescreen of course (not a made for television movie) but it's lighted as if for t.v. (low contrast ratio) and the camera is functional, rarely or never an active presence, or even a creative one. This I blame on Milland as much as the cinematographer. It frankly kills even the best scenes, which are blasted with light in an unrealistic and dulling way. Sad. But if you know Milland, who can sometimes be interesting (if never exciting), it makes sense--he's a stiff, snotty type, at least on screen.

But he's not a bad actor, and if there is one consistent strength, in acting, it's actually the director. Which is fair enough. And there is the plot, which I think is supposed to sustain us, even if it's doled out painfully slowly. The curiosity is the sudden death of what might have seemed a potential main character, the beautiful (and well dressed) daughter of the leading man, high powered lawyer Simon Crawford (Milland). You get the sense in this film (more than his few others he directed) that he is aware of Hitchcock's later films (post-Psycho era). As a fellow Brit (Milland was Welsh), there was a commiseration, no doubt (same era, same sense of drama within a relatively false presentation). And as a crime film replete with ordinary folk overwhelmed by terrible facts.

But as a director, Milland is no Hitchcock, which they probably both realized in the rather terrific "Dial M for Murder" which was directed by one master and acted by the other (in one of his best performances). The plot, the strength of the movie, is laid out mostly through drawing room (or law office) conversations. It's slow going, if somewhat rigorous in logic. Milland's stiffness is better suited to the second half of the movie, where he is in the formality of the courtroom. In the end, this is a courtroom drama, with all its argument-based back and forth. The logic is stretched by the end however, with a showdown of shouting convictions and then a last minute surprise (the last ten seconds of the movie) and it's almost laughable.

There are so many better movies, I'd skip this one. To say it's solid on some old-fashioned level isn't really a defense. There's little here to lift it up, very little.

I don't think I've ever seen a film where almost all of the characters are literally shouting 50% of their dialogue. Ray Milland is probably the worst offender...and since he directed the film himself, that makes it twice as bad! It's not that the acting is "over the top" - that would have been preferable to actors constantly yelling at each other. Sometimes it's warranted - but that's an issue in itself - there are too many scenes that lend themselves to over-emoting. Other ties, the yelling is just plain ridiculous.

Another issue is the facial expressions made by the actors (again, mainly Milland). I believe they are intended to deliberately confuse the viewer, to make the viewer think that the actor is thinking in certain way, when they are not. I'm not sure if it's the actors' fault, the director's fault or a product of the times (late 60s filmmaking ?? - I'm not sure what that really means, but I'm putting it out there anyway).

Watching Ray Milland in a 1940s or 1950s film seemed OK...in "Hostile Witness", I feel like I'm watching him in one of his late career horror films. Not good.

This being said, the film was paced well (a credit to Milland!) and had some neat twists. It kept me watching in spite of its issues.