Hostile Witness

Enjoyable, entertaining, somewhat stagy film version of play Hostile Witness stars Ray Milland(who also directs) as a barrister who having lost his daughter to a hit-and-run driver vows vengeance on the man responsible. This leads to his eventual arrest under a series of intriguing red herrings and some interesting if not wholly plausible logic. Milland gives a , how shall I put it , a strong - STRONG - performance. He barks out nearly everything he says and looks like he'll pop a vein any minute. He is enjoyable nonetheless. The rest of the cast of British stalwarts make for good viewing as well. Sylvia Syms as a junior barrister is particularly strong as is Geoffrey Lumsden as a provincial older military relic - totally out of step with reality in many ways and very engaging to watch. Hostile Witness is nothing great or profound by any means but makes for a good, old-fashioned courtroom drama/mystery.

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.

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."

"Hostile Witness" is one of those grand, old fashioned British courtroom dramas that can be lots of fun. Fun, but dangerous when it comes to the telling because the 'buy in' as to who did what and why needs at least a little bit of believability, something sadly missing in action here.

Briefly, barrister Ray Milland is accused of murdering an old judge he had accused of running down and killing his daughter. Hitting him extremely hard, he has a mental breakdown followed by a three month convalescence after which he is 'cured.' But returning to work does not necessarily mean putting the past behind him and getting on with life because Milland is arrested and committed to trial. The barrister is now in the dock, and he isn't handling it very well. Let the games begin!

When I first saw "Hostile Witness" on the stage of the Music Box Theatre in New York in 1966, I quite liked it even though I quibbled that some of the actors in general 'and Ray Milland in particular tended to speak too quickly, making themselves a little difficult at times to understand.' Unfortunately things have gone from bad to worse with the screen version, a film that first showed up on United Artist's release schedule in 1968 but was never seen. Little wonder as "Hostile Witness" comes across as a poorly constructed artifact from a bygone era. Thundering and screaming and yelling and bulldozing its way to its laughable conclusion, it is just so out of touch with 1968, which is probably why it never got a North American release. Now its 'old-fashionedness' would probably be okay if the film had been a 'period piece.' But it wasn't. It was ostensibly set in 'modern London.' So why aren't there any references to London's many mod' characters, swinging Carnaby Street, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

I wish I could like "Hostile Witness" because I love British courtroom dramas. But courtroom dramas that make a modicum of sense, contain some colourful characters and have punctuated shading in pace and performances. Again, missing in action all!

Ray Milland, when tightly reigned in by A-list directors like Fritz Lang, John Farrow, Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock can be amazingly effective. But left to his own excesses and he is not only insufferable, but as the film's director he also ensures that so also are many of those around him. Only Sylvia Miles, Norman Barrs, Felix Aylmer and Julian Holloway manage to rise above their material, and even here the results are decidedly mixed.

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.