Murder in Reverse?

I caught this one on Talking Pictures after it was previously unavailable for viewing for many years. It's a fun little 'wronged man' thriller which stars William Hartnell in a rare leading man performance, playing a guy suspected of murdering a love rival after being cuckolded by his wife. He goes to prison for 15 years but comes out convinced his 'victim' is still alive. Real-life husband and wife Jimmy Hanley and Dinah Sheridan help him out, and there's a bit of courtroom stuff too. Hartnell is unrecognisable in his old man makeup and very good in the part too, aided by a seedy John Slater and Montgomery Tully's brisk, workmanlike direction.

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.

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.

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.

The name Montgomery Tully does not ring any loud bells with me as far directors' names go, but in MURDER IN REVERSE he strikes me as a capable crew handler to deliver a film that raises pertinent questions about the law, innocence, and compensation when man-made law has failed and meted out the wrong punishment.

Admittedly, the premise of the story places you before a situation fraught with the possibility of erroneous interpretation by court: Tom Masterick (well played by William Hartnell) is a dedicated family man whose wife cheats and who loses his beloved daughter to adoption after he chases his wife's lover with a long knife in his hand and apparently kills him.

You can question several details: William Hartnell, the alleged killer, does age; the alleged deceased, John Slater, does not (could it mean that his life has remained intact while Masterick's was wasted?); how did the authorities allow a man called Fred Smith, like the alleged murdereed man, to open and own a pub under that very name?; the convenience of those developments that lead to Masterick rotting in jail for 15 precious years raises all manner of doubt.

However, ultimately, when presented with evidence that the supposedly murdered man is actually very much alive, the wheels of law find it very difficult to turn around to right the wrong, and use all manner of semantics, not to have to admit the error.

As the saying goes, better let a criminal free than place an innocent man in jail. I liked MURDER IN THE REVERSE? Very much, all logic holes notwithstanding, because of the issues it raises. In cinematographic terms, it is strictly competent.

Lovely to see the very young Petula Clark. 8/10.