Never Take Sweets from a Stranger

I saw this on video as "Never Take Candy from a Stranger," under which title it was apparently released in the U.S. It was the one serious film produced by Hammer Films, famous for its Gothic horrors, and I found this much more suspenseful, as well as much better made, than the lot of them. It begins with small tensions of frustration and mild dislike among members of the academic community in a small town and gradually, subtly builds to an atmosphere of dread that catches in the throat. Every character, down to the bit parts, has something of interest to say, and what they say and do, and how their actions combine, lead step by step to the harrowing conclusion. The only fault is the over-simplicity of its social viewpoint, as expressed by the main character and justified by the events of the story, which are by no means unbelievable but not inevitable either. Apart from that, I thought it was a first-class B-picture, a small film in the good sense, compact and economical, with all its resources, human and otherwise, firmly in hand. Also, it has the grey photography that once used to give films of this type the aura they needed: the grey of rain and fog and dusk and uneasy feelings.

Highly controversial at the time of it's release and still disturbing today "Never Take Sweets from a Stranger" now feels like a polemic which somewhat dilutes its effectiveness as a thriller. It's extremely well-intended if a little on the dull side. The subject is child abuse; of course, being 1960 the abuse in question is never actually shown and is actually not even looked on as abuse by anyone other than the parents of the abused child.

Felix Aylmer is admirably and bravely cast as the old man who gets a couple of little girls to dance naked for him while he gets off on it. Unfortunately Aylmer is a local bigwig while the family of one of the abused children are newcomers to this closed community who then gang up against them, taking the side of the abuser's family. (The family of the other little girl don't seem to want to know). Consequently the film is as much about the abuse of power as it is about sexual abuse.

It was a product of Hammer Studios and sold as a 'horror' film but it's a very serious and sober picture, a message movie rather than an outright thriller. It is well written and Patrick Allen and Gwen Watford are fine as the parents while Niall MacGinnis as Aylmer's attorney and Alison Leggatt as the little girl's grandmother are outstanding. Today the film remains virtually unseen and while it may be no masterpiece at least you have to admire its intentions.

This fine drama as well as "Cash on Demand" are, in my opinion, two of the best dramas produced by Hammer Film, though not as well known as Joseph Losey's science-fiction drama"The Damned", or Michael Carreras' thriller "Maniac", which had casts with better known actors as Kerwin Mathews, Viveca Lindfors, Macdonald Carey, Nadia Gray and Alexander Knox. In the line of New York scholar Ruth Goldberg's recent studies of the evolution of horror film, this is definitely a precursor to her approach, according to which characters from films as "No Country for Old Men", "Safe", "Fargo", "Precious", "Monster", and others, are real monsters that convey the feeling of fright found in the traditional horror motion pictures. The old man (Felix Aylmer) who abuses two little girls, who is taken to court, and finally follows them in the woods, is definitely one of the most terrifying monsters to come out of Hammer. If it still works today as an effective and startling drama, in 1960 it must have been shocking to audiences. Very good black & white widescreen cinematography by maestro Freddie Francis ("The Innocents", "The Elephant Man"). Don't miss it.

An extremely well executed film with very difficult theme and despite the care and attention, never mind the pre-filming censorship problems, one wonders just who was likely to be the intended audience. Perhaps the answer is in the makers' fight for a certificate less than an 'X' on the grounds that otherwise children would not be able to see it. It seems that the intention was to send out a warning that not all is wonderful in the world and care should be taken when 'strange' men or simply 'strangers' offer incentives for children to disrobe. The film is of necessity disturbing and there seems little chance such a film would even today be made available to 'children', however hypocritical that is. Gwen Watford is excellent and Janina Faye as the 'victim' absolutely spot on in a very difficult role. Brave, literate and very powerful.

This flick was screened in 16mm at the Gene Siskel Film Center in 2016 as part of a "British noir" series; associate director of programming Martin Rubin wrote in the center's monthly gazette that this was an "undiscovered gem" that "combines taut suspense with a sensitive treatment of a delicate subject." I agree with that assessment.

This film also won me over by getting to the juicy bits, fast; the pacing is nice and quick, so that the pervy Mr. Oldberry does his sick deed (off screen, of course), and the Carter family is left to grapple with the consequences. The Canadian-set film is written superbly for a 1960 "issues" film with a schlocky title; it seamlessly morphs from domestic drama to legal procedural to suspenseful thriller in the final act.

A movie like this could have easily gone the way of unintended farce, but its well-rounded characters and willingness to look at all sides of the issue mostly keep it floating above the realm of silliness.

The audience at the showing I was in gave a couple chuckles in the beginning, when the film opened with a title card warning us that this story could potentially take place in any town, at any time; those sniggers subsided when the film proved its nuance during the rest of its 80-minute runtime. A great, underseen gem.