Cause célèbre

Terence Rattigan liked to do plays based on actual crimes. He is best known for THE WINSLOW BOY, based on the 1911 Archer-Shee Case involving the social ruin of a naval cadet and his family when the cadet is accused of stealing postal money orders from his fellow cadets. It was twice filmed (both times quite well). CAUSE CELEBRE is based on the 1935 Alma Rattenbury - George Stonor murder case. Alma was a somewhat talented woman (she composed popular songs) who married Francis Rattenbury, an architect (his various public and private buildings in Vancouver are still part of the city's skyline). Francis was older than Alma, and she began an affair with Stonor, a handyman they hired. One night Stonor shot Francis, and he died in a couple of days. Stonor was arrested, and then so was Alma. It sort of resembles the Thompson-Bywater tragedy in 1922, but Alma was shown to have had nothing to do with the shooting. Stonor, however, was found guilty and condemned to death. Alma could not stand the loss of her young lover. She went down to a river near her home, and stabbed herself to death. Ironically, due to his age, Stonor's sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. Eventually he was released. However, in the 1980s (he was still alive) he was arrested on a morals charge. The play of course only deals with the events in 1935.

As usual, Helen Mirren has it all wrapped up. I knew it would be great when she goes from smiling to weeping in the course of 10 seconds at the piano scene near the beginning of the film. Amazing how she does that. THis character seemed lighter than most of the characters she plays--but underneath you know that she is suffering and drowning in her despair from the very beginning. You think that the woman is hopelessly flawed because of her seemingly superficial need for money and status, and for her interest in a much younger man. Then you realize she is playing such a complicated character that you can't even imagine how she did it. Helen mirren. Amazing.

Mirren is excellent, Suchet in a minor role is excellent, and wait until you hear his spoken English for a terrific contrast with his Poirot...helps you appreciate his acting ability. This 1987 t.v. movie is presented in one part, but there is an obvious editing break right at the halfway mark for it to have perhaps been originally shown in two parts. It opens outdoors on a 1030's London street. One immediately notes, and appreciates, that it was filmed using video. The entire movie is filmed on video tape and it avoids the jarring effect so common in earlier t.v. mini-series and movies which were filmed on the set using video and the outdoor scenes were made on film. Production is quite satisfactory with details of the interior designs of the house, and of the house itself, all period correct. The house is very appropriate for a once-successful middle class architect. Decorative pieces through the house add interest and are very appropriate. However, filmed on video, one is always aware we are watching a set. Still the set has a most satisfying mix of arts and crafts with art deco. The acting is very good all around, as are the costumes, sets, and photography, all adding a texture to this drama based on a true story. Good direction does service to the fine script which does not present the story in a dry straight forward narrative. I do fault the script in being so lacking in details of the young man's home life. We know he lives 30 minutes away on a bicycle, needs a job at during hard times, is 18 and tall, making him look older than he is, few friends, can drive, and his father is very strict. That is about it. We never see a member of his family or any scene of him at his home. The script is rich with subtleties, and who actually did what is answered when Mirren is question during the trial, in a subtle way. If Poirot was there he would be repeating it at the end explaining who did the dastardly deed indeed! However, it is up to you, (as this is not an Agatha Christie formula story), to figure out who did what. You are never clearly told. The answer I assure you is there. If you like Prime Suspect for Mirren, or Poirot for either Suchet or just the period art deco apartment interior, or both, I highly recommend Cause Celebre. Video: 1:33, few minor smear defects from original use of video, otherwise, sound and image is fine. No English subtitles, which I found needing occasionally.

Is it any wonder that the Brits kick our butts when it comes to putting out good theater? Look at this cast: Helen Mirren, David Morrissey, Harry Andrews and David Suchet in a pre-Hercule Poirot role as a barrister. The story based on a defense of a woman's (Mirren) live-in handy-man lover (Morrissey) who violently kills her elderly impotent husband (Andrews). The barrister mounts a defense of how this younger, naive man misinterpreted the woman's involvement with him. The case takes strange twists as the woman winds the unwilling other victim whose only crime is one of indiscretion. Fine, fine acting and a gripping, well-written drama. I'm amazed it is not available on video. If it rolls around on PBS, be sure to check it out.

Cause célèbre was essentially a television vehicle for Helen Mirren made by Anglia Television for ITV. It was made during the phase of Mirren's career where she would only keep her clothes on the screen for artistic merit.

Inspired by the true life murder of architect Francis Rattenbury in 1935. This was an adaptation of the play written by Terence Rattigan. It is not a television movie as it was shot on video. More a feature length drama.

As one of the main characters was still alive in 1987, some of the names have been fictionalised.

David Morrissey plays George Bowman. An immature, angry 18 year old man who is employed as a chauffeur for the Rattenbury's. He becomes obsessed with crooner Alma Rattenbury (Mirren) who is in her 30s but married to the much older Francis Rattenbury (Harry Andrews) who she met in Canada.

Both George and Alma embark on a torrid affair. George getting increasingly jealous of Alma's husband. When Francis is found bludgeoned to death, both stand trial for murder.

Told in flashbacks, this is a dreary drama. There was no vigour in it and neither was it salacious enough. There is a good cast here but they are wasted. To me it did not work as a mystery or a courtroom thriller.