Tiger in the Smoke

A vast majority of my film/television watching has in common two primary reasons for watching them. One is a good, or more, idea for the story, even though the execution has been understandably variable. The other is a promising cast, comprising of talented actors/actresses. 'Tiger in the Smoke' had both of those primary common reasons, and further advantaged by that it was directed by Roy Ward Baker who did a great job with a not too dissimilar though also different enough film not too long before ('The October Man').

'Tiger in the Smoke' could have been better, while still being worth watching. The idea is not wasted, though more could have been done with it. There is some good talent in the cast, but the acting had both hits and misses with better work from most having been done elsewhere. It's not one of Baker's best either. 'Tiger in the Smoke' is a case of starting off really, really well, but sadly losing focus halfway through. Which is a real shame and quite frustrating thinking about it.

Will start with what works in 'Tiger in the Smoke'. It looks great, especially the photography which is so beautiful to look at and full of style and atmosphere. Malcolm Arnold's music score is suitably brooding without being discordant with what is going on. Baker's direction is sturdy enough, especially in the first half.

Much of the script is tight and with the right amount of entertainment value and intrigue. The story is absorbing on the most part, certainly so in the first half which is entertaining and suspenseful. The characters aren't complex but the best of them don't bore or annoy, Bernard Miles and Laurence Naismith (well mostly) coming off best as they are the two most likeable ones. There are some good performances, great in the case of Miles and Naismith. Then again you wouldn't expect much less from those two. Muriel Pavlow is a luminous presence, Charles Victor brings some nice vim to his role and there are some personification of evil moments from Tony Wright.

Having said that, Wright's performance is uneven which is also true for the general standard of the performances. Starting off well but as the character becomes more "evil", or at least that was the intent, Wright became increasingly taxed and tends to over-compensate while also betraying too much how quite bland Havoc is generally as a villain despite showing potential initially. Alec Clunes is also a bit dull and Donald Sinden has very little to do other than being the standard kidnap victim. Less characters would have helped, as not all of them contribute much, which would have helped giving the characters more development rather than particularly Havoc being missed opportunities.

A couple of scenes particularly don't work, and generally the second half isn't nearly as strong as the first. The suspense dissipates and some of it felt a bit silly and rushed, as well as not being focused. Am another person that found the scene in the church with Wright and Naismith implausible and over-explained and anti-climactic is a very good way to sum up the ending.

Overall, decent but not great. 6/10

This film is not in any way a gripping story, in fact, it seems as one watches it, to be three films cut and compressed to make one. So, what's wrong with it? The main problem is the fact that it has too many characters, too many mediocre actors (one appallingly bad one) too many angles and not enough of a story, the denouement is positively under whelming and one is left not caring about anyone, except perhaps, the canon played beautifully by that most reliable and welcome of actors, Laurence Naismith.

So why am I bothering to write about it? Because it is one of those worthwhile ventures, one of those film projects that had so much going for it on paper that it deserved to become a huge success. The directing of camera was for the most part brilliant, with many innovative techniques, some of them well ahead of the industry's time. The directing of the actors was uneven and sometimes non existent, which allowed better actors to get disorderly and the poor ones (there were a few) to go off the edge or simply flounder, the actor playing Johnny Havoc, the film's central bad guy, was simply not up to the role, and should have been recast, he indulged in "mad acting" "golden haze" and "falling on furniture" all things no actor should ever be allowed to get away with, and in his one great scene (in the cellar with his gang) he blew every opportunity the script afforded him to shine and to create great drama, as a result, the scene fell like seeds on stony ground.

Having said this, the film was made with some great care and there were moments that broke all barriers for the time. The actor playing the Inspector(against type from the book)was good, and the supporting police force actors were good, Charles Victor(though very near the edge most of the time) provided a welcome uplift, and Laurence Naismith was (as usual) on top of his job.

Donald Sinden had not at this time developed his hard jaw and tight teeth acting and so was quite acceptable as the new man in the life of the love interest (an actress who did so very well with what she was given, which wasn't very much) and he was handsome enough to be taken for Richard Green.

This is a good film if you allow for the obvious flaws, and deserves a place alongside great works, for it's bravery and innovative techniques, as well as some of the character acting, odd bits of which, were brilliant.

Dracher

The story is even too simple. Just to spice things up, I believe, the filmmaker(s) must have decided to wrap it up in layers of London's smoky fog. I haven't really fully understood every one of the twirls and whirls of the plot, nor have I tried to reconsider them with a second run: I'm good with just one view, thank you. Funny and fuzzy editing and blurring photography shots do not make things better: on the contrary. But I am probably a naive viewer: try it up for yourself, if you like. It's one hour and a half, and it's fairly better than letting your thumbs be smashed by a hammer. I valued it a 6 in the hope that future will bestow me with a full understanding of this film.

From the point of view of filming, this movie is a masterpiece. The London Smog takes on a character of its own. Characters appear and disappear mysteriously, sounds are muffled, uncertain violence is ever present. The Street Band squawks and groans eerily, its members looming distorted as nightmares from Heironymus Bosch.

For those unfamiliar with Marjorie Allingham, her successful detective series featured Albert Campion, a colourless gentleman who merged with his background. The filmmakers, as has been stated, successfully lost him in the "Smoke". The truly attractive character from Allingham's series is the Police detective, Charles Luke. Charlie is tall, handsome, puppy-like and incredibly dynamic. His curly hair never stays put, He never stands still, he talks with his hands, his voice is full of expression. What a great character to play! This is where the screen adaptation seriously falls down. Alec Clune appears to be making no attempt to represent Charlie Luke. He has obviously not read the book, which is a pity! The result is that the colourful Charlie is reduced to a character as grey and insipid as Albert Campion. It is a real disappointment to Charlie's fans!

On the other hand, the performances by Tony Wright as the psychopath Jack Havoc, Laurence Naismith as the courageous Canon and Bernard Miles as the Gang Leader are wonderful, while Beatrice Varley as the sinister Lucy Cash is Magnificent.

The most unforgettable line is this description of Lucy Cash - "When she walks down the street curtains tremble, blinds creep down and keys turn stealthily in locks."

FOOTNOTE- Smog is the name of a combination of fog and coal dust, common in London until the air was cleaned up.

During the late 1940s and the 1950s the subject of juvenile gangs and delinquency took a hold in London. The culmination of this was the creation of the image of the "Teddy Boy", who was like our delinquents - a young adult with attitude problems. In the hands of some writers it became a subject of national malaise as in the play LOOK BACK IN ANGER, with the young upset at how they were being cheated of their futures by the so-called blunders of the previous two or three generations. But in the here and now it also led to the recognition of a criminal problem: The urban youth who had nothing to do but have sex and get into trouble. A series of youthful killers in the early 1950s culminated in the Derek Bentley - Christopher Craig case, where a constable was killed, and the the actual killer could not be tried (he was too young). His mentally challenged friend, who made the mistake of shouting, "Let him have it Chris", was hanged. We still are not sure if Bentley wanted Craig to shoot or to hand the gun over to the constable.

Comically the figure of the Teddy Boy was spoofed as a clumsy idiot by Peter Sellers in THE LADYKILLERS. But the really less pleasant aspect of such a type was well played by Tony Wright as Jack Havoc in this film. He is the terror of every soul in the district of London he resides in, most of whom clam up when the police try to find out who is terrorizing them, and where he is. Nobody will reveal a fact - he claims that he has all the answers - he knows how to control the world. It is not brains or cunning: He has discovered the "Science of Luck". He believes if you believe in luck you will create it for yourself. It is not until his world blows up in his face, as it did in that of his older American contemporary Cody Jarrett in WHITE HEAT, that he realizes there is a limit to such luck.

Bernard Miles as his older gang lieutenant (originally the boss until Jack took over) is wonderful as a seedy type who would like to break Jack's neck but knows if something goes wrong he will be lucky to be left a cripple only. Laurence Naismith plays the decent local church canon, whose one effort to help this psychotic ends in his near murder. Donald Sinden is the local decent common man who helps bring down the local monster.

It's not shown too frequently (I saw it about 1983 or so). But it was a really good little thriller well worth the watching.