The Dock Brief

With respect, I must disagree with the other reviewers. I generally relish the old British films, especially the comedies (The Ladykillers, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Green Man et al.) however I found this film to be well acted, but not particularly funny, and rather tedious. Attenborough and Sellers do show their considerable versatility and skills. But Mortimer's story makes one long for a good "Rumpole" episode. I kept waiting for the story to get going, but it never did. The pacing is s-l-o-w, which isn't inherently bad (see my review of The Smallest Show on Earth) but what does the film add up to? For me, it is an interesting curio perhaps, but not something one can really recommend.

Minor and small scale this screen version of John Mortimer's "The Dock Brief" may have been but it's frequently very funny and boasts two outstanding performances from a BAFTA nominated Richard Attenborough as the mundane, mild-mannered and mostly morose husband accused of murdering his wife, (a rumbustious Beryl Reid), and Peter Sellers as his mediocre if well-meaning barrister. It was perhaps a strange little movie for these two stars to have made at the time and it wasn't really a success but it's likable in its stagey way and there is a very nice supporting performance from David Lodge as a somewhat over-enthusiastic lodger.

John Mortimer was a very clever witty man. His writings were accessible, never laboured, they never patronised the audience, baffled them or bored them. As a former barrister, he was entirely used to addressing and winning-over juries. It was plausible at the very least that his writings were based on true experiences. Like Dickens, working in the field of Law exposed him to a gallery of characters and odd situations which were beyond most people's experiences.

And in the radio play version, the story starts with the curious but plausible situation where an imprisoned accused (of murdering his wife) is joined in his cell by the barrister who is to defend him. The dialogue is both entirely reasonable yet at the same time entirely plausible such that the accused wrongly assumes that the barrister is a another accused come to share the cell. A long conversation at entire cross-purposes ensues. The skill and wit is all in the carefully constructed dialogue.

Here in this film version, the simplicity and wit is replaced by superfluous dialogue and additional scenes. Richard Attenborough is excellent as the accused, a modest man with a great deal to be modest about. Peter Sellers is however lack-lustre, perhaps ill at ease with the part and perhaps the direction. Sellers was at base a comedian who became a comic actor. Perhaps in 1962 he had not yet developed the skill to deliver a part he could not empathise with.

I see that it received no awards of any kind - confirmation that it fell flat

Mr. Morganhall (Peter Sellers) is excited, as he became a barrister decades ago and has just sat in his office ever since....never getting to try a single case in court. To put it bluntly, he's not especially bright or a good lawyer...and now he's hoping a murder case he's been assigned to might open up the door for more trials. The problem is that his client, while a nice guy in many ways, DID murder his wife and freely admits it. He also, reluctantly, admits that the only reason he picked Morganhall was that he chose him at random! Does the defendant stand a chance with this boob of a lawyer?

This film is not a laugh out loud comedy and is quite subtle. The story also isn't super important, believe it or not. It's more a chance to watch the very talented Sellers show off his skills as an actor...and he's lovely in the lead. Richard Attenborough is also very nice as the killer...and the film is enjoyable and an unusual departure for them both. Well worth seeing....and I really loved seeing the clever way the director did those flashback scenes.

Peter Sellers plays the worst barrister in the Old Bailey, hanging around court day after day hoping for a "dock brief" - a public-defender case assigned, and paid for, by the government - as his only hope of getting any work at all. After years of waiting, he is escorted to the cells to meet his very first client - who at first takes Sellers for a fellow-prisoner, then informs him there is no need for a defense as he is in fact guilty and everyone knows it. Sellers, undaunted, spins fantasies of brilliant defenses, which his client helps him act out in imaginary courtroom scenes. Each fantasy falters on the simple fact that the client really is guilty, but the client cheerfully plays along, sensing that the lawyer needs a victory even more than he does. The emptiness and disappointments of each man's life are revealed in flashback scenes in which, together, they visit one another's lives in times past. When the real trial begins, the lawyer's fantasies ring hollow, but he saves the day with legal maneuvering that only he is qualified to pull off. In the bittersweet final scene, the two walk off together, each understanding how much the other needs him.

The story, by John Mortimer, is a slightly darker version of his familiar "Rumpole of the Bailey" tales. The script, also by Mortimer, is very funny, but the combination of dry British humor and Sellers's almost somnolently underplayed role let most of the humor go by unnoticed. This is the funniest movie I never once laughed at. Attenborough is an understated genius as the mordant bird lover who murders his wife because she *wouldn't* run away with her boyfriend, and then apologizes to his lawyer for being guilty.