As Duas Faces da Lei

A first-rate cast, a fine script, a decent plot and a so-so director, (Guy Hamilton), so why wasn't "Man in the Middle" a better movie. It's certainly not a bad film but Hamilton was a dull director, ("Goldfinger" being the notable exception), who lacked imagination and the most he does here is help the movie plod along in an entertaining, if unimaginative fashion. It's set in India in the closing days of the Second World War and begins when an American soldier, (Keenan Wynn, very good), shoots dead a British soldier in full view of witnesses.

Robert Mitchum is the poor sap of an American officer drafted in to defend him and what looks like a cut-and-dried scenario is soon revealed to be anything but. Given the material, (it's based on a good Howard Fast novel), it ought to have been much more complex and exciting than it is but it's certainly a very handsome looking picture, nicely shot in black-and-white Cinemascope by Wilkie Cooper. Never destined to become a classic, it's still fine Saturday Afternoon Matinee fare.

"Man In The Middle" (1964) is arguably Mitchum's best performance (certainly his most nuanced) and one of those situations where you can't imagine anyone else in the role. Although the focus is a "military" court martial in India during the last months of WWII, it is basically a standard courtroom drama with Mitchum's character playing the defense counsel. The actual proceeding is very similar to that shown in "The Caine Mutiny" (1954). With a running length of just 93 minutes and a relatively complex story to tell, Director Guy Hamilton had to utilize a lot of stereotypes and nonverbal clues from Mitchum to assemble a coherent film. He is largely successful although it appears a lot of the romantic side story (between Mitchum and "South Pacific's France Nuyen) was trimmed before release. That is of little importance to the theme, what was left works mainly as a way to go out on Mitchum's closing line "you might not be able to beat them but you don't have to join them".

Out of combat, recovering from his wound, a limping career Army lieutenant colonel with a law degree and limited legal experience finds himself assigned to defend an American officer (Lt. Winston-played by Keenan Wynn) who has already confessed to the murder of a British Staff Sergeant. In fact, the film opens with the murder so the viewer is never in doubt about the "who done it" issue. All that remains is the punishment phase of the proceeding. Winston's brother-in-law is a congressman who has rejected several other potential defense counsels but has agreed to Mitchum's appointment. The area commander (nicely played by Barry Sullivan) wants the proceeding expedited ASAP with a death sentence, the best way to satisfy the British so everyone can go back to pulling together. He is a friend of Mitchum's family and is confident that Mitchum will take one for the team and do what is best for the war effort.

And at first Mitchum seems quite agreeable to the idea of providing no more than a token defense; pointing out to the two hot shot attorneys on his defense team that in a few months they will be back practicing law as civilians while he has found a home in the Army and does not want this to louse up his career. He has only been given a few days to assemble his case anyway.

But as he reviews the circumstances and interviews a few people he becomes convinced that his client is a psychological basket case who was unable to determine right from wrong at the time of the murder. There is no time for the film to explore the origins of Lt. Winstons's mental condition and no time to give any dimensionality to his character. Nor is it actually of any real relevance to the story Director Guy Hamilton is trying to tell, so Winston is simplistically portrayed as a totally unsympathetic character. Unlike in "A Few Good Men" (1992), it is intended that the viewer conclude that just going through the motions would really be in the best interests of everyone except the defendant.

Mitchum is on the screen 90% of the time and is the only character that undergoes any real change during the course of the film. And Mitchum must underplay the change process because the idea is to show that if the Army had not tried to hinder his efforts, he would never have put so much energy into the defense. It is a great nonverbal performance as Mitchum slowly gets his back up about what is happening and decides that personal integrity trumps career aspirations. Somewhat cliché and with the score more appropriate to an overwrought melodrama, it is a nice illustration of the condensed storytelling process of films.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

"Col. Adams" (Robert Mitchum) is drafted in to conduct the defence, at court martial, of an American officer accused of murdering a British NCO in India. There's no doubt about the crime, nor that it was committed as charged so it all looks like fait accompli. "Adams" finds his grey cells starting to twitch when seemingly pointless obstacles are strewn in front of him. One witness is transferred suddenly and those supposed to be facilitating his work start to impede it. One conversation starts to ring alarm bells - perhaps his client isn't competent? Might he have a defence of insanity? That causes great consternation amongst the higher-ups who seem content to sacrifice their man for the sake of Anglo-American relationships. Ironically enough, it is the British doctor "Maj. Kensington" (Trevor Howard) who seems to want the truth told at the trial - but can they make their presence felt against some pretty formidable odds? This film benefits from quite an interesting storyline and a lead actor who is on decent form delivering a solid script. There are plenty of familiar faces amongst the supporting cast and there is just enough jeopardy to keep it interesting for ninety minutes before a fairly lively denouement.

This is the film Guy Hamilton made just before the blockbuster of his career "Goldfinger" -which,although very different from "Man in the middle" ,remains one of the best (who says best?) Bond ever made-.

The problem with "man in the middle " is that there's not enough scenes with Keenan Wynn.We would like to know more about him,about his childhood,his relationship with his colleagues,women ,etc.Only Trevor Howard's final plea -which an ominous music makes disturbing- really tells us about his psyche.Also handicapped by a decorative female character who brings almost nothing to the plot whereas we 're waiting to know more about Winton's motives.Average.

Originally titled MAN IN THE MIDDLE, but bearing a different name in the US film circuit - THE WINSTON AFFAIR, if memory serves me right - this is a middling script off a middling novel by Howard Fast.

Director Guy Hamilton, famous for such James Bond vehicles as GOLDFINGER, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, LIVE AND LET DIE, MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, among others, never rose above middling status himself. In MAN IN THE MIDDLE, his mediocrity stamps just about every well shot, effective frame credibly bringing out a most unusual Indian background (I have to admit that I never knew of a British-US Command HQ in India during WWII) where US Army sergeant Keenan Wynn just shoots dead a British soldier for apparently making a noise at night, promptly retiring to his quarters and enjoying a good night's sleep.

Eleven witnesses and a courtroom case later, the middling solution could only be for a competent lawyer like Mitchum - albeit a bit rusty after not practicing law for 15 years - to plead insanity on Wynn's behalf... and even the British expertt psychiatrist portrayed by Trevor Howard pretty much endorses that finding.

Whether the finale that every senior US officer apparently sought - death by hanging for Wynn - actually happened, goes open ended. Instead, we see a smarmy Mitchum bidding farewell to pretty nurse France Nuyen... and, as much as I admire Mitchum, the best bit happens when another US officer taps his belly and suggests that he is putting on weight. For the remainder, Mitchum looks more or less bored. I was reminded of his famous self-appraisal: "I have two acting styles: with and without a horse."

No wonder his performance should be middling, then: no horse and a mediocre script about a courtroom drama in which poor Wynn finally steps forward and acts the madman.

The point of this film? I couldn't see one. 6/10 stars for reasonable standards of acting from Sullivan, Howard, Wynn, and fair cinematography from Wilkie Cooper.