Action for Slander

Yes, the film was a bit stage bound with a bit of stock film thrown in, betraying its radio provenance but it held my attention to the end.Viewers will be pleased to note the entire film is on www.youtube.com so no need to hunt it down, you certainly will not see it on any UK classic film channel I subscribe to on TV.

As a connoisseur of these films,I was familiar with a large number of the cast.The glamorous Margaretta Scott, (with her Spanish blood and swarthy look)from "Quiet Wedding" and "Girl in the News", both from 1940 with my personal favourite Margaret Lockwood.We saw again Mr Jaggers(from Great Expectations 1946) with a younger Francis L Sullivan again playing the experienced barrister acting for the plaintiff - Clive Brook.Viewers who watch these older films obviously take into account the rather antiquated style of acting in the 1930s and to a much lesser extent in the 1940s and the limits of film production at this time and I suppose this accounts for the modest IMDb 5.8 user rating.I do find Ann Todd rather anodyne in the films I have seen in and this was no exception, just beautiful diction and elocution but that's about it.I however rated it 6.0

So long afterwards, this absurd case must seem somewhat preposterous. Five gentlemen play at cards with increasing stakes, two of them find themselves engaged in a card duel, both having excellent hands with no possibility to guess at the other's, one of them constantly drinking whisky, and when he loses he runs amuck and accuses the winner of cheating, whose pride can't accept this, so he knocks the loser down, who upsets the entire table with all its money, making any evidence of the game impossible, the other card players side with the winner, knowing him to be an impeccable card player impossible of cheating, but someone else in the company sides with the loser and claims he saw the deceit. Stalemate. Clive Brook wants to bring the matter to court, but his friends persuade him not to, for the sake of the regiment. He submits and departs for a voluntary exile, while the matter is far from closed. He is shunned and locked out from clubs and society, until he decides to finally bring the matter to court after a year. Wonderful court scenes ensue including Francis L. Sullivan as his tremendous lawyer and Felix Aylmer pleading for the drunk. This is gorgeous. Out of a mere trifle, that should have been settled at once with just an excuse, a mountain is built involving the entire society and the general public, while Clive Brook steadfastly keeps his poker face to protect the fact that the root of the problem is that he had a relationship with the accuser's wife. A preposterous mountain is built to avoid a public scandal, which naturally just makes the scandal even more formidable. Fortunately Clive Brook has Ann Todd for a wife which actually saves the entire situation, as the catcher in the rye.

Clive Brook, a military man having an affair, is accused of cheating at cards during a hunting weekend at some titled fellow's country estate. Will he mount an ACTION FOR SLANDER, once rumors of his scandalous card playing wreck his reputation at the club and in his regiment?

Anyone who loves classic movies is familiar the typical treatment of the English. They like to hunt in the country. They are very concerned with honor. They are very rigid in their relationships. Class matters. And the barristers and judges all fancy themselves to be rather fine comedians. (And, of course, there are legal gymnastics galore, because classic movies like their courtroom scenes.) This movie -- literally -- has all the clichés delivered by the English themselves, and Clive Brook, cast rather well here as a man having his honor challenged. Acting is fine. Script is talky -- suggesting this was a stage play once upon a time. Comic relief does what it is supposed to do -- and is mildly funny. There is an element of self-mockery throughout the picture, even though the leads play their roles 100% straight, and have no discernible sense of humor.

Cinematicallly, the staging and blocking is fine, but there's no moody expressionism. An early scene, showing our hero out bird hunting, actually has the birds dropping to the ground while conversation goes on. The whole sequence is cinematically interesting (and adds to the feel of social satire).

Good film, and it would be loved as part of the TCM rotation. Alas, it is not there.

This has not the slightest cinematic device in the whole film.If this were to be broadcast on radio the only thing that you would miss is the various attempts to upstage one another.In one scene early on Clive Brooks seems to be twirling his hunter watch all through the scene.The conclusion of the film is set in a courtroom where we have those wily protagonists Francis L Sullivan and Felix Aylmer trying to outdo each other.This film is more interesting as a reflection of attitudes of the time rather than as an entertainment.There is also a very young Googie withers in a small part of Ann Todds maid.if you are interested in films of this era it is worth a view.

Clive Brook is going through a rough patch. His wife, Ann Todd, is leaving him because he has been having an affair with a fellow officer's wife. He is at a shooting party and, playing poker in the evening, he picks up a great hand and bets to the tune of five hundred pounds. The other player who has stayed in, whose wife Brook is having an affair with accuses him of cheating. His friends advise him not to bring suit for slander, but a year later, the accusation has gotten out. At this point, Miss Todd returns and talks him into bringing suit at last.

It's the sort of society drama that Alexander Korda was producing at this point. It has a great cast, including Francis L. Sullivan and Felix Aylmer as the opposing barristers. There are some good lines offered under the direction of Tim Whelan and Clive Brook is a world-class glarer, the equal of Anita Garvin; Miss Todd plays her usual long-suffering English rose. It's a very good movie of its type, yet the inherent triviality and (to this American) the emphasis on the importance of society's opinion and the insanity of British libel law make it seem like a storm in a teacup.