Meurtre sur la Riviera

Lively and Lovely to Look at Movie that moves rapidly here and there with Everyone trying to figure out Who is Who and What is What and is breathless to say the least. The Cast, including the Dramatization of Ginger Rogers Career is OK if nothing remarkable. It is the Action and the Intrigue that Star here.

Some on location Photography and Criminal behavior Spice things up beyond the rather Bland Romance Angles. There are extended Fight Scenes, Misidentifications, Smuggling, Thievery, and Murder, Adultery, Betrayal, and after all, a Deathbed confession that thankfully, and predictably clears things up.

There is enough here to recommend because once things get going it is all in Perpetual Motion that makes for a Fun Film Experience, although it fails to be sharp enough for it to rise above expectations, but it does manage to deliver just that.

This is worth watching for the fine, understated performances by Stanley Baker and Herbert Lom, each of whom exudes menace: a coiled snake and a desperate weakling respectively. The story strains credibility to achieve its effects and keep the plot moving, notwithstanding its reliance on the familiar trappings of melodrama - e.g., greed, betrayal, characters who are not what they seem to be. For a "kept woman," Ginger Rogers displays remarkable innocence. And is it actually possible to open the combination lock on a wall safe by merely turning the dial slowly and listening for clicks? The picture is minor-league Hitchcock (without Hitchcock), and it shows.

By the 1950s, Ginger Rogers had proved several times over that she was an excellent dramatic actress. Why she chose this project is beyond me. Was it to showcase her new actor husband? Ginger looks wonderful. Her clothes are stylish. The sets are lavish. The locales are beautiful (even in black and white). The script and plot seen to be an afterthought.

If seeing Ginger and her two handsome leading men is enough for you, this is worth viewing. Don't expect to be otherwise entertained.

This is problematic from the start. Stanley Baker seems okay but while he enthuses over his young love we are only too aware that poor Ginger Rogers is a little old for her role. Another problem arises almost immediately when we realise just how flat and uninteresting this is going to be. Baker looses it as he has to become more two faced and Rogers doesn't stand a chance as she has to take on another lover. Only Herbert Lom stands a chance of saving the day and as things hot up towards the end it seems as if he might but then the story unravels and we don't care about anything at all.

British filmmakers faced what they thought was a problem. They spoke English (of a sort) which meant that they should be able to make some money in the US . This was necessary because UK returns weren't enough to make really big money. The problem, as they saw it then, was that they needed some star appeal for the Americans. Even going back to the twenties they would import American film star to headline the production and hope that people would go to the theaters expecting a first class Hollywood picture and buy a ticket before they found out it was a cheapo British movie by which time it would be too late.

Their big mistake is importing a 'star' with no box office appeal, or more, likely one who was over the hill, a bit passe, the news of which hadn't caught up in London. Of course it was the alternative that worked, (such as Ealing comedies) - unknown but superb actors in a well written and directed film was more successful and wound up with the unknown star going to Hollywood- e.g. James Mason, Maureen O'Hara, Richard Harris, Richard Burton ad. infinitum.

Along with the star it was common practice to import a director and a cameraman. Many of the best British cameramen of a generation started as assistants to some Hollywood 'old pro.' The British had an inferiority complex about their own directors.

For this film they imported Ginger Rogers and David Miller. Rogers was 40+ and her career was winding down. She made a picture with Fred Astaire THE BARKLEYS OF Broadway in '49 and MONKEY BUSINESS with Howard Hawks and Cary Grant in '52 but it was the co-star that everybody noticed and I don't mean the chimp (I.e. Marilyn Monroe). Miller was a superior hack, fully capable of rendering a good script like SATURDAY'S HERO but not able to save a turgid one like BACK STREET.

The script for BEAUTIFUL STRANGER (TWIST OF FATE) is a derivative rehash of what was mildly popular as a second feature a few years before. In other words - a noir. The dialogue seems to be the type where one expects an actor to turn to the camera and remark 'We're all in a movie, aren't we?' The real potential star of the picture, Stanley Baker, is miscast and badly used as the heavy of the piece, the fifteen year age difference between Rogers and him poorly covered up with grey streaks in his hair. Herbert Lom is a thief and a foreigner and crazy and doing none of them well. Jacques Bergerac was the nominal hero because he was the best looking etc. This was his film debut and was Ginger Rogers fourth husband at the time. Bosco, I believe, is the Italian word for wood and a piece of wood could have done a better acting job. I'm sure he must have had some other talents.

To make matters worse the film was shot on location on the French Riviera. Not a classic noir location. Once away from the Hollywood Studio system Miller seems unable to stage even the simplest fight or action sequence. Never has the Riviera looked duller (the film is shot without any inspiration or colour). I'm not too sure if it wasn't shot in Devon. A stinker but an educational one.