The Very Edge

A sex maniac (SHERLOCK HOLMES' Jeremy Brett) breaks into the home of happy housewife Tracey Lawrence (Anne Heywood) to assault and almost rape her which causes the girl to miscarry and become frigid. This, of course, is a problem for her husband, Geoffrey (Richard Todd), who finds solace in the arms of his sympathetic secretary (Nicole Maurey) but that's the least of Tracey's worries because the pervert makes it clear he'll stop at nothing to have at her again...

Britain was way ahead of the U.S. when it came to tackling adult subject matter in a mature manner beginning with THE VICTIM but that isn't always the right approach as THE VERY EDGE proves. Although marketed as exploitation ("No Woman Should See This Film Without A Man!"), it's actually a rather subdued "thriller" that comes perilously close to "timid" so don't expect many surprises. Unlike similarly-themed Hollywood exploitation shockers such as THE BEAT GENERATION and WHO KILLED TEDDY BEAR?, Tracey isn't raped in lurid fashion, just chased around the living room a few times but that said, the film's ahead of the curve on "stalking", a crime that wouldn't register on public consciousness until decades later.

Nicole Maurey was very good in the role of Elena Antonescu in "Secret of the Incas" opposite Charlton Heston. Here too she is the most compelling, she does the best role. The other actors, Richard Todd, Anne Heywood, are not in their best form. Because the story is boring, uninteresting.

Many folks remember that Jeremy Brett was made famous by starring in a ton of wonderful Sherlock Holmes episodes in the 1980s up to his death in 1995. For Conan Doyle fans like myself, they are simply the best versions of the classic tales. So when I saw that Brett played a crazed intruder in this 1960s film, I had to see it! The only other film I recall seeing him in was "My Fair Lady".

Tracey (Anne Heywood) is a married lady who has done some modeling. A crazed man (Brett) has apparently seen her photos in magazines and has convinced himself that they are in love and he MUST possess her. She learns of this when he breaks into her house and attacks her. She is able to fight him off and her husband's arrival home results in his running. After, he continues to watch and follow her as well as make threatening phone calls to her. This has all made her life a living hell and the marriage is suffering as well. Ultimately, the man is caught...but this isn't a complete end to her problems.

I appreciated that this film was not just a thriller but focused a lot on the psychological damaged done to the victim. The effect on her sex life, the marriage and her depression are shown very well in this movie and this impressed me about the film. It had surprising depth and realism. It also showed the degree to which the marriage disintegrated...a sadly overlooked problem in cases involving some rapes. attempted rapes and the like.

By the way, according to IMDb, Miss Heywood was Miss Britain in 1949 or 50 (it says both years).

One gets the impression that when they hired David Lee to compose the music they just told him that they wanted it loud so people wouldn't take too much notice what was going on on the screen.This film just piles on cliché after cliché.The dye which Brett manages to cover with makeup.He manages to follow Heywood to the zoo.Then,like all screen maniacs he escaped from prison,totally unexplained.Every character in the film seems to have a screw loose.What is the final shot of the film all about,why does he clasp Heywoods shoes to his chest?Is he a secret foot fetishists? Richard Todd,approaching the end of his film career looks rather bemused by it all.Anne Heywood does the best she can with a fatherless part.Brett does what all screen sex maniacs do,he looks very maniacal.

When Jeremy Brett assaults Anne Heywood, the aftermath has longterm effects on her and husband Richard Todd in this well wrought thriller.

This movie tries to say something real about the mental issues involved in stalking: the stalker's obsession, the victim's fears, the ancillaries victims' suffering. It's a matter that has consumed Western lawmaking for millennia, with no clear consensus yet in sight. What are we to conclude when Jeremy Brett's character says he is consumed with thoughts of Heywood? Blaming the victim may be satisfactory from the criminal's viewpoint, but my brand of libertarianism includes personal responsibility and the assertion that criminals, whether they commit crimes because of mental illness or conscious decision, should bear the burden of their transgressions; every time I watch a movie and the perp announces that the next crime is the fault of the victim or the police officer who has failed to shoot him.... puh-leeze!

Such issues are not going to be solved, or even adequately addressed in 90-mnute second features like this. Good performances, like those here, may make an entertaining thriller, but they butter no parsnips.