L'affaire Winston

I saw Man in the Middle with my dad at the old Rio Theater in Downtown Miami City in 1964. I was just a child, but I still remember the shocking scene in the beginning of the film where Keenan Wynn's character walks into a packed army tent and shoots a young soldier to death.

Filmed in black and white, the film was extremely well-acted and filmed. Robert Mitchem was outstanding as the officer in charge of defending Wynne and trying to determine just why he murdered this young soldier. However, the show is stolen by Keenan Wynn and he gives his greatest screen performance.

Man in the Middle rates a 10 out of 10.

... and that surprised me as the movies made by Fox in the ten years after mogul Darryl F. Zanuck abandoned the company to bean counters in 1956 were some of the worst films that the company ever made, and this film was made in that ten year period. Now Zanuck did return in the early 60's but Rome and 20th Century Fox were not built/rebuilt in a day.

Lt. Charles Winston (Keenan Wynn) is an American officer during WWII in India, sharing a camp with British soldiers during the time before they are to move out and start a campaign against the Japanese in southeast Asia. At the beginning of the film Winston takes his revolver, walks over to where the British officers are bunking and shoots dead unarmed British staff sergeant Quinn in the full view of witnesses, and then just turns around and goes back to his own quarters and turns out the lights. He probably went to sleep.

Enter stage left Robert Mitchum as Lt. Colonel Barney Adams, who has been appointed defense counsel for Winston. There are two competing pressures here. Apparently Winston's brother-in-law is a congressman and has been applying pressure - thus the high ranking defense counsel versus some random JAG representative, and the apparent motiveless killing of a British soldier by an American soldier is causing friction between the troops when the focus should be on preparing to fight the real enemy.

So Adams - quick on the uptake - learns very fast that he is there to make a show of a defense in a trial in which the only acceptable outcome can be the hanging of Winston. But there are problems. Apparently the army psychiatrist who examined Winston first considered him insane, but was overruled by his commanding officer for no apparent reason. When Adams finds this out the psychiatrist is abruptly transferred to a remote army hospital. A nurse slips Adams a paper showing him the first psychiatrist's diagnosis, although it is an unsigned carbon copy of the original and destroyed report. And when Adams tries repeatedly to interview Winston he gets either stone silence, irrelevant ramblings, AND the motive - that Winston was a racist and did not like the fact that the British soldier he killed was "defiling the white race" by consorting with women of another race when on leave and bragging about it.

So the great irony here is that the armies involved in a world wide conflict to defeat powers that will ignore the facts to get the outcome they desire want their military justice system in this one case to ignore the facts to get the outcome they desire - that they are willing to hang a possibly insane man for the sake of allied cohesion.

Of course Mitchum is great in this role of the lifer army man who is faced with doing things that might damage his career for the sake of justice. Of course he has a love interest - the nurse who handed him the report. Because she looks Asian and this IS 1964, she makes a point of mentioning that she is half French and half Chinese. Wynn is doled out in small doses. Some people find fault with him being the killer and having such a small role, but I think it is to keep doubt in the viewers' minds - is he crazy, or was there some other motive and is he just faking it? Wynn has some important lines though such as "the real war is after the war - east versus west, black versus white". Brave words for a film released in a country at the beginning of an unpopular war and in the midst of the civil rights movement. Finally, Wynn as Winston refuses to take the stand - "Do you think I'm nuts?" he says.

So how will this all work out? Justly or not, and what is that justice? What exactly is going on with Winston in the first place? Watch and find out in this film set in WWII with undercurrents of what was going on in the United States - and worldwide - at the time.

"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.

Military courtroom drama starring Robert Mitchum. Solid performance from Mitchum and the supporting cast. Set in India during the latter part of World War 2 Mitchum's character, Lieutenant Colonel Barney Adams (multi-decorated and injured during various campaigns of the war) is assigned the task of defending accused murderer, Lieutenant Winston. Lieutenant Winston's crime was the seemingly unprovoked murder of a British sergeant. Lieutenant Colonel Adams pursues his task of defending the accused with vigour, aggravating the judiciary, prosecution and potential witnesses to the murder. The movie is based on the book 'The Winston Affair' by Howard Fast.

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.