Ce sacré confrère

Another of the Boulting Brothers swipes at the British Establishment. This time it's the law that is the target and very funny it is, too. Once again, it's Richard Attenborough, Ian Carmichael and Terry-Thomas heading up a superb cast of British character players that includes Miles Malleson, John Le Mesurier, Eric Barker (winning a Best Newcomer British Academy Award), Raymond Huntley and the great Irene Handl who dominates the film's funniest scene which takes place, naturally, in court. Hugely popular at the time of its release, it isn't much revived now, more's the pity, as it is something of a classic of it's kind. Seek it out.

An excellent English period comedy with Ian Carmichael as lead. I started to write "starring..." but although Carmichael is definitely the leading actor here, he is not given star billing, not even lead billing. This is not the only time this happened in the '50s, or the only time it happened to Carmichael (and others). The English didn't seem to understand how to showcase its young would-be stars.

It is, though, a superb comedy about a young barrister fresh out of law school trying to get his foot in the big time law practice. The supporting cast is expert, especially Miles Malleson and Edith Sharpe who plays Carmichael's mother and has a nice bit at the end. If you liked I'm All Right, Jack, you will like this, too, even if this one doesn't have Peter Sellers or Dennis Price.

Carmichael would later play Bertie Wooster in the BBC production, and then go on from there to play Dorothy Sayers's Peter Wimsey in a series, which is appropriate as the mature Wimsey is Bertie all grown up, if that can be imagined.

"Brothers in Law" is not comedy of the slapstick, laugh-out-loud, boisterous type of the late 20th century. Nor is it of the tongue- in-cheek, dour variety common in mid-century. The humor here is in the situations with very clever scripting and dialog. Of course, that is accompanied by the usual facial expressions, looks and glances.

It was interesting to me that none of the reviewers of "Brothers in Law" took issue with any of the portrayals of barristers, judges and others in the British court system. One former barrister said that the film reminded him of his early years in law. Well I know nothing about how the courts function in England, beyond what I've seen in drama films that seem to be serious portrayals. But it is clear to me that this movie pokes a lot of fun at that side of the justice system. Yes, it's a comedy about the early years of young barristers; but it's also a very funny satire of the British courts. The satire is subtle, and the biting is camouflaged some by the humor. But it's there without question.

For instance, each of the judges in the film is mockingly portrayed. John Le Mesurier, as Judge Ryman, is the key instigator of a couple of the most hilarious situations in the film. Richard Attenborough and Ian Carmichael are very good as Henry Marshall and Roger Thursby. I hardly recognized Terry-Thomas at first. His portrayal of Alfred Green is very good, and funny.

One of the funniest and most clever scenes in the film is in a divorce case. Marshall (Attenborough) represents Mrs. Potter who is seeking the divorce. She is played superbly by Irene Handl. The presiding judge is Ryman (Le Mesurier). And, Thursby (Carmichael) is behind Marshall's bench as an observer. The case opens with Marshall questioning his client, the first witness.

Marshall, "Mrs. Potter, did your husband ever hit you?" Judge Ryman, "One moment. Please don't lead on essential matters." Marshall, "As your lordship pleases. Mrs. Potter, did he or did he not hit you?" Judge, "Really, Mr. Marshall, that's just as bad." Marshall, "With great respect, my lord, she could have said yes or no." Judge, "So she could to your first question. That was nevertheless leading." Marshall, "Very well, my lord. Mrs. Potter, how often did these assaults take place?" Judge, "Mr. Marshall! That's not only a leading question, it is a double question and in my view a most improper one. The witness has not yet said that her husband hit her." Marshall, "Well, madam, did he hit you?" Judge, "Mr. Marshall, there must be some limit to this." Marshall, "Your lordship tells me to ask a question and then when I do, your lordship complains." Judge, "That's a most improper observation." Marshall "Very well, my lord, I apologize."

Judge, "Well, let me suggest that you ask the witness how her husband treated her." Marshall, "Thank you, my lord. Mrs. Potter, how did your husband treat you?" Mrs. Potter, "Like a slave." Marshall, "Yes? … in what way?" Mrs. Potter, "Well, in every way." Marshall, "Well, uh, could you enumerate some of those ways?" Mrs. Potter, "Enumer what?" Marshall, "Give some examples?" Mrs. Potter, "It was always happening." Marshal, "What was?" Mrs. Potter, "Him treating me like that." Marshall, "Like what? How did he treat you?" Mrs. Potter, "Something terrible." Marshall, "We weren't there, Mrs. Potter. You must tell us about it." Mrs. Potter, "Well, it was going on all the time." Marshall, "What was?" Mrs. Potter, "What he did."

Just as I began to wonder how the cast could keep straight faces, I saw that they couldn't. Thursby (Carmichael) was clearly cracking up behind Marshall. He had to lower his head to conceal his laughter, and this continued as the hilarious dialog continued. Marshall, "Just tell us one thing he did." Mrs. Potter, "So many." Marshall, "It should be easy to think of one. Can you not tell his lordship one simple thing your husband did?" Mrs. Potter, "… Well, there was that time at Christmas." Marshall, "Yes?" Mrs. Potter, "… or was it at Easter?" Marshall, "Well, what happened at Easter then, Mrs. Potter?" Mrs. Potter, "Well … what was you saying again?" Marshall, "Something happened at Easter." Mrs. Potter, "Well, I don't think I'd like to tell the judge that."

I don't know if this film is an accurate portrayal of young barristers having to pay to be pupils of lawyers after they earn their law degrees. Or that it usually is years before new members of the law begin to earn much of a living. If that's the case, it's a far cry from the American system. Young attorneys are soon making very good livings in America. That may be because we're the most litigious nation in the world.

This film may seem slow to some. It won't be everyone's cup of tea. But for those who enjoy British humor, and who especially like satire, this should be a sure hit.

A fun film about barristers who have just begun their careers. Ian Carmichael plays Roger Thursby, who is hired on as a "pupil" (an associate) and immediately he is in court. He fumbles along through some little mishaps in court, but finds his way eventually. Its a great cast, including Richard Attenborough and Terry-Thomas, amongst others. I can imagine any lawyer in Britain or anywhere else smiling through this, recalling their first missteps before a judge. The film moves along well, and the characters are both likable and well realized. The title threw me, I thought it was about a bickering family (I bought it because Terry-Thomas, who actually has a minor role), but it is about the law. A fun, amusing film, especially recommended for anyone remotely related to the legal profession.

I am semi retired solicitor who used to practise in the High Court and County Courts.I used to instruct Barristers on a regular basis.there were the brilliant barristers,a few,and then there were the rest.I often used pupils on the basis that they were much cheaper,more eager for work and,unlike Roger Thursby,less likely to put their foot in it.So much of what I saw in this film brought back memories,not always fond.A truly marvellous cast produced by the Boultings when they were at the top of the form.Still to come was the classic"I'm Alright Jack".This is the centenary of the birth of the Boultings.there has been a season of their films and an exhibition at the BFI Southbank.It would be fitting if someone could publish a book to commemorate this.