Inadmissible Evidence

I do not like John Osbourne (JO) plays & films.His male characters are either sarcastic, unlikeable, boozy, pseudo-intellectual, aggressive, sex obsessed characters; and the women are passive, doormat, submissive, don't answer back types.It makes me wonder whether JO really liked women (misogynist?) despite marrying the actress Jill Bennett (who plays NW's mistress).This film really grated on me. Nicol Williamson (NW) at his legal office never seems to do a stroke of work while expecting others to do it for him while putting up with his boorish behaviour.His character has all the negative JO traits outlined above of "Angry Young Man", except he is no longer young.NW's character just sits around making old fashioned sexist remarks at work, while the "dolly birds" there seem to be equally sexually obsessed.Of course NW has a horrible relationship with his wife.NW smokes, drinks womanises, frequents strip joints, and is vile to his wife, daughter and dinner party guests alike.What on earth did the characters in this film see in NW's character and why did they persist in seeing him?In some ways "Inadmissable Evidence" (1968) reminded me of a British version of Jean- Luc Goddard's "Pierrot le Fou" (1965) with Jean-Paul Belmondo.

As a measure of light relief I spotted a young Dot Cotton (June Brown) of "Eastenders" and Uncle Fred (John Savident) lately of Coronation Street, at the dinner party scene.In the scene where he interviews a man charged with "importuning for an immoral purpose" even the man himself criticised NW for not making notes.There was even a suggestive, incestuous scene with his daughter just to add to the negative traits of this old fashioned anti-hero.JO's anti-heroes loved portraying and sneering at the middle classes, swigging wine at dinner parties and wanting an audience for their "clever" remarks and boorish behaviour.5/10

The characters in this film are very interesting but the story is extremely confusing. Apparently the script was adapted from a play and the film feels like a play for the most part. Some plot points do not make sense at all and it took me two viewings before some issues in the story sunk in. Nicol Williamson is great as the lead character. Overall, an interesting but unfulfilling film.

'Inadmissible Evidence' is a film unlike any other I have ever seen. From the moment we are introduced to the anti-heroic main character, played to perfection by Nicol Williamson, we are gripped by his every movement.

Yet, due to his strong, bewildering performance, our attention is solely directed to him, and not to the many other characters, plot twists and story. The John Osborne tale was complex enough as it was without the ordeal of confusing flashbacks and such fierce characterizations.

I may be crazy, but I actually think that this film would benefit from a poorer cast! After all, Williamson is so fascinating, that we completely forget about the story itself, and we can't help being bewitched by his London solicitor who slowly descends into emotional bankruptcy while analyzing his own existence and the harm he has done to others - his wife, his mistresses, and the carefree young man he used to be.

About the flashbacks... I guess they were a mere device that the producers of the movie thought would be helpful, since the movie is almost a filmed play. Nevertheless, the device backfires, and only add to the utter confusion of the viewer.

Well, all in all, this is an unusual, gripping film, that features a powerhouse performance by Mr. Williamson, but whose gloomy, depressing, confusing and existentialist point of view are definitely not for the ones

who are looking for breezy entertainment.

On reading some of the other reviews here I was pleased to find that other people were as confused as I was at what was happening.I was not sure why Williamson was in the dock.Was it to do with witnesses at the divorce hearing?I,as a lawyer,have worked in many London offices but none anything remotely like this one.In the offices that I have worked in everything has revolved around work and not sex.Now that might be my loss.However in this case everything seems to revolve around sex with work coming a very distant second place.No wonder poor old Williamson is having a nervous breakdown.I remember that I did not see this film when it first came out and I am pleased that I saved my 4/-(20p).