Cause célèbre

The Yorkshire-born architect Francis Rattenbury (1867- 1935) is something of a national hero in Canada where, in the 1890s and 1900s, he designed a number of iconic buildings, including the Parliament Buildings of British Columbia, which he designed at the age of only 25. In Britain, however, he is best remembered as the victim in a sensational murder case. On 23rd March 1935 he was discovered in the sitting room of his home in Bournemouth with severe head injuries, having suffered a series of blows with a carpenter's mallet. He died a few days later. His much younger wife Alma confessed to the crime, but did so falsely in the vain hope of shielding the real killer, her teenage lover George Stoner.

Alma and Stoner were both arrested and put on trial for the killing. The problem facing Alma's defence team was not her false confession, which she later withdrew and which the police had never taken seriously, but the widespread public hostility to their client. Public opinion, encouraged by hysterical reporting in the national press, was firmly of the view that she had encouraged and incited Stoner to carry out the crime. This narrative was eagerly adopted by Stoner's defence team, who believed that their only hope of saving him from the gallows was to paint him as the victim of an evil older seductress. (At the time of the killing, Rattenbury was 67, Alma in her late thirties and Stoner 18, young enough to be given the death penalty under the law as it then stood).

These events were later dramatised by Terence Rattigan in his stage play "Cause Celebre", which formed the basis for this film, made by Anglia Television, part of the ITV network. (Rattigan had earlier written another play based on a real-life court case, "The Winslow Boy", which was also filmed), It follows the events of the Rattenbury case fairly closely, although Alma's young lover is here renamed "George Bowman"; the real George Stoner was still alive in 1987. Scenes showing the progress of the affair between Alma and George and the killing of Rattenbury are intercut with scenes showing events in the courtroom.

There are two particularly fine performances from Helen Mirren as Alma, trapped in a passionless marriage to a much older man, and from Harry Andrews as Francis, grumpy and irascible but not altogether unsympathetic. Andrews would have been 76 in 1987, nearly a decade older than the real Francis Rattenbury. (This was his last film before his death in 1989). David Morrissey plays George as the sort of rather gauche and charmless young man who has never had a girlfriend of his own age, who feels an intense passion for an attractive older woman but who is unable to cope when, unexpectedly, he finds that his feelings are returned. One thing that, because of his youth and inexperience, he is unable to understand is that sexual attraction and affection are not the same thing. Francis and Alma's marriage may be passionless but it is not necessarily loveless. Alma loves her elderly husband as a sort of father-figure, but George mistakes her affection for him as evidence of a continuing sexual relationship, provoking his fatal fit of jealousy. Another good performance comes from David Suchet as Alma's defence lawyer Terence O'Connor, a humane man trying his best to save his client from the gallows even though she seems indifferent as to whether she lives or dies.

Had this been made as a feature film, it would probably be celebrated today as part of the great revival of the British cinema in the eighties, along with the likes of "Chariots of Fire", "Gandhi", "The Mission" and "Shirley Valentine". TV movies, however, tend to fall back into obscurity after they have been shown once, with a possible repeat a few years later, and so it has proved with "Cause Celebre". The film is today little known, although it does occasionally turn up on television, largely on the specialist movie channel "Talking Pictures" (which deserves credit for trying to keep alive films neglected by the major networks). And this is a film which deserves to be better known, both as an acute psychological study of a love-triangle and as a gripping courtroom thriller. 8/10.

Mirren is excellent, Suchet in a minor role is excellent, and wait until you hear his spoken English for a terrific contrast with his Poirot...helps you appreciate his acting ability. This 1987 t.v. movie is presented in one part, but there is an obvious editing break right at the halfway mark for it to have perhaps been originally shown in two parts. It opens outdoors on a 1030's London street. One immediately notes, and appreciates, that it was filmed using video. The entire movie is filmed on video tape and it avoids the jarring effect so common in earlier t.v. mini-series and movies which were filmed on the set using video and the outdoor scenes were made on film. Production is quite satisfactory with details of the interior designs of the house, and of the house itself, all period correct. The house is very appropriate for a once-successful middle class architect. Decorative pieces through the house add interest and are very appropriate. However, filmed on video, one is always aware we are watching a set. Still the set has a most satisfying mix of arts and crafts with art deco. The acting is very good all around, as are the costumes, sets, and photography, all adding a texture to this drama based on a true story. Good direction does service to the fine script which does not present the story in a dry straight forward narrative. I do fault the script in being so lacking in details of the young man's home life. We know he lives 30 minutes away on a bicycle, needs a job at during hard times, is 18 and tall, making him look older than he is, few friends, can drive, and his father is very strict. That is about it. We never see a member of his family or any scene of him at his home. The script is rich with subtleties, and who actually did what is answered when Mirren is question during the trial, in a subtle way. If Poirot was there he would be repeating it at the end explaining who did the dastardly deed indeed! However, it is up to you, (as this is not an Agatha Christie formula story), to figure out who did what. You are never clearly told. The answer I assure you is there. If you like Prime Suspect for Mirren, or Poirot for either Suchet or just the period art deco apartment interior, or both, I highly recommend Cause Celebre. Video: 1:33, few minor smear defects from original use of video, otherwise, sound and image is fine. No English subtitles, which I found needing occasionally.

It never ceases to amaze me how one actor can so involve you in their characterization as to make you forget the person and remember the part. Helen Mirren is one of the greatest actors alive today. This is now available on video through Lance Entertainment. Watch it and you will be amazed. A great script interpreted by great actors. What more can you want from a film?

Helen Mirren is wonderful, in fact all the actors are excellent in their roles but good acting does not a good film make. There also needs to be great directing and writing to make a film great and at the heart of this production is a poorly written storyline that builds no suspense or offers any surprise. The lack of mystery and passion caused me to lose interest in the story, but the book I read about this event kept me reading until the end. This film tells us very little about Mr. Rattenbury's background and what we are told about Mrs. Rattenbury is irrelevant to the story. Who is the maid/companion and maybe we could see a more passionate chauffeur...

Artistic and technical merit are also necessary for a great production and this film suffers from having been shot on video, which is distracting and immediately pegs the film as a 1970s or 1980s British television production.

This film could be remade. There is great potential for a story that captures the 'cause celebe' of the original murder and trial, like Changling... any takers?

If you are thinking about watching this movie, just be aware that it is NOT a murder "mystery" as such. Unfortunately, I got the DVD thinking it was more of an Agatha Christie type story, and spent the entire time trying to figure out who really "done it." I was very disappointed when the typical twists and turns of a true mystery didn't materialize.

If my expectations had been different, I might have enjoyed this movie more. The set design was superb, as was most of the acting and the dialog (although, without subtitles, the British accent was a bit difficult for me to understand at times).

On the other hand, I might have been disappointed anyway, since the story is somewhat disjointed and I never bought into the relationships between the characters (the two mismatched lovers, the husband and wife, the wife and 'companion' etc.) The story might have been true, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good movie.