Je plaide non coupable

I saw this film this morning, 5th September 2018, on Talking Pictures which I often watch these days when there is garbage on most other tv channels. It was a long film and I found myself looking at the clock several times to check when it ended.One example of the producers casting British actors so us anglo saxons can understand the script, was " the vital French witness" played by Sidney Tafler who gave testimony just before the jury gave its verdict.Phony French accents were the order of the day when even ignorant French peasants spoke intelligible English.More intelligent producers later would provide English subtitles whenever a non English part was spoken on film, thus providing more verisimilitude, a classic case being Darryl F Zanuck's remarkable "The Longest Day"(1962) which had sequences in French & German.The film seemed long because, as a previous reviewer has said there were too many flashbacks in the Criminal Court sequences. when he played a RAF fighter pilot and I agree with the previous reviewer who wrote continual flashbacks broke the continuity of the scenes.The only previous film in which I had seen the leading man was in Leslie Howard's "The Gentle Sex" (1945) when he played a RAF fighter pilot.I even found myself thinking in schoolboy French what I would have said in their authentic language.The plot was rather contrived by the scriptwriter being merely adequate, henc emy rating of 6/10.

The British TV channel Talking Pictures recently screened this film. It wasn't perfect quality, and twice I had stop my recording, reverse and freeze to read a scribbled note.

The plot was divided between a hotel where a murder took place, a courtroom at London's Old Bailey and France (with echoes of the German occupation). It was not at all bad, though a couple of times I did wonder how the French reporter had come up with information to progress the investigation he was making with his friend Nat Rumbold.

As always with court dramas, one might wonder at some of the legal procedures, not least the last-minute intervention. And there were one or two scenes that could have been improved, such as that with the out-of-control car, when interior reaction shots of Nat realising he had a problem could have been effectively added.

But overall the film was good enough to have merited a better-known cast. Donald Wolfit (later to be knighted) as the judge was the biggest - indeed the only big - name, and there was a sprinkling of familiar British character actors.

Everyone acquitted themselves well enough.

It would appear that the film was released in both English and French, and a poster on IDMB gives prominence to the French actors.

A mix of courtroom drama and crime thriller, GUILTY? is an interesting little film that works despite the lack of familiar cast members. It's actually a French film masquerading as a British one; although it's listed as a British co-production and has a handful of British actors in support (most notably Donald Wolfit playing the judge) this is most definitely a French-feeling movie.

The story is about a young woman who stands accused of murder by stabbing at a plush hotel. A group of somewhat shady employees and inhabitants are ranged against her, but she protests her innocence despite having a volatile history with the murder victim. Her new solicitor decides to see if any new evidence can be brought to life so joins forces with a Frenchman to investigate.

What follows is something of a conspiracy of silence broken up by a handful of rather exciting action sequences. The budget is clearly low and yet this looks like a medium to high money production with lots of different locations in both London and France and a good range of cast members. The storyline and its eventual outcome are quite easy to guess and yet the characters keep you involved and the cast members are pretty decent too. Edmond Greville was a French director well known for making BEAT GIRL and THE HANDS OF ORLAC and GUILTY? is certainly a feather in his cap.

This is a film worth watching even with a far from perfect sound quality. Cast were competent.

Although made in the mid fifties, it has the appearance of being made in the mid 30s. And then there's the contrived action sequences, reminiscent of a 1940's Republic Films Superman or Johnny Mack Brown serial for kids. Lotsa laughs. One is led to believe that if the male lead should unexpectedly visit one of those Parisian street toilets, three thugs would be waitlng inside ready to pounce on him. They should have had Graham Moffatt, Charlie Chan or Buster Keaton put in an appearance to round it all out. For anyone thinking of getting into the film business, this film should be an inspiration that anyone can write a script, act or direct. What a load of Tripe,...Glorious Tripe !