Reviews

This is a pretty good vengeance crime tale: released English convict comes to U.S. to find out what really happened to his dead daughter. Finding out she was likely murdered, he sets out to "get" the perpetrators. That's about it, but a heck of a lot of involved action takes place before the denouement. I won't say what that is, but if you can sit through all the flashbacks, flash forwards, and flashbacks within flashbacks, you will find it rather startling. The director/editor seems rather reluctant to get on with telling his tale. Is this sensible editing? Personally, I like straightforward story telling, but directors and editors these days don't think they have done their job unless they constantly call attention to themselves. This kind of thing is not ART. It is just self-indulgence on the part of the production team. If you can tolerate all this, you'll get some excellent acting and a satisfyingly complicated plot, with effective suspense almost from the beginning. In the end, there seem to be almost as many dad bodies as in a Shakespearian tragedy.

Notice that in my "one-liner" I did not say "Shakespearian play". The fact is many scholars over the years have doubted that TITUS ANDRONICUS is a play by Shakespeare. The most many will allow is that "the Bard of Avon" touched up a play by George Peele and/or Robert Greene, with maybe a few lines by Marlowe. If so, this would account for the fact that TITUS is so different from the rest of Shakespeare. If you polled a goodly list of afficionados of "the Bard" as to their least favorite play by him, TITUS would likely head the list. My own least favorite is TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA, but no matter. TITUS really isn't very well constructed, and the language, though glorious Elizabethan, is not quite up to Shakespeare's best. The violence, blood, and brutality of TITUS is mitigated in part by the beautiful Elizabethan language, even if it is second rate.

TITUS appears to have been first performed circa 1593 and was wildly popular then and for fifty years after. Young Shakespeare would certainly have recognised the commercial value of such a violent revenge play, and if he didn't actually write it would likely have gladly improved it for his company to perform. In a way the Elizabethan craze for violent plays parallels the modern era when gore, brutality and violence so permeate the cinema and television. They didn't have all the special effects then, but they had lovely words to make up for it.

This film contains a number of anachronisms, inserted no doubt to prove that "Shakespeare is timeless". They don't have to prove it to me, but perhaps younger viewers may need some convincing. TITUS, of course, is absolute fiction, and the anachronisms within the play itself don't really matter. Supposedly the action occurs in Rome, but a Rome that never was. No Roman general in the time of the Emperors ever fought a war with the Goths, and there never was an Emperor Saturninus or a General Titus Andronicus, though there were some types like Saturninus. Nero and Caligula come to mind. I won't dwell on the plot except to say that returning General Titus turns down the job of Emperor, but supports Saturninus instead. He lives to regret it. Saturninus marries captive Goth Queen Tamora, who naturally hates Titus and turns out to be a libertine into the bargain. There is a Moor, a hanger on at court who is Tamora's secret lover, and a thoroughgoing villain. He, Saturninus and Tamora manage to wipe out most of what remains of Titus' family, with the result that Titus swears revenge and seeks outside help from his former enemies, the Goths, to get it. Tamora's sons, also not anyone's favorite bridge party friends, rape Titus' only daughter, Lavinia, and cut off her arms and tongue to prevent her identifying them. Is that brutal enough for you?

The film itself is beautifully realised, with sure handed direction and great photography that is used creatively to set mood and character. Makeup is also used to establish character. You may think the editing is a bit choppy, not like Shakespeare's smooth cinematic approach to linking scenes. Here the fault is mostly due to the original. TITUS ANDRONICUS is rather poorly put together and perhaps the production team decided to keep this in the film. There are many great performances to savor. Hopkins seems to live the role of TITUS and Alan Cumming gives us a really degenerate Saturninus. Jessica Lange is effective as Tamora, but perhaps a shade too appealing. Here though, I may be wrong. To wreak her havoc Tamora had to appear appealing and conceal her inner villainy. If you don't weep a few tears over Lavinia as portrayed by Laura Fraser, you are hard hearted indeed.

It is said that themes and characters in TITUS foreshadowed things to come in Shakespeare's work. Maybe so, but he never did anything else resembling the viciousness in this play, though some violence does occur here and there. The depraved Moor, Aaron, may be a prototype for Iago, or even Othello, but those villains had some motivation. Aaron is just pure evil. This film is worth a watch for lovers of the Elizabethan language, and if it isn't really Shakespeare, how often do you get a chance to see a play by George Peele and/or Robert Greene?

Just what is too long for a rendering of Shakespeare's HAMLET? If, like me, you love every word gem of the Bard, there is no "too long", even a tad. Bertram Kliman's "Three Text Hamlet" gives the First and Second Quarto and the First Folio versions in parallel columns. The first two are much shorter, and most scholars and dramaturgs use them only for emendations to the Folio text. It looks like Kenneth Branagh has used just about all of the First Folio, with maybe a pick here and there from the Quartos. Whatever, he has created a magnificent film. Casting, background, direction and camera work defy criticism. Using Blenheim Castle as Elsinore and moving action forward in time does make for some of the usual anachronisms, but then Shakespeare was guilty of plenty of these himself. In any case, the problems are deftly handled. Treat yourself to a splendid HAMLET!

I have seen 4 of the "manifestations" of THE CANTERVILLE GHOST, and this one comes closest to Wilde's satirical comedy novelette. Even here, though, the production team has seen fit to emend and amend, but not to excess. The ages of the young and old are correct, and so is the ghost's "crime". He killed his wife because she was "plain" and a lousy cook into the bargain! Her relatives chained him up and let him starve to death in a concealed room in the Canterville Chase castle. He can only be released from his limbo by the prayers and tears of a "golden girl" That's our "Virginia", but you'll have to see the movie to see if it works. Wilde's story is a rather "wild" satire on the foibles of well-to-do Americans vis-a-vis the British aristocracy. The movie tones this down only a little. It's very well done for a TV movie, with a most capable cast. If you don't get a chuckle out of Mr. and Mrs. Otis and their lovely daughter Virginia, something is wrong with your chuckler. Ian Richardson makes a very querulous ghost, very much according to Wilde's sketch. Don't look for horror. There isn't any and Oscar Wilde didn't intend any so far as I can tell from a recent reading of "The Canterville Ghost".

Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home, attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed. The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male advances in a very butch style.

There is considerable psychological freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against her, even her attorney at times.

The verdict? Well, after all, this is rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of "pacifist" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, "war is hell", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in his poem "Tommy Atkins":

"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide."

It was an article of faith among the more cynical critics during the "golden age" of Hollywood movies that most of what the industry turned out could be summed up as "boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl but gets her back before the final fade". Well, here Lewis Milestone has directed just such a formula tale. But he, more famous for such films as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, has handled the genre with such a light touch that the result is delightful. Mind you, I don't say the film is top 100 quality, but what's not to like about a Sacha Guitry romantic comedy featuring Ronald Colman and Ginger Rogers and ending with a courtroom scene, common to this type of film in the 1930's and 1940's, presided over by Henry Davenport as Judge?

We start out with Colman as some sort of "mystery artist" accosted by Rogers with a hare-brained scheme to win the Irish sweepstakes, if only he will go halvers with her. He wished her "Good Luck" one morning, you see, and immediately she was given a lovely dress by a complete stranger. So naturally, she knew he was a sure token of good luck. She wants the money for her honeymoon, but Ronald has an idea of his own--he wants her to go with him on the honeymoon, strictly Platonic, of course. To make a long story a bit shorter, Ginger doesn't like the idea but Ronnie persuades her fiance, Jack Carson, that it's O.K. (Don't ask how!), so she finally agrees. They draw a horse on their ticket (if you don't know how the Irish Sweepstakes worked, there isn't room here to explain it all), but the horse doesn't win. However, Jack has sold one-half of the ticket for $6000 on the strength of the horse. He gives this to Ginger, who gives it to Ronnie, who arranges the trip and buys a car in Ginger's name. After considerable pussyfooting around it becomes clearer by the minute that Plato is going to lose this one. Ronnie gets cold feet and beats it in the car bought in Gingers's name. Naturally he is arrested for car theft, Ginger is arrested for possessing a stolen painting (I told you Ronnie as a "mystery artist"), Jack is arrested for breaking down Ginger's hotel room door (he got jealous after all), and they all end up in Henry Davenport's courtroom.

Now, don't read another word if you don't already know the outcome, but if you are of the female persuasion and had the choice of Ronald Colman or Jack Carson, whom would you choose. This courtroom scene is not the best of this sort, which I mentioned was common to the period, but it does serve to sort things out. It may be corn, but it is lovely, sweet corn, and not from Iowa. Light sparkling comedy was Sacha Guitry's stock in trade.

This version tries to bring Christie's story accurately, but the editing is so choppy the details of plot are often hard to follow. Not to worry, though, intuitively if not deductively, you'll spot the murderer without much trouble. Good cast, especially Jean Simmons, and great scenery make it a pleasant watch. Joan Hickman, though, as Miss Marple just didn't quite cut it for me.

This is a very cinematic rendition of the Donizetti favorite featuring beautiful people, beautifully photographed, in beautiful settings. One may cavil that the atmosphere seems more Italian than Scottish, despite a few jaunty feathers in a bonnet or two and Normanno sporting a kilt and tartan plaid. But, what the heck! It is after all an Italian opera.

Nelly Corradi is likely the most beautiful Lucia one is likely ever to see on screen or stage. Moreover, she is a consummate actress. During the 2nd scene aria "Regnava nel silenzio" in which she describes the spectre that haunts the garden, Nelly is all fearful innocence, which quickly changes to winsome innocence in "Quando rapito in estasi" as she talks of her love for Edgardo. Later in the "Mad Scene", Nelly still projects innocence but bewildered this time after she has just stabbed her bridegroom Lord Arturo to death in their nuptial chamber. Other soprani may treat us to more spectacular coloratura fireworks, but they would be hard pressed to beat her histrionic interpretation.

The rest of the cast complement Nelly Corradi nicely with Mario Filippeschi making a suitably handsome Edgardo, and Afro Poli a ruthless and pitiless Enrico Ashton. The singing and the drama are well integrated with none of the tedious operatic gesturing one sometimes sees in even well sung stage presentations. This film features excellent singing, but alas the sound in the available tape is only poor to fair. This may be due to age deterioration or perhaps in 1947 the Italian cinema had not yet recovered from the ravages the Nazis wreaked on it.

Since the basic plot elements of the week-ending couple and the hitchhiker have been well publicised, I will not dwell upon them. However, in the course of discussing the suspense elements, I will have to reveal the essential denouement, folks who haven't seen the film are advised to skip this comment until after they have.

A great deal of praise has been showered on this first effort of Roman Polanski. It's overblown but not entirely off the mark. He is certainly clever with a slender plot and manages to keep you expecting the worst to happen. It never does, though, which may be very artistic, but is surely a let-down to many. Is it a deep psychological examination of complex people? I think it is better described as a "slice of life" story about people who don't know how to live and let live. For "slice of life" to succeed,it seems to me, you must have people who are out of the ordinary in some way beyond being merely inept at living. In the end, in this story, things just seem to "fizzle out". No doubt that is what Polanski intended, but can I be forgiven for asking "What is the point?". There is some mild excitement in the "drowning" scene, but if you look back over what you have seen, it is rather dull altogether. Dull, in fact, as the low contrast camera work. Was Polanski trying to invent a new genre: "film gris"? That aspect doesn't seem to have caught on.

The three people who assist Polanski as cast members are certainly very competent, but the most interesting "cast member" is the 9 metre (about) Marconi rigged sloop "Christine" they are sailing about a seemingly deserted lake. Therein lies a bit of a puzzle. Here it is Sunday, there are other vessels moored in the marina, but only our folks are "enjoying" the holiday and the perks of having both a private car and a private yacht in a commusist state. Was this subtle propaganda of some sort on Polanski's part? There is no doubt he is a subtle director.

Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.

Despite some added fictional characters, this is still essentially the legendary and historical Cleopatra and Antony story. It is only cinematic in making use of quick scene changes, otherwise it is very much a photographed play, more choreographed than directed. Acting is highly mannered and stylized in a way that will likely send modern viewers into gales of laughter sometimes. Compare this film to D.W.Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION only three years to see what a revolution occurred in cinematic technique. Fortunately Griffith's style prevailed, while Gardner's film remains a quaint curiosity.

Among the many curiosities, viewers will note that "Cleopatra" and all her attendant ladies are definitely of the matronly and well-fed type. Maybe in 1912 this was what the menfolk liked!

This sexist "romantic comedy" has very little going for it except the wonderful cast, and a few funny scenes such as the "sand hogs" playing their musical chairs game. Claudette and Fred surely do the best they can with hardly anything to work with. There are good production values all the way and the tunnel work looks very realistic. Hollywood was always ready to go the "whole hog" for very little result.

Poor photography, at least as seen on Showtime, and a rather coy use of close-ups are the only things that spoil this photographed stage presentation. It is faithful to the spirit and letter of Arthur Miller's original script, and it is acted with sincerity and feeling. Willy Loman as victim is presented in straight-forward manner with no attempt to excuse the "system" by hints of madness.

The screen play Stoppard wrote from the credited Chandler/Parker novel is not bad, if far fetched, but not as good as the source. As a tough guy P.I. flic, this borders on fantasy, what with the additions and changes Stoppard made. Why the name changes, by the way? Linda Potter becomes Laura Parker, and Angel's character is reversed. Palm Springs, aka Poodle Springs winds up on the Nevada border. About the only thing not changed is the killer, and you'll have to see the film to find that out. Well, Caan makes a good Marlowe, looking satisfactorily battle worn, and the rest of the cast won't disappoint you. Direction is fair, but the editing is as lousy as usual for these days. Overall, this is an enjoyable private eye tale, if you can forget the novel, but that hare-brained conspiracy to move...; but hey, I'm about to give away too much!

Despite being weirdly edited and directed, this film manages to give an accurate picture of the spirit and times of the era when Elizabeth I came to power. True, we mostly see the powerful people; the nobodies are usually seen being burned or beheaded, and that briefly. There are any number of unexplained actions, and characters are sometimes hard to identify, but the camera work, color, and scenic backgrounds are superb. Locations are all real, and the acting is uniformly convincing. If an initial viewing leaves you a tad confused, do a little reading on the period, see the film again, and enjoy it all the more.

But for the choppy editing this would be a top-notch color "film noir". Its socio-political message couldn't be clearer or more to the point. Some "important" people are so convinced that whatever they do is right, that their conduct amounts to group sociopathy. The crime story is interesting as it supports this theme, but the ultimate "solution" should not be too much of a surprise. The private detectives are a broad spectrum of types: very competent but world weary, incompetent but enthusiastic, venal losers, venal winners (after a fashion). The official police are a mixed bag too, but presented as mostly honest if not always too eager to press on the "important" people. There are some bad apples, though. In short, the film is a lot like life. There's great cast work by the principals and good color camera work to match the "noir" genre.

The Grimm fairy tale gets a gothic telling with an interesting blend of realism and fantasy. There are some minor plot changes from the classic tale: Snow White falls in with a band of fugitives who are just incidentally digging for gold, and they are at first hostile to her. She escapes the stepmother's initial plot by pure accident, and doesn't fall in love with her putative rescuer, but with one of the fugitives who shakes the poisoned apple out of her throat. The Wicked Stepmother uses both sorcery and direct physical action in her attacks on Snow white. Lovely cast work and spectacular backgrounds of rotting castles and frightening forest glades enhance the production. The editing is choppy, but we just have to get used to that these days. Anyway, the whole thing works. There are a few puzzling situations and loose ends, but the director at least seems trying to tell the fantastic story coherently.

This "dawn of sound" museum piece (3 spoken words, sound effects, and music)does have a certain charm, when it doesn't try to be funny, in telling of a livery stable operator who has trouble accepting the emergence of the automobile. Russell Hicks and Patsy Ruth Miller are pretty good in their roles. The rest of the cast are pretty awful. If you can time warp yourself back to 1927 to view the film in the ambiance of its era, you may find it mildly enjoyable. If you are firmly fixed, mind-wise, in the year 2000 probably not.

This detailed account of the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in 1942, and the tragic aftermath, is likely about as accurate as any dramatic film is likely to be on the subject. The Nazis took an appallingly vicious revenge, and this film is a compelling, somewhat flawed, saga of the great tragedy that is war and conquest. Was the killing of Heydrich, the "Hangman" to the Czechs, really necessary, considering the consequences? It must have seemed so to the British brass and the willing Czech volunteers, but one wonders what the completely uninvolved victims in Lidice may have thought. Viewed as part of the overall slaughter of millions in the course of WW2, these were small numbers of victims, but is even one death negligible? Did Heydrich's removal shorten the war at all? You will have to find your own answers.

As a cinematic action film, this is not an especially inspired production. The story of the parachuting in from British RAF planes of an assassination team proceeds rather slowly until the final battle at the church where the seven partisans were hiding. The German efforts to dislodge them are shown in a detail that may owe something to extrapolation from the facts. Who knows? In any case this is the exciting part of the film. As shown the seven wiped out simply hordes of attacking Germans before the last two took their own lives. There is no question but that in reality the partisans put up quite a fight. They would have had no incentive to surrender meekly to Nazi "mercy".

Acting, except for the very convincing portrayal of Heydrich by Anton Diffring, is generally lackluster, with a few exceptions, and the editing can only be described as choppy. The language convention may seem a tad strange. Conversations that would obviously have been in Czech, are given in English. Conversations in German, occur in German, without subtitles. If you aren't fluent in German, you may miss some nuances. Since few of the cast are Czechs, there is not much slavic flavor evident. Who knows, this may enhance the more universal message that "war is hell". Oh, and did Gabcik and Kubis really take their own lives at the end?

This is likely the first sound western film as well as the first sound film done out-of-doors. Suggested by "The Caballero's Way", a short story by William Sidney Porter (O.Henry), the main character, "The Cisco Kid", has been considerably upgraded. Porter's "Kid" was a ruthless bandit who didn't like people who got in his way, especially sheriffs. When a sheriff seduced the "Kid's" girl-friend into betraying him into an ambush, the "Kid", ruthlessly clever, took his revenge in a sadistic fashion. In case one might want to read the story, I will say no more. In the film, the "Kid" is a bandit right enough, but a sympathetic one, and sufficiently clever to outwit a sheriff who persuades the girlfriend to disarm the "Kid". She does this by charming him into taking off his gun when he meets her for a tryst. Don't worry, the "Kid" is one up on this trick, too, but protects himself in somewhat gentler fashion than in the story. If one could view this film today it would seem a museum piece, but not without some pictorial charm. I remember the photography as very pictorial, as with some later sequels, and there is a scene of bacon frying over a campfire that rather startled 1929 film goers with the realistic sound.

Although beautifully photographed on highly stylized and colorful sets, the film is strangely talky and unexciting. The distinguished cast gives a lackluster performance, except for Walter Slezak. Maureen O'Hara is certainly a lovely vision, but she is as mouthy as the rest, and Jane Greer, alas, has very little to do. Doug, Jr., despite his action scenes, is not his father. The intention, perhaps, was to produce a tongue-in-cheek rendition of the tale, but it seems to be mostly tongue and not much cheek. The editing is nicely smooth, though, and one can enjoy all the colors.

It is puzzling that critics generally seem not to like this filming of Emily Bronte's tale of vengeance and woe. True, it is not a perfect novel as even Charlotte Bronte allowed in a preface to a later edition, but it evokes powerful images and emotions apropos of the Yorkshire country. This film, moreover, gives us the whole story to the bitter end, unlike some previous filmings. It is beautifully photographed in a bleak and forbidding setting. Color balances seem a tad weird at times and the editing is not always precise, but it is certainly a good attempt at a difficult story. For me, I found the acting good to adequate, often even excellent. This version deserves a look.

This film story of the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich (titled by the Nazis as Reichs Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, by the Czechs as "The Hangman", and also one of the architects of "The Final Solution")and of the subsequent annihilation of the village of Lidice by the Nazis, really does not do justice to the subject. Although released by MGM, it was actually produced by poverty row Producer Releasing Corporation (PRC). Some of the cast members are old familiars and rather good, but none give a feeling that these are Czechs being murdered by Hitler's minions. As war propaganda, it is a success, and it at least gives the spirit of the tragedy of Lidice, if not historically detailed facts. John Carradine is effective as Heydrich, especially in his deathbed scene.

The facts about the assassination briefly are that two Czech partisans were parachuted into Czechoslovakia from an RAF plane. They managed to ambush Heydrich's open Mercedes, throw a bomb under it, and escape to a church. Heydrich died a few days later from complications arising from the penetration of his spleen by bomb fragments and debris from the car upholstery. Using torture, the Nazis discovered the whereabouts of the two partisans and the SS killed them at once. Lidice was picked more or less at random from among villages known to have anti-German leanings. On Hitler's orders, the men were shot and the women and children removed to camps, while the buildings of the site were levelled. When it became known in the allied world, this made excellent anti-Nazi propaganda, and more than one film was made of the subject. It may be that the massive retaliation backfired somewhat on the Nazis also by stiffening Czech resistance to the occupation.

By the standards of its time, this is a better than average film, and it is still watchable, even though the social and cinematic conventions of 1915 may make it rather quaint to some viewers. Still, the theme about a good woman regenerating a rascal is not unusual today, and here it is told with coherence and simplicity.

One may find the acting style quaint, too, but some of the worst excesses of the silent days are avoided for the most part. Perhaps we can thank young Raoul for that. The editing is choppy, but that may be due to losses over the years, and it may vary depending on the print or tape translation one sees.

One suspects this film registered better with viewers in 1943 than it does today. Despite being suggested by the actual assassination of Reichs Protector of Bohemia and Moravia Reinhard Heydrich, better known to the Czechs as "The Hangman" because of his excessive brutality in dealing with residents of the conquered regions, it is almost total fiction. Even so it is not bad as a rather involved drama and was very likely good anti-nazi propaganda.

Perhaps it is well to start with what actually did happen to Heydrich on May 29, 1942. Two young Czechs, Jan Kubis and Josef Ganchik, parachuted in from an RAF plane and managed to ambush "the Hangman" riding in his open Mercedes. Armed with both machine pistols and a bomb, the apparently did little harm by shooting, but did explode the bomb under the car. Heydrich's spleen was penetrated by bomb fragments and debris causing death several days later, possibly more by infection than anything else. The two Czechs evaded capture briefly, but witnesses under torture revealed their hiding place in a church and the SS killed them. In a massive retaliation, Hitler picked the village of Lidice, more or less at random, from among places known to harbor anti-German sentiment, and ordered its total annihilation. The people of Lidice had nothing whatever to do with the assassination, of course.

In HANGMEN ALSO DIE we have the story of a lone assassin, using an English made pistol, whose getaway taxi was forced to move by German soldiers, causing him to take refuge during the curfew at the home of a Czech professor. The professor's daughter, Mascha, had impulsively directed the German pursuit away from him. The German police suspect the girl, but release her in the hope she will lead them to the wanted man. They also round up many Czechs, including the girl's father, and begin shooting them as hostages. The girl at first intends to give information, hoping to save her father, but in the end is persuaded otherwise by the Czech resistance. A plan is concocted to bamboozle the SS and save the assassin and the girl, but what it is you will have to see for yourself. Be assured it is incredible.

As you see, this story has little to do with the historic assassination and its aftermath, beyond illustrating the SS brutality, but it does make a mildly entertaining wartime adventure with good propaganda value, largely because of the rather low key, intensely personal nature of the plot elements. Some of the characters are very real and believable, e.g. the Gestapo Inspector Gruber, the girl Mascha, and her father, all ably portrayed by Alexander Granach, Anna Lee, and Walter Brennan respectively. On the other hand, some characters are more like cardboard cut-outs and get wooden performances to suit. Brian Donlevy as Dr.Svoboda, the assassin, fits this category alas, as do a number of others. What realism there is seems likely to have been the contribution of Bertolt Brecht rather than John Wexley, who got the credit for the screenplay. One likes to think that Fritz Lang did the best he could with a mixed bag of acting talent, but this can hardly be said to be his best effort.

Just why Hollywood producers seem to prefer fiction to the facts when dealing with historical material is a major mystery to me. In 1943 the general facts of the assassination were known, if not all the details, and could have made just as dramatic a story as this fictional one. It is worth a watch, though, especially if you like Anna Lee.