When the ailing husband of an adulterous wife is discovered bludgeoned to death and suspicions fall on the older woman's young lover, the newly widowed woman claims that it was she who was solely responsible for the death despite evidence that points to the contrary in this dramatic account of true-life 1935 trial that shocked all of England. Though notable evidence and strong suspicion suggests that the murder may have been of crime of passion perpetrated by the jealous lover only half her age, Alma Rattenbury (Helen Mirren) confesses to the murder of her husband and is soon brought to trial. Despite the fact that Alma is already being deemed guilty by the general public for her adulterous indiscretion alone, her lawyer, star attorney T.J. O'Connor (David Suchet), remains convinced that his client will eventually be cleared of all charges.
Reviews
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.
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.
Is it any wonder that the Brits kick our butts when it comes to putting out good theater? Look at this cast: Helen Mirren, David Morrissey, Harry Andrews and David Suchet in a pre-Hercule Poirot role as a barrister. The story based on a defense of a woman's (Mirren) live-in handy-man lover (Morrissey) who violently kills her elderly impotent husband (Andrews). The barrister mounts a defense of how this younger, naive man misinterpreted the woman's involvement with him. The case takes strange twists as the woman winds the unwilling other victim whose only crime is one of indiscretion. Fine, fine acting and a gripping, well-written drama. I'm amazed it is not available on video. If it rolls around on PBS, be sure to check it out.
