Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

 "I am constantly sutprised that women's hats do not provoke more murders..."

This, like Agatha Christie's other play Mousetrap, is known for its twist ending: indeed, there is a voiceover at the end of the film begging us not to spoil it. I'm not necessarily always so fastidious, but on this occasion Christie's secret it safe with me, seven decades later.

I haven't seen the play, but I read a number of Agatha Christie novels in my youth. I recall her ingenious plots, but also her poor characterisation and unfortunate snobbery- good, but no Margery Allingham. That is not in evidence here, and the dialogue (deliciously delivered by the magnificent Charles Laughton and the sublime Marlene Dietrich) is rather witty. Am I misremembering Christie, or has the script had a bit of a polish?

Nevertheless, this is a triumphant film, and certainly the finest courtroom drama I have ever seen: I can see why Christie herself was so happy with Billy Winder's film. The cast (Tyrone Power is a bit of a weak link, but the two stars are magnificent, and there's a fine comic turn from Elsa Lanchester. It's also fascinating to see the workings of a Crown Court in the 1950s, at least via the medium of Hollywood.

The twists and turns are, of course, sublime, and to say that the ending packs a huge punch is a real understatement. This is quite up there with the great twist endings. Yet beyond this we have a triumph of writing, direction and performance. Sublime.

Diary of a Madman (1963)

 "Considering your endless studies of the criminal mind..."

You know when you start watching a film expecting a B movie, despite the literary basis of the script, and end up with a phiolosophical, literate and genuinely creepy little horror film? This is one of those nights. I don't care that the critics don't care for this film: they're wrong.

Obviously, Vincent Price, with that voice, is charismatic, extraordinary, and carries the film through sheer presence. But that's a given. Plus, the film and, indeed, the director, are fairly obscure. Perhaps what I'm truly blown away by is the original story (or two stories) by Guy de Maupassant- I've never read his short stories and, unlike other French authors, he isn't widely read in the English-speaking world. Yet I read that considerable liberties were taken with the source material beyond just conflating the two stories.

Nancy Kovack is excellent, of course, as a woman we are made to see as evil for her love of money and pleasure, but what options did a woman have in the France of 1886 beyond gold-digging? There's quite a feminist critique to be made of this fim, methinks.

Neverthleless, it's a thoughtful and deeply psychological approach to horroe which not only focuses on well-rounded characters but roots the horror in those very character traits. The nature of the "Horla" (why that name?) may be vague, but its effects are not.

All this, and we get a milieu of the (very) Hollywood version of the Paris of the artistic era of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and so forth. I recommend this film really rather highly indeed.