Displaying items by tag: Brenda de Banzie

I BELIEVE IN YOU

UK, 1952, 95 minutes, Black-and-white.

Cecil Parker, Celia Johnson, Harry Fowler, Joan Collins, George Relph, Godfrey Tearle, Ernest Jay, Laurence Harvey, Ursula Howells, Sidney James, Katie Johnson, Ada Reeve, Brenda de Banzie, Gladys Henson.

Directed by Michael Relph, Basil Dearden.

This is a serious British film of the early 1950s, the team of Michael Relph and Basil Dearden, making a number of serious films together, then Basil Dearden directing on his own with such significant films as Victim and Khartoum.

Cecil Parker had established himself as a serious character actor and leads the cast here, a retiree, wanting to do something better with his life, becoming a parole officer, having to adapt his manner and even his clothing to the ordinary types that he encountered, yet able to get the trust of several, guide them, supervise, be challenged, make mistakes. He provides a voice-over for the action.

There is a very strong supporting cast led by Celia Johnson, best known for her Oscar-nominated performance in David Lean’s version of Noel Coward’s Blithe Spirit. There is a young Laurence Harvey as a surly criminal. And Joan Collins in her fourth film, making an impression – and, within two or three years, starring in Hollywood films. There is Sidney James working in an office, Katie Johnson, the famous old lady from the Ladykillers, an early role for Brenda de Banzie.

Not necessarily a film that contemporary audiences want to watch, but a worthy film and a reminder of past issues in British society.

1. A serious piece of British filmmaking in the 1950s? Ordinary people, ordinary life, crime, the courts, parole officers?
2. The perspective on Britain in the early 1950s, post-war, ordinary life, families, crime, courts, prisons? The role of the parole officer, supervision, counselling and help?
3. Black-and-white photography, streets, homes, offices, courts, authentic feel? The musical score?
4. Mr Phipps, the voice-over, Cecil Parker and his screen presence, his career, retirement, wanting to do something better, becoming a parole officer, the encounters with the other members of the staff, the friendship with Matty, the sympathy, challenging him? His quiet life at home? At the office, the interactions with the police? The range of clients, in the court, giving evidence, commissioned to check on those accused, issues of accommodation, investigating family backgrounds, the details of his interactions and friendship with Charlie, with Norma, with the old lady and the paintings from her past, the old lady and the dog being poisoned, the mother of the boy with limited intelligence…? Friendly, criticised? The confrontation with the magistrate? Reaching out to Charlie, encouraging him, the accommodation, Charlie and the crime, his intervening, the bashing, in court? Decision to retire? Talking to Matty? Staying, the magistrate bending a little under Mr Phipps’ influence?
5. Matty, war widow, her work, personality, with those accused of crime, interactions with Norma, discipline, the alcoholic? The pregnant woman? Interactions with Mr Phipps, blunt, apologetic, going home for the drink? Encouraging him?
6. The elderly parole officer, his health, his clients, collapse, continuing his work, encouraging Mr Phipps and handing over his clients?
7. The local staff, the police, those at the desk, the busyness of the work in the office?
8. Charlie, his age, crime, difficulties with his parents, accommodation, with Mr Phipps, the gradual bonding, the issue of not living in a hostel, the relationship with Norma, her background, flirtatious, the past with Jordie, imprisonment, getting out, the plans with Charlie, the pressure from Jordie, her plea to Charlie, his reaction? But the happy ending, supported by Mr Phipps?
9. The elderly ladies, the lady who had posed for the paintings? The old lady and the neighbouring poisoners? The mothers? The severe fathers?
10. Jordie, sullen, prison, his gang, the robbery, caught?
11. Comparisons between past parole officers and later parole officers, supervision, prisons, in a world of supervision and technology?

NEVER LOOK BACK

UK, 1952, 73 minutes, Black-and-white.

Rosamund John, Hugh Sinclair, Guy Middleton, Henry Edwards, Terrence Longden, Brenda de Banzie.

Directed by Francis Searle.

A brief second feature from 1952, a curio item for those interested in the British film industry in the late 1940s, early 1950s. And it has a cast of British character actors, including an early appearance by Brenda tde Banzie and an uncredited appearance by Harry H.Corbett as the guard in the prison.

This is a film about lawyers and crime, raising ethical issues, about a defence lawyer having personal issues with the man she is defending.

Rosamund John plays a lawyer who has become a KC, celebrates with another lawyer who is in love with her, Hugh Sinclair. However, she is committed to her career. She is sent congratulatory flowers and remembers a man she had fallen in love with in Italy years earlier. He then arrives, evokes memories of the past, says he has fallen on hard times and she offers him the couch for the night, knowing that it might risk her reputation.

The visitor has mentioned his girlfriend and, the next morning, she is found dead. He is arrested. The lawyer decides to defend him against the advice of her partner and his father. And the circumstances mean that her friend lawyer is to be the prosecutor.

Much of the second part of the film is in the court, the interrogation of witnesses, the defendant clearly moving towards a guilty verdict, especially when a woman of dubious reputation, played by Brenda de Banzie, testifies that she saw the defendant at the time of the death, his lawyer interrogating the witnesses to try to find extenuating circumstances. When it seems that he will be guilty, the defendant causes a tantrum in the courtroom, appealing to the lawyer to defend him. She resigns, later going to the witness box and admitting the truth.

Found not guilty, there is confrontation between the defendant and the prosecutor, and the clear indications that the murderer had set up the situation, to have an alibi when he went out to kill his girlfriend.

The moral issues and legal issues are set out clearly – but, with a rather sudden happy ending.