Based on the play by Maxwell Anderson, which was based on the novel by William March, this is a chilling tale of murder and the lengths to which a parent will go to protect a child.
Colonel Kenneth Penmark (William Hopper) and his wife Christine (Nancy Kelly) are raising their only child, 8-year-old Rhoda (Patty McCormack) together. But as the film opens, the Colonel is returning to Washington DC where he spends most of his working time, leaving Christine alone with Rhoda for long periods. Thankfully, she does have the friendship and assistance of her landlady Monica Breedlove (Evelyn Varden) and handyman Leroy (Henry Jones) - though Leroy has a simple mind (the mind of an 8-year-old, it is said).
Rhoda is going on a school picnic by the water, and just before she leaves, she is upset that she missed out on receiving a medal for penmanship, which she feels she was cheated out of by another student, Claude Daigle.
While she is gone, Christine and Monica hear a breaking news story on the radio that one of the students has drowned in a freak accident while on the picnic, and all the children are to be sent home. The name of the student - Claude Daigle.
Rhoda arrives home shortly after, and doesn't appear to be too upset by what has happened, saying there's no point worrying about things any more, and asking for a sandwich and a drink, seeing as how she didn't get to eat at the picnic.
Over the remainder of the film, Christine begins to suspect that perhaps Claude's death was not an accident after all, and though she loves her daughter, comes to the conclusion that Rhoda was more involved than she is letting on.
As mentioned earlier, this film was based on a play, and it is quite obvious when watching. Not as obvious as some other early films, but still quite clear.
(Short history lesson inserted here: In the early days of cinema, the majority of films were cinema releases of plays and revues. To begin with, a stationary camera would simply be placed at the front of the 'stage', and the performance would be done as per normal, with the camera standing in for a spectator, but still very far from the action. It was much later that close-up shots and reaction shots were inserted in, to allow the viewer to feel like they were part of the action).
Back to the review.
Most of the action takes place in one location, but unlike earlier screen adaptations of plays, the camera does move around a lot in this film, and there are lots of inserted close-ups and other angled shots, bringing you right into the scene.
Director Mervyn LeRoy has done a fantastic job of bringing this story to the screen, and in fact many of the cast are straight from the Broadway cast that first performed the play on stage.
Patty McCormack (in what is technically a supporting role, but feels like the lead at many times) is incredible as Rhoda, an amazing young actress who has gone on to many other great film roles.
Another notable performance is that of Eileen Heckart, who plays Claude's mother Hortense. Following the death of her son, she has started drinking, and all of her scenes feature her at various levels of intoxication, which she pulls off without the need for caricature or cliche, but does in such a beautifully understated way as to have well and truly earned her nomination for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar (which she sadly did not win, however, she did win the Golden Globe that year for her performance).
In fact, Nancy Kelly and Patty McCormack also received Oscar nominations for their roles, as did cinematographer Harold Rosson.
Speaking of cinematography, the cinematography of this film is absolutely flawless, and in fact, it is a tragedy that Rosson didn't win the Oscar. His use of light and dark, shadows, etc. is amazing, and is definitely aided by the fact that the film is in black-and-white. But he uses the black-and-white medium to his full advantage, and it really pays off.
There really isn't a lot more to say about this film, other than I was quite surprised at the intensity of the subject matter, and the entire cast and crew's handling of some pretty full-on issues, given the film's 1956 release. But at the same time, it is never over-the-top or gratuitous.
Oh, there is one more thing I can say about this film. You absolutely must see it.
10 out of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment