The hired boy's daddy was strict, but he didn't mind loaning out his mallet to love-crazed young George (played by David Morrissey who, perhaps scarred by this very film, went on to marry Sigmund Freud's great-granddaughter in real life) who thought Alma (Helen Mirren) was "living with" (slang for engaging in marital relations with) her elderly, ill husband "Rats" (the late great Harry Andrews)just after having several weeks of mad "living" with young George and declaring mutually sudden eternal love. The besotted young handyman took the mallet(three thwacks)to old Rats's non-threatening, dozing dome and finished him off nattily, sending both shellshocked-but-innocent Alma and his unrepentant self to court. Alma, wife and mother of two young sons,has marched to her own drummer and deemed the mad, impetuous fling to commence when Houseboy George, washing her bedroom window, sees a pair of those full, loose, glossy satin '30's undies (green with beige lace)lying on her unoccupied bed and enters the room, picks the seductive undergarment up, cuddles it, sits down on the bed and begins to tremble fitfully, until Alma conveniently enters and assesses the lust-o'ercome state of her personally chosen hired boy (tall, muscular, sexually viable). Alma begins to stroke his shivering frame and ignites the affair, ignoring signs of extreme jealousy and instability in her ardent young swain. She dresses divinely, takes him on a spree to a London hotel, and seems impervious to their extra-marital romps and tiffs (born of George's increasing jealousy) taking place within easy earshot of both ill-fated husband "Rats" and the stoic, uncritical mother's helper, Irene. David Suchet, as Alma's canny barrister (quite good-looking he is sans Poirot mustache), has the job of crafting a defense for a woman who wants none. George is determined to pay the price for this "great love," and all his fine barrister (played by Oliver Ford Davies, the marvelous character actor of many a suspenseful production)can do is play on his youth and corruptibility in the grip of female wiles. I shall not spoil the very (bitter) end to this rather odd-but-true drama, except to say the three strikes causing an additional death do seem impossibly brought about. How could she do it THREE TIMES? I shall leave you with that. This is finely acted dramatic fare - better than anything you'll see on your tube now in these lean dramatic days.
10 Reviews
Oedipus Schmidepus
writers_reign9 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This was Rattigan's final play for the theatre - he wrote it for radio, adapted it for the stage where it was still running when he died. Rattigan was a world-class dramatist with a great gift for constructing a play solidly from the ground up; Ken Taylor is a pedestrian writer who spent virtually his whole career in television so why he saw fit to tamper with Rattigan to the extent that he all but eliminated the sup-plot involving the fictional female jury member who Rattigan created deliberately as a counterpoint to Alma is anyone's guess. Though devotees of the play - which has just been revived at the Old Vic in Rattigan's centenary year - will be disappointed and/or outraged audiences knowing nothing of the play will be able to bask in the fine acting and period detail on offer. I saw this for the first time in the Mediateque at the South Bank Centre, one of five TV versions of Rattigan dramas added this month to complement the mini season of Rattigan films that will run throughout April and though the usual suspects have been wheeled out we are still missing The Deep Blue Sea, The Man Who Loved Redheads, While The Sun Shines, The Yellow Rolls Royce, Goodbye, Mr. Chips to name only a few. Meanwhile Cause Celebre is still worth watching despite Mr Taylor's cleaver.
Not a murder "mystery" as such
bbigham16 October 2005
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.
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.
Gripping Melodrama
artzau9 April 2001
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.
A Sad Judicial Tragedy
theowinthrop15 November 2004
Terence Rattigan liked to do plays based on actual crimes. He is best known for THE WINSLOW BOY, based on the 1911 Archer-Shee Case involving the social ruin of a naval cadet and his family when the cadet is accused of stealing postal money orders from his fellow cadets. It was twice filmed (both times quite well). CAUSE CELEBRE is based on the 1935 Alma Rattenbury - George Stonor murder case. Alma was a somewhat talented woman (she composed popular songs) who married Francis Rattenbury, an architect (his various public and private buildings in Vancouver are still part of the city's skyline). Francis was older than Alma, and she began an affair with Stonor, a handyman they hired. One night Stonor shot Francis, and he died in a couple of days. Stonor was arrested, and then so was Alma. It sort of resembles the Thompson-Bywater tragedy in 1922, but Alma was shown to have had nothing to do with the shooting. Stonor, however, was found guilty and condemned to death. Alma could not stand the loss of her young lover. She went down to a river near her home, and stabbed herself to death. Ironically, due to his age, Stonor's sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. Eventually he was released. However, in the 1980s (he was still alive) he was arrested on a morals charge. The play of course only deals with the events in 1935.
Rare treat of early Pre-Poirot Suchet & Pre-Prime Suspect Mirren
muteperiod2 September 2004
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.
Bit of a Snore-fest
JonathanWalford27 November 2010
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?
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?
Another brilliant performance by Helen Mirren
Buddybaba4 May 2001
It never ceases to amaze me how one actor can so involve you in their characterization as to make you forget the person and remember the part. Helen Mirren is one of the greatest actors alive today. This is now available on video through Lance Entertainment. Watch it and you will be amazed. A great script interpreted by great actors. What more can you want from a film?
Cause célèbre
Prismark1010 March 2024
Cause célèbre was essentially a television vehicle for Helen Mirren made by Anglia Television for ITV. It was made during the phase of Mirren's career where she would only keep her clothes on the screen for artistic merit.
Inspired by the true life murder of architect Francis Rattenbury in 1935. This was an adaptation of the play written by Terence Rattigan. It is not a television movie as it was shot on video. More a feature length drama.
As one of the main characters was still alive in 1987, some of the names have been fictionalised.
David Morrissey plays George Bowman. An immature, angry 18 year old man who is employed as a chauffeur for the Rattenbury's. He becomes obsessed with crooner Alma Rattenbury (Mirren) who is in her 30s but married to the much older Francis Rattenbury (Harry Andrews) who she met in Canada.
Both George and Alma embark on a torrid affair. George getting increasingly jealous of Alma's husband. When Francis is found bludgeoned to death, both stand trial for murder.
Told in flashbacks, this is a dreary drama. There was no vigour in it and neither was it salacious enough. There is a good cast here but they are wasted. To me it did not work as a mystery or a courtroom thriller.
Inspired by the true life murder of architect Francis Rattenbury in 1935. This was an adaptation of the play written by Terence Rattigan. It is not a television movie as it was shot on video. More a feature length drama.
As one of the main characters was still alive in 1987, some of the names have been fictionalised.
David Morrissey plays George Bowman. An immature, angry 18 year old man who is employed as a chauffeur for the Rattenbury's. He becomes obsessed with crooner Alma Rattenbury (Mirren) who is in her 30s but married to the much older Francis Rattenbury (Harry Andrews) who she met in Canada.
Both George and Alma embark on a torrid affair. George getting increasingly jealous of Alma's husband. When Francis is found bludgeoned to death, both stand trial for murder.
Told in flashbacks, this is a dreary drama. There was no vigour in it and neither was it salacious enough. There is a good cast here but they are wasted. To me it did not work as a mystery or a courtroom thriller.
i loved this story
nancinger5 April 2004
As usual, Helen Mirren has it all wrapped up. I knew it would be great when she goes from smiling to weeping in the course of 10 seconds at the piano scene near the beginning of the film. Amazing how she does that. THis character seemed lighter than most of the characters she plays--but underneath you know that she is suffering and drowning in her despair from the very beginning. You think that the woman is hopelessly flawed because of her seemingly superficial need for money and status, and for her interest in a much younger man. Then you realize she is playing such a complicated character that you can't even imagine how she did it. Helen mirren. Amazing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
