Circumstantial Evidence (1952) User Reviews

Leave it to Rona

[wilvram · 7/10 · 29 July 2020]

One of several modestly budgeted co-features from ACT Films, founded by the union, the Association of Cinematograph Technicians. 'Caught in the Web of Circumstantial Evidence' in the melodramatic words of the promotional material. There's a welcome register of British character players of the time, including the smooth villainy of John Arnatt and the likes of the avuncular Peter Swanwick. Rona Anderson is, as usual, lovely and charming as the resourceful heroine. (Incidentally, the idea that someone of her background and demeanour would not be credible posing as a tabloid reporter is absurd). Effectively directed, the film's main weakness is in its utter predictability after the first twenty minutes or so, though in fairness, the basic plot must have been used on several occasions since.

Harrison's Reports

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 25 July 2020]

A short, sharp fable of blackmail and murder characteristic of director Daniel Birt, painting a vivid picture of London in the summer of 1952 and largely carried by the elegant Rona Anderson; detailing how difficult it was in those days to wriggle out of a marriage gone sour.

A flawed screenplay

[tony-70-667920 · 5/10 · 28 July 2020]

The original title is much better, as this is a warning against relying on circumstantial evidence, though police incompetence is more the problem. The film starts with a judge about to sum up a case which depends entirely on circumstantial evidence (Ronald Adam, who appears briefly as prosecuting counsel, is for some reason billed above several actors with more significant roles.) Linda Harrison is separated from her husband Steve and like the woman on trial wants a divorce. She plans to marry the judge's son, a doctor played by Patrick Holt. They're not having a affair, you understand: Linda's far too prim, an impression reinforced by Rona Anderson's "terribly, terribly" voice (think Celia Johnson or the Queen.) Steve and his sidekick are a pair of spivs and Steve tries to blackmail the doc, threatening to report him to the General Medical Council. Steve visits him in his hotel room, gets angry and knocks him out. Pete then arrives and says he's found Steve shot dead. That's where things get silly: the cops, led by Ballard Berkeley (later the major in "Fawlty Towers") assume Steve's guilty and he faces trial. You'd think, particularly as we still had the death penalty, that they'd have shown at least a slight interest in Pete, but It's left to our heroine to save her boyfriend. Holt, by the way, seems remarkably unconcerned, and apart from good looks brings little to the role. The best performance comes from John Arnatt, who makes Steve a very smooth slimeball. At the end "The Judge sees the Light" (the title of the original story) and warns the jury against relying on circumstantial evidence. The film is competently made, but the intellectual laziness of the cops is ridiculous and the main interest is seeing London in 1952

"That girl is up to something and I want to know what it is"

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 6/10 · 9 July 2023]

The plot is mainly routine though the attention given to the concept of 'circumstantial evidence' is interesting. What I really liked in the film were some of the performances. Rona Anderson as Linda Harrison was excellent, her character increasing in stature as she seeks to solve her estranged husband's murder. Her husband Steve was played by John Arnatt in such an odious way one wanted to punch him on the screen, such was the actor's skill. There is also Peter Swanwick as the portly Charlie Pott who fancies Linda but comes off as slightly creepy. Unfortunately Patrick Holt as Linda's love interest is rather dull but the rest of the cast are fine. Perhaps the ending was too hurried but I liked the movie. Primarily because of the charming Ms. Anderson.

Neck Stretched

[jromanbaker · 7/10 · 17 March 2023]

' No, I am afraid she will get her pretty little neck stretched ' is one of the most repugnant statements about hanging a woman if found guilty of murder I have heard on film. I wanted to stop watching, but after this statement during a trial, and the conclusion that Capital Punishment was inevitable my interest grew. The evidence against her was based on circumstantial evidence, and most of the people at the trial including the judge believed such evidence was enough. I wondered how many people had been hung when they were innocent, and when the Judge's son falls foul of the law and the law believes even before a trial that he is guilty based again on similar circumstantial evidence I realised this film was none too subtle about such evidence convicting a man or woman in the early 1950's to death. A brave film for doing this. Rona Anderson, a fine actor, is the man's wife to be and she starts to uncover the true facts. I just wonder how many people went away from this film asking themselves questions about the law of the time, and being a less than an hour B film it moves along at a pace that they would not be bored by. The acting in general was good, and the filming simple showing viewers quite openly that the judicial system was faulty to say the least, and the attitudes concerning Capital Punishment casually brutal. The line of dialogue that I have quoted shows this clearly, with little hope for change in sight in court rooms. It took over a decade more for the abolishment of hanging in the UK.

Predictable

[malcolmgsw · 5/10 · 26 September 2020]

The problem with this film is that you can guess what is going to happen within the first 10 minutes.So there is little suspense or even drama.With the exception of the blackmailer everyone goes through the motions in a very perfunctory manner.

Short, snappy, but superficial ' so so' murder yarn.

[geoffm60295 · 4/10 · 28 July 2020]

The delightful and elegant Rona Anderson, pops up as the wife who is seeking a divorce from a husband, who she barely sees, but with a new man in her life, a respected doctor, played by Patrick Holt, life for her seems to be back on track again. However, her estranged husband, unfortunately gets murdered! The problem I had with this film, is that the characters never engage interest, nor are they believable, as they all come across as one dimensional. Feelings and emotions are never stirred as the actors seem to go through the motions. Patrick Holt seems to have a range of expressions that go from A to B, and his body language stays the same whatever the scene! He delivers his lines with effortless charm but without any conviction. He seems to drift from one scene to another as if on auto pilot! Rona Anderson's subterfuge of being a tabloid gossip reporter, as a way of tracking down the killer beggars belief, as her very middle class manners and demeanour wouldn't fool anyone! The film itself, which runs just over the hour, never allows the director to 'flesh out' the characters, and indeed the successful capture of the killer in the last ten minutes, seems to border on the ridiculous, since it lacks total credibility! This film is an exercise in middle class manners and will not get the pulses racing.

Bad Evidence

[boblipton · 5/10 · 1 March 2023]

Very distinguished judge Frederick Leister is instructing the jury in a murder case built purely on circumstantial evidence: an estranged wife is having an affair and intends to marry her lover as soon as she gets a divorce. The husband has turned up with incriminating letters, and now is dead. Clearly, Leister all but commands the jury, she is guilty.

We then switch to his son, Doctor Patrick Holt, who is carrying on, in a perfectly proper way, a love affair with Rona Anderson, who is suing estranged husband, smarmy John Arnatt for divorce. Arnatt turns up, steals money from her handbag, finds some letters and threatens her with exposure. Well, it's absolutely clear what's going to happen when she sends Holt to meet Arnatt. Arnatt demands a lot of money, talks about the Medical Board striking him off, and so forth. Holt knocks him down -- showing great discretion; I would have tossed him through a window. Arnatt is found dead, and the police arrest Holt, preparatory to charging him in an obvious murder. Inspector Ballard Berkeley even comments on the parallels between the two cases, and how Holt is not long for the world. Whereupon Miss Anderson goes sleuthing.

It's unusual to see a British film in which the police are so lazy and wrong, when it takes Miss Anderson only ten minutes of screen time to crack the case. It's certainly not the first movie to make the point that circumstantial evidence is bad evidence -- although actually, it's a lot more reliable than eye witnesses. The performances are good, and the denouement is almost comical. There are some nice small roles for Ben Williams and Ian Fleming. But the entire movie is so obvious in the first ten minutes that the ease with which the actual murderer is identified is a bit insulting.

Not bad drama

[lucyrfisher · 8/10 · 29 December 2020]

Rona Anderson is great as the feisty heroine. So the film's a study of middle-class manners? That's it's whole point - people still cared about being respectable and divorce was shocking to some. Doctors (and judges) had to be above suspicion. As well as the plot, we get some great cameo roles - the fast-knitting hotel proprietor glued to the radio, the balding and rather pathetic permanent resident, the girlfriend of the other blackmailer. While Linda poses as a reporter, she and Rita look at Rita's old cuttings from her days on the stage, and Linda tries to persuade her that publicity might revive her career. This scene takes place in a shabby basement flat.

Unfortunately the scene outside with Rita and the landlady is very badly dubbed - nobody's lips synch and that probably isn't the landlady's voice.

Plays very well for 61 minutes. Snappy little movie. Little, but a fun watch.

[mmipyle · 8/10 · 2 February 2021]

"Circumstantial Evidence" (1952) stars Rona Anderson, Patrick Holt, Frederick Leister, Ronald Adam, John Arnatt, June Ashley, Lisa Lee, and others, and is basically about an incident - actually two - that supply the reason for the title of the film. Holt's father (Leister) is a judge who is presently presiding over a case that rests almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence. Meanwhile, his son (Holt) is involved with a woman whose husband seems to have disappeared well over two years ago - possible desertion, possibly something else. Holt and she wish to be married. Suddenly her husband comes back, finds a way to blackmail both Holt and his wife for a goodly sum. Holt goes to see the husband (John Arnatt). Holt has a conversation that ends up with him hitting Arnatt. Scene ends. Next scene people are looking for Holt because Arnatt has been found shot to death. The gun...of course...it belongs to Holt. Holt's accused and needs to find out what's going on. Even his father, the judge, based on the circumstantial evidence feels he's guilty. The only person who doesn't is Rona Anderson.

I really liked this very straightforward and short (61 minute) crime drama. One could guess from afar who might have done it, but it sure didn't quite look right with the slight evidence. Good fun for the little time. Worth the search. Anderson's a good actress. Holt was a mainstay in the British movie and television realm for decades. Arnatt plays a nasty with oily swagger and flair.

Pinpointing the problems of circumstantial evidence

[clanciai · 8/10 · 10 March 2023]

Once again the fallacy of circumstantial evidence is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The action is swift and elegant, the conversation is brilliant and pertinent all the weary, the acting is moderately excellent, while Rona Anderson makes the day. There are two separate murder cases being treated here, one serving just as an introduction and presenting the issue of the debatability of circumstantial evidence by one woman of the jury fainting during the court proceedings who has to be carried out, delaying the process for several days. The other case is a particularly odious man who tries to blackmail his wife and others hy playing dirty, refusing his wife a divorce since two years and stealing her money and her gun for self defence, which he latter is killed by, no one knows how, but the wife's lover, a doctor, is blamed for it and faces trial for murder on the grounds of circumstantial evidence. He happens to be the son of the judge, who finds no other alternative than to resign from his job. It's an interesting intrigue, and the cashier at the hotel of the murder plays an important part, knowing nothing and understanding nothing but acting promptly when the time comes. It is a small thriller but even the smallest jewels can be of great value.