This film seems to be based on the true story of Martin Guerre, the sixteenth century Frenchman who went off to war and came back a changed man. Some of these changes turned out to be so great that his neighbors suspected it wasn't really Martin. It turned out they were right; it was an impostor, Arnaud du Tilh, so clever he even fooled Martin's wife. The real Martin eventually showed up and Arnaud confessed his crime. IN 192 the story was made into a film starring Gerard Depardieu as Arnaud. American audiences will be more familiar with Sommersby (1993), an adaptation of the same story starring Jodie Foster and Richard Gere, set after the American Civil War.
Add a Review
-
ttintagel18 July 2006
-
I unabashedly admit that Dirk Bogarde is one of my favorite actors, so naturally, two of him is better. In "Libel," directed by Anthony Asquith, he has a dual role - that of a baron, Sir Mark Sebastian Loddon, and Frank Welney, an actor and a lookalike in his barracks during World War II. When Mark returns from the war, he can't remember a lot of his past life and is haunted by images of events during the war that he can't connect with. Another soldier sees the baron on television and believes that he is really Frank Welney, and the story is published in a tabloid. Mark's wife (Olivia de Havilland) insists that for the sake of their young son, he sue for libel. He does.
This is an often-told story, but I enjoyed it anyway. Bogarde is excellent as the uptight, insecure Mark and the cocky, nosy Frank, and while there is a strong resemblance between the two men, Welney's coloring and hairstyle is different, as is his manner. De Havilland turns in another marvelous, emotional performance as a woman who starts out believing her husband is indeed the man she loved before the war... and then having her doubts.
Well directed and holds one's interest. -
Dirk Bogarde carries the main burden of this interesting courtroom drama co-starring Olivia de Havilland. Bogarde is an English barrister accused of being an imposter by a wartime buddy who has mistaken a look-alike they both knew in a POW camp as the man who has become Sir Mark Loddon. His understanding wife stands by him and encourages him to sue for libel but soon comes to have doubts of her own. Toward the climax, she turns on her husband and accuses him of "stealing" her love. Bogarde and de Havilland both have some excellent dramatic moments but it is Bogarde who rivets the attention with his fascinating dual role, achieving a distinct difference between the two men with just a slight change of hair style and a shift in attitude. Wilfred Hyde-White and Robert Morley are good in supporting roles as opposing barristers. It all moves smoothly under Anthony Asquith's crisp direction and all of the domestic scenes were filmed at the Duke of Bedford's magnificent country estate, giving production values a touch of elegance. The POW flashbacks are quite convincing--and the courtroom twist toward the end is nicely handled--if not quite convincing. Sometimes confusing--but always absorbing. MGM should release this one to video!
-
bkoganbing27 August 2010Updated to make the protagonists be World War II veterans instead of World War I, Libel made its Broadway debut in 1935 after a run in London and ran for 159 performances during the 1935-36 season. Playing the role Dirk Bogarde does here was the screen's original Dr. Frankenstein, Colin Clive.
As for Bogarde due to movie screen magic he gets to play two roles, the respected titled English Lord with American wife Olivia DeHavilland and a Canadian fellow prisoner of war who was a traveling player and who looks like him. Worse than that, we see in flashback how he envied him.
Into their happy lives intrudes another former POW Paul Massie who knew both men in the camp and makes the startling accusation that the one stole the identity of the other who died during the war. This indeed is a case of Libel and one for the courts to straighten out.
Bringing the suit on Bogarde's behalf is Robert Morley and defending Massie is Wilfrid Hyde-White, they make a fine pair of antagonists. What is the truth, for that you have to watch Libel.
Though Olivia is first billed, the film clearly belongs to Dirk Bogarde who delivers a fine poignant performance of a man tortured by doubt, there are things tucked away in his mind that he prefers not dealing with. Olivia gets her innings in when even she starts to doubt the identity of the man she's been married to.
This film also gives we Yanks a chance to see Richard Dimbleby who was a combination of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, that kind of trusted voice of the British Empire for the BBC. In fact Dimbleby is hosting Bogarde and DeHavilland on a tour of their mansion when Massie spots them on a bar television and sets everything in motion.
Libel holds up very well today it could probably be easily remade for something like the Iraq or Afghan war in about 15 years time. -
hitchcockthelegend10 August 2015Libel is directed by Anthony Asquith and adapted from Edward Wooll's play by Anatole de Grunwald and Karl Tunberg. It stars Dirk Bogarde, Olivia de Havilland, Paul Massie, Robert Morley, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Anthony Dawson and Richard Wattis. Music is by Benjamin Frankel and cinematography by Robert Krasker.
A shell-shocked ex-WWII prisoner of war with amnesia is accused of being an impostor by one of the guys he was imprisoned with. This sends him spinning into the middle of a Libel court case that could destroy everything in his life.
A splendidly stylish mystery/drama that offers up two Dirk Bogarde's for the price of one. The big question throughout is if Bogarde, in the shoes of Sir Mark Sebastian Loddon, is actually a doppleganger that he was in the war with called Frank Welney. Loddon has the riches, the estate and a beautiful loving wife, Welney was a struggling actor and something of a mischievous imp. The big narrative thrust is that Loddon is not sure himself, he can only remember certain things, thus we are never sure either as the plot twists and turns and the court case simmers away with dramatic force.
Bogarde is great in his dual role, with a voice change for each character and different hair styles to help the viewers differentiate. In the court we have a trio of classy character actors, with Hyde- White and Morley as the opposing lawyers (wonderful to witness this) and Watiss as the judge presiding over the trial. Havilland isn't asked to do much until late in the day, but then she shines bright and puts some emotional punch into proceedings. The great Krasker photographs it in crisp black and white, while Asquith directs with a smoothness that undercuts the coincidences and conveniences that exist in this sort of story.
All the highlights of a court room drama are here, and it's a cracking mystery to boot. 8/10 -
dougandwin20 February 2011Having just seen "Libel" on TCM, I was pleasantly surprised....certainly, it is not a great film, but still was very entertaining, and the settings were extremely well done. The story line has been done before, but the acting of some very good English stalwarts plus Olivia de Havilland as an American wife to an English Baron, makes it well worth watching. Dirk Bogarde (never a favourite of mine) does an excellent job in a dual role, and is ably supported by Robert Morley, Paul Massie and Wilfred Hyde-White. There is no doubt that the producers of this film have come up with a film that still stands up today, and be proud of the end result. There are some very clever twists and the use of flash-backs was excellent. I can recommend this to everyone
-
kijii25 November 2016This Anthony Asquith directed movie is one of Dirk Bogarde's finest movies. I would rank up there with Bogarde's performance in Victim (1961). Here, he plays the double role of portraying Sir Mark Loddon and his POW look-alike, Frank Welney.
As the movie begins, one of his fellow POWs, Jeffrey Buckernham (Paul Massie) sees Loddon on TV giving a tour of his plush country estate with his American wife, Lady Loddon (Olivia de Havilland). Convinced that Loddon is Welney, Buckenham arranges to have a newspaper call him out which, in turn, forces Loddon to sue the newspaper for libel. However, he, himself, is not totally convinced about his own identity in that there are certain blank spots in his memory resulting from his escape from the POW camp many years previously.
This is one of those great courtroom dramas in which the two opposing attorneys--Sir Wilfred (Robert Morley) represents Loddon and Wilfrid Hyde-White (Hubert Foxley) represents the defense for the newspaper in for Loddon's libel suit. Loddon's low point of the trial occurs when his own wife takes the stand, believing that he is not her husband. -
vincentlynch-moonoi30 July 2016Amnesia is a film topic that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Here it works fairly well as we see the story of a Brit who -- after WWII -- has forgotten patches of his life, particularly the part of his life when he and several others escaped from a POW camp. Is he who he says he is, or is a look-alike who killed the real person? A lot of the film takes place in a British courtroom, and while it is not as enthralling a courtroom drama as say "Witness For The Proscecution", it still does nicely, although there times that the film drags just a bit.
Dirk Bogarde was an actor whom I pretty much ignored over the years, although lately I've taken a new look at him. He really was quite good...and is here in a dual role. On balance, it's his film. But Olivia De Havilland has a good role as the wife, though more of her really good scenes come fairly late in the film. She certainly was attractive here. I can't quite make up my mind about Paul Massie as the soldier who questions who is the real character. Robert Morley is good as one of the attorneys, although Wilfrid Hyde White, as the other attorney, is a bit more entertaining.
A great film? No. But pretty decent. It won't end up on my DVD shelf, but I'm glad to have seen it. -
timbes-017231 July 2020All is ducky in the fine English manor, some years after WWII. The lord of said manor, portrayed by the elegant Dirk Bogarde, is happily married to a beautiful American (Olivia De Havilland) and they have a charming little boy. But for his WWII PTSD, which haunts him from time to time with an irritating tune in his head--and causes a tendency to stammer. the usual bad dreams and insomnia, his life is fine. The fly appears in the ointment in the person of a soldier who knew him in the war and insists he's a fraud. Much of the drama takes place in the courtroom as he sues for libel and the complicated war experience, complete with plot twists, comes out. Bogarde shows his mettle as an actor, playing a dual role very convincingly. Not until the very end does the audience learn the whole story. It's a tight drama, with the added fillip of byplay between the superb prosecutor (Wilfrid Hyde-White) and defense attorney (Robert Morley). Well worth seeing!
-
deexsocalygal11 February 2021If this movie would have just left out the last 5 minutes I would up my 6 to a 7 star rating. Everything about this movie fits but the ending. I don't see him as the real Mark at all. All the pieces fit & fall in to place nicely until Mark takes the stand & asks for the jacket. I don't buy it.
-
kentmara-688-5246007 June 2019I saw this movie back in the late 1970's at around 3 in the morning! It caught my attention right away the haunting whistling tune the flashbacks! Dirk Bogarde was just fabulous! Convincing as both characters!!! If you haven't seen this movie please make a point of watching it!!!! I'm watching it again now on TCM! And I still find it haunting 40 years after the first time I saw it!!! A must!!!
-
adamshl28 March 2012It is a real treat to see Olivia de Havilland and Dirk Bogard together in a film. In fact, it was this unusual paring that prompted me to view this drama on the TMC Network.
The acting is just fine, as one would expect from these two fine performers. The rest of the cast is likewise excellent.
The quirk rests in the script. Assuming Bogardd's character had amnesia right up until the day before the final court summation, it would depend on whether the jury believed his story--thus avoiding a sentencing for perjury. That part is left unresolved, with the film ending before the final settlement is made. Likewise left hanging is the brutal, deliberate assault Bogarde's character admits to performing during the war. It's either a sentence for unaggravated assault or attempted murder, either of which would carry a stiff prison sentence. So it's not quite the peaceful, romantic finale the movie suggests.
The writers crafted a mighty web of plotting here, and the wonder is that this cast is able to bring it off so convincingly. -
Like most courtroom dramas, especially British ones, it's not very cinematic. Director Anthony Asquith makes a stab at noir in the opening shots only to retreat to standard, stagy interior shooting for most of the rest. Even the flashbacks that take place in the German countryside feel like they're shot indoors. So with lack of directorial or cinematographic interest one falls back on the writing and acting, the former of which is typically Brit literate but dull while the later is, uncharacteristically for an English film, over the top and/or wooden. Bogarde is especially hammy which is highly unusual for him so one begins to suspect Asquith's hand in his performance. DeHavilland is simply boring. As is Paul Massie. About the only actor who shines is Wilfrid Hyde White as the nasty plaintiffs attorney. Give it a C.
PS...Hiccup and you miss Robert Shaw in a very early role as a sleazy tabloid newshound. -
gerdeen-129 August 2010Dirk Bogarde was a marvelous actor, and this is a fine film. But if you insist on believable stories, you won't like it. It's as true to life as an Agatha Christie story, and just as entertaining.
The plot is this: An English lord and a penniless scoundrel who looks exactly like him are in the same POW camp during World War II. Years later, another veteran claims the scoundrel actually killed the aristocrat and has been impersonating him ever since. The whole thing winds up in court, putting the aristocrat's wife through some agonizing moments. Finally, when nobody can stand the suspense any longer, the truth is revealed.
The idea of someone meeting his exact double is as silly as it is unbelievable, and by the 1950s there were ways to verify whether a living man was the war veteran he claimed to be. So you can't take this seriously. But if you suspend disbelief, you will really enjoy it. Though it's not marketed as a mystery, it's ideal for mystery fans.
I had to talk my wife into watching this movie on TCM, because it looked to her like a gloomy psychological drama. Once she started watching, she couldn't turn away (especially when Dirk Bogarde was on the screen). She was still talking about it an hour after it ended. "What if something like that really happened?" she remarked. Well, it wouldn't, but ... -
wes-connors10 June 2013In London, veteran pilot Paul Massie (as Jeffrey "Jeff" Buckenham) sees a former World War II buddy on television. The show's reporter is interviewing handsome British aristocrat Dirk Bogarde (as Mark Sebastian Loddon) and his American wife Olivia de Havilland (as Margaret "Maggie" Loddon) about Mr. Bogarde's notable family estate. Bogarde has trouble remembering events from prior to his years as a prisoner of war in Germany. The experience made his memory unreliable and his hair turn grey, according to Bogarde. After watching the broadcast, Mr. Massie declares Bogarde an impostor...
"Libel" ends up being a little confusing, even though the identity problems in the plot are cleared up satisfactorily. For most of the running tome, the story favors one conclusion, making it seem less like a mystery; Bogarde does an excellent job, considering. Distracting, but important in the script, is his "grey" hair color. He looks more like a younger, blond man while his co-star's dated hairstyle makes Ms. De Havilland look like the older woman. Their age difference, five years, wasn't that big. As dueling lawyers, Robert Morley and Wilfrid Hyde-White ensure the courtroom scenes play engagingly.
******* Libel (10/23/59) Anthony Asquith ~ Dirk Bogarde, Olivia de Havilland, Paul Massie, Robert Morley -
Retired5087 September 2016From the beginning, the plot, character development and suspense are first rate. In fact, the movie goes very well in every respect, except that the whole movie turns on the remembrance of Mark on the witness stand at the end of the movie And even this is acceptable except for the fatal flaw: Mark gives absolutely no explanation as just why he switches jackets with the man he just beat up.As a matter of fact, if the reason was to pretend that, when found,the body would be that of a British Major and not his own, why in the world wold he put on a jacket which was probably spotted with blood, hardly the action of a sane man. Try as I might, I cannot think of a reason for the switch, and even the prosecutor fails to ask the reason for this action. Without a satisfactory answer to this question, the entire testimony is worthless.After all, it is in this jacket that the trinket that his wife gave him is discovered which then causes to prime witness against him to recant his testimony, and thus proves his innocence.
-
jpepperdc5 April 2021This movie is really good. A must for any Olivia DeHaviland fan or Dick Bogarde. During the court trial over libel accusations against the character Buckingham, during testimony, you can just see in Olivia's eyes about beginning to doubt whether her husband is really her husband. It is all in Olivia's eye movements and facial expressions. This movie is rated 7.1 currently on this site. I think it should be more like a 7.5 or so. I highly recommend it. It also has a grand ending.
-
darp196412 July 2003The acting in this film was superb and the storyline kept me interested. A must see if your into classic movies. I loved this movie. I'd really like to see it sold on video/DVD, it would be a great addition to my classic's collection.
-
rmax3048231 June 2013This is pretty good. I didn't know until the last few minutes whether Dirk Bogarde was the Fifth Earl Baronet of Chichester-on-Rhymes and Aylesworth House -- or whatever his title and estate were called -- or a lower-echelon con man who had taken his place.
Everything is hunky dory for the wealthy English aristocrat who lives happily with his wife, Olivia De Havilland,in his mansion. He's handsome, loving, and friendly, but he suffers from an uncertain memory due to unpleasant war experiences. He's an ex POW who spent a lot of time as an army major in a German prison camp; his companions were the low-brow actor, also played by Bogarde, who resembled him and was good at impersonations, and the Canadian Buckinham, who disapproves of the actor and his pretensions.
Years after the war, Buckinham shows up and accuses Bogarde of being NOT the Fourth Earl of Muckle-on-Yare and the Abbey Grange, but of being the ambitious actor instead. The actor presumably murdered the Duke during an escape and took his place, imitating him peerlessly, or rather peerfully.
Shanda! Bogarde takes the tabloid paper that printed the accusation to court and sues for libel. We're all rooting for the justification of the Viscount Greystoke because he seems like such a nice guy, but as the trial progresses more and more doubt is cast on his real identity and evidence emerges that suggests he did in fact murder the aristocratic Bogarde, First Baronet of Cumberbatch-on-Treacle, and took his place. Even his loving wife is convinced. Bogarde doesn't help. In the witness box he loses his poise, begins to stutter and sweat, and generally radiates an aura of deceit.
I'll leave it at that. The direction is competent, no more than that, but Bogarde is quite good, and De Havilland is as elegant as ever, British in style if not nationality. She came from the family that developed the famous De Havilland Mosquito during the war but was raised on the San Francisco peninsula. She attended the tiny Notre Dame High School in Saratoga, which has (or had until recently) a charming walled-in campus full of tall evergreens.
The movie doesn't exactly rush headlong through the narrative -- which is, I understand, taken from an old incident in France. It's not, say, "Witness for the Prosecution." It's less inventive, though hardly more believable. In all, worth catching. Nobody breaks down on the witness stand and cries out, "I DID IT. I DID IT! But I didn't want to kill him; I only wanted to FRIGHTEN him! (Sob.)" -
tmongeon-6946926 February 2021I won't rehash the storyline, but only to say in addition to the user that pointed out the military errors, there are two others that should be brought to attention.
1. Scars do not go away. They can fade but don't disappear. 2. Blown off fingers also do not grow back.
Why do I say this? Because when they bring out #15, they do not check him for the scar above his knee. We are supposed to accept the fact that the scar on Mark just disappeared after being challenged in court prior? Also, if it is true as Mark was saying that his fingers got blown away during the escape, that would mean that #15 also had missing fingers that would at least continue the mystery of Mark or confirm once and for all that #15 was Mark, yet this also went unchallenged. Military Medical records on the lookalike would probably indicate at the time of military service which fingers were missing and probably other related details. It seems unlikely that Mark, who had his fingers blown off during the escape would have the exact same injuries. Otherwise if you can accept the flaws, it was an entertaining movie. -
masonfisk17 March 2019A twisty mystery thriller from 1959. Dirk Bogarde stars in this story of man pretending who he is not. A royal couple are on TV giving a tour of their estate when one particular viewee seems intrigued by the man & soon feels this person of lineage is an imposter filing suit to bring the culprit to justice. It turns out they both were prisoners of war along w/a third fellow who had an uncanny resemblance to the royal. The accuser soon makes his case that one man had taken over the other's identity & is now leading a stolen life. The case soon becomes the talk of Britain as the truth is mined for all its worth & the real identity of the accused man is made known to all. This could've been better but lapses in obviousness are staggering when we have Bogarde playing multiple characters & no mention is made of them being related or twins (as in the famous Prince & the Pauper story) to explain away the remarkable coincidence. Olivia de Havilland plays the wife who now doubts the man she's been w/for years & veterans actors Robert Morley & Wilfrid Hyde-White (I remember him in the 80's on Buck Rogers) play the dueling barristers in the trial.
-
davidcarniglia22 February 2021Dirk Bogarde, Olivia deHavilland, and Paul Massie star in this mistaken identity mystery. Bogarde has a dual role as Sir Mark Loddon and his lookalike Frank Welney; de Havilland is his wife, Margaret, and Massie is his war buddy, Jeffrey. It seems that Loddon, Welney and (Jeffrey) Buckenham were POWs together. They escaped, but one of them went missing. The question that this movie turns on is who disappeared--Mark, or Frank?
Jeffrey is perturbed to see Frank masquerading as Mark; at least he thinks that's what's going on. As a result, Frank sues Jeffrey for libel. Then we get the opposing attorneys Sir Wilfred (Robert Morley) and Hubert Foxley (Wilfrid Hyde-White), and the judge (Richard Wattis). This is a courtroom drama, but has wartime flashbacks. Mark isn't exactly convincing; he's shell-shocked (PTSD we say these days). There's quite a bit of evidence to call his identity questionable. Will we see opposing counsel pull rabbits out of their hats?
So, we begin with a night-time London street scene, and a soldier, Jeffrey, walking about. He goes into a pub; on tv, there's a show featuring the Loddon family. Jeffrey's fixated on the program, so he talks a girl into inviting him over to watch the rest of it. The documentary-like show follows Mark's family history, plus how own. We learn that after the war he'd been hospitalized for a time. Anyway, he can't remember who was at a birthday dinner from before the war.
Jeffrey is boiling up at all the pleasant banter of the program. Now we see the Loddon's point of view. Mark is upset that he can't remember stuff, but his wife smooths things over. Strangely, he looks elderly and with out, especially compared to Jeffrey. Later, he screams at after playing a certain time on the piano. Clearly, he's in a state; a recurring nightmare (or delusion?). Wow, does he have a swanky mansion; while Jeffrey joins a tour of the place, Mark goes riding.
Jeffrey stays on to confront Mark. A strange reunion--Mark's cheery, Jeff's suspicious, calling him Frank. "I know what happened to Mark. I'm going to make you pay for this!" He's not after blackmail. Soon he's looking up Mark's cousin, Gerald (Anthony Dawson). Jeff tells Gerald that Mark "didn't come back from the war." Gerald says that Mark's changed, but doesn't believe he's not literally the same person. He suggests contacting a tabloid paper for an expose: soon they're running this story-- "Bogus Baronet."
Apparently, the gossip mill is up and running; why? By now, Mark accused Margaret of doubting him. Back at Gerald's work place, Jeff reveals that Mark's sued him for libel. Gerald gives him some bit of evidence. Clearly, Gerald stands to gain if his cousin is shown to be an imposter. So far, things are tumbling along with a sort of contrived inevitability; if it's do obvious that Mark is really Frank, why had it taken so long to notice (from 1945 to 1959)?
Is there anything that Mark hasn't told Margaret? He doesn't think so. To court. Mark takes the stand. He admits that his memory is "unreliable" and "disjointed." Nonetheless, he gives some tiny details of pre-war experiences. Frank's name comes up. The attorneys' antics and comments have dome assiduous withering bite. A wartime letter from Mark reveals that Frank looks remarkably like him. A flashback shows both of them (by some cinematic magic) in the prison camp. One's got graying hair; they look like twins. Frank's pretty much a jerk.
A tell-tale sign, missing finger tips, implicates Mark as an imposter like so many nails in a coffin. Another flashback, after there escape from the POW camp. The three guys are creeping along a riverbank; haltingly, Mark describes the scene...the prosecutor says "what about Wellney!" Mark can't remember. He then says that he'd forgot all about Margaret too. At least until after the war. During an adjournment, his attorney discusses strategy.
Gerald takes the stand. His tidbit: Mark has a scar from a childhood accident. But Mark doesn't...now. That night, thinking aloud to Margaret, Mark discovers that the recurring memory is of his reflection; "suppose it's true!" that he's really Frank? From Jeff we get his recall of the POW camp scene just realized by Mark. It seems that Frank had quizzed Mark about details of his earlier life, as though he were outline of a cunning plan. Frank actually mimicked Mark. He taunted that it would be easy to impersonate the wealthy man.
The implication is that Frank killed Mark, then assumed his identity. Now back to the escape part of the flashback; the Germans were able to shoot one of them. Jeff is certain that it was Mark. If the Germans had shot Mark, then Frank couldn't have murdered him. Still, the deception (Frank posing as Mark) could've happened. Margaret thinks Jeff should admit that he's wrong about the whole case. Weirdly, it seems he has a thing for her; or, at least, an interest. "Mark has forgotten so many things" she realizes, but it doesn't add up to much.
It's the difference between Mark not remembering enough about himself because he's really Frank, or, equally possible, that Mark, afflicted with PTSD, just has lost a lot of memory. A German doctor who'd treated a gravely injured British soldier at the end of the war. The body recovered, bit not the mind. He was unidentifiable, and still in a German hospital. "Number 15" appears in court. The man is horribly disfigured, mute. But he stares knowingly at Mark. Is the poor wretch the 'real' Mark? Let's call Margaret to the stand.
Is she certain that her husband is indeed Mark? No? What?! She saw that "Number 15" and Mark recognized each other. Good point. But she doesn't recognize "Number 15." Not s happy house that Mark returns to. He implodes with her, that despite his deception, isn't he, nonetheless, the man she loved and married. Yes, but no. She observed that his PTSD was due to what he did to Mark. He put his jacket on Number 15. Hmm. Flashback time once again. It seems that the reflection that had spooked mark had been Frank's; his would-be imposter snuck up on him with a weapon.
So Mark got the weapon away from him; and attacked him with it, thus turning him into the infamous Number 15. Like Margaret, the appearance of that guy triggered something with Mark. He recovered his memory instantly. "My reflection (in the nightmare) became his." That is, guilty conscience working his mind remembered his reflection instead of Frank's. Jeff admits tha, indeed, Mark is Mark. Well, Mark wins his case, and his identity.
I can't see the point of Jeff attacking Mark in the first place. Unless, Jeff didn't realize he was wrong until the cadaverous Number 15 made his entrance. More likely, Mark seeking and finding the bitty medallion Margaret had given him just before he went off to war is indisputable evidence that Mark's correct. The end.
Pretty good stuff. In fact, there's really two mysteries here: who is Mark? And, did either Mark or Frank kill the other? It gets a bit confusing, but that's ok. Because it gets more interesting too. Mark almost killed Frank, and nominee took on Mark's identity. The introduction of Number 15 gives the story a huge boost. He's almost a Frankenstein's monster; and not just in appearance. Mark sort of created him out of Frank. Ironically, despite Mark's sense of guilt, it was Frank who attacked him; Mark acted in self defense. But he didn't need to nearly kill him. Thus Mark's PTSD.
The first part of the movie is more melodramatic than involving. Once the courtroom scenes start, interest builds towards the end. Given the nuanced performances from Wattis, Morley, and Hyde-White, there's a much-needed injection of lively dialogue and dramatic personalities. Bogarde does quite a job playing no less than three characters; deHavilland doesn't have much to do, though. Massie's role is a little hard to figure. He seems obsessed with exposing 'Mark,' then quickly caves in based on a single but of evidence.
If it's such a crucial thing, why didn't he ask Mark about the medallion before? The larger issue (which has been mentioned by IMDb reviewers, among others) is the nature of identification itself, which never comes up in the movie. Even if soldiers are really mangled, even the enemy can identify them. That's the purpose of dog-tags. If this had been set in the 29th century or before, then the premise would be implausible.
In WWII, not so much. Nonetheless, Libel is an entertaining mystery, with plenty of possibilities, and a surprise witness seemingly from beyond the grave. -
This 1959 film for MGM is a British production with an American star. In its pairing of Hollywood legend Olivia de Havilland, in one of only half-a-dozen roles she played in the 1950s, and Rank's leading man Dirk Bogarde, 'Libel' might seem to promise the same twin-star power of Bogarde's later pairing with Judy Garland in 1963's 'I Could Go On Singing'. Or, at least, that's what I was hoping for.
Adapted from a courtroom drama, and a fairly convoluted one at that, the film is somewhat bogged down by its lengthy central courtroom scenes and obligatory flashbacks. Nevertheless, there is much of merit to enjoy in the production, especially for fans of British film actors of the 1950s and 1960s.
Paul Massie (who played Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde for Hammer) gives an energetic performance as a Canadian airman who suspects a fellow prisoner-of-war of being an impostor. He carries the first part of the film with strong support from a young Millicent Martin (of 'That Was The Week That Was' fame) as a girl whom he befriends because she owns a television he wants to use to watch Dirk Bogarde. Well, after all, who wouldn't want to watch Dirk Bogarde on TV?
Bogarde "greyed up" in other films, notably 1961's 'Victim', and here he does so in order to appear with dark hair as his younger self in flashback, but his measured performance as an older man is nonetheless a drag on the action until Massie arrives at his stately home to challenge his identity. And so it's off to court we go. Is Bogarde really Sir Mark Loddon the 7th Baronet, or is he in fact an actor by the name of Frank Welney?
Those with sufficient experience of how to plot a courtroom drama will be able to follow every step and predict the vast majority of them. Olivia de Havilland wrestles with a difficult part and loses by two falls and a submission. I'm sure I spotted at least one moment where she was channelling a schlock Joan Crawford, while at other times she joins Bogarde in a performance so measured it's boring.
At least there's plenty of Dirk on the screen, but in truth even his best efforts can't make the character of Sir Mark Loddon all that convincing. All the same, fans of Bogarde - myself included - will enjoy watching him try. Probably his finest moments, however, are in flashback as frustrated thespian Frank Welney, where Dirk gives us just a whismy of luvviness by way of contrast with upper-crust Sir Mark. In the first flashback scene, he's also particularly well served by some ambitious trompe-l'oeil special effects - judicious use of the pause button is recommended to help you work out how it's done.
The film features several judicious supporting turns from Robert Morley, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Richard Wattis as counsel for the prosecution, defence counsel and judge respectively. There is also a pair of marvellous cameos for star-spotters, which I won't spoil other than to tell you which characters to look out for. See if you can name two very different actors both making early film appearances playing nosy newspaper photographers.
I was able to see this film on a DVD imported from Spain. It boasts a crisp but unrestored 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen black-and-white print and good clear audio, with the exception of a few momentary dropouts at certain scene breaks, one of which did interrupt a good line of dialogue from Paul Massie. Massie unfortunately drifts into the background in the second half of the film as the Dirk flashbacks get going in earnest.
There just aren't enough truly first-rate courtroom drama movies, and so the second-rate ones are always worth a look for aficionados. I'm certainly glad to have seen 'Libel', and as a Bogarde fan I'll probably keep it in my collection now that I have a copy, but it could be quite a while before I decide to dust it off for a second viewing. -
denscul25 May 2001This movie employs good actors, particularly some of the great English character actors of the time. However, the premise of the plot- one person changing identities with another, ruined the movie for me. What I don't understand, and wish some other movie buff could explain, how do writers get paid for stories when they show an complete lack of basic understanding of the military. Even way back in WWII, English soldiers were fingerprinted, and most soldiers wore their dog tags religiously, particularly those who served in combat. I would imagine a baron would be particularly concerned that his remains arrive back in the family plot. These two facts of military life were never explained. The final insult to our intelligence came when a uniform of a near comatose patient is presented in the court room. Since the war ended in 1945, and the setting of the movie was contempory (1959), 14 years had elapsed. What happened to the soldier's identification tags? What efforts had been made to notify the patient's family? In real life, the question of responsibility would have generated a search to determine whether the patient was a British soldier. The two main characters were captured at the evacuation at Dunkirk, often referred as the Miracle of Dunkirk because 400,000 soldiers did excape. The number of majors captured at Dunkirk would have been relatively small, and if a hospital was stuck with a patient for long term care, it stands to reason a serious effort would be made to determine who their patient was.