Tiger in the Smoke (1956) User Reviews

Impressive use of B&W media

[Mandyjam · 7/10 · 1 August 2005]

From the point of view of filming, this movie is a masterpiece. The London Smog takes on a character of its own. Characters appear and disappear mysteriously, sounds are muffled, uncertain violence is ever present. The Street Band squawks and groans eerily, its members looming distorted as nightmares from Heironymus Bosch.

For those unfamiliar with Marjorie Allingham, her successful detective series featured Albert Campion, a colourless gentleman who merged with his background. The filmmakers, as has been stated, successfully lost him in the "Smoke". The truly attractive character from Allingham's series is the Police detective, Charles Luke. Charlie is tall, handsome, puppy-like and incredibly dynamic. His curly hair never stays put, He never stands still, he talks with his hands, his voice is full of expression. What a great character to play! This is where the screen adaptation seriously falls down. Alec Clune appears to be making no attempt to represent Charlie Luke. He has obviously not read the book, which is a pity! The result is that the colourful Charlie is reduced to a character as grey and insipid as Albert Campion. It is a real disappointment to Charlie's fans!

On the other hand, the performances by Tony Wright as the psychopath Jack Havoc, Laurence Naismith as the courageous Canon and Bernard Miles as the Gang Leader are wonderful, while Beatrice Varley as the sinister Lucy Cash is Magnificent.

The most unforgettable line is this description of Lucy Cash - "When she walks down the street curtains tremble, blinds creep down and keys turn stealthily in locks."

FOOTNOTE- Smog is the name of a combination of fog and coal dust, common in London until the air was cleaned up.

Dead Man's treasure

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 11 February 2020]

A vast majority of my film/television watching has in common two primary reasons for watching them. One is a good, or more, idea for the story, even though the execution has been understandably variable. The other is a promising cast, comprising of talented actors/actresses. 'Tiger in the Smoke' had both of those primary common reasons, and further advantaged by that it was directed by Roy Ward Baker who did a great job with a not too dissimilar though also different enough film not too long before ('The October Man').

'Tiger in the Smoke' could have been better, while still being worth watching. The idea is not wasted, though more could have been done with it. There is some good talent in the cast, but the acting had both hits and misses with better work from most having been done elsewhere. It's not one of Baker's best either. 'Tiger in the Smoke' is a case of starting off really, really well, but sadly losing focus halfway through. Which is a real shame and quite frustrating thinking about it.

Will start with what works in 'Tiger in the Smoke'. It looks great, especially the photography which is so beautiful to look at and full of style and atmosphere. Malcolm Arnold's music score is suitably brooding without being discordant with what is going on. Baker's direction is sturdy enough, especially in the first half.

Much of the script is tight and with the right amount of entertainment value and intrigue. The story is absorbing on the most part, certainly so in the first half which is entertaining and suspenseful. The characters aren't complex but the best of them don't bore or annoy, Bernard Miles and Laurence Naismith (well mostly) coming off best as they are the two most likeable ones. There are some good performances, great in the case of Miles and Naismith. Then again you wouldn't expect much less from those two. Muriel Pavlow is a luminous presence, Charles Victor brings some nice vim to his role and there are some personification of evil moments from Tony Wright.

Having said that, Wright's performance is uneven which is also true for the general standard of the performances. Starting off well but as the character becomes more "evil", or at least that was the intent, Wright became increasingly taxed and tends to over-compensate while also betraying too much how quite bland Havoc is generally as a villain despite showing potential initially. Alec Clunes is also a bit dull and Donald Sinden has very little to do other than being the standard kidnap victim. Less characters would have helped, as not all of them contribute much, which would have helped giving the characters more development rather than particularly Havoc being missed opportunities.

A couple of scenes particularly don't work, and generally the second half isn't nearly as strong as the first. The suspense dissipates and some of it felt a bit silly and rushed, as well as not being focused. Am another person that found the scene in the church with Wright and Naismith implausible and over-explained and anti-climactic is a very good way to sum up the ending.

Overall, decent but not great. 6/10

Faithful adaptation

[lucyrfisher · 7/10 · 24 September 2021]

Despite the lack of Campion, Amanda, Lugg, Dot and a little girl - I can't remember why she's there. I have an awful feeling the Campion's son is there too. They are packed off early on - Allingham couldn't really do children.

But the rest of the book is there in full. Charlie Luke takes over the detecting. I've always thought that you couldn't put him onscreen as desribed by Allingham - it would be an impossible acting job. The actor here makes him clipped and intuitive - which is fine.

Muriel Pavlov is good as Meg - she can cry convincingly. And Lucy Cash is excellently sinister.

As others have said, it's a film of two halves. As in the book, the first half is compelling and the fog is used to the utmost dramatic effect. But once we set off in search of the treasure, in bright sunlight, it all falls apart.

One plot point is missed, though - the reason for the original wartime raid, and why Havoc was picked for the job.

Pretty good movie. Interesting aspect of the adaptation.

[esmondj · 1 March 1999]

Pretty good movie this.

The adapters very sensibly completely omitted the vapid Albert Campion and the pallid Amanda. As usual with Margery Allingham, they are entirely redundant to the plot, and I've never found either of them even slightly credible.

The ending shows the British cinema's usual utter inability to deal with landscape.

would you like some smoke with your fog ?

[myriamlenys · 7/10 · 18 November 2017]

A young war widow has gone on with her life, falling in love with an attractive man. Strangely, she begins to receive disquieting messages that suggest her husband might be still alive. Who would want to perpetrate such a cruel hoax on a blameless citizen ? And why ?

This is a thriller with an enormously original intrigue - as it should be, since it is based on Margery Allingham's marvelously clever and inventive novel of the same name.

The movie is at its evocative best when describing a London shrouded in an oppressive smog. It's a world turned dark and grey, where vast blankets of polluted fog fill the streets, to the point where people can't find their houses and dogs can't recognize their masters. Every now and then one can catch a glimpse of some disquieting scene, such as a group of raddled, unhinged veterans moving serpent-like towards ever grimmer destinations. ("Tiger", by the way, is to be commended for its bravery in describing the long-term human cost of war. It's easy for authorities and politicians to say "John Smith survived the war and re- entered civil life", but what if John Smith, upon his return, discovered that he had lost his job, neighborhood and family ? Or what if the horrors of war had coarsened and unhinged him so badly that he became a danger to himself and to others ?) The smog, of course, isn't just an environment in which wicked things happen : as an air pollution problem verging on a disaster it is a wicked thing itself, looking for babes and innocents to devour.

Still, I'm not entirely sure that "Tiger" succeeds in capturing the tone of Allingham's book, which was a skillful mix of the mundane and the grotesque. I need to add, immediately, that filming the book can't be easy : it must be as difficult as trying to bottle the elusive scent of a rare mountain flower. As a result some of the scenes fall flat or sound strangely off, such as the discussion between a kind, possibly even saintly canon and his attacker.

There is also a sequence involving a hazardous and torturous climb over some rocks. Here the problem seems to be technical in nature ; it's not hard to imagine a bad-tempered crew trying to lug heavy equipment over an ungrateful surface. One can almost hear an aggrieved voice saying : "Go on, sunshine, thesp as much as you want, but stretch that leg two inches more to the left and it's bye-bye to an Astrolux-XZ-350, and it won't be me who's going to pay a thousand pounds out of his own pocket". The effect of this sequence, predictably, is less than blood-curdling.

However, the movie is a useful introduction to the delightful novels of Allingham, who was one of the great Ladies of Crime. In her own way she was fully the equal of luminaries such as Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers.

Stay with it

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 12 March 2020]

TIGER IN THE SMOKE is one of those films that starts out where you don't know what the heck is going on, but it gradually grips and draws you into the story as it progresses. Donald Sinden plays an innocent man who ends up getting kidnapped by a gang of escaped criminals hiding out in a basement. Meanwhile, the police are on the case and the net gradually closes, leading to a thrilling climax. It's based on an Albert Campion story by popular detective writer Margery Allingham, but confusingly the detective himself has been excised from the tale. Generally it's dark and murky, which goes well with all the fog, and Roy Ward Baker brings the appropriate grit. The most fun in the cast comes from various character actors like Kenneth Griffith, Bernard Miles and Sam Kydd all playing generally against type as low-life criminals.

Tabby in the Hoke

[writers_reign · 4/10 · 20 July 2020]

I've never read anything by Margery Allingham but I've always understood her to be well regarded and in the forefront of female thriller writers which is why it's disappointing that this film is such a dog's breakfast. As a general rule s film stands or falls by the way the male and female leads interact with each other and it's fairly obvious from the start that there was more chemistry between Moishe Dayan and Golda Meir than between Donald Sinden and Muriel Pavlov. The best thing in it is the atmospheric black and white photography in the early scenes with London bathed in fog which turns out to be more penetrable than the plot.

A neglected near-masterpiece which still casts a sinister spell.

[southernferrets · 9/10 · 29 April 2006]

I saw this gripping,atmospheric little picture on its initial British release half a century ago.I was eight years old,and it's one of a handful of British pictures from that era which haunted me for years. It's very rarely shown on British T.V.,so I never got to see it again until 1985. It had held up remarkably well, and I've watched the videotaped copy I made several times since. As far as I'm aware it was never made commercially available on video, and I'm hoping it might join the growing number of rare British thrillers from the fifties made available on DVD.

Director Roy Baker is probably best known these days for the horror pictures he made for Hammer and Amicus in the seventies, all of which are markedly inferior to his earlier British work. His first picture, the moody psychological thriller "The October Man",(1948) starring John Mills,is exceptionally good, and "Tiger in the Smoke" has all the same virtues; a strong cast of seasoned character actors, a pungent sense of place, highly effective suspense and a sinister aura of moral decay. Early scenes involving a seedy gang of ex-commando street musicians are masterly.

Muriel Pavlow was surely the most beautiful and talented of the Rank Organisation "charm school" actresses, and Tony Wright is chillingly effective as the psychotic Johnny Havoc, whose search for hidden treasure sets the plot in motion. The critic and theorist Raymond Durgnat wrote in 1969 that this was the most dreamlike British film outside of the horror genre. It deserves wider appreciation.

Absorbing Thriller up to the half way mark then a let down

[malcolmgsw · 5/10 · 24 June 2013]

Up till the half way mark this is an absorbing thriller.Then we are finally introduced to Johnny Havoc.Here is a man who has just broken out of prison.His hair is neatly combed,clean shaved,with a suit and tie and nice clean raincoat.A bit unlikely.The performance of Tony Wright then completely unbalances the film.We then have a scene in the church between Wright and Naismith which is both silly and illogical.Why would anyone disclose to a homicidal maniac the location of the treasure was seeking and then still still waiting to be stabbed?The climax is to say the least ill conceived and gives one the feeling of anti-climax.Donald Sinden isn't able to say too much as his mouth is taped shut for much of the film. Incidentally the year this film was made the government passed the Clean Air Act and as a result the smogs shown in this film became a thing of the past.

The Science of Luck

[theowinthrop · 8/10 · 2 January 2006]

During the late 1940s and the 1950s the subject of juvenile gangs and delinquency took a hold in London. The culmination of this was the creation of the image of the "Teddy Boy", who was like our delinquents - a young adult with attitude problems. In the hands of some writers it became a subject of national malaise as in the play LOOK BACK IN ANGER, with the young upset at how they were being cheated of their futures by the so-called blunders of the previous two or three generations. But in the here and now it also led to the recognition of a criminal problem: The urban youth who had nothing to do but have sex and get into trouble. A series of youthful killers in the early 1950s culminated in the Derek Bentley - Christopher Craig case, where a constable was killed, and the the actual killer could not be tried (he was too young). His mentally challenged friend, who made the mistake of shouting, "Let him have it Chris", was hanged. We still are not sure if Bentley wanted Craig to shoot or to hand the gun over to the constable.

Comically the figure of the Teddy Boy was spoofed as a clumsy idiot by Peter Sellers in THE LADYKILLERS. But the really less pleasant aspect of such a type was well played by Tony Wright as Jack Havoc in this film. He is the terror of every soul in the district of London he resides in, most of whom clam up when the police try to find out who is terrorizing them, and where he is. Nobody will reveal a fact - he claims that he has all the answers - he knows how to control the world. It is not brains or cunning: He has discovered the "Science of Luck". He believes if you believe in luck you will create it for yourself. It is not until his world blows up in his face, as it did in that of his older American contemporary Cody Jarrett in WHITE HEAT, that he realizes there is a limit to such luck.

Bernard Miles as his older gang lieutenant (originally the boss until Jack took over) is wonderful as a seedy type who would like to break Jack's neck but knows if something goes wrong he will be lucky to be left a cripple only. Laurence Naismith plays the decent local church canon, whose one effort to help this psychotic ends in his near murder. Donald Sinden is the local decent common man who helps bring down the local monster.

It's not shown too frequently (I saw it about 1983 or so). But it was a really good little thriller well worth the watching.

A post war crime film set among London's underworld

[vampire_hounddog · 5/10 · 21 August 2020]

In a post-WWII London, a band of renegade criminals operate in the underworld and search for hidden wartime booty.

A curious post war British crime movie based off a play by Marjorie Allingham that does seem to have an over complicated plot and sub-plots.

Interesting film for other reasons

[dracher · 8/10 · 27 March 2008]

This film is not in any way a gripping story, in fact, it seems as one watches it, to be three films cut and compressed to make one. So, what's wrong with it? The main problem is the fact that it has too many characters, too many mediocre actors (one appallingly bad one) too many angles and not enough of a story, the denouement is positively under whelming and one is left not caring about anyone, except perhaps, the canon played beautifully by that most reliable and welcome of actors, Laurence Naismith.

So why am I bothering to write about it? Because it is one of those worthwhile ventures, one of those film projects that had so much going for it on paper that it deserved to become a huge success. The directing of camera was for the most part brilliant, with many innovative techniques, some of them well ahead of the industry's time. The directing of the actors was uneven and sometimes non existent, which allowed better actors to get disorderly and the poor ones (there were a few) to go off the edge or simply flounder, the actor playing Johnny Havoc, the film's central bad guy, was simply not up to the role, and should have been recast, he indulged in "mad acting" "golden haze" and "falling on furniture" all things no actor should ever be allowed to get away with, and in his one great scene (in the cellar with his gang) he blew every opportunity the script afforded him to shine and to create great drama, as a result, the scene fell like seeds on stony ground.

Having said this, the film was made with some great care and there were moments that broke all barriers for the time. The actor playing the Inspector(against type from the book)was good, and the supporting police force actors were good, Charles Victor(though very near the edge most of the time) provided a welcome uplift, and Laurence Naismith was (as usual) on top of his job.

Donald Sinden had not at this time developed his hard jaw and tight teeth acting and so was quite acceptable as the new man in the life of the love interest (an actress who did so very well with what she was given, which wasn't very much) and he was handsome enough to be taken for Richard Green.

This is a good film if you allow for the obvious flaws, and deserves a place alongside great works, for it's bravery and innovative techniques, as well as some of the character acting, odd bits of which, were brilliant.

Dracher

Mysteries in the fogs of London with buskers adding to the confusion

[clanciai · 9/10 · 4 June 2018]

This is a very tricky intrigue which no one can make head or tail of to begin with, as no one can understand why anyone would try to mask as a war casualty long after the war is over, leading to constantly denser fog of a mysterious intrigue involving buskers, who actually lead the perplexing events - they are the chief charm of the film, although there are many such, amazing characters above all, Laurence Naismith as the canon, Bernard Miles as the gang leader, Kenneth Griffith as Crutches, and some fabulous old ladies, Beatrice Varley as the unfathomable Lucy Cash for one. Donald Sinden is the leading male, but although a good reliable actor, he always plays himself and was never very versatile. Muriel Pavlow is better. But the intrigue is the main thing.

The lurid photography adds a special flavour to the film, - as the kidnapped victim is dragged away his despair is reflected in the photography of all the neon signs that are passed, the camera's way of following the murderer gives him some mythic magic until he finally appears, and so on. This film is full of tricks, the action is very dense and concentrated and horribly exciting until the mystery is cleared, - and then follows a cliffhanger.

Much underrated, this is a film that deserves some attention.

Mystery/Suspense at its very best!

[JohnHowardReid · 10/10 · 14 October 2017]

Made at Pinewood Studios, London. The Rank Organisation presents a Leslie Parkyn Production, made with the co-operation of the City of London Police, and released in the U.K. by J. Arthur Rank Film Distributors: 17 December 1956. No New York opening. In fact, never theatrically released in the U.S.A. Australian release through British Empire Films: 21 November 1957. Sydney opening at the Victory. British length: 8,457 feet. 94 minutes. 97 minutes in Australia.

SYNOPSIS: Ten years alter the death of her husband in action, Meg Elgin (Muriel Pavlow), now engaged to Geoffrey Levett (Donald Sinden), begins to receive clippings from recent magazines showing her husband at social events. (Available on an excellent ITV DVD).

COMMENT: There's quite a lot I'd like to say about this marvelous film, which I regard as the best mystery/suspense thriller to come out of England. Unfortunately, my enthusiasm is not shared. I will admit that, when you stop to think about it, the tale is wildly improbable. But who's going to stop and think? I will also admit that Margery Allingham fans have a case for under-rating the movie because Pelissier's superlative script drops the aristocratic Allingham hero, Edmund Campion, right out of the proceedings altogether.

But this "unkind cut" doesn't worry me. It sets me cheering. Why? I always thought Campion a bore. More importantly, the film is far too off-beat, weird and bizarre to attract the general public, yet not unconventional in a sufficiently kinky way to arouse the interest of the corduroy set. In other words, it falls between quite a number of stools, — and that's one of the minor reasons I rate it so highly.

My major thought when I think about Tiger in the Smoke is its atmosphere. Really quite unique. A blend of The Hunchback of Notre Dame with The Dark Eyes of London. So relentlessly gripping that when the mysterious killer is finally uncovered, his less than psychotic motive comes almost as an anticlimax.

Atmosphere is created and achieved through the ingenious collaboration of highly inventive direction, startlingly imaginative cinematography, creatively dynamic, isolated yet claustrophobic sets, and a music score combining stark dissonance with hideously haunting, superficially melodious, popular claptrap. All four of these gentlemen — Roy Ward Baker, Geoffrey Unsworth, Jack Maxsted, Malcolm Arnold — should take a bow from their brilliant work here (which far surpasses all their other achievements, — some of them quite notable).

But were they nominated for any awards? Of course not!

The picture's technical achievements are so compulsively engrossing, the acting comes almost as an afterthought. Yet here too, the viewer confronts distinctions in all departments. The principals — Sinden, Pavlow, Wright, and Miles — never gave more charismatic performances. The lead players — Clunes, Naismith, Rhodes, and Victor — were never more compellingly convincing; while the cameo actors, led by the fascinating Kenneth Griffith, were never more sharply precise.

In short, Pelissier has done wonders with Allingham's novel. As have all the craftsmen and women who worked on the movie. "Tiger in the Smoke" emerges nothing like the usual bland Rank product at all. A genuinely frightening film, it's one of the great achievements of British cinema and certainly deserves to rank alongside "The Third Man" in the mystery/suspense field.

Much ado about nothing.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 30 April 2024]

Not a description of the film itself, one of the best "Footsteps in the Fog" style thrillers (set in modern times), but about what comes from the mystery that would infuriate those trying to solve it even as they laughed at themselves for falling prey to their own stupidity. The film surrounds the rumored return from the dead of a British army major just as his widow (Muriel Pavlow) has prepared to move on by marrying Donald Sinden. The man in the fog turns out not to be the husband and is brutally murdered when he runs into the murky night.

A sinister group of buskers who parade around in the fog meet in a creepy old building and end up holding Sinden hostage. They're searching for treasure, one that the missing major claimed with bravado to possess. The mystery gets more sinister as the gloomy night turns even more invisible (that's the print of the movie purposely dreary, not your screen), and that makes for a marvelous atmospheric work of art.

Purposely slow so it draws you in, this becomes frustrating at times as thr viewer anxiously waits for something to happen. My patience was tested several times. But it's worth the wait for everything to come out, and then it's a laughable twist of irony that wraps everything up. A great supporting cast of a variety of British character actors shows practically every character type under the British sun (or in this case moonlit fog) getting the chance to move the plot along. Sinden and Pavlow are excellent, with Bernard Miles, Laurence Naismith and Charles Victor also memorable.