IMDb > The Winston Affair (1964) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Man in the Middle
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Winston Affair More at IMDbPro »Man in the Middle (original title)

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 10 reviews in total 

25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Keenan Wynn's Best Performance

10/10
Author: angelsunchained from United States
21 January 2006

I saw Man in the Middle with my dad at the old Rio Theater in Downtown Miami City in 1964. I was just a child, but I still remember the shocking scene in the beginning of the film where Keenan Wynn's character walks into a packed army tent and shoots a young soldier to death.

Filmed in black and white, the film was extremely well-acted and filmed. Robert Mitchem was outstanding as the officer in charge of defending Wynne and trying to determine just why he murdered this young soldier. However, the show is stolen by Keenan Wynn and he gives his greatest screen performance.

Man in the Middle rates a 10 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

"The Caine Mutiny" Meets "Do The Right Thing"

Author: aimless-46 from Kentucky
26 August 2009

"Man In The Middle" (1964) is arguably Mitchum's best performance (certainly his most nuanced) and one of those situations where you can't imagine anyone else in the role. Although the focus is a "military" court martial in India during the last months of WWII, it is basically a standard courtroom drama with Mitchum's character playing the defense counsel. The actual proceeding is very similar to that shown in "The Caine Mutiny" (1954). With a running length of just 93 minutes and a relatively complex story to tell, Director Guy Hamilton had to utilize a lot of stereotypes and nonverbal clues from Mitchum to assemble a coherent film. He is largely successful although it appears a lot of the romantic side story (between Mitchum and "South Pacific's France Nuyen) was trimmed before release. That is of little importance to the theme, what was left works mainly as a way to go out on Mitchum's closing line "you might not be able to beat them but you don't have to join them".

Out of combat, recovering from his wound, a limping career Army lieutenant colonel with a law degree and limited legal experience finds himself assigned to defend an American officer (Lt. Winston-played by Keenan Wynn) who has already confessed to the murder of a British Staff Sergeant. In fact, the film opens with the murder so the viewer is never in doubt about the "who done it" issue. All that remains is the punishment phase of the proceeding. Winston's brother-in-law is a congressman who has rejected several other potential defense counsels but has agreed to Mitchum's appointment. The area commander (nicely played by Barry Sullivan) wants the proceeding expedited ASAP with a death sentence, the best way to satisfy the British so everyone can go back to pulling together. He is a friend of Mitchum's family and is confident that Mitchum will take one for the team and do what is best for the war effort.

And at first Mitchum seems quite agreeable to the idea of providing no more than a token defense; pointing out to the two hot shot attorneys on his defense team that in a few months they will be back practicing law as civilians while he has found a home in the Army and does not want this to louse up his career. He has only been given a few days to assemble his case anyway.

But as he reviews the circumstances and interviews a few people he becomes convinced that his client is a psychological basket case who was unable to determine right from wrong at the time of the murder. There is no time for the film to explore the origins of Lt. Winstons's mental condition and no time to give any dimensionality to his character. Nor is it actually of any real relevance to the story Director Guy Hamilton is trying to tell, so Winston is simplistically portrayed as a totally unsympathetic character. Unlike in "A Few Good Men" (1992), it is intended that the viewer conclude that just going through the motions would really be in the best interests of everyone except the defendant.

Mitchum is on the screen 90% of the time and is the only character that undergoes any real change during the course of the film. And Mitchum must underplay the change process because the idea is to show that if the Army had not tried to hinder his efforts, he would never have put so much energy into the defense. It is a great nonverbal performance as Mitchum slowly gets his back up about what is happening and decides that personal integrity trumps career aspirations. Somewhat cliché and with the score more appropriate to an overwrought melodrama, it is a nice illustration of the condensed storytelling process of films.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Fine movie, fine performances, fine script

10/10
Author: Jordan L. Hyde (piman25@hotmail.com) from Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
15 May 2001

This movie shows what a fine and underrated actor Keenan Wynn was. His performance is sublime.

The story itself is very believable and convincing; adapted from the fine novel The Winston Affair by Howard Fast.

Robert Mitchem gives an excellent performance as does Leslie Howard.

This film addresses many issues of race and responsibility in a much better fashion than most newer films.

Unfortunately the film is not available on video. If you get a chance to see it take the chance! You will not regret it.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Why isn't this film more well-known?

8/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
21 January 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was a very good film---and I think better than the current mediocre rating on IMDb. Perhaps a lot of the reason I liked this one is that I used to be a psychotherapist--and I loved the psychological angle of this film. Considering that it's a Robert Mitchum film, I am pretty surprised that it isn't more well-known.

The film begins in WWII with an officer (Keenan Wynn) marching into another soldier's tent and killing him--right in front of many witnesses! This killing seemed pretty mindless and you have no idea what motivated such actions. The scene then switches--Wynn is awaiting trial and Robert Mitchum has been asked to defend the guy in a court martial. However, it's fascinating that Wynn's superiors basically tell him that Wynn is guilty and WILL be executed--and the defense of him in court is merely a formality! And, to make things worse, the murder victim was a Brit--and the Americans don't want to upset their ally. At first, Mitchum is willing enough just to go through the motions--especially when he finds Wynn to be an obnoxious jerk when he tries to meet with him. But, later, he slowly starts to realize that Wynn might be insane--and executed a man with this diminished capacity might be wrong. But, he also knows it might be career suicide to buck the system.

The plot is very interesting and I enjoyed the film--and much of it was because it was so different. One minor problem, though, was the character played by Frances Nuyen. Her character seemed underdeveloped and her actions at the end of the film made little sense. I felt sorry for her, as she just wasn't given a role with any depth--which is bad when her role is so prevalent in the movie. Still, aside from this it's a dandy film.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Intense drama of man's prejudices: Psychotic or trained hatred?

7/10
Author: mark.waltz from United States
6 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the musical "South Pacific", the character of Lt. Joseph Cable teaches French plantation owner Emile DeBeque that you've got to be taught to be prejudice. It doesn't come naturally. "It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear", he sings. What then makes a white man so filled with prejudice that he'll shoot another white man in cold blood just to keep the white race clean? Is that man psychotic or so filled with what he's been taught that he felt what he was doing was justified? That's the story here. Set in India during World War II, this film focuses on the hatred from an American Lieutenant (Keenan Wynn) who shoots a British NCO in cold blood, later we find out, because the man was in danger of "destroying the white race by mixing his blood with that of a black woman".

Attorney Robert Mitchum is assigned to the case, at first he thinks to be a prosecutor, but later he finds out to be the defense. Mitchum knows he is simply a puppet to prevent any issues between the British and American Governments for this murder, and that Wynn is sure to get the death penalty. He decides to do what he can to be more than just a mouthpiece sure to loose, and finds out in interviewing a few witnesses that Wynn showed signs of insanity. That becomes his goal: to save Wynn from hanging (and himself) by declaring that he is insane. The problem? Wynn is so sure of his justification of murder in preserving the race that he refuses to consider being called insane.

Mitchum is excellent as he prepares his case, but it is Wynn who wins the acting honors, at first only interested in rye bread over the wheat toast he's been given at breakfast, then apologizing to Mitchum so he can explain why he did what he did. That makes his character even more scary, because his justification not only of murder but his hatred of non-whites makes him exactly the type of enemy that the Allies were fighting the war for. Frances Nuyen is very pretty as the Chinese/French nurse Mitchum briefly becomes involved in, not quite the delicate doll she appears at first sight to be, but still very feminine and charming. Keep the room around you totally silent when Wynn explodes in the courtroom scene. Barry Sullivan and Trevor Howard also give outstanding performances, and Guy Hamilton's direction is tight, direct and basically flawless. Many movies of the 1960's were made to wake people up to the social issues which came out of World War II, the Korean War, and the upcoming Vietnam War. This is one not worth missing.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

In The End You Don't Really Care

5/10
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
29 May 2010

There is not a player worth their talent who does not eventually want to do a role in a courtroom drama. The sad thing is that Robert Mitchum got his turn in court in Man In The Middle.

Not that it's a bad role or a bad performance that Mitchum turns in. But ultimately you don't really care what happens to the victim here, an insane and racist army lieutenant played by Keenan Wynn who coldbloodedly shot down a British sergeant in the China-Burma-India theater of World War II.

It's the nationalities here, the American Army in the spirit of interallied cooperation just wants to get Wynn quickly convicted and hung in a proficient military manner. General Barry Sullivan has gotten Mitchum to be the defense lawyer with then presumption that because Mitchum is from a military family he will do the right thing by the army's standards.

But an army nurse and an army psychiatrist played by France Nuyen and Sam Wanamaker make him see that Wynn needs the best defense. The army has suppressed a report where Wanamaker has clearly stated that Wynn is certifiable, but the medical corps have deep sixed the report and Wanamaker. Doing that bit of dirty work is Alexander Knox.

What's keeping this thing alive is Wynn's unseen brother-in-law a Congressman. That will usually do it with the military.

The film was partially shot on location in New Delhi and the biggest problem on set according to Robert Mitchum's biographer Lee Server was keeping Trevor Howard away from the booze. Howard is in the film as well as a British psychiatrist and apparently at the time he was heavily drinking and he couldn't hold the liquor as well as Mitch. Not that he didn't stop trying. The biography goes into what must have been a hilarious scene where the director is trying to tell a drunken Howard on the set to change some mismatching socks which even a black and white camera could pick up.

Man In The Middle is well made and the performances sincere by the players. But in the end I really could not care what the army did with Keenan Wynn.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Torpid Courtroom Drama.

4/10
Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico, USA
12 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It sounds good. An American officer, Keenan Wynn, shoots a British sergeant in India during the war and is put on trial for his life. Everyone seems anxious to hang Wynn, get over this international incident that is somehow impeding the war effort.

Robert Mitchum is assigned the task of defending Wynn. His superiors urge him to fail, and there may be a promotion in it if Wynn hangs. The problem is that Wynn, though pronounced sane by an inefficient doctor, seems to be nuts. When he's not sitting mute, with his lips clenched, staring unblinkingly ahead, he erupts like a pustule and begins running around spewing racial epithets and accusing others of stealing from him.

It puts Mitchum in a quandary. He can go with the flow, follow the hypothetical imperative, and put up a lazy defense so that Wynn hangs and he, Mitchum, become a full bird colonel. Or he can follow a moral imperative and try to see that justice is done, in which case he himself can look forward to a career in the Army that is a dead end.

Yes, it sounds good. Directed by Guy ("Bond, James Bond") Hamilton, shot more or less on location, with Mitchum, Wynn, Trevor Howard, and other respected actors.

Lamentably, it looks like not much more than a variation on "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial." France Nguyen is thrown in gratuitously in order to prove that Mitchum is heterosexual, I guess. She has little enough other reason to be in the film. Mitchum is his bulky, somewhat swaybacked, usual self but doesn't do anything very exciting or insightful. The script doesn't give him much of a chance. Sam Wanamaker and Trevor Howard are doctors, Wanamaker lending some excitement to the story, but their parts are small. Trevor Howard slurs his lines and seems barely able to get the words out.

The director allows everyone to speak too loudly. Outsized, perfunctory dialog is okay in a courtroom puzzle like "Witness for the Prosecution" but not for one that deals with more subtle issues. The ending is the same as in "The Caine Mutiny," "Buffalo Soldiers," and a million Perry Mason episodes. The whole trial and its preparation turn into wasted time when one of the witnesses, or the defendant himself, breaks down on the stand and begins screaming, jabbering insanely, or sobbing out his guilt.

Disappointing.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

WW II Allies drama of crime and justice

8/10
Author: SimonJack from United States
19 October 2015

"Man in the Middle" is a movie based on a 1959 novel by Howard Fast, "The Winston Affair." The basic plot of the movie follows fairly closely the story of the book. Hollywood altered some of the facts. Robert Mitchum plays Lt. Col. Barney Adams in the film. In the book, Adams is a captain. He is brought into India to be defense counsel in a hot trial of American Lt. Charles Winston, who shot and killed a British sergeant in cold blood. In the book, Winston shot a British officer. Since Winston admitted to the killing, and nearly a dozen witnesses saw it, it's an open-and-shut case. The American command wants Winston tried and executed. It's a matter of morale and "necessity" to bolster allied relations among the Americans and British. But, they want the appearance of a fair trial. So, Adams, a decorated combat veteran, is assigned as defense counsel.

The story is about the roadblocks Adams encounters in his quest to see that justice is served by giving Winston a fair trial. It makes for very good drama. The cast for this film is excellent. Mitchum's character seemed a little too nonchalant at first. But, that's partly Mitchum's persona, and it may reflect 18 years of service in which his man has learned to understand military "necessity." The other actors give excellent performances. Barry Sullivan is Gen. Kempton. Alexander Knox is great as the nervous Col. Burton. Sam Wanamaker is Maj. Kaufman. And, Trevor Howard is the British Major John Darryl Kensington. His scene is superb in the courtroom when Adams asks for his medical credentials. The major rattles off his degrees, honors, chairs and publications with a matter-of-fact air that only Trevor Howard could do. The looks on the faces of the court martial board members are telling and will bring a smile to a viewer's face

A couple reviewers saw Keenan Wynn's performance as Lt. Winston as exceptional, and I agree. It was worthy of an academy award nomination, but that didn't happen. On the other hand, the romantic aspect of the film, between Mitchum and France Nuyen as Kate Davray, doesn't click. It's OK for her to be in the story as a nurse, but not as a romance. Companionship and friendship would have been OK. But with them bedding down after just a couple of days, it lends a cheapness to the film. Is she just a hooker, or what? There is no love or romantic chemistry between them. The emotion she shows seems forced or contrived. It was a distraction in the film that lowered it at least one notch.

Movie buffs may be interested to know about other Howard Fast books made into movies. Fast's own background is quite interesting too. This film was the second of five novels by Fast to be made into a movie. The first was "Spartacus" in 1960 – a huge box office hit. After "Man in the Middle" came "Mirage" in 1965. It was based on his 1952 novel, "Fallen Angel." The last two had the titles of the novels. Fast wrote "April Morning" in 1961 and it was made into a move in 1987. "The Crossing" movie came out in 2000, based on Fast's 1971 novel of the same name.

Howard Fast (1914-2003) was a prolific writer and producer of books. Most of his work is historical fiction. He was highly popular and widely read. He may not be a household name today, but for the last six decades of the 20th century, Howard Fast was a well known writer. In the 1940s and 1950s, Fast was notoriously regarded for his communist leanings. His biography makes for very interesting reading. Fast was a writer and thinker who continued to defend the "every man" after he left the Communist Party in 1956. He and other American communists were fooled by the deceitful Soviet leadership under Stalin. Fast was well read and liked in Soviet Russia, and in 1953 he received the Stalin Peace Prize. In 1952, Fast ran for Congress on the American Labor Party ticket. By that time, the Labor party was mostly a front for the Communist Party.

During WW II, Fast worked for the U.S. Office of War Information, writing for the Voice of America. In 1943 he joined the Communist party. His obituary in "The Guardian" said that was a time when "The wartime love affair with the Soviet Union and the Red army was at its peak." Indeed, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration put out a great deal of propaganda in support of Soviet Russia. That was to build support for the U.S. having the Soviets as allies, and to encourage the Soviet Union to fight Nazi Germany. Fast learned that some of his Soviet friends had lied to him and others about the whereabouts of silent Soviet writers. Then, Nikita Kruschev addressed the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in a closed session on Feb 25, 1956. Kruschev denounced the deceased Joseph Stalin and gave a laundry list of Stalin's abuses of power including the Great Purge of the mid-1930s, the crushing of the Hungarian revolution, and imprisonment and killing of thousands of Russians. When they learned of the Kruschev speech, Fast and more than three- fourths of the American members left the Communist Party.

In a 1957 autobiography, "The Naked God: The Writer and the Communist Party," Fast wrote about how good people were lied to and betrayed by Stalin and his henchmen in the American Communist Party. So, having once been derided for his communist leanings, Fast was later attacked by the communists for his exposes of their atrocities and lies. I highly recommend any of Fast's biographies and Kruschev's "secret" speech -- they make very interesting reading.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Not enough Winton!

5/10
Author: dbdumonteil
3 April 2007

This is the film Guy Hamilton made just before the blockbuster of his career "Goldfinger" -which,although very different from "Man in the middle" ,remains one of the best (who says best?) Bond ever made-.

The problem with "man in the middle " is that there's not enough scenes with Keenan Wynn.We would like to know more about him,about his childhood,his relationship with his colleagues,women ,etc.Only Trevor Howard's final plea -which an ominous music makes disturbing- really tells us about his psyche.Also handicapped by a decorative female character who brings almost nothing to the plot whereas we 're waiting to know more about Winton's motives.Average.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

***

8/10
Author: edwagreen from United States
4 May 2016

A film detailing the defense of insanity with the background that the accused is the brother-in-law of a United States Congressman.

Keenan Wynn delivers an excellent performance as the American officer who in front of 11 witnesses shot a British army man for his alleged racist activities-cavorting with African American women. He epitomizes hatred in the film while claiming that the next war will be a racial one.

Robert Mitchum is called in to be his defense attorney in a case that is supposedly one to get out of the way and just hang Wynn.

A much younger Sam Wanamaker is the psychiatrist whose report on Wynn was conveniently ignored and when Wanamaker is called to testify, he is conveniently transferred and is killed in a car accident while attempting to join the trial.

The film would have been ever better had we viewed the Congressman and the technique of flashbacks be used to see what Wynn's life was like before he joined the army. Even with a brother-in-law in Congress, it's hard to envision how such a nut case was ever accepted into the army.

France Nuyen places a nurse who falls for Mitchum in record time even for movie standards.

The film is one of duty and ethical dilemma.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history