Surprisingly Topical
18 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It's a George Sanders showcase, a role the tall, aristocratic smoothie was born to play. But then like Serge Rubinstein on whom the screenplay is based, Sanders was born in pre- Bolshevik Russia, though you'd never know it from that cultivated British accent he always used to such grand effect. No need to recount the movie's plot here. Still and all, Rubinstein's murder in 1955 created a tabloid sensation since his social circles extended into the upper reaches of finance, politics, and show business. I'm sure the whispering among insiders of the time was ferocious. The murder itself was never solved. But then, as one wag put it, "They've narrowed the list of suspects down to 10,000"! (Time magazine)

Actually, the movie only implies a list of about 5,000. Had it gone on another hour, the total might have easily doubled— Sanders' Clementi Sabourin is a really slick slimeball. The kind of guy who looks you in the eye, picks your pocket, then gives you back a dollar and calls it charity. It's a rather curious production with the cheap sets and black&white look of 1946 instead of '56. Still, the casting does give a number of second-line actresses a chance to show their high-fashion stuff. However, I'm still wondering how DeCarlo managed to lose her brassy accent in such a miraculously short span. And I'm sure Sanders and that other expatriate from Europe's gilded past, Zsa Zsa Gabor, shared more than a few memories and laughs off camera. Also, Gray and Gates are two of the better unsung actresses of the period, wholesomely pretty rather than glamorous. It really is a well-cast film. Also, director Martin wisely doesn't let all the gab slow down the pacing.

In passing—note that the movie shows Sabourin mixing with financial and show biz moguls, but oddly he's not shown mixing with the political elite. I wonder if that was intentional, given rumors of the time. Anyway, the film is still a lot of fun, though you'd think that shooting the guy would be punishment enough. However, this is the Production Code era, so apparently more is needed. The trouble is the trickster's blubbering contrition for all his transgressions undercuts what's gone before and is about as plausible as Paris Hilton suddenly taking a poverty pledge. Nonetheless, the movie teaches more about the stock market than maybe it should have. Then too, judging by today's headlines, 1955 may not be so long ago, after all.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed