Martin Edwards's Blog, page 182
March 23, 2015
Her, by Harriet Lane - book review
Her,by Harriet Lane, is a very good psychological suspense novel, and although I think it is flawed, I found it intensely readable. In particular, the quality of the writing is striking. I've read a few good psychological thrillers lately,but this is possibly the most elegant in literary terms. It's in the vein of Gone Girl, in the sense that the story is told from two contrasting viewpoints. In Her, though, both the narrators are female.
Nina is a wealthy woman, who seems to have it all. She lives in north London with her second husband, and her daughter from her first marriage, and pursues a successful career as an artist. However, one day she spots a woman she recognises from her past, someone who harmed her in some unexplained way. Soon, Nina is stalking her.
The other woman is Emma. She is much the same age, but has far less money. She has a small boy, and during the course of the story, she gives birth to a baby girl. She does not recognise Nina, and when Nina befriends her, she is almost pathetically grateful. Nina starts to do unpleasant things (even briefly abducting Emma's son) but Emma suspects nothing. The tension mounts, as we wonder what Nina is going to do next....
Two questions tantalise the reader. What did Emma do that was so awful? And given that Nina appears hell-bent on taking revenge, what form will it take? Unfortunately, in this review, I don't think it would be right for me to discuss what happens. I must say, though, that while I felt that one of the plot strands was strong, the other ultimately disappointed me. I sense that Harriet Lane was trying to do something ambitious and unexpected by making a sort of virtue of anti-climax. A bold plan, and for me, it didn't really work. This didn't ruin the book for me, though.. (Be careful if you check out Amazon reviews, because some people who felt the same as me have discussed the story's ending in detail.) One other cavil is that the voices of the two women are perhaps not sufficiently differentiated.
I'm tempted to read the book again at a later date, knowing how it ends, and understanding better what the author was trying to do. And it may be that I'll feel differently about the climax the second time around.
Nina is a wealthy woman, who seems to have it all. She lives in north London with her second husband, and her daughter from her first marriage, and pursues a successful career as an artist. However, one day she spots a woman she recognises from her past, someone who harmed her in some unexplained way. Soon, Nina is stalking her.
The other woman is Emma. She is much the same age, but has far less money. She has a small boy, and during the course of the story, she gives birth to a baby girl. She does not recognise Nina, and when Nina befriends her, she is almost pathetically grateful. Nina starts to do unpleasant things (even briefly abducting Emma's son) but Emma suspects nothing. The tension mounts, as we wonder what Nina is going to do next....
Two questions tantalise the reader. What did Emma do that was so awful? And given that Nina appears hell-bent on taking revenge, what form will it take? Unfortunately, in this review, I don't think it would be right for me to discuss what happens. I must say, though, that while I felt that one of the plot strands was strong, the other ultimately disappointed me. I sense that Harriet Lane was trying to do something ambitious and unexpected by making a sort of virtue of anti-climax. A bold plan, and for me, it didn't really work. This didn't ruin the book for me, though.. (Be careful if you check out Amazon reviews, because some people who felt the same as me have discussed the story's ending in detail.) One other cavil is that the voices of the two women are perhaps not sufficiently differentiated.
I'm tempted to read the book again at a later date, knowing how it ends, and understanding better what the author was trying to do. And it may be that I'll feel differently about the climax the second time around.
March 20, 2015
Forgotten Boo - Mystery in the Channel
Mystery in the Channel, by Freeman Wills Crofts, was first published in 1931, the same year as last week's Forgotten Book, The Secret of High Eldersham. The two novels are very different, and this illustrates the point that the range of Golden Age fiction - even in the case of authors such as Crofts and John Rhode/Miles Burton, who are often lumped together and labelled "humdrums" - is actually quite extensive.
A steamer sailing from Newhaven to Dieppe comes across a yacht which has an apparently dead man on deck. The crew board the yacht and find another corpse down below. What on earth has happened?Wisely, a decision is taken to call in Scotland Yard, and the case is passed to Inspector French, that most dogged of detectives.
It soon emerges that the dead men were prime movers in a dodgy financial business. Were they fleeing their creditors, and if so, who made their escape from justice more permanent than they'd intended? In 1931, this was a highly topical story-line, and Crofts makes it very clear, all the way through the book, that he is contemptuous of those who exploit the financially vulnerable. His sympathy is for the victims of the swindlers, ordinary people who face ruin.
I enjoyed this story. It is well-constructed, as usual with Crofts, and suspicion shifts from one candidate to another in a very satisfying way. There's a good, dramatic climax, too. All in all, a good example of Crofts' skill at plotting, and a story that is sufficiently "different" to be well worth remembering.
A steamer sailing from Newhaven to Dieppe comes across a yacht which has an apparently dead man on deck. The crew board the yacht and find another corpse down below. What on earth has happened?Wisely, a decision is taken to call in Scotland Yard, and the case is passed to Inspector French, that most dogged of detectives.
It soon emerges that the dead men were prime movers in a dodgy financial business. Were they fleeing their creditors, and if so, who made their escape from justice more permanent than they'd intended? In 1931, this was a highly topical story-line, and Crofts makes it very clear, all the way through the book, that he is contemptuous of those who exploit the financially vulnerable. His sympathy is for the victims of the swindlers, ordinary people who face ruin.
I enjoyed this story. It is well-constructed, as usual with Crofts, and suspicion shifts from one candidate to another in a very satisfying way. There's a good, dramatic climax, too. All in all, a good example of Crofts' skill at plotting, and a story that is sufficiently "different" to be well worth remembering.
March 18, 2015
Marathon Man - film review
Marathon Man is a 1976 thriller film with impeccable credentials and an enduring reputation, yet until recently, I'd never seen it. I'm glad to have repaired this omission, and I felt that, nearly forty years on, the film stands up very well. It's gripping from start to finish, while its violence, rather controversial at the time, remains frightening.
Dustin Hoffman plays a history student who has never quite got over his father's suicide. He is something of a loner, and when he is not studying, he practises marathon running. He falls for a glamorous fellow student, played by Marthe Keller, and they become lovers. When he introduces her to his older brother (Roy Scheider), however, there is some tension between the pair. Is the girl playing a game of some sort? And why were the pair of them mugged by two men in suits while out in the park?
What we know - but Hoffman's character doesn't - is that the brother is not an oil executive but some kind of secret agent. And he is mixed up with people who, for whatever reason, are keeping a close eye on a former Nazi (Laurence Olivier, no less) who has emerged from hiding in South America following the death of his own brother. When the Nazi comes to New York, things turn very unpleasant indeed.
The screenplay was written by William Goldman, and based on his own novel. Goldman is a gifted writer, and his expertise shows. So does that of the director, the estimable John Schlesinger. Really, this is a good example of how to write a thriller that grabs you from the start and never lets go. Today, writers such as Lee Child do this equally well. If you enjoyed Jack Reacher (as I did) then it's extremely likely that you'll enjoy Marathon Man. Though I suspect many readers of this blog will have watched it years before I belatedly caught up with it..
Dustin Hoffman plays a history student who has never quite got over his father's suicide. He is something of a loner, and when he is not studying, he practises marathon running. He falls for a glamorous fellow student, played by Marthe Keller, and they become lovers. When he introduces her to his older brother (Roy Scheider), however, there is some tension between the pair. Is the girl playing a game of some sort? And why were the pair of them mugged by two men in suits while out in the park?
What we know - but Hoffman's character doesn't - is that the brother is not an oil executive but some kind of secret agent. And he is mixed up with people who, for whatever reason, are keeping a close eye on a former Nazi (Laurence Olivier, no less) who has emerged from hiding in South America following the death of his own brother. When the Nazi comes to New York, things turn very unpleasant indeed.
The screenplay was written by William Goldman, and based on his own novel. Goldman is a gifted writer, and his expertise shows. So does that of the director, the estimable John Schlesinger. Really, this is a good example of how to write a thriller that grabs you from the start and never lets go. Today, writers such as Lee Child do this equally well. If you enjoyed Jack Reacher (as I did) then it's extremely likely that you'll enjoy Marathon Man. Though I suspect many readers of this blog will have watched it years before I belatedly caught up with it..
March 16, 2015
Deception (2013) - film review
Deception is an unoriginal title for an unusual film that came out not so long ago. Its alternative title -not brilliant, either, to be honest - is The Best Offer. But you can't judge a film by the quality of its title. This is a really interesting movie, with a great cast led by an actor I admire very much, the very versatile Geoffrey Rush.
Rush plays Virgil Oldman, an auctioneer and expert in the fine arts who is a strange, and very repressed, character. It is a tribute to Rush's excellence that we stay interested in the character without ever learning enough of his backstory, to a point, towards the end of the film, where sympathy is very much with him. Virgil is very, very rich, and has a secret room full of valuable paintings of women, but he also has at least one secret. He has an unscrupulous side, and is involved in dodgy auction deals with Billy Whistler (Donald Sutherland, at his breeziest) who is an art forger.
Virgil is contacted by a mysterious young woman, Claire Ibbetson, who wants him to value the rare treasures in her parents' villa. The caretake (Philip Jackson, yes, Inspector Japp himself!) has never laid eyes on her, and she continues to avoid a face to face encounter with Virgil. He becomes fascinated, and deduces that she suffers from agorophobia, and is hiding in her own secret room in the villa. It takes him a long time to catch a glimpse of Claire (played by Sylvia Hoeks) but when he does, he finds that the wait was definitely worth while.
Virgil finds strange items in the villa which his young pal Robert (Jim Sturgess) tells him are parts of a priceless old automaton. Bit by bit, Robert pieces the mechanical marvel together, while giving Virgil advice on his romantic pursuit of the mysterious but gorgeous Claire. This is not a fast-paced film, but it is visually striking and brilliantly enhanced by the soundtrack, written by the great Ennio Morricone, one of the finest of all film composers. The strange atmosphere of the story also derives in part from the fact that it's by no means clear where it is set. Italy, perhaps? There are conflicting clues.
Despite that lack of pace, I found this film gripping, even though, considered in the cold light of day, the plot does not really hang together. But the splendid acting, music and visuals make it very watchable. Even though I do wish they'd come up with a title with more resonance.
Rush plays Virgil Oldman, an auctioneer and expert in the fine arts who is a strange, and very repressed, character. It is a tribute to Rush's excellence that we stay interested in the character without ever learning enough of his backstory, to a point, towards the end of the film, where sympathy is very much with him. Virgil is very, very rich, and has a secret room full of valuable paintings of women, but he also has at least one secret. He has an unscrupulous side, and is involved in dodgy auction deals with Billy Whistler (Donald Sutherland, at his breeziest) who is an art forger.
Virgil is contacted by a mysterious young woman, Claire Ibbetson, who wants him to value the rare treasures in her parents' villa. The caretake (Philip Jackson, yes, Inspector Japp himself!) has never laid eyes on her, and she continues to avoid a face to face encounter with Virgil. He becomes fascinated, and deduces that she suffers from agorophobia, and is hiding in her own secret room in the villa. It takes him a long time to catch a glimpse of Claire (played by Sylvia Hoeks) but when he does, he finds that the wait was definitely worth while.
Virgil finds strange items in the villa which his young pal Robert (Jim Sturgess) tells him are parts of a priceless old automaton. Bit by bit, Robert pieces the mechanical marvel together, while giving Virgil advice on his romantic pursuit of the mysterious but gorgeous Claire. This is not a fast-paced film, but it is visually striking and brilliantly enhanced by the soundtrack, written by the great Ennio Morricone, one of the finest of all film composers. The strange atmosphere of the story also derives in part from the fact that it's by no means clear where it is set. Italy, perhaps? There are conflicting clues.
Despite that lack of pace, I found this film gripping, even though, considered in the cold light of day, the plot does not really hang together. But the splendid acting, music and visuals make it very watchable. Even though I do wish they'd come up with a title with more resonance.
March 13, 2015
Forgotten Book - The Secret of High Eldersham
The Secret of High Eldersham, first published in 1931,was the second book that John Rhode (or, to be precise, Cecil John Street) wrote under the name Miles Burton. The first,was a thriller, and this book too is more of a thriller than a detective story. However,it is significant because it introduces Desmond Merrion, the clean-cut hero who went on to feature in dozens of Burton's books, including a post-war story, Heir to Lucifer, which I featured in this column recently..
The author was a great pub-goer, and it's typical of him that the first scene is devoted to a discussion about a publican's wish to move from one pub to another. How this bears on the plot becomes evident much later. After this preamble, the action moves forward five years, and the man who takes over from him as landlord of a pub in the remote East Anglian village of High Eldersham is found to have been murdered.
At first, it appears that the identity of the culprit is obvious, but the individual in question appears to have a cast-iron alibi. Well, we know about alibis in Golden Age stories, don't we? However, this isn't one of those railway timetable stories of the kind associated with Freeman Wills Crofts, and soon the plot thickens. The police are out of their depth, and Merrion lends a hand. He also takes an interest in Mavis, daughter of the local squire...
This book is very highly rated by Barzun and Taylor, those great American experts in Golden Age fiction, and I'm glad finally to have got round to reading it. For me, the particular appeal of the book lies in the rather spooky setting - East Anglia is a fascinating part of the country that has often featured in fine crime novels. It's also somewhere I'd like to revisit before long.
The author was a great pub-goer, and it's typical of him that the first scene is devoted to a discussion about a publican's wish to move from one pub to another. How this bears on the plot becomes evident much later. After this preamble, the action moves forward five years, and the man who takes over from him as landlord of a pub in the remote East Anglian village of High Eldersham is found to have been murdered.
At first, it appears that the identity of the culprit is obvious, but the individual in question appears to have a cast-iron alibi. Well, we know about alibis in Golden Age stories, don't we? However, this isn't one of those railway timetable stories of the kind associated with Freeman Wills Crofts, and soon the plot thickens. The police are out of their depth, and Merrion lends a hand. He also takes an interest in Mavis, daughter of the local squire...
This book is very highly rated by Barzun and Taylor, those great American experts in Golden Age fiction, and I'm glad finally to have got round to reading it. For me, the particular appeal of the book lies in the rather spooky setting - East Anglia is a fascinating part of the country that has often featured in fine crime novels. It's also somewhere I'd like to revisit before long.
March 11, 2015
Funeral in Berlin - film review
Funeral in Berlin is the 1966 film version, starring Michael Caine, of a book published by Len Deighton a couple of years earlier, and followed the great success of The IPCRESS File both as a novel and on the big screen. The director was Guy Hamilton, who has already directed Goldfinger, and who would go on to direct three more James Bond films, a couple based on Agatha Christie novels, and one based on an Alistair MacLean. Hamilton had worked in intelligence during the war, and put his know-how to good effect in translating story to screen.
Harry Palmer (Caine) is told by his boss (Guy Doleman) that the chap in charge of the Berlin Wall on behalf of East Germany (played by Oscar Homolka) wants to defect to the West. Is this true, or is some kind of trap lurking? Harry hasn't been in West Berlin long before he is picked up by a pretty girl. Has he swept her off her feet, or is she, too, spy? No prizes for guessing the answer...
The story is well told, but today the real fascination of this film for me lies in its depiction of a vanished world, when Berlin was divided, and people trying to cross from East to West risked their lives. In 1975, I stayed with a family who lived in a flat right next to the Wall, and I have never forgotten hearing shots being fired at would-be escapees. It was such a joy to visit Berlin last year and see the city united, with that wretched wall torn down.
Michael Caine is, as usual, good as Harry Palmer,and the supporting cast includes Hugh Burden, an excellent actor whom I remember fondly as Mr J.G. Reeder in the TV version of Edgar Wallace's stories. Where this film falls short of The IPCRESS File is not so much in the storyline as in the soundtrack. John Barry's brilliant music for the first film added a great deal to the atmosphere. Here the music is intrusive, clunky, and far from suitably mysterious. A reminder, I thought, of the dfference that a soundtrack can make to a film. With that minor exception, I can certainly recommend Funeral in Berlin.
Harry Palmer (Caine) is told by his boss (Guy Doleman) that the chap in charge of the Berlin Wall on behalf of East Germany (played by Oscar Homolka) wants to defect to the West. Is this true, or is some kind of trap lurking? Harry hasn't been in West Berlin long before he is picked up by a pretty girl. Has he swept her off her feet, or is she, too, spy? No prizes for guessing the answer...
The story is well told, but today the real fascination of this film for me lies in its depiction of a vanished world, when Berlin was divided, and people trying to cross from East to West risked their lives. In 1975, I stayed with a family who lived in a flat right next to the Wall, and I have never forgotten hearing shots being fired at would-be escapees. It was such a joy to visit Berlin last year and see the city united, with that wretched wall torn down.
Michael Caine is, as usual, good as Harry Palmer,and the supporting cast includes Hugh Burden, an excellent actor whom I remember fondly as Mr J.G. Reeder in the TV version of Edgar Wallace's stories. Where this film falls short of The IPCRESS File is not so much in the storyline as in the soundtrack. John Barry's brilliant music for the first film added a great deal to the atmosphere. Here the music is intrusive, clunky, and far from suitably mysterious. A reminder, I thought, of the dfference that a soundtrack can make to a film. With that minor exception, I can certainly recommend Funeral in Berlin.
March 9, 2015
The Haunting - film review
If you like stories of the supernatural, then a 1963 film, The Haunting, might be just your cup of tea. Its credentials are impeccable. The director/producer, Robert Wise, won an Oscar for his work on Citizen Kane, and was responsible for West Side Story and The Sound of Music - not exactly a bad CV, and certainly a varied one. The cast includes Richard Johnson, Julie Harris, Russ Tamblyn and the stunning Claire Bloom, each of whom gives a strong performance.
And then there is the writer of the novel on which the story is based. Shirley Jackson's book, The Haunting of Hill House, is much admired, but for me, she is above all the author of my favourite short story, "The Lottery". All I can say is that if you haven't read "The Lottery", I urge you to do so. Jackson suffered from health problems, and died relatively young, but she possessed a remarkable talent.
As for the film, yes, it is a haunted house movie, and many will be tempted to dismiss it as hokum. But I am keen on stories of the supernatural - I've recently written a story that has undeniably been influenced by extensive recent reading of Robert Aickman - and The Haunting is very well done indeed.
We begin with the concept of an old, sick house, which has many connections with death and disaster. Johnson plays a researcher who wants to explore Hill House's secrets, and persuades Harris and Bloom to assist. Tamblyn, his sidekick, is a sceptic - until, that is, creepy things start to happen. More than half a century after this film was made, it remains entertaining, a first class example of the well-made story of the supernatural.
And then there is the writer of the novel on which the story is based. Shirley Jackson's book, The Haunting of Hill House, is much admired, but for me, she is above all the author of my favourite short story, "The Lottery". All I can say is that if you haven't read "The Lottery", I urge you to do so. Jackson suffered from health problems, and died relatively young, but she possessed a remarkable talent.
As for the film, yes, it is a haunted house movie, and many will be tempted to dismiss it as hokum. But I am keen on stories of the supernatural - I've recently written a story that has undeniably been influenced by extensive recent reading of Robert Aickman - and The Haunting is very well done indeed.
We begin with the concept of an old, sick house, which has many connections with death and disaster. Johnson plays a researcher who wants to explore Hill House's secrets, and persuades Harris and Bloom to assist. Tamblyn, his sidekick, is a sceptic - until, that is, creepy things start to happen. More than half a century after this film was made, it remains entertaining, a first class example of the well-made story of the supernatural.
March 6, 2015
Forgotten Book - The Rasp
The Rasp, my Forgotten Book for today, was the first crime novel published by Philip MacDonald solo and under his own name (he'd previously co-written two books with his father). It appeared in 1924, when he was still in his early twenties, and it introduced Colonel Anthony Gethryn, who was to become one of the more popular "great detectives" of the Golden Age.
The first thing to say about this book is that it's a very assured performance, especially considering the youth and inexperience of its author. Yes, there are flaws (the explanation of the puzzle at the end is excessively long, for instance, and the killer's insanity is not adequately foreshadowed) but it really is an excellent example of the breezy Golden Age whodunit. MacDonald's writing is invariably energetic - in fact, in some books he produced later, it seems rushed - and he carries his readers along, so that we don't worry too much about the improbabilities of the plot.
The book is sometimes described as a "locked room mystery", because John Hoode, a cabinet minister, is found dead in his locked study; however, there is an open window, so this is by no means an "impossible crime". It's a tricky one to solve, nonetheless, and although the police arrest someone, Gethryn becomes convinced that the man is innocent, and has been framed.
I've admired MacDonald ever since reading a reprint of Gethryn's second case, The White Crow, in my teens, and I really enjoyed this whodunit. I have a facsimile dust jacket of the first edition, and I also love the publishers' blurb: " all the subsidiary characters, especially the ladies, usually the weak spot in detective fiction are drawn with humour and insight". They don't write blurbs like that any more! Nor do they write books quite like The Rasp any more. But if you like Golden Age fiction, with all its strengths and limitations, there is every chance you'll like this one.
The first thing to say about this book is that it's a very assured performance, especially considering the youth and inexperience of its author. Yes, there are flaws (the explanation of the puzzle at the end is excessively long, for instance, and the killer's insanity is not adequately foreshadowed) but it really is an excellent example of the breezy Golden Age whodunit. MacDonald's writing is invariably energetic - in fact, in some books he produced later, it seems rushed - and he carries his readers along, so that we don't worry too much about the improbabilities of the plot.
The book is sometimes described as a "locked room mystery", because John Hoode, a cabinet minister, is found dead in his locked study; however, there is an open window, so this is by no means an "impossible crime". It's a tricky one to solve, nonetheless, and although the police arrest someone, Gethryn becomes convinced that the man is innocent, and has been framed.
I've admired MacDonald ever since reading a reprint of Gethryn's second case, The White Crow, in my teens, and I really enjoyed this whodunit. I have a facsimile dust jacket of the first edition, and I also love the publishers' blurb: " all the subsidiary characters, especially the ladies, usually the weak spot in detective fiction are drawn with humour and insight". They don't write blurbs like that any more! Nor do they write books quite like The Rasp any more. But if you like Golden Age fiction, with all its strengths and limitations, there is every chance you'll like this one.
March 4, 2015
The Lookout - film review
When I sat down to watch The Lookout, a 2007 movie written and directed by Scott Frank, but of which I knew little or nothing, my expectations weren't especially high. It turned out to be one of those very enjoyable experiences, when one stumbles upon something quite excellent, rather by chance. It's a good thriller,but it also makes some good points about the way the world treats people with disabilities.
Chris (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is young, rich and high-achieving man driving a car with three friends one night when, while showing off, he is involved in a terrible accident. Two passengers die, his girlfirend loses her leg,and he suffers brain damage. Four years later, he is working as a janitor in a bank, trying to cope with severe memory problems. His family is kind, but struggles to deal with him on his own terms, and he lives with a blind man, Lew, played by the ever-dependable Jeff Bridges.
Another young man, Gary (the English actor Matthew Goode), befriends him, and introduces him to the affectionate ex-pole dancer Luvlee (Isla Fisher, an Austrlian - yes, it's a cosmopolitan cast for a film set in a small American town, though actually filmed in Canada). Unfortunately, Gary's motives are base - he and his chums are planning to rob Chris's bank, and they need his help. The film is very good indeed on the subtle ways in which able-bodied people can mistreat those with disabilities. This is a subject which has interested me for years, and I've never seen a crime film deal with it better than this one.
The Lookout is not a formulaic movie, and you never quite know what will happen next. Suffice to say that I found the story satisfying, and very well written. The acting is absolutely excellent, and I'm surprised this film isn't better known. I really can recommend it, and there are one or two scenes that will linger in my memory for a long time to come.
Finally, I'm about to set off on my travels again. The last six months have involved a lot of activity on The Golden Age of Murder, The Dungeon House, and anthologies and introductions for the British Library Crime Classics series, and now I'm going to get away for it all for a while and think out the storyline of my next novel. There will be regular scheduled blog posts on a variety of subjects as usual, but internet access will be patchy, so I may be slow at times in responding to comments. But please do keep them coming...And one thing I'll miss whilst I'm away is an episode of Mastermind in which the Harry Devlin novels are a special subject. Fame at last! It's nice to think that Harry may just gain a new lease of life, and some new readers, as a result. I'm fond of the old chap, and enjoy writing up his cases enormously.
Chris (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is young, rich and high-achieving man driving a car with three friends one night when, while showing off, he is involved in a terrible accident. Two passengers die, his girlfirend loses her leg,and he suffers brain damage. Four years later, he is working as a janitor in a bank, trying to cope with severe memory problems. His family is kind, but struggles to deal with him on his own terms, and he lives with a blind man, Lew, played by the ever-dependable Jeff Bridges.
Another young man, Gary (the English actor Matthew Goode), befriends him, and introduces him to the affectionate ex-pole dancer Luvlee (Isla Fisher, an Austrlian - yes, it's a cosmopolitan cast for a film set in a small American town, though actually filmed in Canada). Unfortunately, Gary's motives are base - he and his chums are planning to rob Chris's bank, and they need his help. The film is very good indeed on the subtle ways in which able-bodied people can mistreat those with disabilities. This is a subject which has interested me for years, and I've never seen a crime film deal with it better than this one.
The Lookout is not a formulaic movie, and you never quite know what will happen next. Suffice to say that I found the story satisfying, and very well written. The acting is absolutely excellent, and I'm surprised this film isn't better known. I really can recommend it, and there are one or two scenes that will linger in my memory for a long time to come.
Finally, I'm about to set off on my travels again. The last six months have involved a lot of activity on The Golden Age of Murder, The Dungeon House, and anthologies and introductions for the British Library Crime Classics series, and now I'm going to get away for it all for a while and think out the storyline of my next novel. There will be regular scheduled blog posts on a variety of subjects as usual, but internet access will be patchy, so I may be slow at times in responding to comments. But please do keep them coming...And one thing I'll miss whilst I'm away is an episode of Mastermind in which the Harry Devlin novels are a special subject. Fame at last! It's nice to think that Harry may just gain a new lease of life, and some new readers, as a result. I'm fond of the old chap, and enjoy writing up his cases enormously.
March 2, 2015
Arthur & George - ITV review
Arthur & George began on ITV this evening. It's a three-part series, with a lot going for it. The screenplay, by Ed Whitmore, is based on a novel by the estimable Julian Barnes which was short-listed for the Man Booker Prize a decade ago. And the book is about a true (and very well known) story, the investigation by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, no less, into a shocking miscarriage of justice.
I was surprised, I must admit, when I found that Martin Clunes was cast as Conan Doyle. Now I've enjoyed Clunes' work over the years, but he didn't seem quite right. Not because he isn't Scottish, but because I've always felt that there was a darkness in Conan Doyle's character (think of some of his macabre stories like "The Case of Lady Sannox") that isn't too evident in Clunes. Over the hour, though, I did warm to his portrayal, which focused on Conan Doyle's vulnerability and instinctive decency (qualities Clunes is very good at conveying) as well as his determination.
I wonder how many viewers realised that "Willie", Conan Doyle's brother-in-law, who appears briefly, was E.W. Hornung, who created a famous crime fiction protagonist of his own , A.J. Raffles? The story proper begins after George Edalji has served a jail sentence for mutilating horses, with Conan Doyle losing his wife, and finding that his grief is complicated by an ongoing affair with Jean Leckie. In his unhappiness, he seizes on the Edalji case, and becomes convinced that the convicted man is innocent, and a victim of racial prejudice.
It's a good story, and I thought the screenplay competent, though not outstanding. I haven't read the book, even though I'm a Barnes fan but I suspect the book is multi-layered in a way the TV show is not. Whitmore is a talented screenwriter whom I have praised on this blog in the past, but at times the action moved rather slowly. It may be that two hours, rather than three, would have been a more suitable time slot. But I shall certainly stick with it.
I was surprised, I must admit, when I found that Martin Clunes was cast as Conan Doyle. Now I've enjoyed Clunes' work over the years, but he didn't seem quite right. Not because he isn't Scottish, but because I've always felt that there was a darkness in Conan Doyle's character (think of some of his macabre stories like "The Case of Lady Sannox") that isn't too evident in Clunes. Over the hour, though, I did warm to his portrayal, which focused on Conan Doyle's vulnerability and instinctive decency (qualities Clunes is very good at conveying) as well as his determination.
I wonder how many viewers realised that "Willie", Conan Doyle's brother-in-law, who appears briefly, was E.W. Hornung, who created a famous crime fiction protagonist of his own , A.J. Raffles? The story proper begins after George Edalji has served a jail sentence for mutilating horses, with Conan Doyle losing his wife, and finding that his grief is complicated by an ongoing affair with Jean Leckie. In his unhappiness, he seizes on the Edalji case, and becomes convinced that the convicted man is innocent, and a victim of racial prejudice.
It's a good story, and I thought the screenplay competent, though not outstanding. I haven't read the book, even though I'm a Barnes fan but I suspect the book is multi-layered in a way the TV show is not. Whitmore is a talented screenwriter whom I have praised on this blog in the past, but at times the action moved rather slowly. It may be that two hours, rather than three, would have been a more suitable time slot. But I shall certainly stick with it.
