Ordeal by Innocence

Plot synopsis:
While serving a sentence for killing Rachel Argyle, his adoptive mother – a crime he insisted he didn't commit – Jacko Argyle dies in prison. His own widow, Maureen, believed him to be responsible. Two years later, the man who could have supported Jacko's alibi suddenly turns up; and the family must come to terms not only with the fact that Jacko was actually innocent, but that one of them is the real murderer, and now suspicion falls upon each of them. Christie's focus in this novel is upon the psychology of innocence, as the family members struggle with their suspicions of one another.
The witness, Arthur Calgary, who was unaware of the events and thus failed to come forward and not otherwise locatable by the police, believed the family would be grateful once he cleared their son's name. He failed to realize the full implications of his information. However, once he does so, he is determined to protect the innocent by finding the murderer. To be able to do so, he visits the retired local doctor, Dr MacMaster, to ask him about the now-cleared murderer, Jacko Argyle. MacMaster states that he was surprised when Jacko killed his mother. Not because he thought that murder was outside Jacko's 'moral range', but because he thought Jacko would be too cowardly to kill somebody himself; that, if he wanted to murder somebody, he would egg on an accomplice to do his dirty work. MacMaster says "the kind of murder I'd have expected Jacko to do, if he did one, was the type where a couple of boys go out on a raid; then, when the police come after them, the Jackos say 'Biff him on the head, Bud. Let him have it. Shoot him down.' They're willing for murder, ready to incite to murder, but they've not got the nerve to do murder themselves with their own hands." This description seems to be a reference to the Craig and Bentley case which had occurred in 1952.
While two outsiders attempt to find the murderer, it is an insider – Philip Durrant – whose efforts to uncover the truth force the actual killer to kill again. Ultimately it is revealed that the murderer was indeed acting under the influence of Jacko Argyle. The failure of Jacko's carefully planned alibi was, in hindsight, an ironic stroke of fate when the police failed to locate the absent Calgary. Jacko was not innocent at all and had a hand in the death of his adoptive mother. The killer is revealed to be Kirsten Lindstrom, the Argyles' middle-aged housekeeper. Jacko had persuaded the plain Kirsten that he was in love with her, and persuaded her to murder his adoptive mother under cover of a "foolproof" alibi to steal some much needed money. But once Kirsten learned that Jacko was secretly married, she decided not to cover for Jacko, abandoning him to his fate.

Tags: neo noir, murder

Review:
Mediocre rendition based on Agatha Christie novel with big name cast and atmospheric setting.
In this realization of yet another Agatha Christie novel there is a good cast who gives average acting , nice set design , a twisted intrigue and logic absent .
An American Paleontologist called Dr. Arthur Calgary (Donald Sutherland) visits Mister Argyle (Christopher Plummer) to give him an address book that belongs to his son Jack Argyle (most of the scenes featuring Jacko Argyle were cut because of budgetary reasons) , but the latter has been executed , condemned for murder his mother (all of Faye Dunaway's cameo is a black and white flashback) .
Calgary has proof that the convicted killer is innocent , but no one , neither Police (Michael Elphick's police inspector, modeled to some extent after a harder-nosed American-style police officer) , nor villagers wish to reopen the case .
Once the murder was solved , the real mystery began and Calgary learns that justice has been ill served in a small British community .
, can he find the true guilty?The film is a detective story with Sutherland as an amateur sleuth , in which you are the detective ; being middlingly shot , though filmmaker conjures up some atmospheric scenes .
In the picture there are mystery , emotion , murders , suspense , pointless scenes and gorgeous outdoors .
It packs a very good British support casting such as Sarah Miles , though miscast as Faye Dunaway's daughter , Ian McShane as Philip Durant , Diana Quick as Gwenda Vaughan , Annette Crosbie as Kirsten Lindstrom , Michael Elphick as Inspector Huish , George Innes as Archie Leach , and a young Phoebe Nicholls as Tina Argyle in some nudism scenes .
The movie gets a lush costume design and acceptable production by known Cannon films , Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan , being well set in 1950s England .Colorful and glowing cinematography in Eastmancolor by excellent cameraman Billy Williams .
The inappropriate and anti-climatic soundtrack was not by Dave Brubeck but by Pino Donaggio, who wrote his typical , lush and beautiful score ; when the film didn't test well, they decided to jettison the Donaggio score and replace it with Dave Brubeck music.
Brubeck included an obtrusive jazz score seems to belong to some other film , but was told he'd have two weeks to write an original score , he said no ; they then agreed that they'd use already existing Brubeck tunes and newly record them .
Without doubt the worst production of an Agatha Christie novel.
For a start the musical score by Dave Brubeck is totally out of place in a Christie murder mystery.
At some points in the movie the backgroung music is so loud it is actually difficult to hear the on screen dialogue.
However for me the worst part of this movie is probably the most appalling piece of casting ever seen.
This is really & truly the absolute worst Agatha Christie movie ever!!
(And I've seen 10 little Indians with Frank Stallone!!!) Sutherland & Plummer are greatly wasted in a go no where "mystery".
This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors ("Death On The Nile", "Evil Under The Sun") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot).
The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat.
I am a purist Agatha Christie fan, so I dislike adaptations which spoil her work.
The cast are talented, but wasted - especially Faye Dunaway, who has about three words.
Agatha Christie's books are not easy to transfer to the screen.The main problem lies in the fact that there's not much show and many many questionings ,deductions and explanations.As always ,the director tries to make up for it by gathering an all-star cast (see yourself) :it sometimes worked in the past ("Death on the Nile" "Murder on the Orient Express"),it does not here.The film is much too short and we have not enough time to make acquaintance with the many-characters-who -had -a reason-and -an -opportunity-to -kill-Dunaway.However ,the very subject of the movie could have been interesting:an innocent was hanged and his family does not care when a witness claims that he was his alibi a couple of years later.The ending is terribly disappointing,which is a shame .Dame Agatha Christie would turn in her grave..
Far From Mrs. Christie's Best Film Adaptations.
When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around.
But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably."Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment.
Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.You won't miss much if you skip this one..
Dreary and muddled despite good cast..
The film begins with some style with the viewer taking a leisure boat ride to a small village in England with a pleasant Dave Brubeck score in the background.
Brubeck's score continues through the movie and by the first half hour becomes annoying due to its over use.
Donald Sutherland is layed back as an American doctor who after a two year expedition to Antarctica learns he was the only alibi to a hitch hiking stranger accused of murder and ultimately hung.
True to Agatha Christie Sutherland becomes a sleuth and we are introduced to the stranger's family and associates.
Rarely do we see them interact with each other and nearly the entire film Donald Sutherland is interviewing each of the cast one-on-one...including the police!
Mid-way the director makes a truly terrible decision to replay some of the audio from previous scenes over present scenes (to represent Donald Sutherland thinking) including muddled whispering under more of Dave Brubeck's score.
At the beginning the police tells Donald Sutherland not to get involved that it is not worth it and at the end Donald and the viewers agree.
The one joyous spark to the entire film was Cassie Stuart (Isabella in BBC's "Northanger Abbey") as the innocent stranger's wife.
Her face and voice literally lit up the dark and damp film in her two scenes which occur in the last twenty minutes of the movie.
She has such fun with her topless scene she should have won a special award just for attempting to bring some entertainment to an otherwise dreary movie..
As stated in other commentaries, a who's who of talent, such as, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Donald Sutherland, and many more were thrown together in a film that is not recognizable as an Agatha Christie story.
The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies.
The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone.
From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one.
It is not an Agatha Christie movie.
Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery..
It's actually one of my favorite movies.I find that Donald Sutherland's performance compelling and subtle and the visuals gorgeous.
The choice of Dave Brubeck's music as a soundtrack, while challenging at times presents an fascinating counterpoint to the visual narrative.Undoubtedly the film is unfaithful to the novel.
This 1984 version of Ordeal By Innocence doesn't just fail as an adaptation, it also fails on its own terms too, the latter of which I always try to base my opinion of a film on.
The story is not perhaps masterpiece status, but it still has all the ingredients that make Agatha Christie so well worth reading.
Just reading what it's about alone makes you want to engross yourself in the book and also watch an adaptation of it.
Christopher Plummer is appropriately wry, Cassie Stuart is just lovely and lights up the film and while Faye Dunnaway deserved much more than a 2-3 cameo appearance she is quite memorable as a character who's easy to hate.
Donald Sutherland is rather workmanlike and Ian McShane brings some wit to his role but is given little to work with, while Annette Crosbie Sarah Miles are wasted and Michael Elphick- looking miserable with one of the worst Scottish accents I've ever heard on film- is embarrassingly bad.
You have a vague sense of what their roles in the story are but little more than that, so it makes the audience find it difficult to properly care.
The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to no suspense or life, and that is including the ending(further disadvantaged by the murderer being revealed way too early).
So much so that I had a temptation to watch something else, something I don't want to feel from an Agatha Christie adaptation.
And the music is just awful, overbearing and of the films I've seen recently it is by far the most out of place score I've heard for any film since watching 1965's Ten Little Indians(a film I actually liked).
I had heard about this film for a while due to the many international faces that appear in it and also the bad reviews the film has attracted due to the inappropriate music score.I finally got my hands on a DVD this week.
First of all, the story is most compelling and i really enjoyed Donald Sutherland's lead performance as the doctor who wants to solve the mystery.The film is beautifully shot; very moody night scenes and the stars are flatteringly shot.
The film has all the hallmarks of a good British thriller.The only criticism i can give the film is the music score.
It's quiet most of the time and not throughout the entire film like most reviews led me to believe.Faye Dunaway, who was living in England at the time, weaves in and out of the story.
The supporting cast of players were also on top form with a surprisingly stand out performance by Annette Crosbie (better known for One Foot In A Grave on TV).Give the film a chance; it is fairly fast paced, beautiful cinematography, top notch cast...
I only watched the movie to see Ian McShane.
Guilt-ridden after learning that an acquaintance was executed for murder since he was his only alibi and could not be located, an archaeologist conducts his own investigation when the man's family and local police shown no interest in this Agatha Christie murder mystery.
The film has a reputation as the most underwhelming Christie big screen adaptation to date - a charge that is understandable but unfair.
This is a very different sort of mystery movie, and while one might tempted to dismiss it due to its early revelation of the actual killer, the lack of urgency in the air or lifeless supporting characters, solving the mystery and our protagonist putting all the clues together is actually a secondary concern.
'Ordeal by Innocence' is an incredibly mood film too, full of atmospheric lighting choices and much fog in the air, capturing a dreariness in post-World War II Britain as rarely seen on film.
One almost gets a sense that the entire town is jaded by all the trials and tribulations of war with the murder mystery representing old wounds that they simply do not desire reopened.
This may not be a Christie film worth seeing for an imaginative twist, stellar performances or excellent period costumes, but it is noteworthy nonetheless..
Ordeal for the viewer, poor Agatha Christie.
Adapted from good Agatha Christie book this is one bad movie produced by Cannon Group.
It's far from Mr. Christie's best adaptations.
This 1984 version of "Ordeal by innocence" doesn't just fail as an adaptation, it also fails on its own terms too.The musical jazz score by Dave Brubeck is pretty cool itself , but feels out of place in the movie.
Scoreless it would have been a better film The story is so muddled , that I doubt that anyone who didn't read the book would understand it.
The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to zero suspense or life .This is a "mystery that goes nowhere" as somebody said it.
The murderer is revealed half way through the movie.
We don't have time to care for any of the characters or even remember their names !
Director makes even a mistake of replaying some of the audio from previous scenes over present scenes to represent Donald Sutherland thinking !
The movie doesn't have a big budget , but this kind of story doesn't really need it.
The costumes and sets are very handsome Donald Sutherland gives a good and believable performance as amateur sleuth.
Others like Christopher Plummer and Faye Dunaway are wasted.
The musical score has to be one of the most out of place scores I have ever seen in ANY film.
The musical score has to be one of the most out of place scores I have ever seen in ANY film.
I just cannot imagine who thought a Dave Brubeck jazz score would complement an Agatha Christie mystery film.
It boggles the mind and, more unfortunately, muddles this film pretty good.
Ordeal by Innocence is not a great film but does have a solid mystery and good acting.
The music isn't bad by no means just loud and over-intrusive and not for a film of this ilk.
Anyway, the story about a man trying to clear the name of someone who was tried and executed for a crime this stranger knows for a fact he could not commit is rather interesting.
Donald Sutherland does a workmanlike job.
The character suspects include a wry and devilish Christopher Plummer, a witty Ian McShane, a drunken(and wasted)Sarah Miles, a gorgeous Diana Quick and Annette Crosbie from One Foot in the Grave fame.
No one wants to help the stranger, other people die, and the mystery is not all that hard to figure out by the end but all of it is done with some style and workmanship by director Desmond Davis(he did actually direct the original Clash of the Titans - though I am sure deferred to Ray Harryhausen more often than not!).
All makes for a reasonably enjoyable story and then...then...then that music intrudes and even covers up what is said.
I marked this film down two stars just because of the music.
Anyway, Faye Dunaway has a couple flashback scenes as the murdered mother/wife and Cassie Stuart plays the wife of the murdered innocent man.
She is the best highlight that this film has to boast and she has two short scenes..
Agatha Christie rides again, but, alas, the pleasures of this one are offset by a wildly inappropriate and cursedly intrusive jazz score by Dave Brubeck.
Sutherland is aptly cast as the meddling do- gooder, but Dunaway is wasted in a few brief flashbacks.
Alas, for some unknown reason, the killer is revealed to the audience well before the actual climax, so that it no longer comes as a surprise.
It's the outrageously intrusive music score that's the source of most audience irritation..
This film is on my list of worst movies ever made.
The story is disconnected and it is difficult to understand what is going on or the reason for the characters' actions.
To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime.
Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film.
On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything.
If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing!
Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening.
Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late.
Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line.
Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful.
Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine.
The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs.