Night Must Fall (1937)

Touches You

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Following a grisly murder, a pushy stranger worms his way into a rich, old lady's remote household, much to disapproval of her uptight secretary.What a good touch when Danny (Montgomery) roughly shoves the house cat and then smilingly tells Mrs. Bramson (Witty) how much he likes the little four-footed critters—a neat introduction to his devious nature. I wish the rest of the movie were this well executed. Aside from being overlong and too talky as other reviewers point out, (some silent mood scenes are badly needed), there's a big hole in the middle that's been generally overlooked. Surprisingly, it concerns that otherwise excellent actress Rosalind Russell.Key to the plot is the highly refined, severely repressed Olivia's (Russell) conflict over Danny. She's both attracted and repelled by him. He's such a low, boisterous type, it's hard to see her attraction to him at any level. But the script has wisely prepared us with her attraction to dark, woodsy things. Now, the movie's key scene is in the kitchen where Danny boldly confronts Olivia's repressed attraction. To this point, Olivia has had only one outward emotion, namely an emotionless expression consonant with her inner discipline and station in the household. Danny's aim is to force from her an acknowledgment of what he knows she feels even though she won't admit it even to herself.Crucial to this pivotal scene is that actress Russell convey even the slightest expression of the inner conflict she is now experiencing— conflict we know she's experiencing from the dialog. But try as I have, I can't spot a single change of expression. She's grudgingly okaying the words, but without the necessary conflicted behavior. In short, her words say one thing, her manner another. Thus, we're not drawn into her conflict, we merely observe it in the dialog. And crucially-- instead of becoming active participants in the story, we're encouraged to remain passive observers.In terms of story development, the role of Olivia becomes unconvincing, especially since the deadpan continues for the rest of the film. It's especially implausible when the plot has her hide the severed head in order to save Danny from the law. As a result, her motivations from the kitchen scene on ring hollow, thereby undercutting her pivotal role in the movie as a whole. It wouldn't be accurate to say that Russell therefore walks through the part in uninterested fashion. Rather, I'm inclined to blame director Thorpe for not providing the proper cues, especially in that key kitchen scene. At the same time, I wish Montgomery's Danny were not so extreme, bordering at times on the clownish. For a usually restrained actor, it's a real departure, robbing his character of any hint of needed menace. Still and all, the idea of Danny's acting out for the benefit of his "double"— the one that emerges in the mirror scene at the end-- remains a provocative one.Where Danny's blustery, overdone charm really works is with tyrannical old Mrs. Bramson. His is just the kind of overriding personality that would melt her icy reserve. At the same time, Witty steals the film with a rock solid performance, especially during that exhausting breakdown scene that even had me gasping for breath. I also like that morbid sight-seeing tour with E. E. Clive as the guide. That people would pay to see a gravesite suggests to me the basic gentility of small town England for whom murder is such an unusual and curious event. I gather from IMDb that studio head L. B. Mayer didn't like the results and didn't want to release the film. Whatever the failings, It's far from being that bad. Ironically, it appears that had Mayer himself wanted to do justice to the material, he would have assigned a top studio director instead of the thoroughly mediocre Thorpe (check out his credits). In fact, the movie as a whole suffers from uninspired direction, its rich atmospheric potential left visually untapped. As far as I can tell, Thorpe simply filmed the script that was handed him and nothing more. After all, his reputation with the studio rested on efficiency, i.e. bringing projects in under budget.I just wish someone like Hitchcock had gotten hold of the material first. With its rich potential for nuance and atmosphere, a gifted psychologist like Hitch could have made something really memorable. Unfortunately, as the movie stands, it's a long way from that point.

Rosalind Russell is wonderful playing a demure, somewhat repressed secretary, working for her crotchety old auntie in a country estate, who suspects the charming Irish houseboy of being a killer; worse still, her odd attraction to the man stops her from alerting the police. Emlyn Williams' successful stage production becomes first-rate dramatic film, with careful attention to character motivation and dialogue (and gleefully nasty, sordid little details besides). Unfortunately, it all unravels in the final reel, which does allow Oscar-nominated Robert Montgomery a chance to pull out the stops, though at the expense of credibility. Beautiful production, terrific supporting performance from May Witty. Followed in 1964 by a critically-drubbed remake. **1/2 from ****

I have seen this film a couple of times, if only for the sinister, multi-faceted performance of Robert Montgomery (Elizabeth's father), but, as someone previously noted, it is an old play and it certainly creaks from time to time. A horrible crime is committed in a small English town; a local woman has been found dead, her head missing. There are no suspects, and the police are alerted for a maniac roaming the area. Rosalind Russell is a prim, bookish young woman staying with Dame May Witty, her petulant, wheelchair-bound aunt. The aunt makes demands of her niece, and tends to be full of unctuous self-pity. Robert Montgomery appears on the scene as Danny, an Irish dandy who is dating one of the old lady's maids. He soon charms Dame May, who hires him on as her helper and general syncophant - flattering her, and giving in to all her petty whims with a smile and a smooth air. Rosalind Russell does not trust him, and lets her dislike of him show, but there seems to be an undercurrent of attraction to him at the same time. Despite her distrust, she leaves her aunt alone with him to visit her lover in town, and the horribly inevitable occurs. I found several holes in this so-called "thriller". One is: if she did not trust him, and wondered about his past, and noted some instability in his personality -- why leave a defenseless old lady alone with him? Why were the police not more suspicious of a newcomer in town, and not more strident in their investigation of him? And, a most unpleasant truth, if indeed he had that missing body part in the infamous hatbox, why didn't the scent of decay (let's be realistic here) permeate that small cottage? That alone would have sent him to the gallows much sooner, as it would have been immediately noticed. So there was a little too much dramatic license here. If you've seen the later remake with Albert Finney - another fine actor who also imbued Danny's character with a very sinister psychosis - you'll find the same stretches of credibility here that detracted from the finale of this drama. It's good watching for the fine character actors in the cast, but not something that I'd think would scare the tar out of you if you examine it closely.

Warning: spoilers follow.Let's see if I've got this straight. A neighboring woman disappears and her hidden body is later found with the head severed. About the same time, an itinerant young man shows up, charms the crotchety old lady who runs the household, as well as most of her staff, with the sole exception of her dedicated personal assistant, who is also her niece and who can't stand her. The niece immediately becomes suspicious, does some checking, and finds out that his background isn't exactly what he says it is. Meanwhile she discovers he's carrying around a hatbox which she, and we, suspect contains the severed. So do the police, but when the police ask him to open the hatbox, the niece comes to his rescue and gets him off the hook by saying that the box is hers and that it contains some papers. Why does she rescue him? Could it be that she is secretly attracted to him? If so, this is belied by the all of her previous (and subsequent)actions, all of which indicate that she is terrified of him. And with good reason, as it turns out, because he soon dispatches the old lady. We never see her body, because he probably hid it as well, since he seems absolutely certain that he'll never be caught. Then the police show up, following a tip from the niece's boyfriend that couldn't have been more than conjecture. He is arrested and resigns himself to eventually being hanged, but it's never clear what he is being arrested for, the first murder or the second. And on what evidence? There is nothing linking him to the old lady's death, and there's no indication that they saw what was in the hatbox. So, go figure!All this probably makes the film sound much worse than it actually is, because in spite of all the aforementioned, I still recommend it. It is tremendously entertaining and contains some superb acting. Although this was early in Montgomery's career, this was easily his best performance. Dame May Whitty is superb as well. Rosalind Russell underplays her role. 8/10