17 reviews
A clean little quota quickie which has some affinities to post war film noir. The femme fatale in this one is a bit more dreary than her noir sisters. The greatest affinity however that this film, and most of the other better quota quickies, is that they had straight ahead, no nonsense scripts, and a throw away sense of economics - no one really cared what the final product was as long as it was done for a price- and therefore no interference from producers and executives (who didn't exist at the time). The finished films were simply effective stories told in no nonsense fashion. Compared to today's films with their interminable lists of co-producers, executive producers and just plain producers, all of whom have massive insecurity and ego problems as well as overwhelming inferiority complexes, causing them all to have to put in various proprietary bits of business to show that they played an important part in the production of the film, the good quota quickie, like the film noir, works like a palate refresher.
Despite the somewhat misleading title of Crown VS Stevens (it's not a courtroom drama) the picture gets into the story from the start and marches off in a direct line to the denouement in a very satisfying way. Another similarity with the noir is the absence of star ego. Stories have not been manipulated because some big ego wants all of the good lines to do or have the double do acts of daring do etc. In fact in Crown VS. Stevens, a British Warner production, the lead actor Patric Knowles would be whisked off to Hollywood to appear as Errol Flynn's brother in Charge of the Light Brigade and begin a long career. In Crown Vs. Stevens what you see is what you get.
There are no twists or turns to the story, but there are various forking paths open to moral interpretation. Taken on this level there are layers upon layers of moral ambiguity, not the least of which is the identification with the crimes of Crime and Punishment, except in this film there is absolutely no guilt creeping into the consciousness of the femme fatale, the sociopathic element that was the hallmark of the noir. But that's getting a little too carried away and heaping too much significance on this amusing little film.
Despite the somewhat misleading title of Crown VS Stevens (it's not a courtroom drama) the picture gets into the story from the start and marches off in a direct line to the denouement in a very satisfying way. Another similarity with the noir is the absence of star ego. Stories have not been manipulated because some big ego wants all of the good lines to do or have the double do acts of daring do etc. In fact in Crown VS. Stevens, a British Warner production, the lead actor Patric Knowles would be whisked off to Hollywood to appear as Errol Flynn's brother in Charge of the Light Brigade and begin a long career. In Crown Vs. Stevens what you see is what you get.
There are no twists or turns to the story, but there are various forking paths open to moral interpretation. Taken on this level there are layers upon layers of moral ambiguity, not the least of which is the identification with the crimes of Crime and Punishment, except in this film there is absolutely no guilt creeping into the consciousness of the femme fatale, the sociopathic element that was the hallmark of the noir. But that's getting a little too carried away and heaping too much significance on this amusing little film.
- max von meyerling
- May 11, 2005
- Permalink
A few years later, this would have been a film noir. It's an early work by Michael Powell. And the guy knew something about noir: How about "Peeping Tom"! Patric Knowles is perfect as the central character. He is a bit timid. He's genuinely attractive; so we understand why the ladies like him. He has a gentle quality that makes us care what happens to him.
This movie, like much film noir, involves a mercenary woman. There's a good woman, too.
It's directed smoothly and moves along quickly. I can't think of anything to fault it for. It's not a great movie. But it's an extremely skillful presentation.
This movie, like much film noir, involves a mercenary woman. There's a good woman, too.
It's directed smoothly and moves along quickly. I can't think of anything to fault it for. It's not a great movie. But it's an extremely skillful presentation.
- Handlinghandel
- Sep 20, 2007
- Permalink
As part of TCM's rolling out of films from Teddington, a small British studio, "Crown vs. Stevens," a 1936 film was shown. These Teddington movies are done on the cheap, with poor production values, no names in the cast, and made very quickly. Nevertheless, the studio managed to pull them off with some good results here and there.
The very handsome Patric Knowles, who would soon come to Hollywood, plays a man taken advantage of by his fiancée - she takes off on him before he's paid for her ring, which she refuses to return. His nasty cheapskate employer won't give him a raise or an advance, so he's forced to go to the seller to explain that he can't pay. He's promptly threatened with legal action if he doesn't show up with the money. When he returns, sans money, he finds a woman has just killed the man and burned his books. It turns out to be his boss' wife, and she begs for his silence. He finds himself in a moral dilemma.
This movie held my interest and has a very satisfying denouement. We see so many B movies done in the U.S., why not some from Britain as well? Teddington isn't big on glamor and stars but seems to have tried for decent stories.
The very handsome Patric Knowles, who would soon come to Hollywood, plays a man taken advantage of by his fiancée - she takes off on him before he's paid for her ring, which she refuses to return. His nasty cheapskate employer won't give him a raise or an advance, so he's forced to go to the seller to explain that he can't pay. He's promptly threatened with legal action if he doesn't show up with the money. When he returns, sans money, he finds a woman has just killed the man and burned his books. It turns out to be his boss' wife, and she begs for his silence. He finds himself in a moral dilemma.
This movie held my interest and has a very satisfying denouement. We see so many B movies done in the U.S., why not some from Britain as well? Teddington isn't big on glamor and stars but seems to have tried for decent stories.
Patric Knowles is engaged to Mabel Poulton, who leaves him and absconds with the as-yet-paid-for ring. This leaves Knowles indebted to unpleasant money lender Morris Harvey, who is not inclined to be forgiving. Knowles shows up at Harvey's shop only to find him murdered and encounters Beatrix Thomson fleeing the scene. He soon discovers that Thomson is his employer's (Frederick Piper) wife, and she tries to involve him in a scheme to kill him.
This is essentially a low budget quota quickie made by Teddington Studios, a British studio bought by Warner Brothers to produce British B films to pair with their A films in Britain. Despite being an obviously low budget outing, there are a few things of interest.
The main point of interest is that it's an early directorial outing for Michael Powell, although truth be told, besides being competently assembled, it doesn't bear much of his stamp. Thomson clearly dominates the film, and it's a welcome shift when she becomes the focus in the second half. It's also worth noting that even though the film bears the Warner Brothers logo, it was never intended to play outside of Britain, so it has more that a few elements that don't comply with the Production Code.
British character actor Bernard Miles pops up as a cop.
This is essentially a low budget quota quickie made by Teddington Studios, a British studio bought by Warner Brothers to produce British B films to pair with their A films in Britain. Despite being an obviously low budget outing, there are a few things of interest.
The main point of interest is that it's an early directorial outing for Michael Powell, although truth be told, besides being competently assembled, it doesn't bear much of his stamp. Thomson clearly dominates the film, and it's a welcome shift when she becomes the focus in the second half. It's also worth noting that even though the film bears the Warner Brothers logo, it was never intended to play outside of Britain, so it has more that a few elements that don't comply with the Production Code.
British character actor Bernard Miles pops up as a cop.
I find this film is an interesting character piece. It reminded me of Hitchcock's 'Blackmail' (1929). It is not easy making a film where the main character is flawed. Other reviewers talked of moral ambiguity in a negative way, but clean, clear country values often don't exist in the city. In Spanish language the word for city is the same as the word for caution or warning.
To me this is an extended view of the difficult moral choices that people living in a city make. Dating, marriage & ethics in an economic environment. 'The Naked City' (1948) also covers this territory. I would classify this movie as a universal type story. Film noir films is said to have been made between 1940 & 1958; but I agree with another reviewer that this is an early example.
- TomSunhaus
- Oct 10, 2020
- Permalink
If you're looking for directorial distinctiveness (because the film was directed by the great Michael Powell), you'll be hard pressed to find much of it in this movie. Powell simply moves the story along deftly, managing the many dead ends and fresh starts in the plot so that they all seem quite natural. The plot itself is tepid by today's standards (and possibly also by the standards of the time). Certainly the shock value of a woman's role in the death of a moneylender is minimal. Some of the acting is a bit over-the-top, but when the characters appear at their most natural in their day-to-day working-stiff lives, they shine the most. Overall, as satisfying as the experience was, I couldn't give this film more than six stars.
- barnesgene
- Sep 19, 2007
- Permalink
This is a very different English mystery film dealing with a woman who kills a man who is a crooked loan shark and has made threats to a woman named Doris Stevens (Beatrix Thomson). Doris is discovered by Chris Jansen as he looks in a closet and finds her with a fired pistol in her hand. It just so happens that this lady Stevens is the wife of his boss and he decides to keep his mouth shut about her involvement in this murder. Chris Jansen is also in debt to this same loan shark for a diamond ring he borrowed for his marriage to his intended girlfriend. Doris Stevens realizes that her husband is an old skinflint and will not give her any kinds of money like other women and she begins to think about killing her husband. The plot of the story takes many twists and turns and will keep you in suspense right to the very end of this British film.
- davidcarniglia
- Apr 12, 2019
- Permalink
Looking at that title, one would be forgiven for thinking that this is a courtroom drama. However, much to my pleasant surprise, there isn't a single shot of a single courtroom in the whole thing. The title is something I would change (an observation I don't often make), but underneath it is another Hitchcockian adventure in the underbelly of interwar England where the wrong man gets caught in between a murder and his own safety.
Chris Jensen (Patric Knowles) works at an interior designer as an office boy. He's fallen in love with a girl, Mamie (Mabel Poulton) whom he gives a diamond ring he hasn't yet paid for, feeling like a promotion is just around the corner from his boss, Mr. Stevens (Frederick Piper). However, she takes the ring, runs off with another man, leaving Chris with the bill for the ring he doesn't even have anymore, a bill due to the nefarious Maurice (Morris Harvey). However, when Chris goes to negotiate the payments, something he can't being to pay back because Mr. Stevens denied him the promotion, he finds Maurice dead, shot by a mysterious woman who ends up being Mrs. Stevens (Beatrix Thomas). Borrowing money because her husband won't let her spend the way she wants.
So, there's a murder. Chris knows who it is, but he can't give her up because Mr. Stevens could fire him for embroiling himself as well as Mr. Stevens in scandal, besides Maurice will be missed by no one. He tries to forget what's going on, striking up a romance with the designer Molly (Glennis Lorimer), and keep his head down. Meanwhile, the police are on the case, looking for clues.
What's interesting about this is how we know exactly who the killer is from the beginning, and it's all about this dance around wanting Chris to turn her in, understanding his precarious situation, and watching as Mrs. Stevens steadily self-destructs. Freed from her illicit debts but not freed from her penny-pinching husband, she's egged on by her friend Ella (Googie Withers), putting her in direct conflict with her husband, all while Chris' conscience weighs more heavily on him and the police get closer through investigation of the gun used to kill Maurice.
The plotting is mostly very tight around the movements of the police closer to Mrs. Stevens. I say mostly tight because it relies on her taking the gun she used, throwing it off a bridge, and it immediately falling into a passing boat, the occupants of which take the gun to the police. Coincidence isn't something I'm totally against in drama. It's perfectly acceptable in setting things up, but this is kind of the middle ground where it's about making the drama more difficult (fine). However, it feels so convenient that it's kind of unbelievable. It's not the film's greatest moment, but it's over and done with quickly.
The final couple of reels, though, where Mrs. Stevens feels the most cornered with Mr. Stevens asking too many questions about the gun she can no longer account for and his continued pressure for her to stop spending money and living flagrantly out of order with his moral code (she parties with Ella), is where we get this specific level of detail around her efforts that ends up feeling most Hitchcockian. The devil is in the details, and we watch as Mrs. Stevens improvises a murder, starting with sleeping pills and needing to evolve as he insists on going to the police station, not quite hobbled by the pills she secretly fed him, and needing to involve a car, a closed garage door, and time.
So, we get our ticking clock as Chris and Molly (now in on the situation) stop by to investigate while the Stevens maid, Mamie (Mabel Poulton), who quit to preserve her character when Mrs. Stevens accused her of stealing the missing pistol and ran to the police. So, Mrs. Stevens' efforts feel like she flailing, but not completely without some method to it. She could almost have gotten away with it, sneaking by suspicions if only things had worked out a slightly different way.
And that last twenty minutes really makes the film. Everything before that had been perfectly fine. I had few complaints, mostly about the coincidence of the gun drop as well as the fact that Mamie never comes back into the film, making the opening feel like something of a waste. However, it's actually pretty solid stuff overall, and the ending is kind of great.
Chris Jensen (Patric Knowles) works at an interior designer as an office boy. He's fallen in love with a girl, Mamie (Mabel Poulton) whom he gives a diamond ring he hasn't yet paid for, feeling like a promotion is just around the corner from his boss, Mr. Stevens (Frederick Piper). However, she takes the ring, runs off with another man, leaving Chris with the bill for the ring he doesn't even have anymore, a bill due to the nefarious Maurice (Morris Harvey). However, when Chris goes to negotiate the payments, something he can't being to pay back because Mr. Stevens denied him the promotion, he finds Maurice dead, shot by a mysterious woman who ends up being Mrs. Stevens (Beatrix Thomas). Borrowing money because her husband won't let her spend the way she wants.
So, there's a murder. Chris knows who it is, but he can't give her up because Mr. Stevens could fire him for embroiling himself as well as Mr. Stevens in scandal, besides Maurice will be missed by no one. He tries to forget what's going on, striking up a romance with the designer Molly (Glennis Lorimer), and keep his head down. Meanwhile, the police are on the case, looking for clues.
What's interesting about this is how we know exactly who the killer is from the beginning, and it's all about this dance around wanting Chris to turn her in, understanding his precarious situation, and watching as Mrs. Stevens steadily self-destructs. Freed from her illicit debts but not freed from her penny-pinching husband, she's egged on by her friend Ella (Googie Withers), putting her in direct conflict with her husband, all while Chris' conscience weighs more heavily on him and the police get closer through investigation of the gun used to kill Maurice.
The plotting is mostly very tight around the movements of the police closer to Mrs. Stevens. I say mostly tight because it relies on her taking the gun she used, throwing it off a bridge, and it immediately falling into a passing boat, the occupants of which take the gun to the police. Coincidence isn't something I'm totally against in drama. It's perfectly acceptable in setting things up, but this is kind of the middle ground where it's about making the drama more difficult (fine). However, it feels so convenient that it's kind of unbelievable. It's not the film's greatest moment, but it's over and done with quickly.
The final couple of reels, though, where Mrs. Stevens feels the most cornered with Mr. Stevens asking too many questions about the gun she can no longer account for and his continued pressure for her to stop spending money and living flagrantly out of order with his moral code (she parties with Ella), is where we get this specific level of detail around her efforts that ends up feeling most Hitchcockian. The devil is in the details, and we watch as Mrs. Stevens improvises a murder, starting with sleeping pills and needing to evolve as he insists on going to the police station, not quite hobbled by the pills she secretly fed him, and needing to involve a car, a closed garage door, and time.
So, we get our ticking clock as Chris and Molly (now in on the situation) stop by to investigate while the Stevens maid, Mamie (Mabel Poulton), who quit to preserve her character when Mrs. Stevens accused her of stealing the missing pistol and ran to the police. So, Mrs. Stevens' efforts feel like she flailing, but not completely without some method to it. She could almost have gotten away with it, sneaking by suspicions if only things had worked out a slightly different way.
And that last twenty minutes really makes the film. Everything before that had been perfectly fine. I had few complaints, mostly about the coincidence of the gun drop as well as the fact that Mamie never comes back into the film, making the opening feel like something of a waste. However, it's actually pretty solid stuff overall, and the ending is kind of great.
- davidmvining
- Oct 31, 2024
- Permalink
Patric Knowles is a reliable lead in this quota quickie.Within a year he would be supporting Errol Flynn in The Charge Of The Light Brigade.Bernard Miles is appearing in his fourth film at the beginning of what would be an illustrious career on screen but primarily on stage.Mabel Poulton was a big star of the silent screen.However she had one problem and that was she had a cockney accent,Now whilst this was no hindrance to Michael Caine 30 years later,it was alas to poor Mabel.In those days it meant that you were going to end up playing supporting roles.In a parallel to John Gilbert she was handed a lucrative long term contract just before the end of the silent era and just like Gilbert her descent was equally rapid.This in fact was her penultimate film.After one more film her career in films ended.This film is a fairly conventional quota quickie with a rather pat ending.Always interesting but rather less than engrossing.
- malcolmgsw
- Oct 26, 2007
- Permalink
- gridoon2024
- Nov 17, 2023
- Permalink
Patric Knowles wants to marry Glennis Lorimer, but his boss, Frederick Piper, is a mean, disagreeable man, who will neither give him a raise, nor advance him money. Piper's wife, Beatrix Thomson, knows he's not a nice person. He won't buy her clothes, won't abide drinking, and complains when she goes out with friends. However, he does carry a lot of life insurance.
Had James M. Cain seen this movie before he wrote DOUBLE INDEMNITY? There's no need to assume he did, and the thought of murdering an unwanted husband for the insurance money was doubtless in circulation before Laurence Meynell wrote the novel this movie was based on. One wouldn't think a British quota quickie would be in circulation in America, but the director was Michael Powell, who had been on the movie map for several years by this point. He doesn't hold anything back, as Piper's unpleasantness drives Miss Thomson on the path to murder, and dim-witted customers annoy Knowles and Miss Lorimer. With Googie Withers, Mabel Poulton, and Bernard Miles.
Had James M. Cain seen this movie before he wrote DOUBLE INDEMNITY? There's no need to assume he did, and the thought of murdering an unwanted husband for the insurance money was doubtless in circulation before Laurence Meynell wrote the novel this movie was based on. One wouldn't think a British quota quickie would be in circulation in America, but the director was Michael Powell, who had been on the movie map for several years by this point. He doesn't hold anything back, as Piper's unpleasantness drives Miss Thomson on the path to murder, and dim-witted customers annoy Knowles and Miss Lorimer. With Googie Withers, Mabel Poulton, and Bernard Miles.
Crown v. Stevens (1936)
** (out of 4)
Michael Powell directs this film about an apparent abused wife (Beatrix Thomson) who gets an innocent clerk (Patrick Knowles) involved with her dirty schemes. The only interesting thing about this film is its history. When Britain put a ban on films from the U.S., Warner went there and made Teddington Studios, which is where this film was made. These films were only allowed to be shown in Britain so this film was never seen in America until TCM included it in their "Lost and Found" series. As for the actual film, Powell just hasn't worked for me much as a director. He tells this story in an interesting way in the fact that there's no plot twists or turns but just a straight story. The only problem is that this story bored the hell out of me to the point where I was hoping the movie would end after the twenty-minute mark. The two leads are pretty bland in the film as well.
** (out of 4)
Michael Powell directs this film about an apparent abused wife (Beatrix Thomson) who gets an innocent clerk (Patrick Knowles) involved with her dirty schemes. The only interesting thing about this film is its history. When Britain put a ban on films from the U.S., Warner went there and made Teddington Studios, which is where this film was made. These films were only allowed to be shown in Britain so this film was never seen in America until TCM included it in their "Lost and Found" series. As for the actual film, Powell just hasn't worked for me much as a director. He tells this story in an interesting way in the fact that there's no plot twists or turns but just a straight story. The only problem is that this story bored the hell out of me to the point where I was hoping the movie would end after the twenty-minute mark. The two leads are pretty bland in the film as well.
- Michael_Elliott
- Feb 26, 2008
- Permalink
In London, Chris Jensen (Patric Knowles) puts a ring on his short-term girlfriend Mamie. He is barely able to afford it. His boss Arthur Stevens rejects his appeal for a raise. Mamie takes off with the ring. He owes money for the ring to unscrupulous lender Maurice Bayleck who threatens to go to the police. He later finds Bayleck dead and a woman holding a gun. She burns the debt book. Inspector Carter (Allan Jeayes) leads the investigation. It turns out that the woman is the wife of Chris' boss, Doris Stevens (Beatrix Thomson).
I really like the setup. The premise holds the promise of great tension. Along the way, the tension level rise slows. The movie could push the investigation a lot harder. While Doris deteriorates, Chris is too leisurely. It's their way of showing the good against the bad. There is a good crime drama here although the tension needs to be raised more.
I really like the setup. The premise holds the promise of great tension. Along the way, the tension level rise slows. The movie could push the investigation a lot harder. While Doris deteriorates, Chris is too leisurely. It's their way of showing the good against the bad. There is a good crime drama here although the tension needs to be raised more.
- SnoopyStyle
- Nov 15, 2024
- Permalink
- planktonrules
- Sep 18, 2007
- Permalink