LONG DARK HALL

UK, 1951, 86 minutes, Black and white.
Rex Harrison, Lilli Palmer, Raymond Huntley, William Squire, Anthony Dawson, Denis O’ Day, Anthony Bushell, Mariel Forbes.
Directed by Reginald Beck and Anthony Bushell.

The Long Dark Hall is a murder mystery, the kind of material that would be seen on a television movie or in a series in later decades. However, it has a very strong cast which makes it above-average entertainment. It was also written by veteran Hollywood writer-director, Nunnally Johnson.

Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer were married at the time they made this film (also making The Four- Poster). Rex Harrison is accused of the murder of a showgirl in whom he had taken some interest. He is accused of her murder. Lilli Palmer portrays his supportive wife. The film focuses on the plight of the accused, the court case, the evidence mounting up against him. It also shows court procedures and police investigations.

The film was co-directed by Anthony Bushell who directed a number of films and also performed as an actor (Queen of Spades). The villain is portrayed by Anthony Dawson, a regular character actor in many films made in the 50s and 60s – and who is always memorable for film fans as being the murderer, set on by Ray Milland, of Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder.

1. Was this an enjoyable film? How did it retain interest? A good murder story and trial story? What were its best features?

2. How typical a film of the early fifties? Does it compare well now with so many similar TV films and serials? Why?

2. How good was the background of the journalist writing a book and the interest in a conviction of a non-guilty person?

4. Comment on the effectiveness of the structure of the film, our seeing a murder, knowing that Arthur Groom would be convicted, the reappearance of the murderer, the irony of the ending? How well did this involve the audience?

5. How important was the theme of circumstantial evidence? The plea in court for its acceptance by the jury? The risks it runs in making guilt for an innocent person?

6. How well did the film portray the reality of the murders? The irony of the circumstances? Groom's asking the time, the man recognizing him, the meeting with Marjorie, the coat with the bloodstain, the key and the door? Were these enough to implicate Arthur Groom and make him guilty?

7. How interesting a character was Arthur Groom? Was there audience sympathy for him all the time? His initial lies to save his wife, the continued lies and their exposure during the trial? His love for his wife? The evidence and its effect on him? His confession of the obsession with Rose? Why the obsession, just wanting to help her or more? His suffering during the trial? The death penalty hanging over him? The irony of his not hanging? Did he deserve a happy ending?

8. How attractive was Mary Groom? An ordinary person, ordinary housewife? Her continued love of Arthur, her attitude towards the parents and neighbours? The sincerity of her support even though she was hurt? How important was this for the film?

9. The sinister appearances of the man who did the murders? At the trial, audience response to this? His showing off in speaking about justice to the police? His kindness and menacing of Mary Grow? The effect on her and the effect on the audience? His showing off with the letter and his ultimately being caught? What was his motivation for the murders?

10. How interesting was the conduct of the trial? Was it a just trial? The interrogation of the witnesses? The importance of Mrs. Rogers and her hostility and false evidence? The investigation of Marjorie? The cross-examination of Groom? The continual attacks on Groom and his deserving of this?

11. Was the irony of the ending too much? Could more have been done to save Groom? Was the happy ending the appropriate one for the film?