SLEUTH

US, 1972, 138 minutes, Colour.
Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine.
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz.

Sleuth is a tailor-made, expert thriller that should satisfy most adult audiences. It is based on tricks that might be seen through, but even this would not detract from the entertainment.

It is a film (based closely on the play by Anthony Shaffer - Peter Shaffer's brother - who also wrote Hitchcock's Frenzy and The Wicker Man) for two actors, and it is extraordinary how they hold audience attention for so long. Of course, the atmosphere of the detective story, the gibes at detective story writers the games played, the caustic dialogue all compel interest. But it is the performance of Laurence Olivier that is superb and demands attention, from mastery to fear, from urbanity to madness, he is the complete actor. He is well-matched by Michael Caine in an excellent performance, a more serious variation on his usual roles. Film, director, and both actors received Oscar nominations for 1972. Olivier won the New York Critic's Award. Joseph L. Mankiewicz is a civilised director. Amongst his many successes over almost thirty years are -All About Eve; Julius Caesar; Suddenly Last Summer. Other interesting films he made are - Guys and Dolls; Cleopatra; The Honey Pot.

1. Why was this film enjoyable?

2. Designed almost exclusively as entertainment, it is entertainment of a very urbane and sophisticated kind. What are its main features? How successful are they on the screen?

3. The film is over two and a quarter hours in length with only two actors. How well do the actors retain audience interest? How skilful was the director in making such an absorbing film?

4. Was the plot clever - games, reality, disguises, tricks, bluffing? Too clever?

5. The dialogue - witty, parody, satire on the detective story genre whilst illustrating and entertaining by these conventions?

6. The use of visual symbols to communicate the meaning of the characters, plot?

7. The nature of suspense. Why does the audience become involved?

8. Your impression of Wyke - intelligent, civilised, clever, sane, mad, hatred? What did you think of Laurence Olivier's performance? Was he convincing?

9. Milo - playboy, poor boy makes good, hairdresser, Italian origins and consciousness? How well did Michael Caine play the part?

10. Give examples of the insights and values of the film.

11. How satisfying was the ending? How ironic?

12. Why did the film get so many Oscar nominations - actors, film, director? Do you think it deserved so many awards?

13. Technical visual details: Milo seeks Wyke through a maze, the games equipment, Milo in clown’s clothes; Wyke tormenting Milo, the torment of death, (the placing of intermission), the interrogation of the inspector, the ending?

14. Intricacies of character: Wyke's relationship to his wife, mistress, inviting Milo, executing his plan, morbidity in terrifying Milo about death, fear of the Inspector, fear of being found out concerning the death of his mistress, trying to find the clues, final killing and terror of the police. The contrast of Milo victimised by Wyke, playing Wyke's games, yet the shot changing him; his gloating over deceiving Wyke and terrifying him. And yet, he loses.

15. Values: death and fear of death; the death experience changing a man; playing God; games and never growing up; lies, bluffing; cruelty; appearances and reality.