Finger of Guilt (1956) User Reviews

redo the third act

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 5 November 2020]

Reggie Wilson (Richard Basehart) is worn out and recounts his story to his doctor. His Hollywood career ended after an affair with his boss's wife. He decided to pick up the pieces and move back to England. He married Lesley, daughter of a film producer and he's back in the game. It is all under threat when he starts receiving blackmail letters from a woman whom Reggie claims not to know.

I really like the premise. I don't like the progression of the last act. I don't get the pub meeting. I don't get their conversation. I don't get him for that section. There are obvious possible answers to the mystery woman. I kept waiting for him to get there. I don't like him discovering her with him on that set and redoing the dialogue. I'm not impressed with the reveal. I would redo the whole third act.

Sometimes it's the things that we haven't done that pay us back for the things we did

[kapelusznik18 · 6/10 · 30 March 2015]

****SPOILERS****British film executive Reggie Wilson, Richard Basehart, is about to commit himself into the "Funny Farm" because of all these letters he's been getting postage marked New Castle from this woman Evelyn Stewart, Mary Murphy, claiming that he had a hot and heavy affair with her back in New York some five years ago. Not remembering a thing about this supposed affair Reggie feeling he's being blackmailed goes to New Castle to confront Evelyn and finally get to the bottom of all this mental anguish he's being put through. Going to New Castle with his wife-a really bad idea-Lesley,Faith Brooke, it become apparent to everyone his wife the police as well as himself that there's some truth to Evelyn's accusations about his affair with her even though Reggie can't remember a thing about it!

With the head of the studio as well as his father-in-law Ben Case, not Ben Casey of the 1960's TV series,played by Roger Livesey giving Reggie a forced leave of absence he take a trip to the studio to both chill out and get his act together! It's then that everything comes together for him when he spots Evelyn showing up there for a job as if it's some kind of pay off by Case in her driving him nutty! What turns out is that Evelyn got her wires crossed in thinking that Case was behind all this manipulating poor Reggie's head! And that's when Reggie finally found who's been pulling the strings to get him kicked out of his job and end up in the loony bin!

****SPOILERS**** Wild final with Reggie finding out and exposing, with a hidden microphone, the person behind his troubles with his father-in-law and boss Ben Case listening in. Evelyn soon realizing that she somehow has been set up to be the pasty in all this takes a powder only to be caught as she tries to make a quick getaway form the studio grounds. As for the person who set Reggie up he tries to gun him down only to find out that the sub-machine, which he should have known, that he tried to blast him with was only a harmless movie prop!

Losey, huh? Surprising.

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 11 July 2015]

"Finger of Guilt" was directed by Joseph Losey and written by Howard Koch, under a pseudonym' both he and Losey were called to testify during the Red Scare and refused. Both men were certainly capable of interesting work; somehow this film comes off as not that special. The problem may be that it was originally 95 minutes and the version shown is 84.That can make a huge difference.

Richard Basehart is a film executive who left Hollywood after a scandal. Now he is in England, married to the boss' daughter (Lesley Wilson) with an excellent job at a studio, run by his father-in-law (Roger Livesey).

Reggie (Richard Basehart) has been receiving letters from someone he first believes is a fan, but the letters have become more aggressive, stating that they had an affair, and that she wants to continue it. Reggie is positive he doesn't know the woman, let alone had an affair with her.

He shows them to his boss Ben (Livesey). Then his wife receives a letter from this person, and Reggie decides to find her and confront her. His wife insists on accompanying him. The posts come from Newcastle, and they find the address, a rooming house.

The woman (Mary Murphy) turns out to be an actress and she knows way too much. She knows what he drinks and how he drinks it, where he's traveled -- Reggie begins to think he has a double personality. Meanwhile everyone seems to believe her, including his wife.

I wouldn't call this a film noir; it is an interesting movie that keeps you guessing but I for one was disappointed in the denouement.

Constance Cummings plays an actress, an old lover of Reggie's, who is supposed to star in his film, which is in jeopardy. She is excellent, as is Basehart.

I won't say this is a bad film at all, it just doesn't have Losey's artistic touches. Having seen films he made with Dirk Bogarde, this just seemed like an ordinary film for him. But again, I haven't seen the uncut version.

Worth checking out.

Slow but good thriller

[XhcnoirX · 7/10 · 20 September 2016]

Richard Basehart has moved on from his womanizing days in the US to steadier waters in the UK with wife Faith Brooke and now works as a successful producer for his wife's father Roger Livesey. During the production of his latest project, which stars one of his former flames Constance Cummings, he receives several letters from a person he doesn't know, claiming they had an affair. Initially thinking it's an attempt at blackmail, he shrugs it off. But when his wife also receives a letter, they decide enough is enough, and they visit the woman, Mary Murphy. When she persists in her story, even in front of the police, Basehart starts to have doubts. Could he really have forgotten?! Soon things start to fall apart for him, as Murphy's story, fabricated or not, starts to threaten his marriage as well as his career.

Released in the UK as 'The Intimate Stranger' and 'Finger Of Guilt' in the US, this movie starts off as a marital drama (told in flashback by Basehart), and slowly moves into thriller territories before culminating in a pretty exciting final 20 minutes inside a studio set. Written and directed by 2 men blacklisted by Hollywood, Joseph Losey ('The Prowler') and Howard Koch ('Casablanca'), the story can be easily seen as a metaphor for what they endured. But the movie never becomes self-righteous or preachy. Most of the movie is filmed in a matter-of-fact type of way, focusing squarely on Basehart ('He Walked By Night'), leaving the viewer guessing about Murphy ('The Desperate Hours') and the truth. Basehart is solid as a man who's confronted with a past he's forgotten about, or has he? Murphy however is great, she manages to come off as both lying and telling the truth at the same time, shrugging of his questions with ease, which in turn confuses him even more. The rest of the cast are also good, thankfully, as the movie is dialogue-heavy and has a pretty slow pace, especially in the first half.

Visually the movie combines 2 opposites. The opening scene as well as the climax are shot imaginatively, appealing to noir heads. The rest of the movie however is shot in a mostly shadow-less, almost TV-like, manner. Having said that, DoP Gerald Gibbs ('No Orchids For Miss Blandish') does a nice job. The climax inside a studio set is beautifully shot, with some creative shots and angles, including a fist fight that moves in and out of a light illuminating a projection screen used for dailies, projecting a shadow fistfight. It stands in stark contrast with the rest of the movie but it also makes the climax more effective. All in all, it's a good drama/thriller that skirts into noir territories. 7/10

finger of guilt.

[josephmcgrath-62358 · 7/10 · 24 August 2016]

a rainy day in the upper Midwest,and waiting to pick up my grandson from school. had me turning on TCM during it's summer under the stars to see who was being featured today. Constance Cummings I was unfamiliar with, however in the previous movie along with Cummings Ralph Bellamy and Irene Dunne stared. I began watching " finger of guilt. having grown up watching 20,000 leagues under the sea with Richard basehart? ( I think that was the name of the series) I began to watch this film. I love location movies, in particular London in the mid 50's. what a terrific movie. basehart was outstanding and Mary Murphy was absolutely stunning. her beauty and the role she played was outstanding. the supporting actors were great. all recognizable , and such pro's. that made a low budget film so wonderful. really a great surprise for a rainy day. wonderful movie !

Good, not great

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 17 July 2015]

I don't know why, but somehow Richard Basehart always reminded me just a little of Richard Burton...although I liked Basehart a bit more. Unfortunately, Basehart never made it to the A list, even though I thought he was a good and fairly interesting actor. Maybe the problem was scripts that left a bit to be desired...like this one.

Here, his character as a film director seems...well, a tad bit stereotypical, at least on the surface. Really, constantly carrying around a cane for no reason just seems a little goofy.

But, once you get back the superficial aspects of this film, it gets pretty good. What has to happen to get to that point is getting past the mysterious letters that seem to be hinting at blackmail, to actually meeting the mysterious girl...which finally does happen. Then things get quite good, quite interesting as the mystery deepens.

If you look carefully, you'll see this film was on a pretty cheap budget (for example, painted books on a bookshelf). The other problem I have with this film is that it has that sort of tawdry look to it that was not uncommon in lower budget 1950s film...that lacked the class of film noir.

The ending is pretty good, although hardly unique.

Let's put it this way -- you could do worse. It's worth a watch, but I doubt you'll buy it for your DVD shelf.

The title "Finger of Guilt" was the more appropriate one

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 27 April 2020]

This film is a quaint work from Losey. First, he did not choose to identify it as his work, when he was the actual director and Snowden the actual producer. Second, the original name "Finger of Guilt" was replaced by "The Intimate Stranger," when the first title would be more appropriate.

The film does belong to Basehart (The clown of "La Strada") and Murphy (the love interest of Brando in "The Wild One") who carry the film. And, of course, the writer and screenplay writer Howard Koch, who along with Losey was blacklisted for their left-wing views. Like most works of Losey, the class differences do play a role. Evelyn is a small time starlet, Reggie is the rich film director. Reggie, like Losey, is running away from Hollywood (for different reasons). Koch brings out the intrigues within the studio. But that fact that a machine gun in a studio would have blanks is known to most viewers, but in the film a person who has worked long in the studios seem to forget that--now that is totally unrealistic!

The end of the film has a lovely twist when Evelyn asks Reggie to light her cigarette. That one detail will convince an astute viewer the appropriateness of the title "Finger of Guilt." Reminds one of the ending of "Basic Instinct."

Boring and overwrought

[PaulusLoZebra · 5/10 · 11 November 2022]

Finger of Guilt, aka The Intimate Stranger, might have been made by the great duo of Losey and Koch, but it was a huge disappointment and the longest 85 minutes I can remember. Every scene is overplayed, every scene is too long, and the film has a stilted, unnatural aura. The first 60 minutes are especially weak. Mary Murphy is alluring and convincing as a seductive temptress, but the other performances feel wooden. Many reviewers are sympathetic to the backstory of Losey's and Koch's estrangement from Hollywood and betrayal by the top studio bosses during the anti-Communist witch hunts. They celebrate this story of studio betrayal as payback. It is plausible to me that viewers who know that story before seeing the film are much more inclined to like the film and find meaning in the long and boring early scenes. But Losey and Koch made a fatal error. They did not start the story with any hints of rivalry or jealously or suspicion; these were all revealed at the end. But that means that viewers with no perspective on the "big meaning" of the film have no way to see that or feel it until the "big reveal" at the end.

Suspicion and guilt

[hof-4 · 7/10 · 4 February 2022]

According to the streaming services, this movie was directed by Joseph Losey, which makes it automatically a movie of interest. I gave it a watch, and found that producer Alex C. Snowden was credited with the direction. The explanation: Losey, (who had begun a promising career in Hollywood with movies that included The Boy with Green Hair, 1948) was summoned in 1951 by the House Un-American Activities Committee in charge of "rooting out Communism" from the movie industry. Rather than being a victim of the Committee's well known extortion and intimidation tactics, Losey sought exile in the UK. He was not totally free of persecution in his new country; at the time (as today) the Brits were intent on pleasing their American overlords and Losey was closely watched since his arrival and had to use a pseudonym in the first movies he directed in the UK (his travails are shown in Irwin Winkler's movie Guilty by Suspicion, 1991 where Martin Scorsese plays a character based on Losey). However, he managed to establish himself gradually in the British studios and ended up directing numerous movies in the UK and in France, some of them masterpieces like Mr. Klein (1976).

The subject of this movie is the stalking of Reggie Wilson, (an American director working in a London studio, and married to his boss' daughter) by a woman that claims to be his former lover. Wilson denies the claim but the skillful direction and the script by Howard Koch keep us guessing until the very end who is telling the truth. Koch, of Casablanca fame was blacklisted in 1951 after being denounced by Jack L Warner as a Communist sympathizer. The same as Losey he found work in the British cinema although he also had to use a pseudonym for a while (in this movie he "is" Peter Howard). As in many other films of the genre, the climax is perhaps a little bit of a letdown. Losey and Koch show a realistic, gritty view of the inner workings of a movie studio, a subject very familiar to both. Richard Basehart plays the not/so/lovable Wilson flawlessly and the other actors are as good. Whatever its (very few) faults this is a movie worth watching. One wishes for a restored copy with straightened out credits.

I Didn't Do I, I Tell You!

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 22 March 2016]

It's bad enough when your past catches up to you, but it's even worse when somebody else's idea of what your past should be catches up to you.

Richard Basehart is a movie maker. A scandal back in the states has driven him to begin a new career in England. That's a plot that should have resonated with the director, Joseph Losey. Basehart's current project is expensive and dicey and the studio is on edge about overruns and expensive costumes.

Then Basehart, a happily married man, begins to get loving letters reminding him of a past romance from a woman named Evelyn. That would be Mary Murphy. Basehart, already tense, his reputation as a womanizer haunting his reputation, becomes an unhappily harried man and is driven to see a shrink, who is of no help.

He tracks down Mary Murphy and she insists that her story is real, that they had a passionate affair in New York and he'd promised her a job if she came to England. Everything she says rings true. She even convinced the police. He loses his job, his wife leaves him, and he develops a monster hangnail. Either she's lying, for reasons no one can discern, or Basehart is some kind of multiple personality. I won't give away the ending.

Basehart is a likable guy. He LOOKS like a reliable Mid-Western type, but his best roles have involved twisted characters. Mary Murphy is a beautiful woman. She was a winsome small-town girl in "The Wild Ones." But here she's not up to the demands of a bitchy, self-serving manipulator. And grooming doesn't help. They've given her a severe hair style and dressed her in "sophisticated" black outfits with some kind of girdle or foundation garment underneath that has pinched her waist into nullity and caused her rear to look cantilevered.

Joseph Losey's direction is straightforward for the most part. What isn't strictly functional -- a fist fight shown by shadows on a wall -- isn't too original. And the violent ending seems excessive, with a pudgy and middle-aged Mervyn Johns being knocked about the room by a furious Basehart.

Great 1950s studio based thriller

[clive_fuller-1 · 10/10 · 11 May 2005]

This film is one which I saw on TV many many years ago on Yorkshire and eventually obtained an American copy a few years back. Directed by Joseph Losey this film has great atmosphere and some great stars too. Unusual for the time there are good location shots and realistic studio backgrounds too. My copy "Finger of Guilt" is the edited version which was distributed by RKO but in spite of this I love the twists and turns of the plot and if you get the chance watch it vote on it too. This film is a high-spot in the history of Merton Park and shows what can be done on a modest budget with actors who know their stuff. Richard Basehart is brilliant as he struggles to solve the question "was it true" and Roger Livesey is believable as the studio boss. Look out to for a host of Merton Park regulars such as Andre Mikhelson who plays a designer in this film.

Letters from an unknown woman

[ulicknormanowen · 6/10 · 29 August 2020]

Or is she ? Because she claims that the hero ,a married man who works as an executive in a film production company ,was her lover before ; she sends letter ,urging him to do something before ... before she takes her own life? Or does she want a hefty sum of money? Or is it pure vengeance ?

Wilson does not remember at all ,or is he starting to lose his mind? Or is it he who pulls the strings?

Generally ,women are subject to this kind of strange conspiracy , so as to drive them insane ; as for men ,it's rare ,hence the main originality of "the intimate stranger" aka " finger of guilt" .

The story is rather gripping , Richard Basehart gives an ambiguous performance (he may pretend ,after all) ,and Mary Murphy recalls the woman with an angel face ,a la Jean Simmons .

The film is rather talky ,and ,though it's not based on a play ,most of the action could be performed on stage ;only the last scenes have got something of cinema , but the final trick was borrowed ,among others, from Kazan's " a face in the crowd".

Fine acting and a story which holds water,but listless directing.

Koch And Bull

[writers_reign · 5/10 · 13 June 2009]

This has to be one of the most unrealistic movies that ever came down the pike. It may have been unintentional but the irony of setting something largely in a film studio, i.e. a place where they manufacture unreality, and then portraying that studio as a neglected corner of a run-down industrial estate is priceless. Richard Basehart as head of the studio has an office about as prepossessing as that of a minor official in Eastern Europe in the late sixties and that of his father-in-law and movie mogul Roger Livesey is superior only in the sense that it boasts superior oilcloth on the floor. The story, by Howard Koch, who - unbelievably on this showing - co-scripted Casablanca, is so clearly a metaphor for the Blacklist (both Koch and director Losey, were victims and worked here under John Does) that it becomes risible which it shouldn't do because there were many innocent victims 'accused' of things they hadn't done during the HUAC years and the denouement involving Mervyn Johns is pathetic. Losey completists will want to see it but of you're not one stay home and watch Big Brother.

No, not the screaming banshee Mary Murphy...

[ripplinbuckethead · 7/10 · 2 September 2019]

An American filmmaker living in London named Reggie Wilson (Richard Basehart) has been receiving letters from a woman named Evelyn (Mary Murphy), speaking about their past together. The problem is, he knows it didn't happen. But Evelyn knows it did. Is Wilson going crazy? How will Wilson convince his wife-and even himself-that this is just an elaborate case of blackmail?

Quite an interesting mystery here. The stories that Evelyn presents and her conviction about them sound so convincing that Wilson even sees a doctor to find out if there's something wrong with him that he'd forget something like that so completely.

The performances were solid and I like how it played out. A good one that the uncredited Joseph Losey was probably happy with.

I should also point out that the timing is pretty funny, since I chose this one at random to watch today when just last night, I watched an episode of Donahue on YouTube where former KISS drummer Peter Criss was on to confront a homeless impersonator who had caused him a lot of trouble...along with an actress who was taking care of the impersonator and claimed she and Criss had a relationship in the past.

Finger of Guilt

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 26 May 2023]

There are a couple of scenes in this mystery drama between "Reggie" (Richard Basehart) and "Evelyn" (Mary Murphy) that are actually quite effective. The latter woman has become the stalker of the former, putting great pressure on his marriage to "Lesley" (Faith Brook) even though he swears blind that he has never even met her! When the couple travel to Newcastle to confront the woman, things take a turn for the worst when she presents a signed photo of him... What's going on? Well, having teed it up quite intriguingly, the rest of the plot falls away pretty quickly as Constance Cummings (the lovestruck actress "Kay") and his fair but suspicious boss "Ben" - the underused Roger Livesey - feature in a declining story of duplicity and plotting that doesn't sustain the psychological element well, but degenerates into a rather messy and clunky affair. Basehart is competent - all you could ever really say about him, and Livesey's voice always had an effect in a film, but otherwise it's all about the first - engaging - twenty minutes.

"Father warned me that your sort of past wouldn't stay in the past."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 11 June 2022]

For just a little while this film had me guessing like the 1955 picture "Diabolique", but with nowhere near the intensity of that French masterpiece. The reveal, when it comes, arrives a little out of left field with nothing to telegraph studio assistant Ernie Chaple's (Mervyn Johns) intense dislike of producer Reginald Wilson (Richard Basehart), other than studio owner Ben Case's (Roger Livesey) determination to save his daughter Lesley (Faith Brook) from making a mistake by marrying Wilson. The conspiracy between Ernie and Evelyn Stewart (Mary Murphy) to destroy Reggie's marriage and get him fired from Commonwealth Pictures might have worked if Wilson hadn't been so persistent in uncovering the truth. His one mistake might have been kissing Evelyn after leaving the pub and walking her home, but she sort of gave it away by tactfully retreating after all indications to the contrary up to that point. The very last scene was puzzling, with Lesley running back to Reggie's open arms when she couldn't have known what just happened at the studio to expose the Ernie/Evelyn frame-up.

Finger of Guilt

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 31 March 2024]

Actor Reggie Wilson's career as a film editor in Hollywood was ruined when he got involved with his boss's wife. In order to make a new life he has moved to England. He works at a small film studio and, having put his old ways behind him, has married the daughter of his new boss. Things are going well till he starts getting letters from Evelyn Stewart; a woman he claims to have no knowledge of. She certainly acts as if she knows him. When Reggie and his wife track her down she certainly seems very plausible. Is she telling the truth and if so is Reggie lying or, due to some mental condition, does he really have no memory of her?

I thought this was a solid enough film. It is a melodrama with some film noir elements; Evelyn certainly comes across as a femme fatale but this lacks the murderous elements usually associated with that genre. The mystery is entirely centred on who is telling the truth and Reggie's sanity and this kept me guessing almost till the obvious reveal. Richard Basehart does a solid job as Reggie making the viewer believe the character is starting to doubt his own sanity. Mary Murphy impresses as Evelyn, a character who tells a believable story. The rest of the cast are solid enough too. The story plays out well even if the ending isn't perfect. Overall I'd not call this a must see but it passes an hour and a half well enough for fans of older films.

Zero suspense

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 12 December 2021]

I didn't think much of this slow-burning potboiler from Joseph Losey, made in England with imported lead Richard Basehart. He plays an unlikeable everyman who finds himself pursued by a woman who claims of an affair with him, although he has no memory of such a thing. An interesting setup, but it merely whiles away the time here without doing anything interesting with the premise, and the suspense is zero.

Studio Fail

[anil-kulkarni-108-85663 · 5/10 · 9 May 2021]

Slight pedestrian effort by today's standards. A main character who's a philanderer, now married and going straight, gets accused of having an affair.

The main character is shown up to be a bit of a cad so doesn't gain any sympathy.

But he's a producer now and theres a game afoot to get him out. How it resolves itself is the rest of the effort. Avoidable.

Behind the Scenes "Who Done It"!!!

[kidboots · 8/10 · 5 April 2011]

This movie, a cynical look at betrayal in the film industry, was directed by someone who had first hand knowledge - Joseph Losey. With a great blend of British actors (Roger Livesey, Mervyn Johns and Faith Brook, who I had just seen a few days before in a superb British "Thriller" episode "In the Steps of a Dead Man") and a couple of American ex-pats - Richard Basehart and Constance Cummings, it is a nicely paced "who done it" set behind the scenes at a British film studio (Shepparton Studios).

Film producer, Reggie Wilson (Richard Basehart) is worried he may have a dual personality. Fleeing Hollywood, he finds himself in England and married to the bosses' daughter (Faith Brook) after which he quickly rises through the studio ranks. Then the letters appear.... from a love sick fan (he thinks) who wants to know why he has thrown her over. Meanwhile, his father-in-law "Big Ben" is worried about the money being poured into the studio's first big budget movie and is demanding cuts!! On top of which, imported leading lady Kay Wallace (Constance Cummings) realises she is not right for the role and is being a prima donna.

Mary Murphy bought a quiet intensity to her acting but even though she was in films for two decades, the only time she really stood out was as the shy girl who gave hope to Marlon Brando in "The Wild One". Here she had a more conventional role as Evelyn Stewart, the duplicitous letter writer. She handled the part well but I will always remember her beauty - why wasn't she better known!!! Being a Joseph Losey ("The Prowler", "The Servant") picture, you couldn't fault it and when Reggie starts to put two and two together to add up to just who Evelyn Stewart really was, the pace really picks up.

Constance Cummings was an under rated American actress ("The Criminal Code") who went to England in the mid thirties as so many did whose careers were stalling, but unlike many, made good and decided to stay.

Highly Recommended.

A real head scratcher.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 5 August 2022]

While well filmed and filled with technical elements that makes film noir a visual treat, the story and structure are messy in a convoluted way that will frustrate many viewers. In a sense, it's a pretentious way of trying to manipulate the viewer to think that they are watching something intelligent when the writers should have been a bit more clear in their efforts to tell a powerful psychological story that makes the lead character, Richard Basehart, question whether or not he has amnesia or a split personality. An early film for avant garde director Joseph Losey that shows promise

He's an American film executive basically blacklisted from the industry who has to go to England to find work and finds himself the possible victim of blackmail thanks to letters arriving from a woman he doesn't even remember meeting. His wife (Faith Brook) goes with him to meet the young lady (Mary Murphy) who claims that they were involved before he got married, and when his wife sees them later on, she assumes the worst. Details about his past in New York are revealed which involves his affair with his boss's wife, Constance Cummings, and this leads to a rather messy conclusion at the studio where he works that had me wondering if I missed something.

Technically, this is excellent, and it certainly rises above the B status. There are some great shadows utilized in the fight scene at the conclusion, but it took so long to get to that point and the viewer by that time is frustrated. Basehart and the three ladies are all quite good, with Murphy showing vulnerability in what otherwise could have been a one-dimensional femme fatale. It's always good to see veteran actress Cummings, and Brook is appropriately anguished as the wife who wonders what is a matter with her husband until all is revealed. But it's one of those films that when all is revealed the viewer may declare it as a major letdown. If anything, it's the film industries dark look at itself as a ruthless and unforgiving business that is the one daring element. Otherwise, a real let down after a unique setup.

Basehart, great as always.

[mikequinlan61 · 8/10 · 9 July 2013]

OK, perhaps I rated this a little too high, but anything featuring the very good Richard Basehart is fine in my book. Having seen this a while ago, I recently watched the beginning and the ending once again.

The beginning draws you in to a story which, while not especially original, does provide enough mystery and twists and turns to be involving. The actors are all highly professional, and the directing is serviceable. Earlier reviews have suggested that Losey (director) had the usual axe to grind as a blacklisted Hollywood veteran. Well, perhaps, but if that was the case, he didn't succeed.

Instead what we have is a psychological drama (a la film noir) in which our protagonist is assailed by an unkind fate (personified by an unexpectedly satisfying Mary Murphy). Things go badly as the film moves toward the predictable climax, when all is revealed. Here, Losey pulls out all of his particular directorial stops and gives us a good cinematic treat as Basehart tangles with the real (albeit somewhat wimpy) villain of the piece in a shadow play bravura conflict. Decent film, well worth your time. 4 out of 5.

Joseph Losey Surely Was The Man For A Film About Betrayal In the Film Industry

[Handlinghandel · 8/10 · 25 November 2004]

This is a stylish and engrossing noir. The music seems a bit dated but the use of background sound is inventive and seems to presage Godard's. Is this Joseph Losey's best? No. "Time Without Pity," a year later, is far more powerful and less predictable. Not at all predictable, actually, and this one is. The resolution is not a surprise, exactly, but it is powerfully presented and moving.

Mary Murphy played a good bitch. I haven't seen her in many movies but it seems that she often was cast in this was. Losey uses the clattering of her high heels effectively. Actually, she is not a thoroughly bad character. She feels remorse.

Constance Cummins is excellent as the star imported for the main character's big project. Her helping him out of his predicament is touching. And Richard Basehart: One of the best American actors, he is superb here. He did not win the conventional awards but will long be remembered, if only for his beautiful playing in "La Strada" (and for his mousy pharmacist in what I consider the perfect noir: "Tension.")

Is it erotomania or is he a total cad?

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 23 February 2017]

Erotomania is the psychological term used to describe someone who is delusional and has convinced themselves that another person loves them...a person who they possibly never even met. It often happens with crazed fans in love with a famous person but the fixation could occur on a normal, everyday person as well. Erotomaniacs are not obviously insane, but this delusion is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to rid the person of despite therapy. I mention this because through much of "Finger of Guilt" you aren't sure whether this has occurred to Reggie Wilson (Richard Basehart) or whether he's a total cad and simply is lying to hide an affair.

When the film begins, Reggie has moved to the UK following some sort of scandal he was involved in with some married woman. Now he's married to the boss of a British studio and has a very important job producing movies. However, he begins receiving letters from a lady in Newcastle asking him why he is ignoring her and demanding he contact her. But he insists he has no idea who the woman is and even tells his father-in-law about this situation. And then, the women begins calling the studio...demanding to talk with him. By this point, Reggie's wife has heard about all this and it's obvious that she's beginning to suspect her hubby is a lying troll. So, Reg takes the wife up to Newcastle to confront the lady...and the lady INSISTS she and Reggie have been lovers, though she can provide no concrete proof. Who are you to believe? So is this any good? And is it really a case of erotomania? See the film and learn for yourself.

The fact that Richard Basehart is in a British film isn't too surprising. Basehart was a very minor star in the States and made movies in Europe (including a film for Fellini) for several years. This is because European studios thought that by putting an American or two in the leads, it would increase the marketability of the films internationally.

All in all, a pretty good film. I didn't love the ending...and part of it is because it wasn't 100% convincing. Still, an interesting and unusual story.

By the way, this film does make you wonder how many people and marriages have been destroyed by erotomaniacs. While this is relatively common with celebrities and accepted as a normal part of fame, what about common folk who suddenly have women or men insisting they love them? For an amazingly good film about this, try to see the French film "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not"....it's among the very best French movies of the last several decades!