******
- Verified Buyer
The way I understand it, after some commercial failures and word getting around Hollywood that he was difficult to work with, Fritz Lang (Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler, Metropolis, M) found employment at the poverty row studios directing such features as this one titled House by the River (1950), which was released by Republic Productions. Based on a novel by British author A.P. Herbert, and adapted for the screen by Mel Dinelli (The Spiral Staircase), the film stars Louis Hayward (The Man in the Iron Mask), Jane Wyatt (Lost Horizon), and Lee Bowman (Buck Privates). Also appearing is Dorothy Patrick (Torch Song), Ann Shoemaker (Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo), and Jody Gilbert (Willard).As the story begins, aptly by a house by the river, we meet a man named Stephen Byrne (Hayward), an author of manuscripts, who's just received news that his most recent submission has been rejected. In an effort to console himself he decides to make a pass at his young, pretty maid Emily (Patrick), as nothing says class like trying to diddle the help when your wife's away. Anyway, Emily seriously freaks out, and Stephen accidentally strangles and kills the girl...smooth move, Ex-Lax...Stephen's cripple brother John (Bowman) makes the scene, game leg and all, and Stephen tries to claim Emily fell, but it's apparent to John the woman was murdered. Seems John has more than just a passing affinity for Stephen's wife Marjorie (Wyatt), who's away at the moment, and Stephen uses this to get John to help him dispose of the body (against John's better judgment), the pair stuffing the deceased into a wood sack and dumping it into the river. By this point it's pretty apparent that Stephen's a murderous, manipulative slime ball, but it gets worse. As time passes Emily's `disappearance' makes the news and some salacious rumors begin to circulate, specifically about Emily's character. As it turns out, the rumors were started by Stephen himself, and he's even gone so far as to steal some of his wife's things to make it appear Emily did it, and then took off, perhaps, with an unnamed suitor. For what purpose? Well one would think it was an effort to more fully cover his tracks, but in reality Stephen uses the generated publicity to help promote his books...okay, so not only is Stephen a murderous, manipulative slime ball, but a highly opportunistic one at that. As Stephen basks in newfound limelight, John's suffers terribly given the fact he's a human being with a conscience (Stephen seems to have one, but his is more easily stifled). Now here's where things get really interesting...the corpse surfaces, is found by the authorities, and there's an inquest, one that results in the appearance of guilt resting squarely on John's shoulders, something which Stephen seems to have little issue with...from here things continue their downward spiral as relationships degrade and Stephen, fearful his secret may come out, decides to tie up some loose ends...This is the third film I've seen by Fritz Lang, the other two being M (1931) and Scarlet Street (1945), and while I'm certainly not an authority, the general consensus seems to be this wasn't one of his best works. That might be true, but if it is the case, then even his middling efforts are still worth attention, in my opinion. Personally, I had a lot of fun with this gothic thriller set in Victorian times. One aspect I liked were the intricacies within the plot, the small details that helped flesh out the relationships, particularly between Stephen and John. Another film would have been content to leave some of this out for simplicity's sake, but I enjoyed the depth it added to the story. One element of the story I had a difficult time swallowing was Marjorie's inability to see her husband for what he really was, an oily, skeevy, lying, opportunistic philanderer and all around no-goodnik, especially since she wasn't portrayed as an idiot. Stephen was certainly charming, and there's a bit where Marjorie speaks to the fact that perhaps this charm had blinded her initially to his peccadilloes, but still, she seemed oblivious towards that which he was capable. At one point we do get a sense she knew about his philandering ways, among other things, so did it really seem all that unreasonable she might have connected Emily's disappearance to her husband long before she did? I don't think so...perhaps she just decided to ignore the obvious in the hopes that it wasn't true, in which case made me rather apathetic towards her character. I think Ms. Wyatt performed well enough despite some significant flaws within her character. As far as the two male leads, Hayward was a lot of fun to watch, especially in terms of seeing how far he was willing to go, not only to cover up his deeds, but also to capitalize on them. Well after the murder and disposal of the body John questions Stephen's willingness profit from the subsequent publicity, to which Stephen replies something about `the ends justifying the means'. I thought Bowman did well enough, but again, here's another character I found myself unable to develop any substantial sympathy for as he seemed to enable his brother's actions, even to the point of taking the blame, that and the fact he passively coveted his brother's wife. He certainly suffered for the former, but only because he allowed it. Despite these perceived issues, the story was engaging, and I thought the direction wonderful, as there were some really creepy visuals and the pacing brisk. The production values were quite good, especially given the fact the film was released by Republic, which specialized in low budget features (occasionally a larger studio would produce a film and then offer it to one of these poverty row studios for release, if it wasn't up to their standards). All in all, while this may be one of Lang's lesser efforts, it's still a great film and one worth checking out.The picture, presented in fullscreen (1.33:1), on this Kino Video DVD release, looks strong, but does show some signs of wear due to age. Apparently the source material was taken from a print obtained through the National Film and Television Archive in London, so chances are this is the best you see this rare film, at least until someone mounts a full blown restorative effort. The two channel mono audio comes through well enough, with only a slight background hiss. There are a couple of extras including a 7 ½ minute interview with filmmaker Pierre Rissient who apparently discovered the print used on this DVD, and a small photo gallery featuring lobby cards and production photos.Cookieman108
