"Madeleine" is possibly David Lean's most underrated film, perhaps because of its slow pace and the miscasting of Lean's wife Ann Todd in the title role, (though I think she makes a fair stab at the part). Based on fact, it's the story of Madeleine Smith who stood trial for the murder of her lover in Victorian Glasgow. As her French seducer, Ivan Desny is excellent, as is Leslie Banks as her stern father and the film looks wonderful thanks to Guy Green's gorgeous black and white photography and John Bryan's set designs while Lean's direction is as impeccable as ever. If the film has a fault it's a certain stiffness in the telling. Not much seen nowadays but essential Lean nevertheless.
38 Reviews
A Fascinating, slightly flawed film from David Lean's early period
Tobias_R26 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
David Lean's film Madeleine tells the true story of Madeleine Smith, a young woman from an upper-class Scottish family, who was tried for murdering her lover in 1857. The case, which was a media sensation in its day, ended with Ms. Smith being released after the jury reached the verdict of "not proved", which, in Scottish law, meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict her but sufficient evidence to entertain doubts about her innocence. The movie maintains the same ambiguity about her guilt or innocence of the crime, indeed ending with a voice over narrator asking the title character as to whether she was guilty or innocent. She just looks at the camera and gives a vague half smile that could mean either of the two.
The strengths of the film are considerable. The lighting and overall cinematography give the film both a wonderful Victorian-era feel and a film-noir aspect as well. Indeed, the film has much in common with film-noir aside from the lighting. The story, like many noir films, has a dubious heroine who leads a fundamentally disadvantaged man, in this case, a lover from the wrong side of the tracks economically and socially, to his destruction. Indeed, given the situation presented in the film, the lover couldn't have realistically expected Madeleine's domineering and strict father to have ever accepted him given his poor social and economic prospects. Adding into the mix was Madeleine's own ambivalent handling of their relationship, promising one moment to tell her father about them, then pleading it was too difficult to do so. As history indeed bore out, it was a recipe for personal disaster.
My main criticism of the film is that virtually nothing is told of how Madeleine managed to meet her lover in the first place. Some accounts I've read indicated that they first met in a Glasgow park. I think Lean should have shown that meeting to show how Madeleine had a mind of her own and how willing she was to defy her conventional and strict Victorian father. That would have added to the ambiguity of Madeleine's character, seemingly compliant to the demands of her family in terms of love and marriage and yet defiant of them as well.
Still, the performances, especially Ann Todd as the title character, are top notch and this is a film well worth seeing. As I've said, this is the closest David Lean came to film-noir that I've seen.
The strengths of the film are considerable. The lighting and overall cinematography give the film both a wonderful Victorian-era feel and a film-noir aspect as well. Indeed, the film has much in common with film-noir aside from the lighting. The story, like many noir films, has a dubious heroine who leads a fundamentally disadvantaged man, in this case, a lover from the wrong side of the tracks economically and socially, to his destruction. Indeed, given the situation presented in the film, the lover couldn't have realistically expected Madeleine's domineering and strict father to have ever accepted him given his poor social and economic prospects. Adding into the mix was Madeleine's own ambivalent handling of their relationship, promising one moment to tell her father about them, then pleading it was too difficult to do so. As history indeed bore out, it was a recipe for personal disaster.
My main criticism of the film is that virtually nothing is told of how Madeleine managed to meet her lover in the first place. Some accounts I've read indicated that they first met in a Glasgow park. I think Lean should have shown that meeting to show how Madeleine had a mind of her own and how willing she was to defy her conventional and strict Victorian father. That would have added to the ambiguity of Madeleine's character, seemingly compliant to the demands of her family in terms of love and marriage and yet defiant of them as well.
Still, the performances, especially Ann Todd as the title character, are top notch and this is a film well worth seeing. As I've said, this is the closest David Lean came to film-noir that I've seen.
true story told by David Lean
blanche-22 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Ann Todd is "Madeleine" in this 1950 film directed by David Lean. The film also features Norman Wooland, Ivan Desny, Andre Morrell and Elizabeth Sellars. The film looks at the true story of the famous Madeleine Smith murder trial in the mid-1800s. Pressured by her upper class family to marry, Madeleine is in fact secretly intimately involved with a man from a lower class, L'Anglier (Desny) and has agreed to marry him. She doesn't want to tell her family, so she urges him to elope with her. L'Anglier was planning on marrying into the upper class lifestyle and insists instead that she tell her father (Leslie Banks) about their relationship. She can't, and believing that all L'Anglier wanted was her money all along, she breaks off with him and requests the return of her letters to him. She then agrees to marry William Minnoch (Wooland), who has been courting her.
L'Anglier doesn't return her letters, and after she purchases arsenic, he dies of arsenic poison, having become ill at her house once before. Madeleine is arrested for murder.
The film seems to follow the case quite accurately, but it's pretty cut and dried. There are some marvelous scenes - the two dancing in the moonlight is one, as an increasingly wilder dance goes on inside. The structure of the courtroom was interesting, as I had never seen a prisoner walk upstairs into the dock from what is almost a trap door in the floor. The view of all the faces looking down before she starts the climb gives an idea of what it's like to be put on trial.
Ann Todd is a good actress, though an internalized one who comes off as rather cold. She was married to Lean, which may be the reason for her casting. At the time of the murder, Madeleine's father was displeased that she wasn't married, complaining that she had met many men but none of them have worked out. She was twenty when she took up with L'Anglier and 22 when she broke it off. Todd was 41 at the time this film was made. She was not carefully photographed and looked her age - way too old for this role. Andre Morrell is excellent as Madeleine's attorney. The rest of the performances are very good, with Banks a strong, intimidating father and Desny hinting at the slime that's below the surface of L'Anglier. Norman Wooland gives a charming and concerned performance as Madeleine's suitor, Minnoch.
Lean's opinion of what happened is made very clear in the last moments of the film. Someone said the story needed Hitchcock's hand, but he was not successful with "The Paradine Case." There's something about these stories that is very detached and unemotional. Maybe Hitchcock could have cracked it; this early effort by David Lean doesn't quite make it.
L'Anglier doesn't return her letters, and after she purchases arsenic, he dies of arsenic poison, having become ill at her house once before. Madeleine is arrested for murder.
The film seems to follow the case quite accurately, but it's pretty cut and dried. There are some marvelous scenes - the two dancing in the moonlight is one, as an increasingly wilder dance goes on inside. The structure of the courtroom was interesting, as I had never seen a prisoner walk upstairs into the dock from what is almost a trap door in the floor. The view of all the faces looking down before she starts the climb gives an idea of what it's like to be put on trial.
Ann Todd is a good actress, though an internalized one who comes off as rather cold. She was married to Lean, which may be the reason for her casting. At the time of the murder, Madeleine's father was displeased that she wasn't married, complaining that she had met many men but none of them have worked out. She was twenty when she took up with L'Anglier and 22 when she broke it off. Todd was 41 at the time this film was made. She was not carefully photographed and looked her age - way too old for this role. Andre Morrell is excellent as Madeleine's attorney. The rest of the performances are very good, with Banks a strong, intimidating father and Desny hinting at the slime that's below the surface of L'Anglier. Norman Wooland gives a charming and concerned performance as Madeleine's suitor, Minnoch.
Lean's opinion of what happened is made very clear in the last moments of the film. Someone said the story needed Hitchcock's hand, but he was not successful with "The Paradine Case." There's something about these stories that is very detached and unemotional. Maybe Hitchcock could have cracked it; this early effort by David Lean doesn't quite make it.
Getting the story as right as possible
theowinthrop31 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In 1857 a citizen of Great Britain (from the Channel Island of Jersey) named Emile L'Angelier died after a brief illness in his rooms in a rooming house in Glasgow, Scotland. From comments he muttered his friend and his landlady wondered if his death was natural or from poison. For Emile mentioned that he had felt the same way the last time he saw "Mimi". The authorities found Emile had letters, initially love letters, but some seeming to show increasing agitation to end the relationship, and then the letters start encouraging the deceased to see his girlfriend. The author of these letters was Madeleine Smith, the daughter of a prominent architect in Glasgow. An autopsy revealed that Emile died of arsenic poisoning, not gastroenteritis or some other illness.
Madeleine was from a very proper family, with a stern father. It was expected that she would make a proper marriage only - not to some nobody like Emile L'Angelier. And she was engaged to an older professional man, Mr. William Minnoch. But L'Angelier was socially ambitious, and wanted to advance in Glasgow society. This would be done by marrying into a wealthy family like Madeleine's. So L'Angelier would be less likely to want to end the relationship (and return those love letters), and be more willing to blackmail his girlfriend into marrying him. It was a bad situation, and only the death of L'Angelier or his marriage with Madeleine would have settled it.
Madeleine was arrested, and tried in the High Court in Glasgow. She was defended by Scotland's greatest barrister of the day, John Inglis. Inglis managed to show great ambiguity over many points in the police case. This included the fact that L'Angelier treated himself with patent medicines (some containing arsenic). Also, that the melancholy L'Angelier had spoken of doing himself in occasionally. Nobody ever saw Madeleine and L'Angelier together on those past occasions where he became violently ill. Arsenic had been traced to Madeleine, but she claimed it was used on her pretty face to improve her complexion (which happened to be a use for arsenic). The end result was the jury returned the Scot verdict, "Not Proved". The evidence never was conclusive enough to result in conviction or acquittal.
Her subsequent career was quiet but interesting. No further murders (at least none we know of). She did not marry Minnoch. Her family kept her at arms length. She moved to London, and showed some real spirit by embracing the socialist/labor movement. She married George Wardle, an artist who worked closely with fellow socialist William Morris, and had among her socialist friends George Bernard Shaw. Her marriage to Wardle collapsed after an argument in the 1880s. They divorced in 1889. She married a second time, moved to New York City, and she lived in the Bronx as "Lena Sheehy" (Sheehy was her second husband's name). She died in 1928, and is buried (as Lena Sheehy) in the Bronx.
In 1950 David Lean was still in his "little movie" period. He was telling stories about regular people, like BRIEF ENCOUNTER on THIS HAPPY BREED, and was not ready to do his big spectaculars like BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and DR. ZHIVAGO. MADELEINE was a type of bridging film, as it was his first attempt to do an historical movie. So it is longer than most of his films in this period. However, in this case the film could have been shed some of the first half hour (the scene where Ann Todd joins a Scottish dance might have been dropped), but the film as a whole remains good - and skittish. Although most people feel that Madeleine did poison Emile, there are many who think it was not her but Emile committing suicide and trying to frame his "Mimi" (who had dropped him), or overdosing on some arsenic based nostrum he took for his health. Lean's movie leaves it as it should be - an everlasting question-mark. Madeleine would have approved, perhaps, but to the end of her life she always denied she poisoned her lover.
Madeleine was from a very proper family, with a stern father. It was expected that she would make a proper marriage only - not to some nobody like Emile L'Angelier. And she was engaged to an older professional man, Mr. William Minnoch. But L'Angelier was socially ambitious, and wanted to advance in Glasgow society. This would be done by marrying into a wealthy family like Madeleine's. So L'Angelier would be less likely to want to end the relationship (and return those love letters), and be more willing to blackmail his girlfriend into marrying him. It was a bad situation, and only the death of L'Angelier or his marriage with Madeleine would have settled it.
Madeleine was arrested, and tried in the High Court in Glasgow. She was defended by Scotland's greatest barrister of the day, John Inglis. Inglis managed to show great ambiguity over many points in the police case. This included the fact that L'Angelier treated himself with patent medicines (some containing arsenic). Also, that the melancholy L'Angelier had spoken of doing himself in occasionally. Nobody ever saw Madeleine and L'Angelier together on those past occasions where he became violently ill. Arsenic had been traced to Madeleine, but she claimed it was used on her pretty face to improve her complexion (which happened to be a use for arsenic). The end result was the jury returned the Scot verdict, "Not Proved". The evidence never was conclusive enough to result in conviction or acquittal.
Her subsequent career was quiet but interesting. No further murders (at least none we know of). She did not marry Minnoch. Her family kept her at arms length. She moved to London, and showed some real spirit by embracing the socialist/labor movement. She married George Wardle, an artist who worked closely with fellow socialist William Morris, and had among her socialist friends George Bernard Shaw. Her marriage to Wardle collapsed after an argument in the 1880s. They divorced in 1889. She married a second time, moved to New York City, and she lived in the Bronx as "Lena Sheehy" (Sheehy was her second husband's name). She died in 1928, and is buried (as Lena Sheehy) in the Bronx.
In 1950 David Lean was still in his "little movie" period. He was telling stories about regular people, like BRIEF ENCOUNTER on THIS HAPPY BREED, and was not ready to do his big spectaculars like BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and DR. ZHIVAGO. MADELEINE was a type of bridging film, as it was his first attempt to do an historical movie. So it is longer than most of his films in this period. However, in this case the film could have been shed some of the first half hour (the scene where Ann Todd joins a Scottish dance might have been dropped), but the film as a whole remains good - and skittish. Although most people feel that Madeleine did poison Emile, there are many who think it was not her but Emile committing suicide and trying to frame his "Mimi" (who had dropped him), or overdosing on some arsenic based nostrum he took for his health. Lean's movie leaves it as it should be - an everlasting question-mark. Madeleine would have approved, perhaps, but to the end of her life she always denied she poisoned her lover.
Effective and dark dramatisation of a true crime story
LouE153 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
David Lean is one of those directors who I don't quite know how to 'take'. Watching the 'lesser' films of a great director (in a great box set I got this year) is no doubt an excellent way to decide what you really think about them. The awe (or boredom) inspired by the best-known and allegedly the best-loved works is absent; you watch with completely open, unaffected eyes. Thus "Madeleine": I knew nothing about the (true) story on which it is based, and was gripped by a thoroughly sinister and tense story from first to last. I won't cover the story - it's been done so well by other reviewers.
The best parts of a 'minor' film like this stand out all the more strongly for there being no expectation that you should fall on your knees over it. Where a minor director would direct a film of a true story in stocky, reliable fashion, a great director adds flourishes not merely ornamental that truly raise the film to a greater status. The tension is ramped up more effectively; the bitter consequences of the rash acts more bitter; the harm, the joy, the cause-and-effect more meaningful. Lean's control of sound, vision, story, pace here these mark him out as great and bring to mind at their best the way that Kurosawa tells a story. I'm not comparing them they're so different except in the ways that, as the saying goes, it really is all in the detail.
Ann Todd plays the temptress Madeleine and my goodness, what a sharp-faced little thing! As much of greed and spoilt willfulness in her wayward course as of real, true love. That her love cools so quickly when she realises (really, didn't she before?) finally that her lover will only take her WITH her money, means that there's really not that much sympathy with her plight. One look at her lover (and this really should be to the credit of the actor) is enough to tell you that he is vain, dandyish, idle, assuming, selfish and too proud for his own good. One look at her is enough to tell you that she usually gets what she wants despite being at least superficially afraid of her father.
The scene where Madeleine dances with her lover in a garden, intercut with scenes of the wild ceilidh going on down the hill, whose music provides her ambiance, is absolutely extraordinary, and reminds me of the masterful use of sound and music displayed in Kurosawa's "The Bad Sleep Well" (particularly, the funeral scene). Lean beat the censors in telling his story the way he did, and he shows great control in his racking up of the tension throughout the story.
It's also a real pleasure to see some great Scottish actors that appeared in other films of this period which I adore: Jean Cadell, who appears in "Pygmalion" which Lean edited and "I Know Where I'm Going!", and John Laurie (also in "I Know Where I'm Going!" and in "Major Barbara").
The transformation of L'Angelier from ardent, put-upon lover to oppressive, near-blackmailer is nicely done; as is the ambiguity surrounding whether Madeleine did, or did not, poison her lover. You just don't really ever quite believe her absolutely: you know there is ambiguity in everything about her, so that you don't trust her reactions and impressions. The court scenes are well played, and there's a thick tightness to the whole that feels like a short, rich dish, full-flavoured and satisfying. And that's not an impression I ever carried away from Lean's 'great' works. It won't make me rethink those works; it will make me seek out with greater interest than before, more of those works of the 1940s and 1950s which I think might be getting lost in the mists of time as cinema and its troublesome offspring, TV, grow from their infancy of those years, to their virulent, American-flavoured adolescence.
The best parts of a 'minor' film like this stand out all the more strongly for there being no expectation that you should fall on your knees over it. Where a minor director would direct a film of a true story in stocky, reliable fashion, a great director adds flourishes not merely ornamental that truly raise the film to a greater status. The tension is ramped up more effectively; the bitter consequences of the rash acts more bitter; the harm, the joy, the cause-and-effect more meaningful. Lean's control of sound, vision, story, pace here these mark him out as great and bring to mind at their best the way that Kurosawa tells a story. I'm not comparing them they're so different except in the ways that, as the saying goes, it really is all in the detail.
Ann Todd plays the temptress Madeleine and my goodness, what a sharp-faced little thing! As much of greed and spoilt willfulness in her wayward course as of real, true love. That her love cools so quickly when she realises (really, didn't she before?) finally that her lover will only take her WITH her money, means that there's really not that much sympathy with her plight. One look at her lover (and this really should be to the credit of the actor) is enough to tell you that he is vain, dandyish, idle, assuming, selfish and too proud for his own good. One look at her is enough to tell you that she usually gets what she wants despite being at least superficially afraid of her father.
The scene where Madeleine dances with her lover in a garden, intercut with scenes of the wild ceilidh going on down the hill, whose music provides her ambiance, is absolutely extraordinary, and reminds me of the masterful use of sound and music displayed in Kurosawa's "The Bad Sleep Well" (particularly, the funeral scene). Lean beat the censors in telling his story the way he did, and he shows great control in his racking up of the tension throughout the story.
It's also a real pleasure to see some great Scottish actors that appeared in other films of this period which I adore: Jean Cadell, who appears in "Pygmalion" which Lean edited and "I Know Where I'm Going!", and John Laurie (also in "I Know Where I'm Going!" and in "Major Barbara").
The transformation of L'Angelier from ardent, put-upon lover to oppressive, near-blackmailer is nicely done; as is the ambiguity surrounding whether Madeleine did, or did not, poison her lover. You just don't really ever quite believe her absolutely: you know there is ambiguity in everything about her, so that you don't trust her reactions and impressions. The court scenes are well played, and there's a thick tightness to the whole that feels like a short, rich dish, full-flavoured and satisfying. And that's not an impression I ever carried away from Lean's 'great' works. It won't make me rethink those works; it will make me seek out with greater interest than before, more of those works of the 1940s and 1950s which I think might be getting lost in the mists of time as cinema and its troublesome offspring, TV, grow from their infancy of those years, to their virulent, American-flavoured adolescence.
"The tenderest conscience among you"
Steffi_P20 December 2007
Madeleine is one of a number of costume dramas produced around the late 1940s to focus upon psychological conflicts from a female perspective. Other notable examples are Vincente Minelli's Madame Bovary and William Wyler's The Heiress, both released in 1949. However, whereas those two pictures were based upon great literary works from the 19th century, Madeleine is a dramatisation (I would imagine a fairly liberal one given its melodramatic style) of actual events.
Director David Lean was always one to immerse the audience in the psychological states of his characters, often through use of attention grabbing shots and expressive use of sound. There are some fairly routine examples of this in the first half of the film eerie shadows of Emile twirling his cane, the blaring bagpipe music of a village dance at Emile and Madeleine's secret meeting, and so on.
Another of Lean's characteristics was that, in order to tell a full story, the narrative would switch between the multiple points-of-view. This can be done fairly easily with a director who treats the audience as a passive, externalised viewer, but with Lean's constant involvement of the audience it could occasionally give his films a disjointed, unbalanced feel. This is somewhat the case with Madeleine, which begins as a psychological drama in which a young woman from a strict household must choose between her heart's desire and loyalty to her family. About halfway through however the story becomes a murder mystery and eventually a courtroom drama, and the narrative fragments as we see the points-of-view of various witnesses to supposed crimes. All the psychological set-up of the first forty-five minutes becomes forgotten.
In spite of the fragmentary nature of the whole, there are some strong scenes and the occasional touch of class here and there. The pivotal scene in which Madeleine's father discovers his daughters affair, while at the same time Madeleine learns of Emile's death shows Lean's dramatic staging at its best. Intelligent use of space and positioning of actors in this scene best shows off the varying reactions. The final scenes in court are a carefully constructed blend of points-of-view and reaction shots, and Lean's background as a renowned editor is in evidence.
A great cast was often a hallmark of a David Lean picture, but Madeleine suffers from a lack of classy actors. Having said that Ann Todd, whom I don't normally rate that highly, is not too bad here, emoting well in close-ups. Apart from that the only standouts are Andre Morell in a powerful performance as the defence counsel towards the end of the film, and an unfortunately brief appearance from Scottish character actor John Laurie as a fanatical mob leader.
Madeleine has its moments, but all in all is a bit of a mediocrity. Lean was at his best when he could go all out on the emotional drama, but this foray into the courtroom is simply not enough of one thing or the other to be a really strong picture.
Director David Lean was always one to immerse the audience in the psychological states of his characters, often through use of attention grabbing shots and expressive use of sound. There are some fairly routine examples of this in the first half of the film eerie shadows of Emile twirling his cane, the blaring bagpipe music of a village dance at Emile and Madeleine's secret meeting, and so on.
Another of Lean's characteristics was that, in order to tell a full story, the narrative would switch between the multiple points-of-view. This can be done fairly easily with a director who treats the audience as a passive, externalised viewer, but with Lean's constant involvement of the audience it could occasionally give his films a disjointed, unbalanced feel. This is somewhat the case with Madeleine, which begins as a psychological drama in which a young woman from a strict household must choose between her heart's desire and loyalty to her family. About halfway through however the story becomes a murder mystery and eventually a courtroom drama, and the narrative fragments as we see the points-of-view of various witnesses to supposed crimes. All the psychological set-up of the first forty-five minutes becomes forgotten.
In spite of the fragmentary nature of the whole, there are some strong scenes and the occasional touch of class here and there. The pivotal scene in which Madeleine's father discovers his daughters affair, while at the same time Madeleine learns of Emile's death shows Lean's dramatic staging at its best. Intelligent use of space and positioning of actors in this scene best shows off the varying reactions. The final scenes in court are a carefully constructed blend of points-of-view and reaction shots, and Lean's background as a renowned editor is in evidence.
A great cast was often a hallmark of a David Lean picture, but Madeleine suffers from a lack of classy actors. Having said that Ann Todd, whom I don't normally rate that highly, is not too bad here, emoting well in close-ups. Apart from that the only standouts are Andre Morell in a powerful performance as the defence counsel towards the end of the film, and an unfortunately brief appearance from Scottish character actor John Laurie as a fanatical mob leader.
Madeleine has its moments, but all in all is a bit of a mediocrity. Lean was at his best when he could go all out on the emotional drama, but this foray into the courtroom is simply not enough of one thing or the other to be a really strong picture.
Mysterious True Story
whpratt13 July 2008
Enjoyed this 1950 true story about a young woman named Madeleine Smith, (Ann Todd) who lived in Glasgow, Scotland in 1857 and the story begins with the Smith family looking for a rather large home. Madeleine is very excited about a room in the basement of this house and I wondered just why she preferred such a location and of course the story will reveal the reasons for this decision. William Mennoch, (Norman Wooland) was an older professional man and was interested in Madeleine and wanted to marry her, but she kept putting off any discussions or decisions in this matter of marriage. However, the father and mother approved of William becoming their son-in-law. As the story moves along, you find out that there is another man that Madeleine is very much in love with and he is French and not very well off financially. This man's name is Emile L'Anglier and he was determined to climb into Glasgow's high social class and found that Madeleine and her family would be able to help him accomplish this task. This story holds great mystery in black and white and all the actors gave great supporting roles in this true story about a strange woman.
A lesser known but no less than brilliant David Lean film
sol-30 June 2006
As one of David Lean's lesser known films, I did not have any great expectations (excuse the pun) before watching this film. After watching the film, the only conclusion that I could draw is that it is lesser known because it is hard to acquire rather than because it is a lesser Lean film. Lean's directing in 'Madeleine' is on par with his grand visions of the two works of Charles Dickens that he had directed in the few years before this one. With Guy Green photographing again, and once again John Bryan involved in the film's production design, Lean creates a visual feast here that helps flesh out the themes of the screenplay.
The film is about a woman of wealth who is torn between a foreign working class man who she loves, and her father's expectations that she marries within her own class. Her father is a strict, conservative man, and Madeleine keeps her love affair a secret because she knows that he would not approve. However, she feels guilty for leading her lover on when she knows that it is futile. To make matters worse, her father is insisting that she lets an upper class young man romance her. Madeleine is unsure how to cope with the situation, and even considers using poison at one point in time.
The film has one of the best lighting designs that I have ever seen. Lean pays careful attention to shadows and the direction that light is coming from on screen. In the first scene when we see Madeleine and her lover Emile together outside, they are photographed with only back lighting so that their facial features are hardly seen, showing the secretive nature of their meeting. And after a few cuts they are then seen so that only their necks downwards are properly lit up. There is a definite contrast between shots like these are those that take place inside her house, where very strong lighting is used so that the skin on the characters all seem very white.
Another interesting use of light is in a conversation that Madeleine has with her father. The scene uses cuts between their faces, and her father is shot with light from a low camera angle so that his features are barely seen and that he seems dominating. In contrast, a slightly high camera angle is used on Madeleine with lighting work that shows her skin as grey with very visible distinguishing features. Whenever the sky is seen, it is also shown as moody and cloudy, which would be a combination of lighting and art direction. There is also one scene in which Madeleine says "No", and the light source for the shot when she says this is coming from below, with shadows falling from her nose above on her face.
The camera-work is brilliant too, especially in the scene with administering the poison. There is a low camera angle on a closeup of the bottle to make it menacing, then only seen in closeups, it is poured, while a girl in the background (not seen) sings a song about the death of a bird. The closeups and inserts are great throughout, as are Guy Green's angles. One of the best has a man's hand holding a cup in the foreground, while Madeleine is seen sitting down in the background. This is not a point of a view shot, but rather one that shows that Madeleine's attention is drawn to the cup. Amazing stuff.
The sound design of the film is also great, with certain sounds (footsteps, clanging) isolated when they are all that a character is listening out for. The audio in terms of music though is less than splendid. It is overly melodramatic, and tends to overplay the tension of certain scenes. The film also has another couple of detracting factors. One is that we never really feel the chemistry between Madeleine and her two lovers, which makes it slightly difficult to sympathise with what she is torn between. Also, the final third of the film is rather weak - the bulk of what it is of interest lies in the middle section. Either way, Lean's talent for directing makes this a very worthwhile experience overall, and it comes particularly recommended to those who liked his Charles Dickens films.
The film is about a woman of wealth who is torn between a foreign working class man who she loves, and her father's expectations that she marries within her own class. Her father is a strict, conservative man, and Madeleine keeps her love affair a secret because she knows that he would not approve. However, she feels guilty for leading her lover on when she knows that it is futile. To make matters worse, her father is insisting that she lets an upper class young man romance her. Madeleine is unsure how to cope with the situation, and even considers using poison at one point in time.
The film has one of the best lighting designs that I have ever seen. Lean pays careful attention to shadows and the direction that light is coming from on screen. In the first scene when we see Madeleine and her lover Emile together outside, they are photographed with only back lighting so that their facial features are hardly seen, showing the secretive nature of their meeting. And after a few cuts they are then seen so that only their necks downwards are properly lit up. There is a definite contrast between shots like these are those that take place inside her house, where very strong lighting is used so that the skin on the characters all seem very white.
Another interesting use of light is in a conversation that Madeleine has with her father. The scene uses cuts between their faces, and her father is shot with light from a low camera angle so that his features are barely seen and that he seems dominating. In contrast, a slightly high camera angle is used on Madeleine with lighting work that shows her skin as grey with very visible distinguishing features. Whenever the sky is seen, it is also shown as moody and cloudy, which would be a combination of lighting and art direction. There is also one scene in which Madeleine says "No", and the light source for the shot when she says this is coming from below, with shadows falling from her nose above on her face.
The camera-work is brilliant too, especially in the scene with administering the poison. There is a low camera angle on a closeup of the bottle to make it menacing, then only seen in closeups, it is poured, while a girl in the background (not seen) sings a song about the death of a bird. The closeups and inserts are great throughout, as are Guy Green's angles. One of the best has a man's hand holding a cup in the foreground, while Madeleine is seen sitting down in the background. This is not a point of a view shot, but rather one that shows that Madeleine's attention is drawn to the cup. Amazing stuff.
The sound design of the film is also great, with certain sounds (footsteps, clanging) isolated when they are all that a character is listening out for. The audio in terms of music though is less than splendid. It is overly melodramatic, and tends to overplay the tension of certain scenes. The film also has another couple of detracting factors. One is that we never really feel the chemistry between Madeleine and her two lovers, which makes it slightly difficult to sympathise with what she is torn between. Also, the final third of the film is rather weak - the bulk of what it is of interest lies in the middle section. Either way, Lean's talent for directing makes this a very worthwhile experience overall, and it comes particularly recommended to those who liked his Charles Dickens films.
Arsenic and Ann Todd
wes-connors13 June 2012
In 1850s Glasgow, beautifully-dressed Ann Todd (as Madeleine) and her family move into an immaculately-furnished, upper-classy new home. Still fetching in her 40s, Ms. Todd attracts her share of male admirers, most significantly handsome young Ivan Desny (as Emile L'Anglier). However, Todd's appearances-conscious father Leslie Banks (as James Smith) would rather his daughter marry suitable Norman Wooland (as William Minnoch). Eventually, a lover is poisoned and Todd stands accused. While Todd looks beautiful under duress, Andre Morell and Barry Jones passionately argue it out in court...
This is based on a true story; Todd's character is probably supposed to be much younger, but the age difference works well, adding another dimension to her unacceptable affair. Todd delivers a Garbo-like performance. Coincidently, Greta Garbo was concurrently preparing the un-produced "Lover and Friend" (1950) with noted Todd co-star James Mason; Garbo camera tests by James Wong Howe and William Daniels by resemble some shots of Todd in this film. "Madeleine" is lacking in narrative, but the direction by David Lean and photography by Guy Green make it worth viewing.
******* Madeleine (2/14/50) David Lean ~ Ann Todd, Norman Wooland, Ivan Desny, Leslie Banks
This is based on a true story; Todd's character is probably supposed to be much younger, but the age difference works well, adding another dimension to her unacceptable affair. Todd delivers a Garbo-like performance. Coincidently, Greta Garbo was concurrently preparing the un-produced "Lover and Friend" (1950) with noted Todd co-star James Mason; Garbo camera tests by James Wong Howe and William Daniels by resemble some shots of Todd in this film. "Madeleine" is lacking in narrative, but the direction by David Lean and photography by Guy Green make it worth viewing.
******* Madeleine (2/14/50) David Lean ~ Ann Todd, Norman Wooland, Ivan Desny, Leslie Banks
The Strange Case of Madeleine Smith
jem13225 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Excellent and unjustly overlooked David Lean film starring his then-wife Ann Todd, "Madeleine" is terrific drama, and perhaps one of Lean's best-directed films. Todd is the young Glasgow beauty Madeleine Smith, brought to trial in 1857, accused of murdering her lover by lacing his cocoa with arsenic. In sensational scenes, Madeleine was allowed to walk free, proved neither guilty or innocent through a lack of evidence. Lean takes an interesting approach with his subject matter here. The casting of Ann Todd, a blonde, glacial and enigmatic presence serves to be the director's strong point, as the ambiguity of Madeleine Smith's motivations are increased.
Cinematographer Guy Green worked with Lean on the two Dickens adaptations before this film, and he once again shows absolute mastery of black-and-white images in this film. There are many strikingly composed shots in this film, not least the scenes between Todd and her lover, played by Ivan Desny. Madeleine hands him his cup of cocoa, and the shot is framed so the cup is in the foreground, alerting the viewer's attention and questioning Madeleine's motives as she focuses on the drink. At once we suspect her, knowing she has bought and used arsenic, but then doubt creeps back into our mind. Why would she let the young shop clerk and her maid both witness her buying arsenic, when it would have been much more clever of the woman to procure the poison by less public means?
Another striking scene has Madeleine's tryst with her lover played out in the dark of night as she removes her shoes and dances to a Scottish song playing in the distance. At once Madeleine is free of the ties that bind her in the staid Victorian England, and her joyful, seductive dancing is inter-cut with rollicking, very physical scenes at the dance. Soon Madeleine is on the ground, losing her shawl. We fade to black, and Lean has very implicitly informed us about the nature of their relations.
The acting is generally very good, with the leading players adding authenticity to their roles. Norman Wooland plays the wealthy, upstanding young man who courts Todd while she is still carrying on an affair with Desny. Elizabeth Sellars is also memorable as Todd's maid.
Most historians believe the woman was guilty of the crime, as she certainly was in possession of arsenic in the weeks leading up to her lover's death, but Lean chooses to direct in a detached manner, and by the film's end we are still pondering "Did she or didn't she?". Todd gives a curious half-smile to the camera in the final close-up shot. Is it a smile of a woman who has survived a terrible ordeal, or the smile of a murderer?
Cinematographer Guy Green worked with Lean on the two Dickens adaptations before this film, and he once again shows absolute mastery of black-and-white images in this film. There are many strikingly composed shots in this film, not least the scenes between Todd and her lover, played by Ivan Desny. Madeleine hands him his cup of cocoa, and the shot is framed so the cup is in the foreground, alerting the viewer's attention and questioning Madeleine's motives as she focuses on the drink. At once we suspect her, knowing she has bought and used arsenic, but then doubt creeps back into our mind. Why would she let the young shop clerk and her maid both witness her buying arsenic, when it would have been much more clever of the woman to procure the poison by less public means?
Another striking scene has Madeleine's tryst with her lover played out in the dark of night as she removes her shoes and dances to a Scottish song playing in the distance. At once Madeleine is free of the ties that bind her in the staid Victorian England, and her joyful, seductive dancing is inter-cut with rollicking, very physical scenes at the dance. Soon Madeleine is on the ground, losing her shawl. We fade to black, and Lean has very implicitly informed us about the nature of their relations.
The acting is generally very good, with the leading players adding authenticity to their roles. Norman Wooland plays the wealthy, upstanding young man who courts Todd while she is still carrying on an affair with Desny. Elizabeth Sellars is also memorable as Todd's maid.
Most historians believe the woman was guilty of the crime, as she certainly was in possession of arsenic in the weeks leading up to her lover's death, but Lean chooses to direct in a detached manner, and by the film's end we are still pondering "Did she or didn't she?". Todd gives a curious half-smile to the camera in the final close-up shot. Is it a smile of a woman who has survived a terrible ordeal, or the smile of a murderer?
Probably couldn't have been made in America at the time
AlsExGal27 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film has a very open ending - just as in the true case upon which the film is based you don't know whether or not Madeleine killed her lover, as the jury renders a uniquely Scottish verdict of "not proved" which splits the difference between outright acquittal and conviction. Such a film would have been difficult to make in America at the time, as the U.S. production code of the period so demanded clear villains and heroes and swift and sure punishment of the villains.
There's a great use of lighting and shadow in this film, effectively differentiating the dark back-alley scenes where Madeleine meets her poor lover on the sly from those well-lighted ballroom and daytime scenes where she is courted by her family-approved suitor, William Minnoch. Ann Todd gives a very guarded performance here as Madeleine, and maybe that was necessary to add mystery to what and how she was thinking about her predicament.
I was particularly impressed by Ivan Desny as Madeleine's backstreet lover, Emile L'Anglier. He reminded me a great deal of Orson Welles in his physical features and even some in his acting style. Desny's performance is also subtle, but not so subtle that you can't see that his character is more in love with the idea of becoming a moneyed gentleman again than he ever could be with Madeleine herself.
This is one of David Lean's early films, and there is one scene in particular that reminded me of his last - "A Passage to India". That scene is when Madeleine is being conducted to court in a carriage accompanied by a police officer with the mob getting out of control outside. It's not just the alleged crime that has the mob stirred up, its Madeleine's rank and privilege as well. There is a similar scene in "Passage to India" as Judy Davis is conducted to court to testify. In that film it's her accusations of an Indian of the crime of attempted rape combined with her status as a member of the British aristocracy that has the crowds riled up. I wonder if Lean borrowed on the ideas from this film when making his last.
At any rate it's worth a look, just don't expect things to be wrapped up neatly as they almost always were in courtroom dramas in American films of the time.
There's a great use of lighting and shadow in this film, effectively differentiating the dark back-alley scenes where Madeleine meets her poor lover on the sly from those well-lighted ballroom and daytime scenes where she is courted by her family-approved suitor, William Minnoch. Ann Todd gives a very guarded performance here as Madeleine, and maybe that was necessary to add mystery to what and how she was thinking about her predicament.
I was particularly impressed by Ivan Desny as Madeleine's backstreet lover, Emile L'Anglier. He reminded me a great deal of Orson Welles in his physical features and even some in his acting style. Desny's performance is also subtle, but not so subtle that you can't see that his character is more in love with the idea of becoming a moneyed gentleman again than he ever could be with Madeleine herself.
This is one of David Lean's early films, and there is one scene in particular that reminded me of his last - "A Passage to India". That scene is when Madeleine is being conducted to court in a carriage accompanied by a police officer with the mob getting out of control outside. It's not just the alleged crime that has the mob stirred up, its Madeleine's rank and privilege as well. There is a similar scene in "Passage to India" as Judy Davis is conducted to court to testify. In that film it's her accusations of an Indian of the crime of attempted rape combined with her status as a member of the British aristocracy that has the crowds riled up. I wonder if Lean borrowed on the ideas from this film when making his last.
At any rate it's worth a look, just don't expect things to be wrapped up neatly as they almost always were in courtroom dramas in American films of the time.
An Excellently Acted and Directed Lesser-Known Film
raymundohpl26 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I had the great joy of watching David Lean's MADELEINE(1950)for the first time ever on TCM early this morning, and can say without any reservations that though it is one of the great director's lesser-known works, but it is by no means lesser in either acting or direction.
Featuring the glacial blonde Ann Todd(then Mrs. David Lean) as the real-life accused murderess Madeleine Smith, the film skillfully portrays the travail a foolish and willful young woman goes through when she follows her heart instead of her head and gets ensnared in a sticky situation. Caught between her tyrannical martinet father, James Smith, played excellently by the great Leslie Banks with his paralysed profile which added an extra flourish to his cold unsympathetic manner and her charming but unscrupulous gold-digging French paramour, Emile L'Anglier played skillfully by Ivan Desny, Ann Todd's Madeleine is veritably "caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea!" It would seem that there is but one recourse for Madeleine, that of shutting two-bit Casanova and lothario L'Anglier up so that her fire-breathing dragon of a father does not bite her pretty little head off, in much the same way that I have enjoyed biting into pastry Madeleines! But the ambiguity throughout the film of whether Madeleine actually did the deed and put paid to her paramour is maintained even up to the end when Madeleine gives her leprous Madonna half-smile which could indicate either guilt or innocence, leaving it up for the viewing audience to decide on their own.
The splendid direction of Lean, the superb moody photography of Guy Green contrasting various shades of darkness and light as well as interesting character studies of familiar character actors' and actresses' faces, the excellent film editing of Clive Donner(later to become a great director as well) and Geoffrey Foot, the authentic costume design of Margaret Furse all add to the moving drama. Jewel-like performances by such thespians as Barbara Everest as Madeleine's mother, Jean Cadell as Mrs. Jenkins the careworn landlady, Kynaston Reeves as a lugubrious Dr. Penny, Amy Veness as the sympathetic police matron Miss Aiken, John Laurie as the hypocritical Bible-spouting religious maniac and fanatic Divine rabble-rouser exhorting the crowd to condemn Madeleine, Edward Chapman as the worried Dr. Thompson, Moyra Fraser(more than HALF A CENTURY later, 55 years to be exact, in Dame Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer's "As Time Goes By" latest 2005 episode as one of the regulars, bumptious Penny, a role since 1993) as a spirited Highland dancer! Irene Browne as Mrs. Grant, George Benson as the Chemist, Eva Bartok as the Girl, Ivor Barnard as Mr. Murdoch, Anthony Newley! as Chemist's Assistant, Wylie Watson as Huggins, and many, many more, bear in mind that from Jean Cadell onwards, these were all UNCREDITED roles in Lean's film! They join with the credited cast Barbara Everest, Leslie Banks, Ivan Desny, Ann Todd, Norman Wooland as the ever-stolid and respectable William Minnoch, Madeleine's would-be-husband-to-be, Elizabeth Sellars as the harried but loyal pretty housemaid, Patricia Raine and Susan Stranks as Bessie and Janet Smith, Madeleine's younger siblings, Eugene Deckers as Thuau the unsympathetic French consul and friend of L'Anglier, and Barry Jones as the merciless Prosecuting Counsel. Last but not least is Hammer films stalwart and a superb actor, the late Andre Morell(husband of the late Joan Greenwood) as the Defending Counsel, who gives an impassioned and heart-wrenching yet cool and logical defense of Madeleine that has got to be one of the greatest courtroom speeches in Cinematic history! At least I think it is! The next time I bite into a pastry Madeleine I will recall Andre Morell's defense!
All in all, a FIVE STAR ***** film rating for the actors' performances alone!
Featuring the glacial blonde Ann Todd(then Mrs. David Lean) as the real-life accused murderess Madeleine Smith, the film skillfully portrays the travail a foolish and willful young woman goes through when she follows her heart instead of her head and gets ensnared in a sticky situation. Caught between her tyrannical martinet father, James Smith, played excellently by the great Leslie Banks with his paralysed profile which added an extra flourish to his cold unsympathetic manner and her charming but unscrupulous gold-digging French paramour, Emile L'Anglier played skillfully by Ivan Desny, Ann Todd's Madeleine is veritably "caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea!" It would seem that there is but one recourse for Madeleine, that of shutting two-bit Casanova and lothario L'Anglier up so that her fire-breathing dragon of a father does not bite her pretty little head off, in much the same way that I have enjoyed biting into pastry Madeleines! But the ambiguity throughout the film of whether Madeleine actually did the deed and put paid to her paramour is maintained even up to the end when Madeleine gives her leprous Madonna half-smile which could indicate either guilt or innocence, leaving it up for the viewing audience to decide on their own.
The splendid direction of Lean, the superb moody photography of Guy Green contrasting various shades of darkness and light as well as interesting character studies of familiar character actors' and actresses' faces, the excellent film editing of Clive Donner(later to become a great director as well) and Geoffrey Foot, the authentic costume design of Margaret Furse all add to the moving drama. Jewel-like performances by such thespians as Barbara Everest as Madeleine's mother, Jean Cadell as Mrs. Jenkins the careworn landlady, Kynaston Reeves as a lugubrious Dr. Penny, Amy Veness as the sympathetic police matron Miss Aiken, John Laurie as the hypocritical Bible-spouting religious maniac and fanatic Divine rabble-rouser exhorting the crowd to condemn Madeleine, Edward Chapman as the worried Dr. Thompson, Moyra Fraser(more than HALF A CENTURY later, 55 years to be exact, in Dame Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer's "As Time Goes By" latest 2005 episode as one of the regulars, bumptious Penny, a role since 1993) as a spirited Highland dancer! Irene Browne as Mrs. Grant, George Benson as the Chemist, Eva Bartok as the Girl, Ivor Barnard as Mr. Murdoch, Anthony Newley! as Chemist's Assistant, Wylie Watson as Huggins, and many, many more, bear in mind that from Jean Cadell onwards, these were all UNCREDITED roles in Lean's film! They join with the credited cast Barbara Everest, Leslie Banks, Ivan Desny, Ann Todd, Norman Wooland as the ever-stolid and respectable William Minnoch, Madeleine's would-be-husband-to-be, Elizabeth Sellars as the harried but loyal pretty housemaid, Patricia Raine and Susan Stranks as Bessie and Janet Smith, Madeleine's younger siblings, Eugene Deckers as Thuau the unsympathetic French consul and friend of L'Anglier, and Barry Jones as the merciless Prosecuting Counsel. Last but not least is Hammer films stalwart and a superb actor, the late Andre Morell(husband of the late Joan Greenwood) as the Defending Counsel, who gives an impassioned and heart-wrenching yet cool and logical defense of Madeleine that has got to be one of the greatest courtroom speeches in Cinematic history! At least I think it is! The next time I bite into a pastry Madeleine I will recall Andre Morell's defense!
All in all, a FIVE STAR ***** film rating for the actors' performances alone!
Neither guilty nor not guilty.
brogmiller19 April 2020
The greatest directors are entitled to the occasional misfire and this would appear to be one of David Lean's. He was persuaded to do it by his wife Ann Todd who had played the part of alleged poisoner Madeleine Smith on stage a few years earlier. Ironically nothing of the play would remain and the film would become an original screenplay. Difficult to put ones finger on why 'nothing seemed to fit', to use Lean's own words. Even allowing for Ann Todd's customary 'temperament' this was by all accounts a far from happy experience and it certainly shows.
I think that Todd is excellent in the role and her final, enigmatic look to the camera after the jury has found the charges against her 'not proven' is masterful. Ivan Desny is very good as the vain social climber but it is difficult to warm to him so that his demise fails to excite our sympathy. Apparently Gerard Philipe was considered for the role. What a tantalising prospect! Notable performances by Leslie Banks as her unbending father and by Andre Morell as the defending counsel in the stupendous trial scenes whose oratory and impassioned pleas put sufficient doubts in the jurors' minds to enable Madeleine to escape the executioner. Norman Wooland is okay as faithful Mr. Minnoch but as an actor lacks that certain 'something'. This is by no means a 'bad' film and there are very effective moments but it simply lacks that elusive and magic alchemy by which everything comes together. Lean put the blame fairly and squarely on the writing. The film was both a critical and commercial failure and Lean was not to be so harshly judged until 'Ryan's Daughter' twenty years later.
A scandal in Scotland...
moonspinner5527 March 2008
A boarding-house Lothario in 1857 Glasgow dies from arsenic poisoning; a stack of incriminating letters point the finger at the man's secret lover, an unmarried high society woman who has recently announced her engagement to a man of her class. True story which held Victorian Scotland spellbound is given handsome, but not elaborate treatment from director David Lean. Lean's then-wife Ann Todd reportedly played Madeleine Smith on the stage (not credited here) and her assets--steely eyes, a knitted-brow and taut mouth--are in perfect accompaniment with this inscrutable character, who may or may not be what she seems. Lean captures the allure of a clandestine romance, with the screen fading to black as the lustiness becomes palpable, and his third act in the courtroom is quite lively. Still, this seems to be a lot of striding up and down for a fairly certain verdict, and the conclusion is curiously flat. Columbo could've solved this case in an hour. ** from ****
Get Me Out of That Ten-Pound Skirt
dougdoepke19 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
No need to recap the plot.
My favorite scene and arguably the most significant is where Madeleine breaks free into her spontaneous little dance. Note how she's suddenly responding to the foot-stomping liveliness of the community dance, quite a contrast to the confining rhythms of the upper- class ballroom she's used to. This is the "real" Madeleine surfacing outside her upper-class confinement. And once loosened, it's not surprising that seduction follows.
The trouble is that from now on she's "damaged goods" according to patriarchal mores of her time. Frankly, the scene reminds me of the raucous music and love-ins of the counter- cultural 1960's, which produced similar effects on straitened middle-class youth. Given her later affiliations (thanks to reviewer Theowinthrop), perhaps the historical Madeleine is an early hippie type reacting to ten confining pounds of petticoated skirt.
Except she's no one to mess with. Fortune-hunter Emile has trifled with her affections, compromised her marriageability, and now wants to blackmail her. It's hard for me to believe she didn't rid herself of the bounder, no matter how cleverly director Lean plays with the visual evidence. Besides, who commits suicide with an excruciating substance like arsenic, especially a canny character like Emile. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence for conviction, but the finger of guilt appears overwhelming.
The movie itself amounts to a stylistic triumph. Those Gothic early scenes are beautifully staged, as other reviewers spell out. Just as importantly, the expressionism complements the shadowy nature of the illicit romance and likely mirrors Madeleine's joyless inner life. I also like the way actress Todd turns on the spark at the community dance in contrast to her usual cold demeanor. My one reservation is with the abrupt transition from Gothic drama to courtroom procedure. Lean does his best to establish stylistic continuity, but the contrast in tone and direction remains. Then too, I suspect the unresolved ending was not popular with many audiences of the day; at the same time, it's hard to see a Hollywood studio taking the same risk. Nonetheless, the film remains highly compelling despite the non-Parry Mason ending.
My favorite scene and arguably the most significant is where Madeleine breaks free into her spontaneous little dance. Note how she's suddenly responding to the foot-stomping liveliness of the community dance, quite a contrast to the confining rhythms of the upper- class ballroom she's used to. This is the "real" Madeleine surfacing outside her upper-class confinement. And once loosened, it's not surprising that seduction follows.
The trouble is that from now on she's "damaged goods" according to patriarchal mores of her time. Frankly, the scene reminds me of the raucous music and love-ins of the counter- cultural 1960's, which produced similar effects on straitened middle-class youth. Given her later affiliations (thanks to reviewer Theowinthrop), perhaps the historical Madeleine is an early hippie type reacting to ten confining pounds of petticoated skirt.
Except she's no one to mess with. Fortune-hunter Emile has trifled with her affections, compromised her marriageability, and now wants to blackmail her. It's hard for me to believe she didn't rid herself of the bounder, no matter how cleverly director Lean plays with the visual evidence. Besides, who commits suicide with an excruciating substance like arsenic, especially a canny character like Emile. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence for conviction, but the finger of guilt appears overwhelming.
The movie itself amounts to a stylistic triumph. Those Gothic early scenes are beautifully staged, as other reviewers spell out. Just as importantly, the expressionism complements the shadowy nature of the illicit romance and likely mirrors Madeleine's joyless inner life. I also like the way actress Todd turns on the spark at the community dance in contrast to her usual cold demeanor. My one reservation is with the abrupt transition from Gothic drama to courtroom procedure. Lean does his best to establish stylistic continuity, but the contrast in tone and direction remains. Then too, I suspect the unresolved ending was not popular with many audiences of the day; at the same time, it's hard to see a Hollywood studio taking the same risk. Nonetheless, the film remains highly compelling despite the non-Parry Mason ending.
A Very British Murder.
rmax3048238 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It's 1857 in Glasgow. The city we see on the screen, actually a series of sets, is eerie and a little ominous. It's often night. The streets are cobblestones glistening with recent rain. Gusts of wind scatter the fallen leaves about. The stone buildings seem abrasive. Dark shadows fill the many alleys. It's one of those cities in which anything can happen.
There's something strange about the residents too, beginning with the fact that they're called Glaswegians. Ann Todd plays the real-life Madeleine Smith who had a French fiancé, tired of him when she met a new man, who all unwittingly became her second fiancé. Todd wants to marry Number Two, Norman Wooland, but this is a high-class affair and one naturally wants to avoid the kind of scandal that would interfere with one's being invited to the most fashionable soirées.
Todd's problem is that fiancé Number One, Ivan Desny, a lively Frenchman, is in possession of a number of love letters from Todd that, by the standards of the early Victorians, were pretty lurid, containing phrases such as "my dearest" and "my bosom heaves with impatience" and certain ribald jokes usually deleted from the diary of Samuel Pepys. (I just made that stuff up, but the letters WERE incriminating.) Todd must get those letters back but Desny seems to be ignoring her importunings. So one day he turns up dead of arsenic poisoning. Todd, who has recently purchased some of the stuff, is taken to trial for the murder. Well, she's not Jack the Ripper but evidently this was a cause celebre at the time.
I'd never heard of the movie and I tuned in late, only in time for Desny's death and the trial that followed. But it took only a few minutes to realize that whoever had directed it was showing a good deal of skill in making a movie. Not just those glistening cobblestones but scenes like the prisoner emerging from a trap door just in front of the crowded benches. The end credits revealed David Lean as the director, of course.
I was never a big fan of Ann Todd. She's not a poor actress but rarely seems to have made a film worth remembering. The rest of the cast is superb, including Barry Jones as the insinuating, wheedling prosecutor, and Andre Morell as the defense attorney, more forceful than we're used to seeing him. Jean Cadell as the landlady looks flinty and unyielding but overcomes her outward appearance and acts the concerned citizen. And the script is intelligent and dignified. The dialog is of the period -- "I waited, but you came not." But Brits always handle this slightly stylized and elegant speech very well. Americans do it too, but they seem to be working harder at it.
There's something strange about the residents too, beginning with the fact that they're called Glaswegians. Ann Todd plays the real-life Madeleine Smith who had a French fiancé, tired of him when she met a new man, who all unwittingly became her second fiancé. Todd wants to marry Number Two, Norman Wooland, but this is a high-class affair and one naturally wants to avoid the kind of scandal that would interfere with one's being invited to the most fashionable soirées.
Todd's problem is that fiancé Number One, Ivan Desny, a lively Frenchman, is in possession of a number of love letters from Todd that, by the standards of the early Victorians, were pretty lurid, containing phrases such as "my dearest" and "my bosom heaves with impatience" and certain ribald jokes usually deleted from the diary of Samuel Pepys. (I just made that stuff up, but the letters WERE incriminating.) Todd must get those letters back but Desny seems to be ignoring her importunings. So one day he turns up dead of arsenic poisoning. Todd, who has recently purchased some of the stuff, is taken to trial for the murder. Well, she's not Jack the Ripper but evidently this was a cause celebre at the time.
I'd never heard of the movie and I tuned in late, only in time for Desny's death and the trial that followed. But it took only a few minutes to realize that whoever had directed it was showing a good deal of skill in making a movie. Not just those glistening cobblestones but scenes like the prisoner emerging from a trap door just in front of the crowded benches. The end credits revealed David Lean as the director, of course.
I was never a big fan of Ann Todd. She's not a poor actress but rarely seems to have made a film worth remembering. The rest of the cast is superb, including Barry Jones as the insinuating, wheedling prosecutor, and Andre Morell as the defense attorney, more forceful than we're used to seeing him. Jean Cadell as the landlady looks flinty and unyielding but overcomes her outward appearance and acts the concerned citizen. And the script is intelligent and dignified. The dialog is of the period -- "I waited, but you came not." But Brits always handle this slightly stylized and elegant speech very well. Americans do it too, but they seem to be working harder at it.
better than people say,worth a watch on a rainy day
ib011f9545i16 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I must have seen this before but it does not stick in the mind.
If you look at a list of Lean's films it is one of least well known I think.
It is a murder mystery and a courtroom drama,based on a true story.
Set in Glasgow in 1850s.
As a Scottish person it is good to see an attempt to show that Scotland has its own legal system.
Indeed the media does not seem to understand that when Scotland joined in union with England the preservation of the legal,religious and educational system was guaranteed.
It is black and white and made in 1950 so there are no racy sex scenes and the sets are a tribute to the men that built them but I think the film is still worth watching.
I can imagine a modern remake,still set in the period.
The speech by the defence counsel is a classic of its kind.
Superbly crafted
gridoon202422 September 2023
"Madeleine" (1950) is a near-flawless example of classic, old-fashioned (in a positive sense) narrative cinema. Methodical storytelling, elegant production design, several expressive camera angles. It's part romantic melodrama, part courtroom thriller, and the courtroom sections are at least as good as those of, say, "Witness For The Prosecution" (with a floor-stealing performance by André Morell as the defending attorney). The stunning, magnetic Ann Todd has the kind of face - and skin - the camera loves. The film also boasts one of the best - and most enigmatic - final shots in screen history. *** out of 4.
Excellent Movie
nutritionist11 May 2012
Inexplicably, there are some reviews of this film that are less than enthusiastic. However, if you are a real movie watcher, an appreciator of good old movies, you will find this an excellent, engrossing, well made film. A young, wealthy beautiful girl gets involved with a poor handsome caddish Frenchman. She has a very strict Victorian father who shapes her character in many ways. The attention to details in the film by the Director are excellent, especially the dancing scene that flashes to the villagers dancing- films are not made like this anymore. The Director, David Lean, was married to the lead actress in the film, Ann Todd, and you can tell that this film was made with great care. Some people say that Ann's performance was cold, yet I feel she was true to character, and that she portrayed her personality due to youth and upbringing very well. The costuming is also so stunning that it too adds to the film. As far as I am concerned this film is right up there, near to the level of the Heiress and other great films.
Todd Eh Oh!
writers_reign3 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It is ironic that this movie is based on real events and the names have not been changed yet perversely - especially for the time - director Lean declines to show how the two lovers from such disparate backgrounds ever got together in the first place. Instead, we are presented with a fait accompli - they are an item end of story. This really isn't good enough more so since Lean does go out of his way to portray Mr Smith as a martinet in the Moulton Barratt mould and it's is almost impossible to believe that Madeleine would have had sufficient freedom to become acquainted with her low-born French lover. Yet because it is a true story they clearly did meet and fall in love in greatest secrecy and it is surely not asking too much to let us in on the facts. The first half is pure Washington Square with a plain but wealthy girl being seduced by a good-looking pauper intent on social climbing but then it becomes something else entirely once arsenic rears its ugly head. Credibility is strained again when the friend who shares a room in the rat-hole in which the lover lives informs Mr Smith that he is attached to the French Consul. Of course you are, Froggy, all Consul employees live in rat-holes, natch. There's even a nod to a previous Todd box-office hit when her lover - who always carries a cane - asks her to play the piano for him, stopping short of adding if you won't play for me you'll play for no one. The direction is competent but no better than ho hum and that goes for the acting as well.
British melodrama at its best.
mark.waltz30 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A wealthy young Scottish lady (Anne Todd) becomes involved in a scandalous affair with a rather amoral Frenchman (Ivan Desny) even though her father has ordered her to become betrothed to somebody else. Todd wants to marry him and run away, but it's obvious that he's only after her inheritance that she won't get from her father Leslie Banks if she doesn't do as he demands. When she realizes what Desny is really all about, she takes certain steps that makes it appear when he has been found dead, apparently from a suicide, that she may have killed him.
An opulent costume drama that takes a different turn when word of her arrest has come out and the general population becomes enraged because of her entitlements. Todd is lovely and fragile looking, and you would never suspect by looking at her that she could possibly consider poisoning another human being. But there have been other killers with an innocent look in the movies so that's not a proper judgment. This is definitely a great entry in the many classics among David Lean's credits.
Fantastic production design ranks this up there with the best of British melodrama, and a sensational ensemble enacts this perfectly, from the servants to the angered towns people to Todd's family (especially Banks) to the law defending and prosecuting her. The production looks absolutely gorgeous with sensational photography, glamorous period costumes and a nice musical background score to guide audience emotions. There is only a hint of a mystery, because obviously she did something to make him ill, but what she responsible for the final dose that done him in becomes a question.
An opulent costume drama that takes a different turn when word of her arrest has come out and the general population becomes enraged because of her entitlements. Todd is lovely and fragile looking, and you would never suspect by looking at her that she could possibly consider poisoning another human being. But there have been other killers with an innocent look in the movies so that's not a proper judgment. This is definitely a great entry in the many classics among David Lean's credits.
Fantastic production design ranks this up there with the best of British melodrama, and a sensational ensemble enacts this perfectly, from the servants to the angered towns people to Todd's family (especially Banks) to the law defending and prosecuting her. The production looks absolutely gorgeous with sensational photography, glamorous period costumes and a nice musical background score to guide audience emotions. There is only a hint of a mystery, because obviously she did something to make him ill, but what she responsible for the final dose that done him in becomes a question.
Not his worst film....very watchable
malcolmgsw27 March 2021
Lean probably said that because Ann Todd is in the leading role. She bested him in their divorce settlement and consequently she was the only one of his 4 ex wives that he did not stay on friendly terms with.
It is a very watchable film with the degree of excellence you would expect from a David lean film.
It is a very watchable film with the degree of excellence you would expect from a David lean film.
Excellent old movie about a complex real-life court case.
daveamac19 August 2019
Excellent directing throughout and a real sense of time and place captured perfectly. The film portrays the experience of the lead character with great detail, adding to the sense of tension and fear throughout. An early David Lean film that already shows a master at work.
The jury members here must have passed around a gallon of Scotch . . .
oscaralbert6 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
. . . during their deliberations to snatch away a resounding defeat from the Jaws of Justice at the end of MADELEINE. The title strumpet of this story strings along a bamboozled rich dude while trysting the brains out of a sleazy foreigner behind her father's trusting back. Joy-riding Jezebel MADELEINE can lie with a face straighter than a yardstick, as she slyly poisons her hot chocolate charms. Doubtless 94% or 96% of viewers are anxious to enjoy the sight of Good triumphing over Evil, in the form of a final scene showing this horrid harlot's neck snapping after her drop from the gallows. However, as patrons rue the fact that Scotland seldom resorted to the Guillotine to enforce Common Human Decency, the drunken jury returns an incomprehensible verdict meaning "maybe not guilty, but sort of," allowing this would-be serial wanton to waltz away free as a wallaby.
Familiar material given the David Lean touch but is emotionally cold...
Doylenf29 October 2007
It should come as no surprise that the trial of MADELEINE may well have been termed "the trial of the century" in 1857's Scotland. And from this true story, David Lean has made a period romance starring ANN TODD as the scheming woman from a wealthy background who feels compelled to hide her love affair with a commoner from her disapproving father.
Madeleine defies the conventions of her stiff upper-class household and, after receiving a proper gentleman caller with her family, retreats to her private room where she has an assignation with a lover who is not a man of means. The shadowy interiors suggest the menace to come, as her father urges her to take a suitable suitor in marriage as soon as possible.
What hurts the story is the familiarity of it all--a woman of substance wanting to break out of the social boundaries of convention. And unfortunately, there is nothing novel or different about this version of such a tale to make it of more than routine interest, despite the David Lean touch. What it really needed was Alfred Hitchcock's guiding hand.
All of the technical ingredients are fine but the script is ultimately a disappointment and tends to be dull in spots. Furthermore, Ann Todd's Madeleine is not a very arresting character. This has to be considered one of David Lean's less effective films. The story is as emotionally cold as Madeleine herself and her demure behavior with her father seems more like a pose than anything else, one that he should easily be able to see through. Her arrest for murder in the poisoning of her lover is handled with too many frigid close-ups of Todd's face and no real explanation of what happened.
It's certainly not a "must see" film by the renowned directed Lean.
Best performance in the entire film: ANDRE MORELL as the defense counselor who gives the most stirring and satisfying speech in the courtroom as to why Madeleine should be found innocent of the circumstantial evidence.
Madeleine defies the conventions of her stiff upper-class household and, after receiving a proper gentleman caller with her family, retreats to her private room where she has an assignation with a lover who is not a man of means. The shadowy interiors suggest the menace to come, as her father urges her to take a suitable suitor in marriage as soon as possible.
What hurts the story is the familiarity of it all--a woman of substance wanting to break out of the social boundaries of convention. And unfortunately, there is nothing novel or different about this version of such a tale to make it of more than routine interest, despite the David Lean touch. What it really needed was Alfred Hitchcock's guiding hand.
All of the technical ingredients are fine but the script is ultimately a disappointment and tends to be dull in spots. Furthermore, Ann Todd's Madeleine is not a very arresting character. This has to be considered one of David Lean's less effective films. The story is as emotionally cold as Madeleine herself and her demure behavior with her father seems more like a pose than anything else, one that he should easily be able to see through. Her arrest for murder in the poisoning of her lover is handled with too many frigid close-ups of Todd's face and no real explanation of what happened.
It's certainly not a "must see" film by the renowned directed Lean.
Best performance in the entire film: ANDRE MORELL as the defense counselor who gives the most stirring and satisfying speech in the courtroom as to why Madeleine should be found innocent of the circumstantial evidence.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
