Eight O'Clock Walk [DVD]

Product Information

Plot finds Attenborough as a good guy sort who, through a series of circumstances, is accused of murdering a little girl. As the strain begins to tell on he and his loved ones, it's looking increasingly likely he could well be found guilty. Child's Play (1954) A group of kids, led by brainbox Horatio Flynn (Christopher Beeny - later of Upstairs Downstairs fame - in an… Just because you see a grown man chasing a little girl doesn't mean that he killed her, even though he was the victim of an April Fool's Day prank, and she was discovered later a victim of murder. Academy Award Winning director to be Richard Attenborough plays the wrongly accused here, and wife Cathy O'Donnell is frantic. So frantic that she goes off on his defense attorney Derek Farr, immediately regretting it. But in a weird twist, the prosecuting attorney is Farr's own father, veteran actor Ian Hunter. It's surprising that this type of personal relationship would be permitted in court with the type of conflicts it could create. Newly weds Tom ( Richard Attenborough - The Magic Box) and Jill Manning ( Cathy O'Donnell - Detective Story) are still in their honeymoon phase which is why when a young girl asked Tom to help her find her missing dog he was unaware that it was April Fool's day and he was being pranked. But later on Tom finds himself being arrested when the young girl is found murdered and witnesses saw him with the girl. With no money his wife Jill manages to find inexperienced lawyer Peter Tanner (Derek Farr) to defend him which brings Peter up against his father Geoffrey (Ian Hunter) who is the prosecutions lawyer.

Everything hinges on the brilliance of the inexperienced barrister and, of course, a lot of chance. Could this really be how an accused man would behave and could his fate rest in the lap of the gods, rather than the work of the police? I was not convinced; the police fail to conduct any real investigation whatsoever (aside from doing everything to incriminate their only suspect); this was left to the barrister. Are barristers supposed to be detectives? Would the police be able to bring a case, based on what appear to be circumstantial and very flimsy evidence? The eyewitnesses' stories were easily discounted and how likely would it be that the real guilty party might actually be one of the witnesses? (If you'll forgive a reference to another film, "Yes, my marrow" [Maurice Denham] - if you watch the film and know the actor, you'll know what I'm on about). Caine Mutiny, The (1954) Nominated for seven Academy Awards in 1954 (including Best Picture and Best Actor), The Caine Mutiny is a classic film (based on… Attenborough is good in his part as the innocent man facing a guilty verdict under a tonne of prosecution circumstantial evidence. Porter, Vincent. "The Robert Clark Account", Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, volume 20 no 4, 2000, p. 503 I can't help feel that I have seen this kind of story loads of times. It brings nothing new except the relationship between the prosecuting barrister and his son as the junior defence barrister who is trusted to defend Attenborough due to the senior defence lead being called away.There are a few sub-plots; the trial judge has family issues and the man's barrister becomes ill, and his inexperienced son is asked to take on the case. I probably enjoyed this movie for all the wrong reasons. I love a courtroom drama, and this one gives unusual glimpses of the court's "cast" waiting in the wings. The jury waiting to be selected (or not). Court officers dishing round papers. Cleaning ladies polishing the marble floor. The judge and his supporters gathering in the corridor. The clerk handing His Lordship the traditional nosegay (Sweet Williams). The trial begins at London's Old Bailey, where Tanner is opposed by his father, prosecuting counsel Geoffrey Tanner. It soon becomes evident that things are going badly for Manning. Jurors are seen expressing their belief in Manning’s guilt even before the trial is over. Irene's mother offers hearsay evidence that Manning had given the victim sweets, and accusing Manning of murder. Following the testimony of prosecution witness Horace Clifford, all the evidence seems to point to Manning's guilt. Monthly Film Bulletin wrote: "The film's main point of interest is the attempt to build up a convincing picture of the Old Bailey and the legal procedure attending a murder trial. The trial thus possesses a greater degree of authenticity than is usual, but the script clutters up the main story with several unncecessary irrelevances.... Harry Welchman makes a welcome appearance as the Judge; the rest of the playing is as variable as the script." [7]

It was interesting to see how the police concocted their case, based upon purely circumstantial evidence and the evidence of some not necessarily reliable witnesses. Their attempt at forensic science would be laughable with today's technology, but it is interesting to see how the concept was thought of and how things such as soil samples were examined and used to make the case. Kinematograph Weekly said: "Human, thoughtful and down-to-earth crime melodrama, pivoting on the Old Bailey.... Finely acted, shrewdly directed and flawlessly staged, it should intrigue and grip all classes." [6] Chapman, J. (2022). The Money Behind the Screen: A History of British Film Finance, 1945-1985. Edinburgh University Press, p. 358I couldn't help feeling that some of the sub-plots were unnecessary (the judge's family troubles make no difference to the story and the barrister's illness seemed a somewhat elaborate way of introducing the inexperienced son.) Is this, then, the story of an innocent man, the failure of British justice (which it could easily have been), or the skill of a promising, but inexperienced barrister? (Or all three?)