Murder in Reverse? (1945)

Directed by Montgomery Tully; produced by Louis H Jackson

Tom Masterick (William Hartnell) is a contented man, working on the London docks as a stevedore, and living with his wife, Doris (Chili Bouchier), and daughter, Jill. Masterick’s world falls apart when he learns that Doris is having an affair. He attacks the other man, Fred Smith (John Slater), whom Masterick is convinced survives, though the rest of the world believes is killed. Masterick is tried for murder and sentenced to life in prison. Fifteen years later, he is paroled, and determined to prove his innocence.

A well-used plot is the device by which this movie examines the conundrum of a man convicted of a crime he didn’t commit, who can then prove his case. It has been done numerous times and, unfortunately for Murder in Reverse?, usually better, most notably in The Long Memory (1953), reviewed on this blog in February of 2021.

The problem in Murder in Reverse? isn’t the acting, which includes a solid performance from Hartnell (listed as ‘William’ in the opening credits, and ‘Billy’ at the end), most famous in movies for playing British Army sergeants and the like, and in television as the first Dr Who. He does a good job here, convincingly portraying a man in the vigour of healthy middle age as well as a decrepit individual hobbled by years of prison. His interpretation of Masterick is especially good in creating someone who seems reasonable, and only to be asking for justice, but whose obsession foreshadows tragedy.

Providing support is Brefni O’Rourke (credited as Brefni O’Rorke) as a sympathetic newspaper editor and Jimmy Hanley as his carefree reporter; these two have a good rapport and would have made an amusing team in a movie series. Complimenting them is Dinah Sheridan (then married to Hanley) as the editor’s daughter and the reporter’s love-interest. Also of note is Bouchier, whose performance as the pitiful Mrs Masterick fifteen years on is excellent. A young Petula Clark portrays little Jill Masterick.

A major problem, however, is the script, adapted by the director from a novel. There is a credibility gap in the survival of Fred Smith (which is never really in doubt.) When it is learned that Smith lived through the attempt on his life, and is, fifteen years afterward, managing a pub in Gravesend, there is raised the question of why Smith did not come forward to exonerate Masterick. Given that they were enemies, the answer is straightforward. But there is no urgency or indignation displayed by the other characters over the fact that Smith allowed Masterick to suffer. He is simply asked to present himself to the authorities - with little indication that he himself may face jail-time for his silence.

Further, Smith is still living under his own name. In fifteen years, no one considered Smith and said, “Say, aren’t you the bloke who was supposed to have been murdered?…” In a decade and a half, not one person who knew Smith or Masterick or both either learned where Smith was or told the police about it. To own and run a public house requires licenses, regular visits by police, etc., yet no one thought to connect Smith to Masterick. This is especially unbelievable when we know that the Masterick trial was famous, even a cause célèbre, and that his release fifteen years later was well-known. One would have thought that Doris, embittered by being eventually rejected by Smith, would have been the sort to exact revenge on him by contacting the authorities.

It may be a small thing to damage a movie, but since the movie depends on that angle, it looms large. If the story simply had Smith alter his name, credibility would have been restored. As it is, it forces Murder in Reverse? into the category of a film in which one asks, “Well, why didn’t they just…?” And when audience members are much smarter than characters, there is a problem. In addition, when the lawyer who prosecuted Masterick learns that he was innocent and his own efforts ruined a man’s life, there is not even any concern shown by the lawyer for his own career, never mind Masterick’s fate; it becomes for the barrister an academic exercise. Though I understand what the writers were attempting, it comes across as quite unrealistic.

So while Murder in Reverse? benefits from its actors, it suffers from its writers, and fatally so.