Sir Sean Connery's career in movies is really remarkable. Beginning in a Disney film (DARBY GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE), he lucked out early and got the signature role of James Bond in FROM Russia WITH LOVE, DR. NO, GOLDFINGER, and the others. But he managed to break out of the typecase, and pop up in non-Bond roles like Amundsen in THE RED TENT, Edward Pearce in THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, Daniel Dravot in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, and Eliot Ness's ill-fated mentor in THE UNTOUCHABLES (which finally netted him an Oscar). But you notice quickly in going through his credits that he rarely plays a villain. Only twice (that I am aware of) did he play a villain - in the forgettable THE AVENGERS (made too late, in the late 1990s, and without the inimitable Patrick Macnee and Dame Diana Rigg as Steed and Emma Peel), and this forgotten gem of a murder plot. It was early Connery (made the year that his James Bond series was well under way), and the public did not really notice it because it did not show "M", "Miss Moneypenny", "Spectre" (with Blofeld or Goldfinger or Dr. No), or all those crazy gadgets. Instead it dealt with deception, family hatred, and a pathological villain who was supposed to be a popular hero in his normal films.
It is funny that the plot line of a rich person being murdered for his or her fortune is such a popular line in detective fiction. In reality, while there have been rich murder victims (Sir Harry Oakes, William Rice - of Rice Institute fame, Jim Fisk, Stanford White), few were killed for their fortunes. Fisk and White were victims in love triangles that got out of hand. Oakes was probably murdered either for opposing the entrance of the Mafia into his beloved Bahamas, or his opposition to a band of neo-Nazis trying to center Fascist activities in the Western Hemisphere in that island (the neo-Nazis possibly having the blessings of it's then governor the Duke of Windsor). Rice, a millionaire speculator, was poisoned in 1900 by his secretary and a crooked lawyer who planned to plunder his estate - their legal defeat enabled the victim's estate to go ahead with his hopes for the Texas college he planned.
Yet story after story is about the murder of a wealthy individual for inheritance purposes. Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers frequently use it for a motive. I won't say that greed does not play a part in crime, but most crime is due to anger or hate.
The murder of Charles Richmond (Sir Ralph Richardson) in this film is actually more than sheer greed. Connery's nephew plans to inherit the multi-million pound estate but he also hates how Richardson humiliated his brother (Connery's father) by luring Connery's mother into a sexual relationship. In fact, Connery's use of Lollabrigida as a lure to snare Richardson is more than just clever plotting (which it is). Connery's frightening confrontation with the convicted Gina in her death cell shows that he equated Lollabrigida with all women, who always were charmed by Richardson, and with his mother - whom he refers to as a spaniel bitch (quite vehemently). Connery may want the fortune, but he also wants to humiliate women for what his father went through.
My favorite moment in the film was in the conclusion: when Alexander Knox as the detective, and Johnny Sekka confront Connery with new evidence that Richardson was murdered on the yacht, not at his country estate (the key for Connery's plot to frame Lollabrigida), he cynically and mockingly says, "You mean that when I lit the cigarette for Uncle Charles in the limousine, the old boy was really dead?" Unperturbed Knox says, "Yes, I was meaning to ask you why you did that!" Connery suddenly realizes that Knox is not dismissing the new evidence, and that a sudden idea that Connery put into use in the car ride from the yacht is actually going to help hang him. He never fully recovers his ease and control after that moment.
This is a good murder film, and well worth watching when it appears on cable or DVD or video. Catch it if you can.
It is funny that the plot line of a rich person being murdered for his or her fortune is such a popular line in detective fiction. In reality, while there have been rich murder victims (Sir Harry Oakes, William Rice - of Rice Institute fame, Jim Fisk, Stanford White), few were killed for their fortunes. Fisk and White were victims in love triangles that got out of hand. Oakes was probably murdered either for opposing the entrance of the Mafia into his beloved Bahamas, or his opposition to a band of neo-Nazis trying to center Fascist activities in the Western Hemisphere in that island (the neo-Nazis possibly having the blessings of it's then governor the Duke of Windsor). Rice, a millionaire speculator, was poisoned in 1900 by his secretary and a crooked lawyer who planned to plunder his estate - their legal defeat enabled the victim's estate to go ahead with his hopes for the Texas college he planned.
Yet story after story is about the murder of a wealthy individual for inheritance purposes. Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers frequently use it for a motive. I won't say that greed does not play a part in crime, but most crime is due to anger or hate.
The murder of Charles Richmond (Sir Ralph Richardson) in this film is actually more than sheer greed. Connery's nephew plans to inherit the multi-million pound estate but he also hates how Richardson humiliated his brother (Connery's father) by luring Connery's mother into a sexual relationship. In fact, Connery's use of Lollabrigida as a lure to snare Richardson is more than just clever plotting (which it is). Connery's frightening confrontation with the convicted Gina in her death cell shows that he equated Lollabrigida with all women, who always were charmed by Richardson, and with his mother - whom he refers to as a spaniel bitch (quite vehemently). Connery may want the fortune, but he also wants to humiliate women for what his father went through.
My favorite moment in the film was in the conclusion: when Alexander Knox as the detective, and Johnny Sekka confront Connery with new evidence that Richardson was murdered on the yacht, not at his country estate (the key for Connery's plot to frame Lollabrigida), he cynically and mockingly says, "You mean that when I lit the cigarette for Uncle Charles in the limousine, the old boy was really dead?" Unperturbed Knox says, "Yes, I was meaning to ask you why you did that!" Connery suddenly realizes that Knox is not dismissing the new evidence, and that a sudden idea that Connery put into use in the car ride from the yacht is actually going to help hang him. He never fully recovers his ease and control after that moment.
This is a good murder film, and well worth watching when it appears on cable or DVD or video. Catch it if you can.