Artivels Undescribable Perfection

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 30 December 1960 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Victoria: 17 February 1961. U.S. release: 8 February 1961. U.K. release: 29 January 1961. Australian release: 23 February 1961. 8,971 feet. 99 minutes.COMMENT: For once, there was a pretty fair consensus among the critics as to the faults of this picture:"A first-class idea for a spy story is unnecessarily spoiled in this otherwise more-than-competent programmer... Screenwriter Balchin should have known better than to put a 'frame' around the story and tell the heart of it in flashback. The easily foreseen result of such ineptitude is that the spectator's pleasure is spoiled by knowing how it all ends", wrote Flavia Wharton in Films In Review.The reviewer for Variety also found "A weakness of the film is that it is revealed at the beginning that the hero gets through his ordeal safely." Time's critic tended to agree: "An ingenious spy thriller that raises subtle and uncomfortable questions of political morality. If a citizen betrays his country, the crime is called treason and the penalty, in wartime, is death. But what if a country betrays one of its citizens?" As for myself, I concur with most of the above. Suzy Parker is certainly dull all the way through. And some of the other acting is suspect. One of the faults of British films is that most players make no attempt whatever at conveying foreign nationals. Bosley Crowther noted that "Robert Stephens plays a Nazi captain as if he were a product of an English public school," but Mr. Stephens is merely part of — rather than an exception to — the tradition.Many of our problems center with the surrounding frame story which is not only poorly written but slackly directed too. Terseness and imagination from both quarters increase dramatically once the flashback starts. Here Balchin's suspenseful, to-the-point writing obviously incorporates his first-hand knowledge of the organizing and modus operandi of spying.The budget appears quite lavish by British "A"-feature standards and CinemaScope is well utilized.

RanchoTuVu The British military brass led by Harry Andrews choose one of their own junior officers played by Bradford Dillman to go on a mission into Nazi-occupied France based on a psychological profile that he will crack under torture and reveal the false information they wish to have the Germans believe about the imminent D-Day invasion. Dillman is chosen for the mission on the recommendation of Suzy Parker, who plays Andrews administrative assistant. As a psychological drama Circle of Deception works fairly well. Parker is especially good at playing both ends, working to implement Andrews plan but also falling for Dillman. Dillman is good once he gets captured by the Germans, who torture him convincingly. After he breaks, Dillman's character has to live with himself, still believing that he let down the war effort by divulging true information.

dougdoepke I recall seeing this film on first release and being astonished by its cynical portrayal of Allied war planning. Except for an odd-man-out like Attack (1956), WWII was treated in this pre- Vietnam period as a difficult yet idealistic march to victory. There was little hint of such ruthless tactics as are portrayed here. Thus the movie's grim version of the logic of war became something of an eye-opener for a new generation used to less disturbing accounts of the people in charge.I doubt that many people saw the film. It's not the kind of production that invites an audience, with its ugly b&w photography, deglamorized Suzy Parker, and downbeat 100 minutes. Then too, the screenplay's use of flashback undercuts the suspense in an odd dramatic turn, since we know from the outset that Lieut. Raine (Dillman) survives his ordeal no matter how bad it becomes. My guess is the producers wanted to reassure audiences from the outset that Raine was not being deliberately sent to his doom. That may have lightened the mood and lessened the guilt, but it comes at the expense of both impact and suspense.Dillman's excellent as the conflicted Lieutenant, while Parker does a lot better than expected for an ex-super model. And, of course, there's jut-jawed Harry Andrews as the Machiavellian captain in charge, who gives his cynical scheme all the military authority of Moses passing down the Ten Commandments. Also, I like the way Capt. Stein, the lead Nazi interrogator, is portrayed against stereotype as a civilized, sympathetic type. In passing—note how the infamous water-boarding technique is used as a last resort to pry information from the hapless Raine, a surprisingly topical note from a 50-year old movie.The movie makes a significant point, I think, whether the point was intentional or not. Now, the logic of war has long approved sacrificing a few men in order to save many more. It's not a happy logic, but it has a certain utilitarian morality to it—better to lose 10 men than 1000. At bottom, this is the accepted reasoning Capt. Rawson is applying to Lt. Raine—better to sacrifice this one man than the thousands who might otherwise be saved. So, why does the process of preparing Raine for sacrifice cause so much unease, as I think it does. There are several disturbing factors in play that are unlike more standard military situations. Above all, Raine is not only being deceived about his mission, he's being exploited as a person whose frailties are being turned against him. Rawson is counting on fear of pain overcoming what shame Raine might feel as a result of being tortured into releasing information that will mislead German defenses. Thus it's not death that Rawson is counting on or that Raine is facing, instead it's permanent shame. As a result, it's not so much Raine's body that's being sacrificed to the Allied cause as it is his soul. Even if he survives, he will carry that burden of guilt and shame, which for the brave man Raine is, comes at the cost of his self-respect. And Rawson knows it. And that I think is what's so unsettling about the captain's scheme even though the military logic is pretty straightforward.Anyway, I wish the movie had had the capacity to follow through on its provocative premise with an unhappy ending. That way I think it would have achieved some of the distinction of a Paths of Glory (1958) that did follow through on its cynical premise. But this was a studio production (TCF) and I guess as a business in 1960 they felt they could only go so far. However, note how the very last shot of the lovers reconciling is shot from an impersonal distance, thereby fulfilling story requirements but canceling the all-important emotional impact. Looks to me like some kind of effort at softening the happy ending. Compromised or not, the movie is still worth viewing for its provocative premise, though I wouldn't recommend it after a hard day at work.

edwagreen Bradford Dillman in a dilly of a movie with the late Suzy Parker.The story concerns itself with British intelligence choosing someone they know will crack under Nazi torture and divulge secrets that will be false in nature pertaining to the D-Day invasion.Naturally, the female (Parker) falls for our hero.(Dillman) Of course, Dillman surprises all by surviving the brutal torture. The picture was torture by itself, watching the torturing sequences was even worse. The worst part was that the suicide pill wasn't supposed to work so Dillman had to endure more. Poor Dillman. Poor audience.This film at best is slow moving and tedious in many ways.