MovieChat Forums > 5 Fingers (1952) Discussion > The Man in the White Dinner Jacket (SPOI...

The Man in the White Dinner Jacket (SPOILER)

posted 19 years ago by jglapin
17 replies | jump to latest

Early on, the character, Diello, recalls in his youth working as a deckhand aboard a tramp steamer. The boat is in Rio De Janero harbor. Diello looks up at the hillside and sees a gentleman in a white dinner jacket overlooking the harbor. Then and there Diello decides that he will become that man and does ever so briefly.

I saw this film for the first time some forty odd years ago. Since then, whenever I think of James Mason I see him in that white dinner jacket- a role he was born for. Not a bad accomplishment for a Yorkshire lad!

[–] franklinlj 19 years ago

Since this is a spoiler thread, I have a question about the action. Towards the end it turns out that not only has the countess run off with Mason's money, but has also written letters to both the British and the Germans, each denouncing him as a spy for the other. Now I can understand her making up to him, grabbbing the money and running, but why all that effort to get him in Dutch after she skips? Was there that much personal feeling, and why?

[–] susan-191 19 years ago

If you recall in the letter that James Mason read the Countess speaks of humiliation. She was disgusted with her need to be 'affectionate' with a servant. I think she was also intent on eliminating him because I would think in her circles she would be gossiped about and 'cut' with her lower station lover should it come out.

[–] miltonebx-1 17 years ago

If the Countess can "eliminate" him, either by the Nazis or British--she is then safe from any revenge from him.

[–] Luftmensch67 9 years ago

I have just watched the film for the first time. I found the relationship between Diello and the Countess fascinating. It seemed to me that Diello had lived a life of humiliation being treated as a servant and was determined to escape and become that man in a white dinner jacket, high above it all. But the Countess, rich and respected as she was, had lived her whole life as a woman of her era. That meant that, no matter what her status, she would always be subject to the humiliation that came with simply being a woman. Even Diello could never understand what that was like -- to be rich and titled and yet never truly to have any power, except what she could obtain from her influence over men.

I can't be sure whether she ever had any real feeling for Diello, whether she intended to betray him from the start, but I think the turning point was when she had gotten all the false papers, withdrawn the money, using every ounce of feminine charm, as she reported to him, and she said "we have enough" [money] and Diello said "we?" and let her know in no uncertain terms that she would only get money from him at his pleasure.

I doubt that any of the men writing the material on which the film was based or otherwise involved in the production could have understood the Countess' position as a woman as a modern viewer can. The Countess herself would not have understood it in modern terms, but she knew that she had only the power of her sexual allure to count on in a world where men held all the cards.

One does root for Diello because of Mason's sensitive portrayal and I wished that he could have remained on his Rio balcony, especially since his treason had essentially netted the Germans no advantage (love that hangman speech!) but I suppose his bitterness at Anna's betrayal would have continued to overshadow his triumph, so his vengeful laughter really is the perfect ending to a splendidly subtle film.

[–] drjukebox 15 years ago

I, too, was a deckhand on an ocean liner in Rio de Janeiro. I must have seen the movie when I was young, because I, too had this image iof myself in a white dinner jacket, drink in one hand, smoking a cigarette, overlooking a coastal city in the moonlight from a terrace.
Then this came to really happen, in Acapulco years later. And I thought about this film, that I now haven't seen in forty years but remember well.
One of James Mason's best movies, isn't it? One I really enjoyed anyway.

[–] krains 15 years ago

Great that the movie came back to you - I've never really gotten that image out of my head, either.

James Mason was born to play this role - you really do root for him!

[–] geoffrey-jackson 11 years ago

Thank you for posting your anecdote. It's certainly an indelible image that also turns out to be an important part of the story.

Yes, Mason's acting was well done as was the general choice of actors. Shooting at the actual locations was a good move too. Apparently it helps the actors get into character.

For the record, I rated this film 8/10.

[–] Charlot47 11 years ago

But in the film the man in the white dinner jacket dines alone, with no female company. Just as in Ankara, where he presumably had a bachelor room in the ambassador’s residence. Was he just one of nature’s loners, loyal only to himself? And however desperate Anna was, could she ever have trusted him?

[–] geoffrey-jackson 11 years ago

It seems a few young sailors have had the same idea. Some no doubt have been lucky enough to live the dream.

I suppose you're right in that Ulysses was just another loner. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are quite content living a solitary life.

Who knows if Anna could have trusted him. My guess is yes. I can't recall anything in the story to indicate otherwise.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

"Ulysses"? You mean Cicero, presumably. You're confusing your classical characters.

Obviously Anna didn't trust him, or at least she wanted nothing to do with him, since she turned him in to both the British and the Germans so that both sides would be out to kill him while she got safely away. Cicero's mistake was in trusting her.

[–] ScopeWatcher 10 years ago

Oh, hobnob53:

Our IMDb neighbor geoffrey-jackson did not confuse names.

On film AND in real life the spy's code name was Cicero, while for the film the character was renamed Ulysses Diello. Remember?

Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

No, actually, I did not remember that Diello's first name was Ulysses. I looked at the cast list and saw that that is in fact the character's full name, which I probably noticed before but not remembered.

But nowhere in the film that I can think of did anyone ever refer to him by his first name. He was always just called "Diello". If the name "Ulysses" was ever said or indicated anywhere in the movie it must have been a brief one-off use, but I don't recall even a single offhand reference to him by that name.

So, while geoffrey-jackson appears to indeed be correct, it's still extremely odd to refer to him as "Ulysses" when he was never called that in the film.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

geoffrey-jackson,

You're right that shooting the exterior sequences of this film in the actual locations was a good idea, but it did nothing to help the actors get into character, for the simple reason that none of the actors ever went to Turkey.

All of them, from James Mason on down, stayed in Hollywood, where they filmed all their scenes. The shots of the movie's characters in Turkey used doubles for Mason and all the others -- note that in the location shots you never see their faces and they're shown only from a distance or behind. If you look closely the heights and builds of most of the doubles don't quite match the actors they're substituting for.

They did do a good job of re-creating actual buildings and other exterior Turkish locations (streets, etc.) in the studio for close-ups of the actors in scenes that had been filmed using doubles in Turkey. But the actors had to imagine they were in Ankara or Istanbul. And all the interiors were filmed on the Fox lot.

This was not an uncommon practice in several Hollywood films of the 50s and 60s. It was an easy way to get some authenticity by sending a second unit to film some exteriors abroad for a few days, while being spared the enormous expense of sending the actors, director, crew and equipment to a foreign location for weeks at a time.

[–] Toshi51 9 years ago

You are probably right about the locations and Second Unit. Thinking of the scene where Diello enters the cafe to use the phone. That looked more real than a studio set. I will have to watch it again.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

The movie's prologue specifically states that only the exteriors were filmed in Turkey. And if you watch, none of those shots contains a close-up of any actor's face. As I recall in the scene you mention we see Mason's double enter that café in a distance shot. The close-ups of him in the booth are clearly studio sequences, with the Turkish footage behind him a rear projection.

Mason's double is pretty close in terms of general build. Not so much the two British agents (Michael Rennie and Roger Plowden). There's a significant height difference between the two actors but in the distance shot of them walking out of the café in Istanbul with Diello, their two doubles are almost the same height.

[–] Toshi51 9 years ago

It worked well, this Studio "magic". I have seen the movie many times and failed to notice.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Well, that was their point, wasn't it? They did do a pretty good job. But I have to say I noticed it the very first time I saw the film, perhaps because I know the technique and was also alerted by the prologue's statement that only the exterior scenes were filmed in Turkey. The lack of faces or close-ups in the location shots was another giveaway.