MovieChat Forums > Libel (1960) Discussion > Absurd movie

Absurd movie

posted 11 years ago by Ironman54
10 replies | jump to latest

I thought they were finally going to get to the obvious point on which the wife could have defiantly swore that he was the true hubby (or not) when the one barrister said 'Come now, you lived together as husband and wife for (4 ?) years" (or something close to this).
They say that no 2 humans have the same finger prints .... well, as anyone over the age of 12 knows, the odds of both men having the same penis are so off the charts ...
They did sleep in separate beds and this was made in 1959 but please, even in 1959 men and women weren't so isolated from each other during 'the act' that she wouldn't have been aware of the 'difference' the very 1st time they were intimate again upon his return from the war. OK, the odds aren't as high as with finger prints and its very possible that they 'did it' in the dark. But long before this ever came to trial, she would have surely 'known'. How the hell did these A list actors get roped into this joke of a story ??? I can just imagine the audiences reaction to this movie back in '59 !! No doubt 9/10ths of the men were sitting there in silence rolling their eyes and 100% of the females were holding back laughs.
The ride home would have been pretty awkward too as in 1959 sex wasn't discussed openly like today. No doubt it would have came out but with a bit of blushing, hinting and lots of 'you know ...' and 'think about it dear, it will come to you ... ' (to the 1/10th of the thick as a brick male population). It had to provide plenty of laughs around the water cooler and on bridge night :-)

BTW, I'm no spring chicken, I was around in '59 so yes I'm aware of how things were when it came to matters of 'sex' but they weren't THIS off the wall - trust me !

[–] nscom-1 11 years ago

They didn't get married until after the war. They didn't have sex before marriage. It happens, you know.

[–] GinaRenee 11 years ago

The movie was made in '59 but set in the 1940s. And a lot of people in the 1940s waited for sex until marriage.

(Some even do today, believe it or not. :-) )

[–] howardkettle 9 years ago

Where or when is it stated that the film is set in the 1940s? I had assumed it was set in the present day.

[–] ErikRP 9 years ago

During the war she was his fiancee. Add however long they'd been married (I didn't catch how long it had been) to approximately 1945 (since that was when Number Fifteen was found) and that's the setting for the movie.

[–] Oleg123 8 years ago

its not set in 1945. In the film a common woman already has a tv set. That wasn't the case till the 50s.

[–] Reedmalloy 8 years ago

The movie was set in 1959. Two films are referenced in the opening scene (see the IMDB "trivia" for this film). But the OP is correct: it was 1945 when Lodden returned from Germany and before 1940 when he was captured, and abstinence before marriage before 1940 was not uncommon at all.

[–] seekermatt 11 years ago

spoilers.
the basic core premise, that one man could replace another, was absurd based solely on physical appearance.
and the fact that dirk bogarde had to play both parts proves the point.

[–] khalefadoriath 9 years ago

The idea that one man can replace another is an enduring theme in films and literature and a single actor playing both roles is pretty commonplace too. This is a key plot point of Dickens great historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities. It is also the theme of The Return of Martin Guerre where a man returns from war and takes the place of someone else. Eventually there is a court case but for years he was accepted (the films and books are based on a real life case in, I believe, 15th century France). People are clearly fascinated by the possibility of someone passing themselves off as someone else.
I recently bought a copy of Libel as I hadn't seen it for years and found it to be thoroughly compelling and well acted by Dirk Bogarde in both parts.

[–] mls4182 8 years ago

You left out The Patty Duke Show.

[–] jonkennedy 8 years ago

One thing that could have helped clear things up earlier was the scar on Sir Mark's leg, acquired from falling out of a tree as described by his cousin Gerald. It's not mentioned in the medical exam report, but all Sir Mark would have had to do was roll up his pant leg and show it. Lady Loddon would know if it's there or not, too. It was never mentioned again.