Let’s start at the end and work backwards to the beginning. And no, that’s not a mere ploy to try to grab your attention. There are some movies where, due in large part to the nature of their endings, it is hard to talk in detail about them without straying deep into the kind of spoiler territory that I prefer to avoid if at all possible. The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry (1945) is one such movie, a film which features a significant twist, some might even say an outrageous one. I shall do my utmost to allow those coming fresh to the film to experience it as it should be, the end titles even include a contemporary appeal to audiences to respect this aspect after all, although I see no reason why we cannot discuss any and all developments freely in the comments section below.
The prologue informs us that we are in New England, in a town called Corinth to be exact. It feels somehow appropriate that events should unfold in a town whose name alludes to a classical past, for New England (to an outsider such as myself at least) always seems to have an air being connected to the past. The town bridges different eras (just as Corinth in Greece acts as a physical bridge between the mainland and the Peloponnese), or could one say they clash? The main square has a statue of a famous general and the whole place is dominated by the hulking prison-like mill which provides the main source of employment. Within the walls of this forbidding edifice we see a man toiling away in his studio/office. This is Harry Melville Quincey (George Sanders), a descendant of that worthy positioned for posterity astride a marble horse in the square. His is a humdrum existence; the glories of his ancestors mean little in the thrusting industrial age and he must content himself with designing yet another variation on a rosebud pattern for an everyday textile. Harry is a man who is not so much drifting into staid and uneventful middle-age as one who is firmly mired in a world of stifling decorum. If the town is still shackled to a degree to what came before, then the house where Harry lives is practically a mausoleum, a burial chamber for one’s dreams. The furniture and decor recall a faded gentility, weighed down by the combined pressures of expectation and disappointment. He shares this space with his two sisters, Hester (Moyna Macgill) is a wittering and fussing old maid while Lettie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) is a manipulative malingerer.
So Harry lives daily amid bickering and pettishness, punctuated by spells of tedium at a job which is eating away at his creativity and relieved only by his occasional star gazing via the telescope he has laboriously constructed in the summer house. This neatly sums up his character, the consummate ditherer and dreamer, forever focused on the faraway and the unattainable. Then all of a sudden that distant sparkle lands right in front of him in the form of Deborah Brown (Ella Raines), a designer from New York and a bracing breath of fresh air destined to blow away the cobwebs and wreak havoc in the plodding, predictable Quincey household. While love seeks Harry Quincey, something far less savory stirs in the heart of his needy and clinging sister Lettie. Passion, possessiveness and fear are set on a collision course, their meeting point to be decided by a man sat alone in his living room contemplating a small bottle of poison.
The tone of the movie shifts from a fairly light beginning, with some well-observed and self-deprecating humor provided by Sanders, Macgill and Sara Allgood, on through some tightly controlled melodrama towards a progressively darker destination. It is a smoothly blended process with no unseemly jarring observed, not till the very end anyway and the coda that is sure to displease some. I am willing to go out on a limb here and admit that I quite like this twist which occurs. It satisfies me on a number of levels and always has done. I feel sure others will disagree with me here , but I reckon it can be read or interpreted in a number of ways, not just the superficial and obvious one. I actually see it as a natural extension or growth of the character of Harry – one would hardly expect anything else of the man, and whether it is in fact meant to be taken at face value is, I think, left to the viewer’s discretion.
Robert Siodmak did as much as anyone to codify the look and conventions of film noir in that great run of movies in the 1940s from Phantom Lady right through to The File on Thelma Jordan. I imagine The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry will not be at the very top of the list of favorite films noir from the director for too many people yet it remains enjoyable and well crafted. Siodmak coaxed fine performances from all the main cast members with Sanders tapping into a diffidence that he often masked with his characteristic polished smugness. Here he allows that mask to slip and offers a peek at a man whose faltering weakness is recognizably human and sympathetic even if he’s not always likeable. Ella Raines , in her third of four collaborations with Siodmak, exudes a sexy, sassy big city confidence, her earthy frankness bowling Harry over from the very first moment. Harry’s character resides in a remarkably Irish household, with Belfast native Moyna Macgill (Angela Lansbury’s mother) alongside Dubliners Geraldine Fitzgerald and Sara Allgood. Macgill flutters delightfully and makes for a strong contrast to Fitzgerald’s intense self-absorption; the latter’s final confrontation with Sanders is overflowing with cracked malice and comes across as genuinely chilling. Sara Allgood is good value as the lugubrious housekeeper, clashing with the two sisters and giving as good as she gets while she philosophizes about her own longstanding engagement with gloomy resignation.
The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry has been released in the US on DVD and Blu-ray by Olive films, sporting an attractive albeit imperfect transfer. It took me many years to catch up with the movie as it was one of those titles that never seemed to get screened on TV. I finally got to see it when it was broadcast one summer when I was on vacation and I liked it immediately. Sanders’ low key characterization resonated with me and Ella Raines in her pomp could never be disappointing. While some (many?) viewers will gripe over the nature of the twist that I have attempted to dance carefully around, I believe there is more of an issue relating to what Deborah sees in Harry in the first place, and why she perseveres in the face of his inertia and his family’s obstructiveness. Ah well, love is… whatever one wishes it to be, I suppose. To borrow a repeated phrase from the film, that’s the way things are. Speaking as a dedicated fan of the films of Robert Siodmak, I obviously recommend seeing this movie. Sure there are weaknesses on show but it was made right in the middle of his best period and that alone ought to make it required viewing.
Riding the High Country 
Despite its pedigree I haven’t seen this drama. Unfortunately I read the New York Times by Bosley Crowther who didn’t like it at all. He described George Sanders as badly miscast, Geraldine Fitzgerald as spleenish and Ella Raines as weak. He also gives away the ending and references another film with a similar ending ( which I’m sure you know.)
I should have stuck with your review because, although I’d like to see it, I’ve spoiled it for myself!
A shame Siodmak and Joan Harrison couldn’t get the ending they wanted . If only they had filmed it and the reels were discovered and released!
LikeLike
Hmm, the curse of Crowther strikes again in another masterclass in dyspeptic grump. I quite understand someone taking issue with the direction the story takes right at the end, but writing a review, especially when the film had just been released and was thus fresh, that not only brazenly spoils the ending but essentially does something similar to another movie (which I will not name here) is merely spiteful. As for feeling put off as a consequence, don’t let that happen. I try to avoid spoilers (when I’m writing about something and also when I’m reading about a title that is new to me) but, knowing how easy it is to come across such stuff, I like to keep in mind that most movies can still be enjoyed when we are familiar with their endings. With viewing, as is the case with so much in life, there is perhaps more pleasure to be found in the journey than in the destination.
I will allow myself to explore spoiler territory in the comments, however, so anyone wishing to avoid such issues ought to proceed with caution.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Both this movie, as well as the other one referenced by Crowther, can be taken as cautionary tales. As such, the endings that many find so distressing can still feed into the noir world, in my opinion anyway. That a main character is able to cast his mind forward and speculate on the tragic outcome of his musings and desires does not have to be seen as a cop out – after all, the writers themselves are doing no more than speculating on some moral conundrum. Alternatively, if that fails to satisfy, I think one could see that coda as nothing more than wishful thinking on Harry’s part, that events had occurred as we saw on screen and that in his bleak despair, he is now casting around for some spiritual lifeline to seize on. In other words, that it is the coda itself that is the dream. Or perhaps I’m allowing my generosity to get the better of me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, the curse of Crowther. That guy never met a movie he didn’t hate. At least not a crime movie (he didn’t use the term Noir). This is just another good Noir he did his customary hit job on. Stay away from his “reviews” at all costs.
If he hated a movie, it should be taken as a ringing endorsement.
LikeLike
It does almost appear that he made up his mind to trash certain movies regardless of their quality.
LikeLike
Not a curse, the guy has a job and is doing it to the best of his ability. Just a columnist — so who cares what he says, good, bad, or indifferent.
LikeLike
While there’s some truth in this, I think we ought to remember that someone who certainly seemed to go in for regularly trashing movies that didn’t deserve such scathing dismissals did have some influence on how works were received. Sure not everyone pays or paid attention to critics but many do and did and it feels unfair that the box office, or indeed reputations, might be adversely affected by unjust carping.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s exactly what I thought. The problem with Crowther was that the power (for lack of a better word) he had for almost three decades as NYTimes columnist (1940-68) far outweighed his abilities.
He seemed to like to trash movies just because he could, without actually knowing much about them. He liked to hear himself talk, or better see himself write. For so many film critics, their own ego is much more important than delivering an actual well-thought out critique.
LikeLike
There’s a lesson in that for all of us who comment on movies I guess, even someone like myself who simply occupies a small corner of the web. It’s important to remember that the movie should always remain the focus.
LikeLike
I don’t think you need to worry, Colin. 🙂
LikeLike
True, never hurts to keep this in mind though. 🙂
LikeLike
I think that’s a good point Margot. It’s also much easier to write a scathing snarky review than an intelligent review. And unfortunately in some circles being scathing and snarky will gain a person a reputation for cleverness.
LikeLike
I have the Italian DVD. Will re-watch and get right back to you 😁
LikeLike
Please do. I’d like to hear what you think.
LikeLike
SPOILERS ABOUT THIS AND THE OTHER MOVIE BELOW
***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I assume the other movie is THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW which was released around the same time. I’ve seen that a lot and have just seen THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY a few times but liked it too. Siodmak is golden through that film noir period and for me George Sanders can do no wrong.
Just to note that the dream ending in WINDOW was Fritz Lang’s own idea according to him, and he always defended it, believing the punishment the protagonist would have suffered if it were all real would be way beyond anything he deserved. A cautionary tale as you say, and a little sad in a way–because I liked the character’s daydreaming, yearning side. Really, he was a sweet guy.
With the same actors–Robinson, Bennett and Duryea (and Duryea was wonderful, playing a smooth but mean blackmailer as only he could in his few scenes in WINDOW), Lang’s SCARLET STREET is of course memorably tragic, but they are all different characters there and it makes sense for that to contrast to WINDOW by not being a dream and being all too real.
I’ve had different thoughts about this at different times, but in the end have found I’m just fine with those dream endings in both those films (and similar endings in other films). These are movies–they are made up and don’t need to just follow what would literally happen. They can be about other things and have a reality of their own. That’s the nature of cinema and something to be embraced.
LikeLike
I think we’re broadly in agreement here. Storytelling is a creative and imaginative process and once sets of inflexible rules as to what is and isn’t acceptable or permissible are applied, then a little of that creative sparkle is snuffed out. I know every form of story or form of telling does not appeal to me personally but it’s not necessary that they should. I would much rather have a range of options available than impose some arbitrary restrictions in pursuit of some illusory version of credibility.
LikeLike
Interesting what you say about the dream ending in The Woman in the Window, that it was Lang’s own idea. I was under the impression he didn’t like the ending because it was studio-imposed, that’s why he formed his own production company later.
LikeLike
My memory is that he said this in FRITZ LANG IN AMERICA, a book that is mostly a long interview with Peter Bogdanovich. I’m not as sure now but I think Bogdanovich asked him about it assuming that it was imposed. Somewhere along the way I lost track of this book, but maybe someone here has it.
Of course, he may have said different things about this at different times. That would not be at all unusual.
Sure Lang would have wanted his own production company and not answer to producers he felt were unsupportive. At the time, he got along with Joan Bennett, who always came over so well in his movies, and partnered with her and her husband Walter Wanger. Unfortunately that only lasted for a few films. But on the whole Lang sustained his vision beautifully no matter what the production circumstances, even if he felt challenged by it at times.
LikeLike
Thank you for the clarification, Blake.
I agree about Lang’s vision remaining intact, studio system or not.
LikeLike
Fritz Lang in America is one of my favourite film books. He did say that the ending was his own idea and that the screenwriter on the film, Nunnally Johnson, fought him bitterly over it.
And yeah, you always have to be bit sceptical of Lang’s statements. He was consciously promoting his own image in interviews. He was creating the Fritz Lang Legend.
With Lang’s endings you always have to remember that he was a Catholic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“With Lang’s endings you always have to remember that he was a Catholic.”
Yes, and nowhere does this show more than in Scarlet Street. Chris Cross’s punishment is virtually overkill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it tempting to wonder if many writers on film haven’t conditioned themselves to expect a certain direction be taken by all movies. I may be way off base but it sometimes feels as though a kind of consensus has been built up around the notion of embattled directors forever at odds with the studio bosses over where their movies were headed, a consensus that I’m not sure is always true. Is there any reason to suppose directors like Lang or Siodmak wouldn’t have wanted to achieve some variety in the tone of their work? Surely subscribing to the idea of the auteur does not preclude some degree of diversity. Does the existence of common themes running through a filmmaker’s oeuvre demand strict adherence to some rigid template? Is it unreasonable to suggest that they were happy to leave the audience thinking on occasion, or even to hand them a more upbeat final scene? Siodmak was not averse to offering some comfort to his audience and not every movie of his would end with the bleakness of Criss Cross. Lang could do sour as well as anyone, as is abundantly clear in Scarlet Street, but this movie and, to perhaps a lesser extent, Clash by Night allow a glimmer of light and hope to emerge. I know I once had doubts about a film like Daves’ Dark Passage, but even taking account of that director’s innate positivity I learned to accept that not all movies, regardless of whether they are labeled noir, need to be forced into boxes and categories shaped by viewer expectations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good points. A major problem is that a lot of critics label 1940s movies as film noir and then get upset if those movies don’t conform to the rules of film noir. The rules of noir were formulated by critics several decades after these movies were made. Guys like Siodmak and Lang had never heard of film noir. They had no idea they were supposed to conform to the rules of a genre invented years after they made their movies.
Lang wasn’t trying to make film noir. He was however very interested in making movies about redemption. And one of the things Lang emphasised in his interviews with Bogdanovich was his belief in free will. Lang saw this as a core Catholic belief, a belief he never abandoned. Redemption is possible, but you have to choose it. If people want to understand Lang’s movies they need to approach him as a Catholic film-maker, not as a noir film-maker. Lang was not interested in embracing nihilism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve piqued my interest with your excellent review, Colin. Thank you for bringing this film to my attention.
LikeLike
You’re welcome! I like having the opportunity to either remind people of a movie they have forgotten or to introduce them to one they have never seen. I hope you get to see it, and of course that you enjoy it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Before starting to read your thoughts on this film, Colin, I bumped my copy up the ‘to watch’ pile and watched it first.
I am pretty sure I first saw this film at London’s National Film Theatre in the 1970s as I seem to remember a season of Robert Siodmak films that would have included it. So… a re-watch but I didn’t remember the twist after all these years and I really didn’t see it coming. As you so rightly say, the ending can be taken by the viewer in either direction.
Produced by Joan Harrison and directed by Siodmak is a fantastic start for me anyway and the cast is very good. I was not familiar with Moyna Macgill but thought her excellent here. George Sanders was in a sense playing against type and I thought him very effective in this more unusual persona.
I really don’t see why anyone would have a real problem with the twist ending – it is a clever ruse. And as for Bosley Crowther (and he is not alone) I tend to avoid critics like the plague. They always seem to feel they have to make some sarcastic and smug critique to justify their existence.
I found UNCLE HARRY a very worthwhile watch. I was thoroughly engrossed – which to me makes the watch a success.
LikeLike
Yes, if a movie holds your attention in that way, then it does succeed. And when it comes to twists and the like, as long as they are well disguised and executed, I don’t see why they ought to be a problem. The question is whether one enjoyed or appreciated the viewing experience overall, not whether an intrinsically fantastic form of entertainment deviates from our perception of realism.
LikeLike
Just finished watching it and realised that I must have read about the ending as I knew it was coming though not exactly what (I suspect Clive Hirschhorn said something in his Universtal Story). I agree with you, the ending can be read ambiguously and does make sense in terms of his character. In a way it sits right there with WOMAN IN THE WINDOW and SCARLET STREET. I think Sanders and his three co-stars are really good in their roles (did Fitzgerald ever give a bad performance?) And again, you are so right in pointing out how the film switches tone as it progresses but ultimately makes it work. I have the Italian DVD and cannot recommend it as it’s a pretty knackered print (possibly 16mm) and has been incorrectly flagged as widescreen so you are obliged to watch it cropped. But I do like the title, which translates as “I Have Killed” and works nicely. I don’t suppose that any of the alternate endings they shot survive? Thanks for the nudge, great to see it finally. Less than a month before Indicator release their first Universal Noir box set and really looking forward to it (even if they let that Angelini bloke contribute to the booklet notes again 🙄)
LikeLike
You’re too modest, chum. I’ve no doubt your contribution on Siodmak’s Deported will be one of the highlights of the supplements on that set.
Sorry to hear your copy of the movie is less than ideal. The US DVD is a nice looking transfer though.
LikeLike
Your stills look fab! Got a lot out of this one – I think I started watching it years ago but got so annoyed by the DVD that I gave up. Glad I didn’t though.
LikeLike
Clive Hirschorn, author/compiler of the Universal Studios book is another critic that bugs me. It seemed to me that he viewed about 99% of the films in his book in a negative way. What does he actually like? And therefore why is he writing about films if he dislikes so many of them.
LikeLike
Is it possible some writers were guarding against charges of being too fond or too generous in their assessments and ended up straying too far in the other direction as a consequence?
LikeLike
I suppose that is always possible, Colin, and certainly one would not want to read how every film was marvellous either but there is a balance and some critics were unable to find it. I think Margot had a good point about some critics and enormous egos.
LikeLike
I think Margot had a good point about some critics and enormous egos.
I agree. You also have to consider the possibility that some critics are simply jealous of people who were actual film directors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Colin
I just cannot place this one in my memory at all. A Robert Siodmak film that I have never seen? I quickly added it to the must watch list. Thanks for the heads up.
Gordon
LikeLike
In all fairness, I believe it was rather elusive for a long time, at least reasonable quality. I know I only caught up with it myself around a dozen years ago.
LikeLike