Minor and small scale this screen version of John Mortimer's "The Dock Brief" may have been but it's frequently very funny and boasts two outstanding performances from a BAFTA nominated Richard Attenborough as the mundane, mild-mannered and mostly morose husband accused of murdering his wife, (a rumbustious Beryl Reid), and Peter Sellers as his mediocre if well-meaning barrister. It was perhaps a strange little movie for these two stars to have made at the time and it wasn't really a success but it's likable in its stagey way and there is a very nice supporting performance from David Lodge as a somewhat over-enthusiastic lodger.
20 Reviews
He murdered his wife because she WOULDN'T cheat on him or leave him!
planktonrules17 April 2021
Mr. Morganhall (Peter Sellers) is excited, as he became a barrister decades ago and has just sat in his office ever since....never getting to try a single case in court. To put it bluntly, he's not especially bright or a good lawyer...and now he's hoping a murder case he's been assigned to might open up the door for more trials. The problem is that his client, while a nice guy in many ways, DID murder his wife and freely admits it. He also, reluctantly, admits that the only reason he picked Morganhall was that he chose him at random! Does the defendant stand a chance with this boob of a lawyer?
This film is not a laugh out loud comedy and is quite subtle. The story also isn't super important, believe it or not. It's more a chance to watch the very talented Sellers show off his skills as an actor...and he's lovely in the lead. Richard Attenborough is also very nice as the killer...and the film is enjoyable and an unusual departure for them both. Well worth seeing....and I really loved seeing the clever way the director did those flashback scenes.
This film is not a laugh out loud comedy and is quite subtle. The story also isn't super important, believe it or not. It's more a chance to watch the very talented Sellers show off his skills as an actor...and he's lovely in the lead. Richard Attenborough is also very nice as the killer...and the film is enjoyable and an unusual departure for them both. Well worth seeing....and I really loved seeing the clever way the director did those flashback scenes.
Enjoyed the radio play version but not this
trimmerb123424 July 2016
John Mortimer was a very clever witty man. His writings were accessible, never laboured, they never patronised the audience, baffled them or bored them. As a former barrister, he was entirely used to addressing and winning-over juries. It was plausible at the very least that his writings were based on true experiences. Like Dickens, working in the field of Law exposed him to a gallery of characters and odd situations which were beyond most people's experiences.
And in the radio play version, the story starts with the curious but plausible situation where an imprisoned accused (of murdering his wife) is joined in his cell by the barrister who is to defend him. The dialogue is both entirely reasonable yet at the same time entirely plausible such that the accused wrongly assumes that the barrister is a another accused come to share the cell. A long conversation at entire cross-purposes ensues. The skill and wit is all in the carefully constructed dialogue.
Here in this film version, the simplicity and wit is replaced by superfluous dialogue and additional scenes. Richard Attenborough is excellent as the accused, a modest man with a great deal to be modest about. Peter Sellers is however lack-lustre, perhaps ill at ease with the part and perhaps the direction. Sellers was at base a comedian who became a comic actor. Perhaps in 1962 he had not yet developed the skill to deliver a part he could not empathise with.
I see that it received no awards of any kind - confirmation that it fell flat
And in the radio play version, the story starts with the curious but plausible situation where an imprisoned accused (of murdering his wife) is joined in his cell by the barrister who is to defend him. The dialogue is both entirely reasonable yet at the same time entirely plausible such that the accused wrongly assumes that the barrister is a another accused come to share the cell. A long conversation at entire cross-purposes ensues. The skill and wit is all in the carefully constructed dialogue.
Here in this film version, the simplicity and wit is replaced by superfluous dialogue and additional scenes. Richard Attenborough is excellent as the accused, a modest man with a great deal to be modest about. Peter Sellers is however lack-lustre, perhaps ill at ease with the part and perhaps the direction. Sellers was at base a comedian who became a comic actor. Perhaps in 1962 he had not yet developed the skill to deliver a part he could not empathise with.
I see that it received no awards of any kind - confirmation that it fell flat
A hidden gem of a film
david-6977 June 2004
Sometimes good movies fall through the cracks of the pavement. They disappear, forgotten about. 'The Dock Brief' (or 'Trial And Error', fluidity of title is another symptom) is one such film. Despite starring Peter Sellers and made in his glory period, it seldom reaches the television screens, seldom, if ever, talked about.
Watching this is nothing more than a revelation. The plot is simple, Morganhall (Sellers) a barrister, is given his first case in forty years, as he is chosen to defend Henpecked Herbert Fowle (Richard Attenbourgh), a grey, drab, bird lover, who has murdered his over-bearing, guffawing wife (Reid) because she wouldn't leave him. It is not an important case (the 'Dock Brief' of the title means that Fowle has no money for a lawyer, established barristers avoid them like the plague), but Morganhall sees this as an escape from the prison of his own life, 'Oh Fowle! The wonderful new life you've brought me!'
Morganhall and Fowle are little men, confined long before they are cell-bound (this film is full of images of confinement, prison cells, bird cages, claustrophobic houses, ) and the joy of the movie comes from their relationship, dull, grey Fowle takes wing as he falls under the spell of Morganhall's imagination. Sellers is wonderful, Morganhall is a tragic character, a defeated man, but never pathetic. In his dreams he is a great lawyer, but, naturally, his one great day in court ends in ruins, 'I had only to open my mouth and pour out words'.
Fowle is reprieved and released, due to Morganhall's incompetence and the barrister's dreams are dashed. Put like that, it is a bleak ending, yet the joy of the movie is that it ends in hope, in Morganhall's and Fowle's friendship. For the first time, as the leave prison and walk across Westminster Bridge, they are free from confinement (I love the little jig Sellers performs in long shot).
Both Sellers and Attenbourgh are on top form (though I've mostly singled out Sellers, Attenbourgh's lonely bird lover really is beautifully played) and lover's of gentle, bitter-sweet comedy, should seek out this movie. I think it's going to remain with me for the rest of my life, a truly life-affirming experience.
Watching this is nothing more than a revelation. The plot is simple, Morganhall (Sellers) a barrister, is given his first case in forty years, as he is chosen to defend Henpecked Herbert Fowle (Richard Attenbourgh), a grey, drab, bird lover, who has murdered his over-bearing, guffawing wife (Reid) because she wouldn't leave him. It is not an important case (the 'Dock Brief' of the title means that Fowle has no money for a lawyer, established barristers avoid them like the plague), but Morganhall sees this as an escape from the prison of his own life, 'Oh Fowle! The wonderful new life you've brought me!'
Morganhall and Fowle are little men, confined long before they are cell-bound (this film is full of images of confinement, prison cells, bird cages, claustrophobic houses, ) and the joy of the movie comes from their relationship, dull, grey Fowle takes wing as he falls under the spell of Morganhall's imagination. Sellers is wonderful, Morganhall is a tragic character, a defeated man, but never pathetic. In his dreams he is a great lawyer, but, naturally, his one great day in court ends in ruins, 'I had only to open my mouth and pour out words'.
Fowle is reprieved and released, due to Morganhall's incompetence and the barrister's dreams are dashed. Put like that, it is a bleak ending, yet the joy of the movie is that it ends in hope, in Morganhall's and Fowle's friendship. For the first time, as the leave prison and walk across Westminster Bridge, they are free from confinement (I love the little jig Sellers performs in long shot).
Both Sellers and Attenbourgh are on top form (though I've mostly singled out Sellers, Attenbourgh's lonely bird lover really is beautifully played) and lover's of gentle, bitter-sweet comedy, should seek out this movie. I think it's going to remain with me for the rest of my life, a truly life-affirming experience.
Pro Deo
myriamlenys29 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A barrister preparing a defence in a criminal case needs at least two mental abilities. The first ability is the ability to predict moves, like a chess master. The second is the ability to look at the case from various viewpoints : the viewpoint of the prosecution, the viewpoint of the judge, the viewpoint of the jury, and so on.
(There are psychologists, by the way, who maintain that an accused man, especially when guilty, goes through a similar internal dialogue, dissecting the circumstances and accusing, excusing, grilling, condemning... etc. himself. I have always thought that this was too generous an interpretation, since quite a lot of criminals have all the insight, curiosity and empathy of a brick - which rather explains why they became criminals in the first place.)
Now on to "The Dock Brief", an unusual little satire which shows the preparation of a defence in a criminal case. It illustrates the work of a barrister and it does so in a very vivid way. The barrister discovers the how and why of the crime ; the barrister gets to know the client and gains his trust ; he discusses tactics and strategies with him and listens to his feedback. In the process both men become human chameleons, taking on the part, indeed the persona, of a judge, a witness, an outside observer,...
This quality gives "The Dock Brief" a surreal, even absurd atmosphere ; at times it feels like something written by a Eugène Ionesco.
You'll notice that the barrister appointed to this case is but moderately gifted. This is indeed the structural problem with this whole system of "free" or "pro Deo" defence : quite often the defendant gets a barrister who's young, overworked, unwilling or inexperienced. (I once heard the sad tale of a man accused of petty theft, who was given a "pro Deo" lawyer. The lawyer arrived with a face like thunder, stating that he, personally, deeply despised rapists.) As a result our prisons are filled disproportionally with those too poor to pay a hefty fee.
In conclusion : a minor movie that's an intelligent and interesting satire rather than a "laugh a minute" comedy. Should make a good teaching tool for law school.
(There are psychologists, by the way, who maintain that an accused man, especially when guilty, goes through a similar internal dialogue, dissecting the circumstances and accusing, excusing, grilling, condemning... etc. himself. I have always thought that this was too generous an interpretation, since quite a lot of criminals have all the insight, curiosity and empathy of a brick - which rather explains why they became criminals in the first place.)
Now on to "The Dock Brief", an unusual little satire which shows the preparation of a defence in a criminal case. It illustrates the work of a barrister and it does so in a very vivid way. The barrister discovers the how and why of the crime ; the barrister gets to know the client and gains his trust ; he discusses tactics and strategies with him and listens to his feedback. In the process both men become human chameleons, taking on the part, indeed the persona, of a judge, a witness, an outside observer,...
This quality gives "The Dock Brief" a surreal, even absurd atmosphere ; at times it feels like something written by a Eugène Ionesco.
You'll notice that the barrister appointed to this case is but moderately gifted. This is indeed the structural problem with this whole system of "free" or "pro Deo" defence : quite often the defendant gets a barrister who's young, overworked, unwilling or inexperienced. (I once heard the sad tale of a man accused of petty theft, who was given a "pro Deo" lawyer. The lawyer arrived with a face like thunder, stating that he, personally, deeply despised rapists.) As a result our prisons are filled disproportionally with those too poor to pay a hefty fee.
In conclusion : a minor movie that's an intelligent and interesting satire rather than a "laugh a minute" comedy. Should make a good teaching tool for law school.
A Pleasant Two-Act
boblipton4 August 2019
Peter Sellers is a lawyer who has waited years for his first case. He gets it in the form of Richard Attenborough, who admits that he killed his wife, Beryl Reid because she wouldn't run away with the boarder. In Attenborough's cell, they brainstorm trial strategies in fantasy. Then they go up to the actual trial.
It's an absolute trifle of a movie, little more than a two-man show about the inanity of the law. That's hardly surprising, given that it's derived from a play by John Mortimer, best remembered for his many judicial mysteries, and the TV series RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY, based on them. Sellers and Attenborough attempt to evoke the sort of movie that might have been made were Laurel & Hardy to make one, although one without anything in the way of physical slapstick.
It's an absolute trifle of a movie, little more than a two-man show about the inanity of the law. That's hardly surprising, given that it's derived from a play by John Mortimer, best remembered for his many judicial mysteries, and the TV series RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY, based on them. Sellers and Attenborough attempt to evoke the sort of movie that might have been made were Laurel & Hardy to make one, although one without anything in the way of physical slapstick.
The ending makes this film
adrianovasconcelos25 November 2023
I know very little about Director James Hill, other than he directed BORN FREE (1966), one of my favorite films in early teen years.
THE DOCK BRIEF (also known as TRIAL AND ERROR) benefits immensely from the acting prowess of the two leads, Peter Sellers as a bumbling barrister who has coasted along all his life and is now faced with possibly the sole case he can win in his career, and Richard Attenborough as the bird lover with a wife with a broad sense of humor who somehow gets the bee to buzz under his bonnet, with upshot that he kills her in a fit of totally needless and incomprehensible rage.
Sellers keeps imagining defense punchlines, surprise witnesses, a judge, and Attenborough goes along with his barrister's phoney moves. You can tell that line of defense will not see Attenborough off the hook... but that is where the surprise ending comes up and saves the day! 7/10.
THE DOCK BRIEF (also known as TRIAL AND ERROR) benefits immensely from the acting prowess of the two leads, Peter Sellers as a bumbling barrister who has coasted along all his life and is now faced with possibly the sole case he can win in his career, and Richard Attenborough as the bird lover with a wife with a broad sense of humor who somehow gets the bee to buzz under his bonnet, with upshot that he kills her in a fit of totally needless and incomprehensible rage.
Sellers keeps imagining defense punchlines, surprise witnesses, a judge, and Attenborough goes along with his barrister's phoney moves. You can tell that line of defense will not see Attenborough off the hook... but that is where the surprise ending comes up and saves the day! 7/10.
A chronically unfunny and remarkably insubstantial satire of the British legal system
GusF28 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Based on the 1957 BBC Radio play of the same name by John Mortimer, this is a chronically unfunny and remarkably insubstantial satire of the British legal system. The screenplay by Pierre Rouve is so lacklustre and slowly paced that it makes a tortoise look like Usain Bolt or maybe even Barry Allen. In this respect, it may have lost something in its translation to the silver screen since Mortimer was a generally excellent writer. However, this is my first (and very probably last) exposure to this particular work so I can't be sure. The director James Hill does the best that he can but his efforts are largely in vain. Given the talent associated with the film and my legal background, I was very much looking forward to it but it turned out to be a bitterly disappointing experience.
The film stars Peter Sellers in an atypically mediocre performance as Wilfred Morgenhall, an incompetent barrister in his 60s whose career is distinguished only by its lack of distinction. He is delighted when he receives a dock brief to defend the quiet, meek Herbert Fowle - played quite well by Richard Attenborough, albeit in a distractingly false nose - who has been accused of murdering his wife Doris. Fowle is a bird seed salesman and, unfortunately, his side-splittingly hilarious name is as witty as the film gets. We are subjected to a series of flashbacks, each more uninteresting than the last, in which Fowle's motive for the crime is revealed. He disliked Doris' penchant for telling poor jokes and cackling like a hyena every three seconds and tried to set her up with their similarly irritating and obnoxious lodger Frank Bateson so she would leave him and he could get some peace and quiet at long last. However, she instead kicked Bateson out for being too familiar and Fowle killed her because she would not leave him. If I were a member of the jury, I would have been inclined to vote "not guilty," frankly. This is a funny idea but the execution fails to deliver so much as a single laugh, unless you count laughs of derision. At one point while ruminating on his disastrous attempt to defend Fowle, Morgenhall reflects that he should have asked the jury if any of them longed for a quiet life without jokes of any sort. If they do, I would recommend this film to them. Personally, I abide by the maxim that a day without laughter is a day wasted so I won't be watching it again.
Overall, this isn't an absolutely terrible film but it is such a forgettable, insubstantial one that I found it difficult to even work up the energy to criticise it. When you never laugh (at least in a non-derisive manner...) or even smile once during a comedy, you know that you're in trouble. This is my one of least favourite films of the year so far, I'm afraid. I really, really hope that it will end up as one of my Bottom Five of 2016 or I'll be in even more trouble. It's kinda odd since I think of Attenborough as being my good luck charm as far as films are concerned. He directed and/or appeared in four films in my Top Five of 2015!
The film stars Peter Sellers in an atypically mediocre performance as Wilfred Morgenhall, an incompetent barrister in his 60s whose career is distinguished only by its lack of distinction. He is delighted when he receives a dock brief to defend the quiet, meek Herbert Fowle - played quite well by Richard Attenborough, albeit in a distractingly false nose - who has been accused of murdering his wife Doris. Fowle is a bird seed salesman and, unfortunately, his side-splittingly hilarious name is as witty as the film gets. We are subjected to a series of flashbacks, each more uninteresting than the last, in which Fowle's motive for the crime is revealed. He disliked Doris' penchant for telling poor jokes and cackling like a hyena every three seconds and tried to set her up with their similarly irritating and obnoxious lodger Frank Bateson so she would leave him and he could get some peace and quiet at long last. However, she instead kicked Bateson out for being too familiar and Fowle killed her because she would not leave him. If I were a member of the jury, I would have been inclined to vote "not guilty," frankly. This is a funny idea but the execution fails to deliver so much as a single laugh, unless you count laughs of derision. At one point while ruminating on his disastrous attempt to defend Fowle, Morgenhall reflects that he should have asked the jury if any of them longed for a quiet life without jokes of any sort. If they do, I would recommend this film to them. Personally, I abide by the maxim that a day without laughter is a day wasted so I won't be watching it again.
Overall, this isn't an absolutely terrible film but it is such a forgettable, insubstantial one that I found it difficult to even work up the energy to criticise it. When you never laugh (at least in a non-derisive manner...) or even smile once during a comedy, you know that you're in trouble. This is my one of least favourite films of the year so far, I'm afraid. I really, really hope that it will end up as one of my Bottom Five of 2016 or I'll be in even more trouble. It's kinda odd since I think of Attenborough as being my good luck charm as far as films are concerned. He directed and/or appeared in four films in my Top Five of 2015!
A little gem
kjff10 January 2005
This is Peter Sellers at his ridiculous best, before he became Inspector Clouseau, even before he invaded the US in the Mouse That Roared. A quiet, satirical comedy that has an aging and inept English barrister defending his first case - an open and shut murder with Richard Attenborough as the husband whose wife drove him over the edge. Since he's clearly guilty, his lawyer imagines a variety of improbable and unsuccessful defenses. Attenborough hopefully joins in Sellers' mental machinations as they act out their courtroom tactics. The ending is a treat -- and we'll leave it at that. If you are a Peter Sellers fan but are not familiar with the numerous, small movies he made before becoming a star in the US, try this one out. You won't be disappointed.
Peter Seller's worst movie?
opsbooks3 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If anyone had told me beforehand that a movie co-starring Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough would bore me to tears, I'd had not believed them. Such was the case with this comic satire, adapted from a John 'Rumpole' Mortimer play.
I really did try to enjoy the movie but the script was so puerile that I had to pull the plug after 20 excruciating minutes. The premise of Sellers as a timeworn barrister looking for one seemingly impossible case to make his name, and Attenborough as the self-confessed wife murderer, was a good one. But the throwback method adopted - which I won't reveal here; better to let you make up your own minds as to its success or failure - had me reaching for the fast forward.
Rarely do I give up on a movie but in this case I figured that the time spent watching it could be spent on better things. Without a doubt, this Peter Sellers fan's biggest disappointment.
I really did try to enjoy the movie but the script was so puerile that I had to pull the plug after 20 excruciating minutes. The premise of Sellers as a timeworn barrister looking for one seemingly impossible case to make his name, and Attenborough as the self-confessed wife murderer, was a good one. But the throwback method adopted - which I won't reveal here; better to let you make up your own minds as to its success or failure - had me reaching for the fast forward.
Rarely do I give up on a movie but in this case I figured that the time spent watching it could be spent on better things. Without a doubt, this Peter Sellers fan's biggest disappointment.
Worth it for the two leads
david-frieze23 August 2006
This neglected little film is based on a one-act play by John Mortimer, the creator of "Rumpole of the Bailey," and it extends some scenes (particularly the flashbacks to the lives of both the barrister and the accused) in ways that add little but running time. Beryl Reid, a very distinguished British stage actress, is given a role that requires her to do almost nothing but laugh hysterically. Oddly enough, the expansion of the script makes it feel even more theatrical than cinematic.
The real reasons to see this "Trial and Error" (aka "The Dock Brief") are the performances of Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. The latter was one of England's great character actors before he became a director and a Lord. Here, hidden behind a putty nose, he delivers an impeccable performance as a mediocre little man who kills his wife for a bit of quiet. And this was the period - just before head-turning international fame struck - when Sellers was offering one miraculous performance after another. His barrister is a subtle blend of self-delusional bluster and frightened awareness of his own inadequacy; the delicacy of this performance, especially the love he seems to feel for this little man who might prove his salvation, is a joy to behold. And the very last shot of the film, just before the final credits, made me laugh out loud - very silly, yet absolutely right.
The real reasons to see this "Trial and Error" (aka "The Dock Brief") are the performances of Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. The latter was one of England's great character actors before he became a director and a Lord. Here, hidden behind a putty nose, he delivers an impeccable performance as a mediocre little man who kills his wife for a bit of quiet. And this was the period - just before head-turning international fame struck - when Sellers was offering one miraculous performance after another. His barrister is a subtle blend of self-delusional bluster and frightened awareness of his own inadequacy; the delicacy of this performance, especially the love he seems to feel for this little man who might prove his salvation, is a joy to behold. And the very last shot of the film, just before the final credits, made me laugh out loud - very silly, yet absolutely right.
An amusing, sometimes touching comedy about two losers who need each other.
ktkeith-116 August 2002
Peter Sellers plays the worst barrister in the Old Bailey, hanging around court day after day hoping for a "dock brief" - a public-defender case assigned, and paid for, by the government - as his only hope of getting any work at all. After years of waiting, he is escorted to the cells to meet his very first client - who at first takes Sellers for a fellow-prisoner, then informs him there is no need for a defense as he is in fact guilty and everyone knows it. Sellers, undaunted, spins fantasies of brilliant defenses, which his client helps him act out in imaginary courtroom scenes. Each fantasy falters on the simple fact that the client really is guilty, but the client cheerfully plays along, sensing that the lawyer needs a victory even more than he does. The emptiness and disappointments of each man's life are revealed in flashback scenes in which, together, they visit one another's lives in times past. When the real trial begins, the lawyer's fantasies ring hollow, but he saves the day with legal maneuvering that only he is qualified to pull off. In the bittersweet final scene, the two walk off together, each understanding how much the other needs him.
The story, by John Mortimer, is a slightly darker version of his familiar "Rumpole of the Bailey" tales. The script, also by Mortimer, is very funny, but the combination of dry British humor and Sellers's almost somnolently underplayed role let most of the humor go by unnoticed. This is the funniest movie I never once laughed at. Attenborough is an understated genius as the mordant bird lover who murders his wife because she *wouldn't* run away with her boyfriend, and then apologizes to his lawyer for being guilty.
The story, by John Mortimer, is a slightly darker version of his familiar "Rumpole of the Bailey" tales. The script, also by Mortimer, is very funny, but the combination of dry British humor and Sellers's almost somnolently underplayed role let most of the humor go by unnoticed. This is the funniest movie I never once laughed at. Attenborough is an understated genius as the mordant bird lover who murders his wife because she *wouldn't* run away with her boyfriend, and then apologizes to his lawyer for being guilty.
a tender, touching drama of human condition
hooshi4 November 1999
an underrated flick , unfolding a powerful drama about the relation of a less fortunate attorney whose inner portrait is revealed when he is assigned to defend a man accused of murder. Witty dialogue and social satire, as well as excellent performance by Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough.
Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough stuck together in the most hopelessly lost of all cases
clanciai27 March 2017
I didn't know this Peter Sellers film existed. It's a very odd story of a very poor man with no bad intentions at all, rather the contrary, having almost unawares being driven to commit a most heinous felony for no good reason at all, rather the contrary, as the result of a probably accidental marriage to the queerest kind of wife anyone ever could dream of marrying. The poor criminal, whose actual only desire in life is to be together in peace with his canaries, is played by Richard Attenborough in his most peculiar character ever, and by chance he gets for a defense council Peter Sellers of all people. As a barrister he takes himself extremely seriously, quoting Latin and being absolutely serious about his learned accomplishment and professional wisdom, which only makes matters worse. Of course, the trial becomes a satire of a painful joke, and the case, which was utterly hopeless from the beginning, ends up a mess that no one can handle. In all this, Richard Attenborough and Peter Sellers are absolutely consistent in their seriously honest characters in perfect idyllic-pathetic pettiness, and that's what's makes this film a crown jewel - as a comedy it is supreme. Beryl Reid as the wife and David Lodge (that's actually his name) as the lodger add to the total authenticity of the bizarre absurdity of a situation which you as an audience and everyone else must admit that cannot but end in one way, however incredible. This is a gem of a comedy unlike all others and the more precious for its endearingly sympathetic originality.
peter sellers is great.
randycandy17 December 2003
i think this movie is great. it's really funny. the whole movie is pretty unique. like how it tells the story. and the story itself is pretty interesting and very funny. but the most enjoyable part of the movie is the conversations between the lawyer and the murderer. they are so funny cause the actors are so good. peter sellers is great in this movie. the british humor stands the test of time.
A quiet comedy
vonnoosh18 August 2021
John Mortimer is better known for Rumpole but this is a different kind of court comedy. Peter Sellers plays a somewhat unique character for him, he isn't remotely over the top as Morganhall the barrister. Even when things go wrong for his character, it is carefully understated. Richard Attenborough plays the defendant on trial for murdering his wife played by Beryl Reid.
The funnier moments are the flashbacks of Mr Fowl's home life with his wife after they take in the lodger played by David Lodge. It's not clear why Mr Fowl decided to marry someone so totally different to him to the point where he hopes his wife will leave him but there it is....
Also good are the mock court preperations Morganhall and Fowl have while brainstorming their defense. The climax is actually quite sad and probably more relatable to most when we see Morganhall during the actual trial. He was after all waiting years for a case like this, too much time to think about it before it comes.
It isn't an outlandish or over the top screwball comedy. It is actually pretty quiet and small but entertaining.
The funnier moments are the flashbacks of Mr Fowl's home life with his wife after they take in the lodger played by David Lodge. It's not clear why Mr Fowl decided to marry someone so totally different to him to the point where he hopes his wife will leave him but there it is....
Also good are the mock court preperations Morganhall and Fowl have while brainstorming their defense. The climax is actually quite sad and probably more relatable to most when we see Morganhall during the actual trial. He was after all waiting years for a case like this, too much time to think about it before it comes.
It isn't an outlandish or over the top screwball comedy. It is actually pretty quiet and small but entertaining.
More of a curio, than anything else
jpm-1510 July 2004
With respect, I must disagree with the other reviewers. I generally relish the old British films, especially the comedies (The Ladykillers, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Green Man et al.) however I found this film to be well acted, but not particularly funny, and rather tedious. Attenborough and Sellers do show their considerable versatility and skills. But Mortimer's story makes one long for a good "Rumpole" episode. I kept waiting for the story to get going, but it never did. The pacing is s-l-o-w, which isn't inherently bad (see my review of The Smallest Show on Earth) but what does the film add up to? For me, it is an interesting curio perhaps, but not something one can really recommend.
Acting tour de force!
saints-4717329 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As a big fan of Peter Sellers, and British film in general, I can't believe it took me until 2019 to discover this gem (courtesy of youtube).
This is an acting tour de force from Sellers and Attenborough. Unbelievably, two men play judge, jury, barrister, and witness in an otherwise empty courtroom - and it works.
Brilliantly directed, the use of long tracking shots and back projection fill this simple film with extra dimensions.
Forget about the outcome of the case - it was never going to be too bad - and enjoy the excellent acting and direction of this little-known film.
The previous reviewer who based their review on the first 20 minutes seems to suffer from the Hollywood Condition wherein subtlety is avoided at all costs in favour of action, action, action.
Could anyone keep a straight face making this marvelous, subdued satire?
SimonJack30 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
"Trial and Error" is a comedy, slight drama and very obvious satire in a type of setting that doesn't appeal to many movie goers. It's done with a split set just as it might be on stage. Indeed, it's based on a play of the same title as it's original UK release, "The Dock Brief," by John Mortimer.
The use of the split set on film was probably to keep the focus on the two lead characters - Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. Other movies made with imaginary scenes or flashbacks generally use a fade-out and fade-in for those scenes. But here, the two main characters walk across a small jail cell into a large court room set. And, no other people are on it, but the defendant sits some of the time as the judge, and some of the time as the defendant.
Sellers plays Morgenhall, an attorney of some 40 years who has never had a case. If that doesn't signal most viewers that this is a satire, a few more minutes into the film should be evident. Writers and producers have various ways of signaling or inserting satire in films, besides the spoofery of roles. In this case, Attenborough's character is named Fowle (pronounced as fowl, and foul), whose sole interest in life (and obsession) is with birds. Not pigeons, but song birds. As the story unfolds, his wife, Doris, in time runs afoul of hubby by her constant and excessive laughter. So, he winds up committing a foul deed.
The comedy and satire are so masterfully written and played here, that some people indeed may see this more as a drama. It has a slight touch of that, especially in the pathos of two men having been loners most of their lives; but I think more would have enjoyed the film for the depth of the humor if it had just been billed as comedy and satire.
While there are a couple of short and very good scenes played by Beryl Reid as Doris, and David Lodge as Bateson, this is largely a two-man show. And, what outstanding performances. One expects such comedy ability from Sellers, but except for those who have seen many British films, many movie fans may not be as familiar with Attenborough's knack for comedy as well as drama. He made some very good comedies in the 1950s, for example, "Brothers in Law" of 1957, "I'm All Right Jack" of 1959, and two 1956 films, "The Baby and the Battleship" and "Private's Progress."
Again, while expecting the comedic deliveries and lines from Sellers, one waits for Attenborough's Herbert Fowle to do and say some funny things, but instead he sits, sometimes blandly and others pensively, just as though awaiting his just due. And, as Sellers' Morgenhall tries to engender a sense of defense in Fowle, Attenborough's persona becomes absolutely hilarious. I think his role surpasses that of Sellers for comedic effect. But Morgenhall then traipses off into dreamland trying to concoct different scenarios for his defense of Fowle.
Viewers get a few minutes of the court scene with Morgenhall's fumbling ineptitude, but we are spared most of what must have transpired. At film's end, the final blow of satire is on the reprieve of the prisoner from what in 1962 would still have been hanging when convicted of murder. England (but not all of the UK) abolished the death penalty in 1965, except for such crimes as treason, when even that was ended in 1998. So, having lost his first and only case, an otherwise dejected Morgenhall leaves the jail and walks away, happily with a new found friend in Fowl.
Not all movie goers are likely to enjoy this film. Some people can't sit still to watch movies that are recorded from live stage performances, or that are clearly made on stage sets. And, some folks just don't care for satire. But those who do enjoy satire should really like this movie. These are two masterful performances, just in the two leads being able to keep straight faces during the filming. One wonders if several extra takes weren't necessary at times.
Here are some favorite lines from this film.
Morgenhall, "You THINK you killed your wife." Fowle, "Mmm, it seemed so to me."
Morgenhall, "Fowle, I've worked and I've waited for you. Now, you're the only case I've got... and the most difficult." Fowle, "Mmm, sorry."
Morgenhall, "What is your name?" Fowle, "Herbert Fowle." Morgenhall, "The surprise witness." Fowle, "Oh, you... you mean I'd need a different name?" Morgenhall, "Yes, precisely." Fowle, "Hmm. That's where we're stuck now.."
The use of the split set on film was probably to keep the focus on the two lead characters - Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. Other movies made with imaginary scenes or flashbacks generally use a fade-out and fade-in for those scenes. But here, the two main characters walk across a small jail cell into a large court room set. And, no other people are on it, but the defendant sits some of the time as the judge, and some of the time as the defendant.
Sellers plays Morgenhall, an attorney of some 40 years who has never had a case. If that doesn't signal most viewers that this is a satire, a few more minutes into the film should be evident. Writers and producers have various ways of signaling or inserting satire in films, besides the spoofery of roles. In this case, Attenborough's character is named Fowle (pronounced as fowl, and foul), whose sole interest in life (and obsession) is with birds. Not pigeons, but song birds. As the story unfolds, his wife, Doris, in time runs afoul of hubby by her constant and excessive laughter. So, he winds up committing a foul deed.
The comedy and satire are so masterfully written and played here, that some people indeed may see this more as a drama. It has a slight touch of that, especially in the pathos of two men having been loners most of their lives; but I think more would have enjoyed the film for the depth of the humor if it had just been billed as comedy and satire.
While there are a couple of short and very good scenes played by Beryl Reid as Doris, and David Lodge as Bateson, this is largely a two-man show. And, what outstanding performances. One expects such comedy ability from Sellers, but except for those who have seen many British films, many movie fans may not be as familiar with Attenborough's knack for comedy as well as drama. He made some very good comedies in the 1950s, for example, "Brothers in Law" of 1957, "I'm All Right Jack" of 1959, and two 1956 films, "The Baby and the Battleship" and "Private's Progress."
Again, while expecting the comedic deliveries and lines from Sellers, one waits for Attenborough's Herbert Fowle to do and say some funny things, but instead he sits, sometimes blandly and others pensively, just as though awaiting his just due. And, as Sellers' Morgenhall tries to engender a sense of defense in Fowle, Attenborough's persona becomes absolutely hilarious. I think his role surpasses that of Sellers for comedic effect. But Morgenhall then traipses off into dreamland trying to concoct different scenarios for his defense of Fowle.
Viewers get a few minutes of the court scene with Morgenhall's fumbling ineptitude, but we are spared most of what must have transpired. At film's end, the final blow of satire is on the reprieve of the prisoner from what in 1962 would still have been hanging when convicted of murder. England (but not all of the UK) abolished the death penalty in 1965, except for such crimes as treason, when even that was ended in 1998. So, having lost his first and only case, an otherwise dejected Morgenhall leaves the jail and walks away, happily with a new found friend in Fowl.
Not all movie goers are likely to enjoy this film. Some people can't sit still to watch movies that are recorded from live stage performances, or that are clearly made on stage sets. And, some folks just don't care for satire. But those who do enjoy satire should really like this movie. These are two masterful performances, just in the two leads being able to keep straight faces during the filming. One wonders if several extra takes weren't necessary at times.
Here are some favorite lines from this film.
Morgenhall, "You THINK you killed your wife." Fowle, "Mmm, it seemed so to me."
Morgenhall, "Fowle, I've worked and I've waited for you. Now, you're the only case I've got... and the most difficult." Fowle, "Mmm, sorry."
Morgenhall, "What is your name?" Fowle, "Herbert Fowle." Morgenhall, "The surprise witness." Fowle, "Oh, you... you mean I'd need a different name?" Morgenhall, "Yes, precisely." Fowle, "Hmm. That's where we're stuck now.."
It is not the plot but the superior EXECUTION.
Bernie444419 April 2024
The Dock Brief (1962) AKA Trial and Error
Director James Hill
Writers John Mortimer and Pierre Rouve
This movie is based on a one-act play
Made at Shepperton Studios, England
There are not a lot of people in this movie. Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough play most of the time and parts. Because most of it is fantasy on their part, the bulk of the movie takes place in one room that is jail on one side and court on the other. This is ideal for a play. They do show interaction (flashbacks) of the cheerful wife (Beryl Reid), and you will want to help Herbert Fowle (Richard Attenborough) the Accused Murderer do the deed.
Just at the point that you are getting into it, the movie ends.
There are not a lot of people in this movie. Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough play most of the time and parts. Because most of it is fantasy on their part, the bulk of the movie takes place in one room that is jail on one side and court on the other. This is ideal for a play. They do show interaction (flashbacks) of the cheerful wife (Beryl Reid), and you will want to help Herbert Fowle (Richard Attenborough) the Accused Murderer do the deed.
Just at the point that you are getting into it, the movie ends.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
