Jigsaw (1962)

I was drawn straight into this film from the opening scenes and I never lost concentration once. Furthermore I didn't manage to guess the final outcome. A very intriguing police investigation and very well acted by all involved. Films of this nature can only be enjoyed once. I am glad I took the time to watch it.

But no reviewer gives this film anything other than a deserved high rating and most identify much of what makes it so watchable.I think it is no coincidence that the director is also the screenwriter. It means that dialogue can be quite spare at times because it will be visuals - glances between individuals - which tell the story. And this draws in the viewer - "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" says the detective to his colleague - no reply because he (and the viewer) are thinking the same. Nothing is over-played. A suspect is sitting in a room, with no announcement a detective brings in a witness, briefly introduces him to the suspect. Neither show any interest in the other. The detective and witness leave. Nothing is said but it has wordlessly made clear that a hopeful line of enquiry has suddenly turned into a dead end.And it may be no coincidence that veteran director Val Guest was formerly an actor. A screenwriter is concerned to tell a story - and the dialogue is divvied up between the cast. But perhaps most deadly of all is mere padding dialogue: "Cup of tea? Milk? How many sugars?" An actor in contrast is firstly playing a character so dialogue is as much sketching the character as advancing the plot. British film "Calculated Risk" 1963 is another example of very ordinary sounding dialogue lifting a production where the screenwriter was also an actor - and with character comes relationships. "what's my motivation" is the question always kept in mind and ensures the cast's focus throughout. Of course the top name screenwriters - the Alan Platers - come close. But here characters can almost be Dickensian with instantly recognisable ways of speaking "I've got a photographic memory" repeatedly says a minor but important witness. Realistic people who are excited and so gush irrelevancies that they don't stop when ushered out of the room, but audibly continue with the police constable waiting outside.Pace - I can see some of how this comes about. One thing is elimination of redundant film - an address might come over the police radio - cut to police car stopping outside the address. Yet there is no sense of hurry. Everything is given the necessary time.It's a measure of the film's qualities that there is such agreement about its merits - nobody fails to understand and appreciate it. Was it influenced by earlier American police procedurals? Has it been a model and inspiration till this day for British police dramas? I think it is yes to both. I'd suggest Dragnet for the first but so domesticated that the link is more tone than anything. For the second, decreasingly so as swagger, gloss and style come to predominate. And swagger, gloss and style are absent here.

British actor Michael Caine once complained that many of the movies his country made were not "moving pictures", and instead were often more or less "illustrated radio" productions. To some degree, this applies to this movie. "Jigsaw" is a very talky movie, with no real action at any point, with the results being a script that wouldn't need much change to make it suitable for the radio. And as a result, the movie is sometimes dry enough that viewers may really be wishing for a little excitement.However, despite the overly talky script, the movie still has some interest. It does accurately illustrate that murder investigations in real life are usually not exciting and involve a lot of hard and boring work. The various ways the police in the movie investigate without modern day techniques such as computers and DNA are interesting at times. And the movie's frankness concerning pre- marital sex - which you wouldn't get in a Hollywood movie of this period - is interesting. Viewers who are in a patient mood will probably find this movie interesting enough.

I bought this film on E bay a couple of months ago but never got around to watching it until last night, wished I had watched it sooner and I will again before long.Firstly I should say that the copy I have is not brilliant but I can follow the dialogue easily enough.The film is set in Brighton, it is a murder mystery with Jack Warner excelling as the Inspector and Ronald Lewis as his Seargeant, seeking to track down the monster who mutilated a young woman. Great part played by Michael Goodliffe as the charming ladies man.Great pictures of Brighton in the sixties, I especially enjoyed the bit when Jack Warner missed the football match he was so looking forward to so he could investigate the crime, it turned out his local team got hammered!Great unexpected ending but a word of warning don't look at the IMDb cast list or it will give the game away.Highly enjoyable little known British thriller.