MartinHafer Erotomania is the psychological term used to describe someone who is delusional and has convinced themselves that another person loves them...a person who they possibly never even met. It often happens with crazed fans in love with a famous person but the fixation could occur on a normal, everyday person as well. Erotomaniacs are not obviously insane, but this delusion is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to rid the person of despite therapy. I mention this because through much of "Finger of Guilt" you aren't sure whether this has occurred to Reggie Wilson (Richard Basehart) or whether he's a total cad and simply is lying to hide an affair.When the film begins, Reggie has moved to the UK following some sort of scandal he was involved in with some married woman. Now he's married to the boss of a British studio and has a very important job producing movies. However, he begins receiving letters from a lady in Newcastle asking him why he is ignoring her and demanding he contact her. But he insists he has no idea who the woman is and even tells his father-in-law about this situation. And then, the women begins calling the studio...demanding to talk with him. By this point, Reggie's wife has heard about all this and it's obvious that she's beginning to suspect her hubby is a lying troll. So, Reg takes the wife up to Newcastle to confront the lady...and the lady INSISTS she and Reggie have been lovers, though she can provide no concrete proof. Who are you to believe? So is this any good? And is it really a case of erotomania? See the film and learn for yourself.The fact that Richard Basehart is in a British film isn't too surprising. Basehart was a very minor star in the States and made movies in Europe (including a film for Fellini) for several years. This is because European studios thought that by putting an American or two in the leads, it would increase the marketability of the films internationally.All in all, a pretty good film. I didn't love the ending...and part of it is because it wasn't 100% convincing. Still, an interesting and unusual story.By the way, this film does make you wonder how many people and marriages have been destroyed by erotomaniacs. While this is relatively common with celebrities and accepted as a normal part of fame, what about common folk who suddenly have women or men insisting they love them? For an amazingly good film about this, try to see the French film "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not"....it's among the very best French movies of the last several decades!

Robert J. Maxwell It's bad enough when your past catches up to you, but it's even worse when somebody else's idea of what your past should be catches up to you.Richard Basehart is a movie maker. A scandal back in the states has driven him to begin a new career in England. That's a plot that should have resonated with the director, Joseph Losey. Basehart's current project is expensive and dicey and the studio is on edge about overruns and expensive costumes.Then Basehart, a happily married man, begins to get loving letters reminding him of a past romance from a woman named Evelyn. That would be Mary Murphy. Basehart, already tense, his reputation as a womanizer haunting his reputation, becomes an unhappily harried man and is driven to see a shrink, who is of no help.He tracks down Mary Murphy and she insists that her story is real, that they had a passionate affair in New York and he'd promised her a job if she came to England. Everything she says rings true. She even convinced the police. He loses his job, his wife leaves him, and he develops a monster hangnail. Either she's lying, for reasons no one can discern, or Basehart is some kind of multiple personality. I won't give away the ending.Basehart is a likable guy. He LOOKS like a reliable Mid-Western type, but his best roles have involved twisted characters. Mary Murphy is a beautiful woman. She was a winsome small-town girl in "The Wild Ones." But here she's not up to the demands of a bitchy, self-serving manipulator. And grooming doesn't help. They've given her a severe hair style and dressed her in "sophisticated" black outfits with some kind of girdle or foundation garment underneath that has pinched her waist into nullity and caused her rear to look cantilevered.Joseph Losey's direction is straightforward for the most part. What isn't strictly functional -- a fist fight shown by shadows on a wall -- isn't too original. And the violent ending seems excessive, with a pudgy and middle-aged Mervyn Johns being knocked about the room by a furious Basehart.

vincentlynch-moonoi I don't know why, but somehow Richard Basehart always reminded me just a little of Richard Burton...although I liked Basehart a bit more. Unfortunately, Basehart never made it to the A list, even though I thought he was a good and fairly interesting actor. Maybe the problem was scripts that left a bit to be desired...like this one.Here, his character as a film director seems...well, a tad bit stereotypical, at least on the surface. Really, constantly carrying around a cane for no reason just seems a little goofy.But, once you get back the superficial aspects of this film, it gets pretty good. What has to happen to get to that point is getting past the mysterious letters that seem to be hinting at blackmail, to actually meeting the mysterious girl...which finally does happen. Then things get quite good, quite interesting as the mystery deepens.If you look carefully, you'll see this film was on a pretty cheap budget (for example, painted books on a bookshelf). The other problem I have with this film is that it has that sort of tawdry look to it that was not uncommon in lower budget 1950s film...that lacked the class of film noir.The ending is pretty good, although hardly unique.Let's put it this way -- you could do worse. It's worth a watch, but I doubt you'll buy it for your DVD shelf.

writers_reign This has to be one of the most unrealistic movies that ever came down the pike. It may have been unintentional but the irony of setting something largely in a film studio, i.e. a place where they manufacture unreality, and then portraying that studio as a neglected corner of a run-down industrial estate is priceless. Richard Basehart as head of the studio has an office about as prepossessing as that of a minor official in Eastern Europe in the late sixties and that of his father-in-law and movie mogul Roger Livesey is superior only in the sense that it boasts superior oilcloth on the floor. The story, by Howard Koch, who - unbelievably on this showing - co-scripted Casablanca, is so clearly a metaphor for the Blacklist (both Koch and director Losey, were victims and worked here under John Does) that it becomes risible which it shouldn't do because there were many innocent victims 'accused' of things they hadn't done during the HUAC years and the denouement involving Mervyn Johns is pathetic. Losey completists will want to see it but of you're not one stay home and watch Big Brother.