Alternate Best Actor 1946: Sydney Greenstreet & Peter Lorre in The Verdict

Sydney Greenstreet did not receive an Oscar nomination nor did Peter Lorre for portraying Superintendent George Grodman and Victor Emmric respectively in The Verdict. 

The Verdict follows the murder investigation in gaslit London. 

The film opens as we follow Greenstreet, this time on the side of the law, following the execution of a man he had led the investigation of only to learn the man was innocent due to the arrival of a key witness in the most inopportune time. Greenstreet has a most remarkable presence as a performer which certainly can be seen here. This role though I would say is far more interesting on paper than execution. Greenstreet opens with just a repeated simplistic scene of needing to present the Inspector contemplating his failure with a quietly needling guilt, not helped by his pompous replacement Buckley (George Coulouris) lording over his failure. He does that though I wouldn’t say I was deeply moved by what Greenstreet is doing but he delivers on it in a general sense. We soon find another murder that seems even more difficult to solve, which while Buckley is now leading the investigation, Greenstreet's Grodman seems always in orbit of the situation. Where the film enters its atypical section where it is constantly switching perspectives of the characters and plants so many seemingly red herrings in there just to throw everyone off the trail it would seem. One of these characters is George’s friend Victory played by Lorre, an artist also fascinated by crime. 

Where we get a legendary duo who were in many films together since their great mutual villainy in The Maltese Falcon. Unlike that film though neither man is getting to enjoy a great character as Victor is vaguely drawn, no pun intended, what is there is mostly just that Lorre is innately a little interesting. This isn’t one of Lorre’s most interesting roles though we get a bit of him being a cad and some differing moments of fascination and fear around the investigation. Again I appreciate Lorre’s presence but as Lorre performances go it isn’t all that distinctive. I think this might be in part by the design of the film to keep you guessing as Lorre must only be “kind of” things that way he might be the killer as he acts kind of creepy, however kind of innocent too, kind of fearful, and it’s all a little too little for him to really play with. Speaking of that, Greenstreet stays mainly imperious as the inspector is always there with a comment, not always very interesting and the man seems a little blank. This too is to set up the mystery to lead to the spoilers, revelation that he is in fact the killer. Although a noble killer as he’s killed the killer of the original murder, though less noble in having done it in a way that framed an innocent man and to make Buckley look foolish. So in order to make it surprising Greenstreet was just kind of there, so the revelation should be time to sink his teeth in right? Wrong. Greenstreet is surprisingly muted in the delivery of every bit of revelation. He’s not bad but it does all feel a bit too matter of fact for announcing such a grand plan to everyone. Even his final aside to Lorre is fine but also just kind of exists more than really enlivens their characters into anything more. There’s nothing special about this team-up between the pair. It’s nice to have their presences but the roles don’t allow either to really run with anything and are victims of the film needing to preserve the mystery, though in doing so I don’t think makes the film terribly compelling. If I'm being perfectly honest I was more compelled by Coulouris and Joan Lorring, because it felt like they were actually able to define their characters. Which it is quite rare for Greenstreet and Lorre not to standout in one of their films but in this instance they really don't, though they're not bad, but look to their earlier collaborations for their far more memorable work.