For my penultimate November Noir this year I’m checking out the very low budget B-Movie Noir “Crime Wave” from 1953 (1954 for the US). This is from director André De Toth (Pitfall) with a screenplay from Crane Wilbur. The movie stars Gene Nelson, with support from Phyllis Kirk, Sterling Hayden, Ted de Corsia and an early role for Charles Bronson (Credited as Charles Buchinsky, since it is before he changed his name). Sterling Hayden as the biggest star at the time got top billing despite his supporting role. Hayden would of course become an even bigger name in the years to come with films like “The Killers”, “Doctor Strangelove” and “The Godfather”.
Cops and Robbers.
“Steve Lacey” (Nelson), is an ex-con that has gone straight. He has settled down with his lovely wife “Ellen” (Kirk) and holds a pretty decent job despite his record. However, people who knew from his days of crime or his days in prison regularly hassle him and he struggles to truly escape his past. “Gat Morgan” (Nedrick Young) comes crashing into this, injured after he and two others were involved in a shoot-out with the police. Lacey refuses to get involved, but the wounds cause the man to die. The doctor Morgan had called arrives too late, but takes his pay out of the criminals suit before leaving.
Enter detective Simms (Hayden), a hard-nosed lieutenant that seems to have Lacey in his sights, assuming he will try and help his former convict friends, he sweats Lacey for three days in jail but eventually lets him loose. On returning home, the con finds ‘Doc’ Penny (de Corsia) and Ben Hastings (Bronson), his former colleagues, have invaded his apartment. Not only do they intend to hide out at Lacey’s they also want him to be their getaway driver for an ambitious bank job. With his wife as hostage he doesn’t have any choice but to cooperate.
Beating The Budget.
As I said in the introduction, this is a shoestring noir and so it’s not surprising there are times this is very noticable in the film. Two occasions in particular had horrendous dialogue delivery from a couple of bad actors, but both were minor characters and were easy to ignore not matter how obviously they are trying to remember their lines and speak them at the same time. It’s worth noting with low budget movies like this, there isn’t the luxury to reshoot every scene 100 times to make sure the take is spot on. So the acting may not be much worse than on a bigger budget movie, but there is no covering it up here. Even Sterling Hayden has a scene where the dialogue felt wrong in it’s delivery. Not actually bad like the other two events, but notably lacking the sleek delivery of the majority of his lines.
The cheapness isn’t all bad though. In many ways it makes the crime drama feel grittier and more realistic. It’s possibly the earliest film I’ve seen with something akin to “Shaky Cam” footage. Especially of note is the filming from inside vehicles, which really feels like a camera stuffed inside an actual car. It appears that they shot all the car footage on location, not using green screens. Indeed the final car chase actually follows a legitimate car route between the locations. One of the strengths of the film is how it utilizes heavy location filming with these more mobile camera techniques. They used a lot of genuine locations, and some, such as the veterinary practice, are still standing today (albeit with a different name). All told, I think they actually turned the lower budget into something positive here, and the film alone is worthy of praise for that.
Life And The City.
The characters are fairly one dimensional, even Steve Lacey who is a victim of circumstances for the entire movie. His more heroic actions aren’t the result of inner turmoil like was in the case of Dana Andrews character in “Where the Sidewalk Ends”, instead it’s just Lacey being Lacey. From the very start he’s firm in not wanting to have anything to do with the gang, but is forced to take part due to them using his wife as a hostage. Detective Lt. Simms is a very standard Haydn detective character. Hard-nosed, authoritative… frankly a bit of a dick, but unlike Haydn’s character in The Godfather he’s not corrupt and so ultimately figures out who are the criminals and who is the victim. This is played more as a heartwarming moment for the protagonist and his wife instead of a character moment for Simms. It does achieve what it was going for though, giving the movie a somewhat upbeat ending.
The story itself is straightforward, but compelling. It’s a classic noir in that regard, an ex con whose past is catching up to him. A character dragged into events, with seemingly no control of their own fate. This definitely provides the fatalism you expect in noir. The heavy use of location filming and the way way of presenting the city itself almost like a character is all part of the package of 50’s noir. Because of the guerrilla like filming style we get a bit of an unexpected visual treat with this in how authentic the city feels. This is the city as it is, the buildings in their naked stone… the people without makeup. That line is from “The Naked City” (1948), but as good as that movie was, this feels more authentic.
Conclusion
This is an interesting noir. It’s not the best plot, it’s not the best characters and it’s not got the best cinematography or soundtrack. But what it does have is buckets of creativity applied to making an effective film on a shoestring budget. To be fair, the rest is perfectly adequate and would probably land this film with a narrow 6/10. However, the uniqueness of this, the cleverness of how it deals with the budget restraints and the gritty feel all boost that up to a strong 6.5/10. Well worth checking out.
For tonight’s Film Noir I’m checking out the Fritz Lang film “Ministry of Fear” from 1944. This is a spy thriller, one of the less well known sub genre’s of Film Noir. These films were mostly popular around the second world war, for obvious reasons. Fritz Lang having fought in the first world war and fled Germany during the second was naturally a good fit for the genre. This particular story was based on the novel by the same name by Graham Greene (Adapted by script legend Seton I. Miller). It’s worth noting there have been a number of changes from the source material likely mandated by the Hays code and it does impact that story and characters. But I’ll mention that in the review section. The movie stars Ray Milland (Who would later go on to star in Noirs “The Lost Weekend” (1945) and “Dial M For Murder” (1954).
Guess The Weight, Win The War!
Set in England during the blitz, our story starts with the release of Stephen Neale from Lembridge Asylum. He was placed in the asylum effectively for legal reasons after he had been involved in the mercy killing of his wife. Though his wife took the poison herself, he did purchase it and so the court decided to sentence him to the asylum instead of prison. While waiting for the train to London, he stumbles upon a town fête. While having his future read by a psychic he is told to give a particular weight for the “Guess the weight, win the cake” game. He takes the advice and then wins the cake, but shortly after it’s clear there was a case of mistaken identity.
After boarding his train, he is joined by a blind old man who during an air raid takes the opportunity to attack Stephen and take the cake. Neale pursues, but the old man is killed by a bomb. With no trace of the cake, Stephen takes the man’s gun and returns to London. He seeks the help of private eye, who takes them to the charity that was organising the fête. Here he meets Willi Hilfe (Carl Esmond) and his sister Carla (Marjorie Reynolds) who seem to want to get to the bottom of things themselves. They pursue the medium from the fête and after joining her in a seance Neale is framed for murder and must go into hiding. Though he seems to be getting close to a dangerous Nazi spy right that are a threat to the entire country.
Creative Differences.
So the first thing to talk about are the changes from the book. These mostly impact the leading man and ladies personality. In the book, there is significantly more guilt on Neale’s side for the death of his wife. She was still ill, but he actively poisoned her and it’s suggested he feels it was more to end his suffering than hers. Meanwhile Carla is suggested to be part of the spy ring herself. This frames their relationship in an entirely new perspective. Two people afraid of having their dark secrets revealed finding some uneasy comfort with each other. It’s worth noting too that screenwriter Seton I. Miller fell out regularly with Lang over the direction of the film, but Miller usually had the final say (As he was a producer too).
It’s hard to say if the changes were related to the Hays code or just Miller’s vision. But either way along with the character motivations, the Asylum itself is entirely removed from the spy plot. The resulting plot is a little far fetched, but no worse than the majority of spy films. I can’t help but think there were more foolproof ways to deliver microfilm than to rely on key words to a fortune teller to be told the weight of a cake that literally anybody could have guessed. Once the ball is rolling the first two acts settle down nicely. The final third though is a little rougher though with it feeling like a bit of a rush to tidy things up. This includes a happy ending that flies at you from out of nowhere.
Building Suspense.
In practice the movie basically feels like a Hitchcock spy movie than a regular film Noir. The plot having a number of twists and turns and there being a big focus on building suspense. If there is one man that can rival Hitchcock for his ability to build suspense however it is Lang and he demonstrates this tremendously here. There is never a rush to action, so each moment is given time to provide maximum tension. Scene by scene these are superbly well crafted moments and it makes the relatively short run time of the movie fly by. In actuality the moments of plot are very fast paced and straight forward set pieces, but the build to each moment is prolonged.
What I like about Lang’s approach is it is very casual and natural. Here he doesn’t rely at all on the score and often these moments are quiet, except for things like footsteps. The train scene in particular stands out as well built tension in a scene that is on paper very simple. Another scene has a tailor is on the phone while casually twirling around a very large and dangerous looking pair of scissors. The scene provides important plot information from the call itself, but also signals to the viewer something is about to go off. Neale is aware of this too and you can see his tension build, especially as he eyes the scissors.
Conclusion.
This is an interesting film. The performances from Ray Milland and his supporting cast are fine and the story is relatively fun, but it is Lang’s direction that makes this worthwhile. He really knows how to get the most out of fairly straightforward scenes, especially ones that are light on dialogue. Perhaps this is due to his silent film roots, but it’s something we rarely see these days so well worth spending time to appreciate it. That said, this isn’t one of Lang’s best movies. The final act is a little messy and the character changes from the novel definitely hurt it. Perhaps were he given more creative control it could have been a true classic, we will never know. What we have however, is still good and I’m rating it at a high 6.5/10.
The 1950 Film Noir “Where The Sidewalk Ends” is a reunion of a sorts for classic Noir “Laura” from 1944. Bringing back the pairing of the intense Dana Andrews and gorgeous Gene Tierney alongside that movies director, Otto Preminger. The movie is based on the William L. Stuart novel “Night Cry”. The screenplay is provided by veteran writer and academy award winner Ben Hecht who’s credits include “Underworld” (1927), Scarface (1932) and Hitchcock’s “Spellbound” (1945) and “Notorious” (1946). The movie marks the end of a run of films Preminger made for 20th Century Fox. Often with one or both of the two leads. All three were very comfortable working together at this point. This is a very strong set up, but will that translate to good film? Let’s find out.
The Set Up
Andrews plays “Mark Dixon”, a tough police detective that constantly gets into trouble for his rough treatment of criminals. He is a driven man, whose father was a criminal and this has left him determined to prove he is a better man. One of the criminals he particularly wants to take down was somewhat of a protegee to his father, “Tommy Scalise” (Played by Gary Merrill). He spots the opportunity to do so after a man is murdered at a craps game hosted by Scalise. However, he points the finger at “Ken Paine” (played by Craig Stevens), a man that brought the murdered man to the venue. Dixon doesn’t buy it, but is sent by his boss to investigate Paine.
Dixon confronts Paine, but Paine turns it into a fist fight. After a punch from Dixon, Paine falls hitting his head and dies. Likely this is a result of the steel plate Paine has in his head from a war wound. Fearing the consequences Dixon attempts to cover up the accidental murder, while trying to pin it (and the original murder) on Scalise. However, Paine’s wife “Morgan” (Tierney) , who accompanied him to the craps game and her taxi driver father “Jiggs Taylor” (Played by Tom Tully) are drawn into it, with the evidence pointing to Jiggs as Paine’s killer. It’s down to Dixon to put things right.
Between Two Eras
As a film sitting right in the middle of the Film Noir period it’s no surprise to find the film has elements of both halves. Mixing the gritty hard boiled stories of the 40’s and more experimental and visually polished films of the 50’s. Like many Noirs from both periods though the focus is on one character torn between self interest and doing what is right. A classic dilemma for a movie protagonist, but rarely handled with such intensity as it is in Noir. This movie is an excellent example of doing the trope right. The more Dixon tries to dig himself out of the mess he is in, the worse things become.
The cinematography is worthy of special praise here. Right from the opening scene it is clear we are in a new era of Noir. We start with steps on a rainy sidewalk revealing the movie title. This is followed by shots of the city at night and Dixon riding with his partner to the Police Station. It’s all just the title sequence, but it’s also a mood setter that gets you anticipating the movie to come. The the rest of the film features a fair amount of location shooting that helps enhance it’s visual appeal. The set lighting has the usual Noir use of light and shadows. Here though it is kept relatively subtle so doesn’t detract from the events on screen. The soundtrack meanwhile is a fairly standard affair for the period. Occasionally it dabbles into more experimental territory but then firmly returns to it’s 40’s love theme hook. It works well enough anyway.
I didn’t know a man could hate so much.
Dixon’s character is a bit of a mixed bag, but grows on you over time with the film. Early on he’s a bit over the top in his tough guy cop routine. While he and his boss are grilling Scalise, Dixon is a bit over the top. He’s so desperate to rough up Scalise regardless of having just been demoted for such behavior. That sort of conduct it sets him up as quite hard to sympathise with. However, the accidental killing of Paine was truly not his fault. With everyone being aware of Dixon’s temper, you can understand why he’d resort to covering this up. Even in the face of it all though, he never loses site of his grudge against Scalise. He keeps trying to work the situation to his advantage. It’s only when he realises how similar he has become to the man (And his own father) that he decides to do the right thing.
The film features strong dialogue despite Dixon’s somewhat one dimensional start. The lead, Scalise, Morgan and Jiggs are all interesting characters and unsurprisingly Andrews and Tierney have strong on screen chemistry. On top of that the pacing is very well done and the plot is clever, though the grand finale show down with the gangsters was a little contrived in how it resolved. To be fair, Scalise was never the story, so it’s what happens after that where the film really climaxes. What I like the most about this film is that Dixon is frankly a jerk, but yet I still feel sympathy for him and can tell he has enough good in him to make things right in the end. It’s a very well constructed character and perfect for the genre.
Conclusion
Overall this is a quality Film Noir from a top director in the genre with an excellent cast and great cinematography. At the time it drew comparisons with 1944’s “Laura” (Due to the cast and director) and was found lacking and while I do prefer Laura, I can’t help but feel that was unfair on the movie. Dana Andrews was developing a lot of personal problems around this period (Alcoholism mostly) and becoming very frustrated with the studios, but he seems to have channeled it into one of the best performances of his career. All told I’m going to give this a strong 7/10. On a side note, let’s take a moment to remember that sixteen years later, Otto Preminger would play “Mr Freeze” in the Batman TV series. Mind blown, right?
So now October is out of the way, it’s tradition here at Screen Wolf to throw in a few classic Film Noir reviews for November (Or “Noirvember” as I call it). November is largely a recovery month for me after hitting up 31 horror reviews for October so I don’t set any particular targets, but there will certainly be more than one. My Noir watch list is almost as large as my horror one so I have no lack of material. The month won’t be exclusive to Noir though like October is to Horror.
Anyway, first up is a double whammy for me as it’s also part of my quest to watch every single Humphrey Bogart movie. This is “The Big Shot” from 1942. Directed by Lewis Seller (Who also worked with Bogart on “King of the Underworld” in 1939) and written by the team of Bertram Millhauser, Abem Finkel and Daniel Fuchs. Bogarts support in this film includes Irene Manning, Richard Travis, Stanley Ridges, and Chuck Chandler.
Every Angle Covered.
The story focuses on Joseph ‘Duke’ Berne (Bogart), a three time loser trying to keep his head down and stay on the straight and narrow after his recent release from prison. Naturally that doesn’t work out as he is encouraged to lead a team in a heist. After meeting the heists mastermind, a lawyer called Flemming (Ridges), he is reunited with his former girlfriend Lorna (Manning), now married to Flemming. She meets Duke in his apartment and encourages him to stay out of the heist, which he does.
Unfortunately a witness incorrectly places him at the scene and not wanting to expose his involvement with Flemming’s wife he get’s the attorney to find him a fake alibi. After Flemming finds out about the pairs involvement he double crosses Duke, who is sent up for life. This leaves him trying to find a way to break out and perhaps get even. However it’s not that simple as innocent lives are being dragged into this, notably a good man named George (Travis), who had provided his fake alibi.
The Wise Guy.
The Big Shot is a one man show, but fortunately for the movie that man is Humphrey Bogart. Since the scene changes mid way through to the prison, the supporting cast shifts with it. Only George following him to lock up, so most of the supporting cast is absent for this middle section. Not that this is a problem, since most viewers turned up to see Bogey anyway. Bogart had a long period playing gangsters for Warner Brothers, but this would be his last appearance for the studio in such a role.
This was one year after he finally made it big with “The Maltese Falcon” and High Sierra. So it’s not a surprise he wasn’t just playing the villain here. He was instead a sympathetic lead, a gangster with a heart. The main theme of the film being focused on his internal struggle between doing what is right and doing what he knows. The movie has solid dialogue and Bogart’s delivery is very good, but the truth is this is a pretty average performance from the screen legend. The rest of the cast do a solid job in support and with them all having fairly limited roles none really had a chance to stand out more.
My New Act Will Kill Ya!
We get a good bit of variety of settings with this movie. We get some bar scenes, a botched heist, a court room scene, the prison section with it’s break out and of course a variety of apartment buildings. The variety adds to the story, but there’s not really much of note for the cinematography here. Really the film feels more like a 30’s gangster movie than a 40’s Noir. True to that, the most notable visuals are the high octane car chases.. Dating the movie a bit further is the prison entertainment show that includes a blacked up prisoner dancing with a life sized gollywog. It was a different time.
The strength here is in the character aspects of the story. Duke has a conscience but is constantly drawn into things but more nefarious characters. This always seems to lead to innocent (Or mostly innocent) people being pulled into the line of fire and Duke being responsible for it. Some of these maneuverings are quite subtle, but when you put it all together you can see the chain of events. For example despite Duke telling his fellow escapee “Dancer” to leave the planning to him, it is him that suggests using Georges job as the warden’s chauffeur to bring items in to the prison to use for their escape. That of course puts a big target on George’s back after Dancer murders a guard while trying to escape.
Duke of Nothing
That said, there is also a lot about the plot that doesn’t really seem to make sense. The only reason Duke is fingered for the heist (Which he didn’t take part in) was because the police encouraged the witness to name him as the person that grabbed her and used her as a human shield. She clearly couldn’t remember and even thought it was the chief of police at one point (Because their photo was on the desk). While the cops of the day may well have worked that way (I couldn’t honestly say), it seems like you’d need more than one very bad witness to pin the crime on Duke. A simple cross examination should have been enough to put doubt in the jury’s mind. It wouldn’t even need the fake alibi.
The other issue is Dukes reputation. At one point it’s declared he is pushing 40 (He was 43 at the time). The Warden claims Duke is one of the best criminals out there and had a 20 years career. However, it’s also pretty clearly spelled out that Duke has done three stretches in prison, two of five years and one of ten. So If he’s 40 and spent 20 years in prison, that doesn’t seem to leave much time to actually be the big shot everyone claims he is. Even if he started out very young, he still spent most of his time in prison, suggesting he’s probably not the great mastermind with all the angles covered either. Honestly, it’s a bit messy.
The Verdict
Overall, the movie has strong dialogue (All the more stronger for Bogart’s delivery) and reasonable ideas but is dragged down by notable plot holes. Visuals and music are pretty average and really there isn’t a lot else that stands out about it. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, but there are better Bogart movies and better movies about Gangsters doing the right thing in the end. If you are a fan of star you will enjoy it, but otherwise probably not worth your time. I’m giving this a strong 5.5/10. Falling under a six mostly because I just don’t buy the set up for this one. I should add, the film (Or at least the copy I saw) has not been preserved in especially good condition so this may impact my rating and your own enjoyment.
So while “Noirvember” may be over (Meaning November, the month I traditionally watch and review Film Noir I haven’t seen yet), throughout the month I’ve been feeding amusing prompts to Stable Diffusion (An AI art generator) and it seems appropriate to cap off the month by sharing these. This is basically The Avengers and related Marvel Superheroes re-imagined as if the films were being made around 1950 and done for some unknown reason as a hybrid style with Film Noir. Yes it makes no sense whatsoever, especially as most of these heroes weren’t created until the 1960’s or later, but I thought it was fun. So let’s have a look at the cast.
Humphrey Bogart as Iron Man
Th
This is an obvious choice for me. The truth is Bogart is at 5’8”, actually a bit short for Tony Stark, but it doesn’t really matter since the kind of powerful, confident performances Humphrey put out there pretty much makes people just assume he was tall. Certainly I couldn’t pick anyone else for the role as the genius businessman and inventor turned Superhero alcoholic. Bogart of course is most famous for playing “Sam Spade” in the “Maltese Falcon” (1941) and “Rick Blaine” in “Casablanca” (1942), but appeared in many Noirs likely to be seen on top 10 and top 20 lists including “The Big Sleep” (1946), “Dark Passage” (1947) and “In a Lonely place” (1950). The man is a legend and one of the most famous actors of all time.
Glenn Ford as Captain America
Glenn Ford’s most famous Film Noir roles are “Gilda” (1946) and “The Big Heat” (1953). In both he played edgy determined characters that never gave up or backed down. Seems perfect for Captain America. Ford of course actually does have Superhero pedigree, having played Jonathan Kent in “Superman” (1978) and in that film became the man that gave Superman his moral foundation. Still not convinced? Well he also signed up for military service on three separate occasions, refused promotions offered (he thought) for his fame and not service and was frustrated at being kept out of combat.
Sterling Hayden as Thor
At an impressive 6’5” Sterling Hayden has the perfect frame to play the mighty Thor. His looks are just about right too. Hayden’s has strong Noir pedigree including: “The Asphalt Jungle” (1950) “Crime Wave” (1953), “The Come On” (1956) and most famously Stanley Kubrick’s “The Killing” (1956). Of those I have to admit to only having seen the first and the last, but I’ll get to the others soon enough! Sterling was also in the running for my Captain America, but I figured it wouldn’t make sense to cast someone as Cap in 1950 that had been a member of the Communist party (Albeit briefly).
Rita Hayworth as Black Widow
Naturally hair colour isn’t that obvious when it comes to black and white, but there are still a few actresses from the genre famous for their red hair and I wanted one of them for Black Widow. Lucille Ball dabbled in Film Noir with 1946’s “The Dark Corner” (1946), but as great as she is there really is only one actress that for the role, Gilda herself, Rita Hayworth. You can see the AI decided to give her red hair in one of the picture regardless of being in black and white and it looks great. Along with “Gilda” (1946) she was also in the Orson Welles’ classic “The Lady from Shanghai” (1947) and “Affair in Trinidad” (1952). If you don’t like the choice, put the blame on mame.
Edward G. Robinson as The Incredible Hulk
I wanted Edward G to factor in somewhere along the line and I thought it’d a fun choice for the Hulk so here we are. Although more famous for his gangster movies of the 1930’s (Especially “Little Caesar” (1931)), Robinson appeared in quite a few Film Noirs, including one of my personal favourites “Scarlett Street” (1945). He also appeared opposite Orson Welles in “The Stranger” (1956) and had a supporting role in one of the most famous Noirs of all time (Indeed number one on many lists), “Double Indemnity” (1944). Robinson often plays intelligent vulnerable men with a dark burden and aggressive angry men out to prove themselves. Works pretty well in the role for me
Dana Andrews as Hawkeye
Dana’s most famous Noir is “Laura” (1944), but he appeared in several including “Fallen Angel” (1945) and “Where the Sidewalk Ends” (1950). On top of that he was the protagonist in the Horror classic “Night of the Demon” (1957) and played Lt. Ted Stryker in the movie “Zero Hour!” (1957), a mostly forgotten movie outside the fact it was remade into a comedy in 1980, that comedy would be called “Airplane!”. Yes, he was the original Stryker. Andrews definitely deserves a spot on the team. Hawkeye is as good as any.
James Cagney as Nick Fury
Art AI’s can’t do eyepatches to save their uh… programming. But anyway when casting Nick Fury (The original Nick Fury, not the “Ultimate” version, who was basically always Sam Jackson even before the movies), I wanted a veteran that would be a bit older than the rest of the cast and play the elder statesman. Cagney is perfect. Not only is he one of the greatest on screen badasses in movie history he managed to find his way into a couple of Film Noirs late in his career. The fantastic “Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye” (1950) and the absolute classic “White Heat” (1949). It’s a shame the AI couldn’t do the picture any better, but you try getting one to draw an eye patch on someone!
Harry Belafonte as Falcon
The truth is there isn’t a huge amount of choice for black Film Noir stars, but there are a couple of really good ones . The first is Harry Belafonte, primarily a musician but also a pretty good actor. He starred in and produced the Film Noir classic “Odds Against Tomorrow” (1959) and the often overlooked post apocalyptic drama “The World, the Flesh and the Devil” (1959). Outside of his music and acting careers Belafonte was an important member of the civil rights movement, making him the perfect person for Falcon. I have no idea why the AI drew a rocket ship on that last picture, but I still like the picture.
Lauren Bacall as The Scarlet Witch
I decided not to go with a natural red head for Scarlet Witch as I really wanted to get a role for Lauren Bacall and I figured she’d look good dressed as Wanda. The AI generated pictures seem to agree so I feel it was a good move. Lauren of course is most famous for her work with Humphrey Bogart (So I should probably have cast her as Pepper Potts, but I needed a Wanda), including the classics “To Have and to Have Not” (1944), “The Big Sleep” (1946) and “Dark Passage” (1947).
Orson Welles as THANOS
Could it be anybody else? Orson Welles is perhaps the ultimate movie villain actor. This is why when casting the voice of “Unicron” in “Transformers the Movie” (1986) there was only ever one choice. But his villains in Film Noir include “Professor Charles Rankin” in “The Stranger” (1946), the legendary “Harry Lime” in “The Third Man” (1949) and “Captain Hank Quinlan” in “Touch of Evil” (1958). Three of the most memorable villains in the genre. So Naturally only he could be Thanos and it helps that he sort of has the right look for the character too. These pictures sort of show degrees of morph between Thanos and Welles but they all look cool.
Sidney Poitier as Black Panther
This is another obvious one. cis a legend whose most famous film is the neo-noir “In the Heat of the Night” from 1967. However, he was actually in a couple of proper Film Noirs (i.e. ones between 1940-1959) too, ” No Way Out” (1950) and “Edge of the City” (1957). While not the first black actor in Hollywood to lead a mainstream movie (That would be Sam Lucas way back in 1914) he was arguably the first to become a true movie star. For decades he was the symbol of what could be achieved by a talented and determined black actor and he inspired generations of actors that followed in his footsteps. Oh and he wasn’t just dealing with racial prejudice, in an era ruled by musicals he couldn’t sing due to being tone deaf.
Barbara Stanwyck as The Wasp
You can’t do Film Noir casting without having Barbara Stanwyck involved somewhere. I haven’t actually cast Ant Man (Maybe if I do a part two some time), but back in the 80’s when I was regularly reading Marvel comics I preferred The Wasp anyway. Barbara is most famous for being the most famous of all femme fatale in “Double Indemnity” (1944), but she has appeared in a large number of Film Noirs including: “The Strange Love of Martha Ivers” (1946), “The Two Mrs. Carrolls” (1947), “Sorry, Wrong Number” (1948), “The File on Thelma Jordon” (1949), “Clash by Night” (1952) and “Witness to Murder” (1954). If there is a Queen of Noir it is Barbara Stanwyck. I think part of what made her so great was her ability to play broken and flawed women and if you know the comics, you know that does somewhat resemble The Wasp.
Robert Mitchum as Doctor Strange
Another actor that I simply had to include is Robert Mitchum, but it helped that he actually looks perfect for the part of Doctor Strange. At 6’1” he is no Asgardian but tall enough to look imposing and Mitchum’s intense features and world weary eyes really make me thinks of the Sorcerer Supreme (Which will always be Doctor Strange as far as I’m concerned). Mitchum’s biggest Noir roles are “Out of the Past” (1947) and “Night of the Hunter” (1955), but he appeared in a huge number including: “Crossfire” (1947), The Big Steal (1949), Where Danger Lives (1950), The Racket (1951), Macao (1952) and Angel Face (1952). He also took on the mantle of Phillip Marlowe in the 1970’s with “Farwell My Lovely” (1975) and “The Big Sleep” (1978).
Peter Lorre as Loki
Peter Lorre is another legendary Film Noir actor and I couldn’t help but feel he would actually be perfect as Loki (At least if you ignore that he is 5’3”). If anyone was born to play a trickster god it is probably Lorre. The AI seemed to agree because it did a great job with him. Peter’s first villainous role of note was in a sort of Proto-Noir, the Fritz Lang masterpiece “M” (1931), but he went on to appear in what many consider the first official Noir “Stranger on the Third Floor” (1940) and followed that up with the “The Maltese Falcon” (1941) and “Casablanca” (1942) along with a several more Noirs over the next decade. On top of this, he is in one of my favourite comedies of all time “Arsenic and Old Lace” (1944).
Sydney Greenstreet as Odin
After I cast Peter Lorre as Loki really it was no decision at all to cast Sydney Greenstreet as Odin. Though I have to admit he also looks a bit like Prince Vultan from Flash Gordon here, but I’m happy with it. Sydney of course appeared alongside Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. After the success of those movies the studio naturally tried to pair as many of them together again as possible and so Sydney went on to do “The Mask of Dimitrious” (1944) and “Three Strangers” (1946) with Lorre and “Conflict” (1945) with Bogart.
Robert Ryan as Red Skull.
Another Film Noir regular, though he played a mixture of protagonist and antagonist I thought he would make a good Red Skull. I’m not sure if these pictures are still recognisable as Ryan but they do look pretty cool. Ryan’s noirs include: Crossfire (1947), “The Set Up” (1949), Clash By Night (1952), and “Odds Against Tomorrow” (1959). His characters were often brash, bitter and aggressive. Not the perfect fit for Red Skull but it’ll do.
Richard Conte as The Kingpin
I really wanted to throw another villain into the mix and one that made a lot of sense to me is Richard Conte as The Kingpin. Conte has played several evil mob bosses over the years perhaps more famously in “The Godfather” (1972) as Don Corleone’s rival, Barzini. But he also played crime bosses in the Film Noir’s “Cry of the City” and “The Big Combo” (1955). All of which make him the perfect pick for this role. His other Noir’s include “Somewhere in the Night” (1946) and “The Sleeping City” (1950), “The Blue Gardenia” (1953), “The Big Tip off” (1955).
John Garfield as Spider-Man
Last but not least, I had to add a Spider-Man. Even though he is my favourite superhero, he wasn’t my focus for this little exercise in AI creativity. However I felt that John Garfield would be a good pick (especially given he shares a surname with an actual Spider-Man actor). Garfield was an actor famous for playing brooding, rebellious, working-class characters. Not that Spidey is really a brooder, but can be pretty rebellious and is definitely working-class. His roles in Film Noir include “The Postman Always Rings Twice” (1946), “Body and Soul” (1947), “Force of Evil” (1948) and “Jigsaw” (1949).
Marvel Noir movie poster, apparently for a new hero called “Marnorr”.
That’s All Folks
I hope this was an amusing bit of randomness for you. I figure whether you enjoy Film Noir, AI Art or Marvel Superheroes there is something here to amuse you. I didn’t originally intend to make this a post, but after generating so many imagines I thought it would be nice to share
For today’s Film Noir review I’m going for 1948’s “Raw Deal”. A movie that is about as Film Noir as the genre gets. It’s not a greatest hits though like “The Big Combo”, this is more about the story and the characters. But we’ll get into that. The movie is public domain now so can be found at the Internet Archive and various other websites. It’s also on Amazon.
The movie is directed by Anthony Mann, who directed T-Men a year previous in 1947. Mann has directed several Noirs, but the only other one i’ve seen is T-Men (and I liked it). The movie is written by Leopold Atlas and John C. Higgins (Higgins having also worked on T-Men) and stars Dennis O’Keefe, Claire Trevor and Marsha Hunt. O’Keefe was a Film Noir regular and the lead in T-Men. Claire Trevor was also a regular to the genre having appeared in the likes of “Murder My Sweet” (1944) and “Key Largo” (1948). The film also features a key role for Perry Mason/Ironside star Raymond Burr in one of his earliest appearances.
I Want To Breath.
The movie starts with Joe Sullivan (O’Keefe) in prison having taken the fall for some unspecified crime. He is visited first by his good intentioned legal caseworker Anne (Hunt) and then by his girlfriend Pat (Trevor), who quietly informs him of the plans to bust him out, supposedly assisted by his partner in crime Rick Coyle (Raymond Burr) who had promised him $5000 as his share for taking the fall for the crime. Rick however doesn’t expect him to escape and is hedging his bets on him getting gunned down.
Joe does escape however and decides to hide out with Pat at Anne’s apartment before heading out of town and to his meet up with Coyle and to his eventual escape from America via boat. Unfortunately for him though Coyle has no play of paying up and instead plans to send his henchmen to kill him. Through all this Anne, initially kidnapped by the pair starts to fall for Joe. Pat notices this and reacts bitterly, though when Annes life is threatened by the gangsters she must decide if she loves Joe enough to tell him about the situation or have it forever on her conscience and never know if he truly loves her.
This Is What He Wanted.
This is a traditional film noir with tragic characters and an air of fatalism. Joe was a good person once, but allowed himself to be broken down by life and found himself in a life of crime. But even as a criminal he he was willing to take the fall for others, true there was meant to be money in it for him but that is upstanding for a criminal. However, he yearns for freedom and this likely reflects the attitude that lead him to a life of crime in the first place. Feeling trapped where he was and not able to get ahead. But the loyalty he showed Coyle was repaid with treachery and violence. Such is the fate of criminals in the 1940’s. On a side note, Raymond Burr is a real scene stealer in this movie, it’s a shame his appearances are all so brief.
Claire Trevor’s Pat is a tragic character too and this is presented to us mostly through her voice overs, which are admittedly a little strange mostly due to the use of a Theremin whenever she does it. I am probably too used to the instrument being used in horror and science fiction so it makes her narrative sound a little otherworldly. However her words are one of a woman that is desperately in love but seems to know deep down, even from the start that it will never really work out. When faced with her final choice of going away with Joe and living a lie or admitting the truth and probably sending him to his death she opts for the later. Not an easy decision, but her final voice over suggests she felt it was always going to end this way.
RAW DEAL, Dennis O’Keefe, Claire Trevor, 1948
I Never Asked For Anything Safe.
Anne is a bit of a strange character. From the start she sees the good in Joe and it is why she was so keen to work on his case. Throughout the film she moralises about the situation and admonishes Joe for taking the short cut of crime instead of being brave enough to go straight. But despite her complaints she comes to Joe’s rescue when the assassins pull their trap and she then confesses to Joe that she loves him.
Having been kidnapped by him earlier it’s not the best part of the story, suggesting a bit of Stockholm syndrome and perhaps a bit of a silly crush she had before she even got to know him. But she is there because Joe needed someone good to believe in him. Pat by contrast was an enabler for his life of crime and was never going to stand in his way. Indeed, she couldn’t even do it to save his life.
Life Begins With 50G’s
The plot itself moves rapidly and doesn’t waste much time filling in the blanks, like you never find what exactly it is that Joe did, instead we move frantically from location to location with the group nearly being caught at each one to keep the tension up. One key moment involves another man fleeing the police and coming to the same hideout that Joe is at. Joe takes pity on him but ultimately he gets gunned down in front of the house. This doesn’t drive on the story so much as it does the characters and of course teases Joe being captured to keep tension high.
That tension basically drives the entire movie. On one side you have the police trying to capture Joe and on the other the criminal gang that helped break him out, planning to kill him to avoid paying him his cut. The audience knows right away that he will be betrayed so we spend the whole movie waiting for Joe to meet his end at the hands of one group or another and that is about as Film Noir as you can get. Eventually Joe finds an amount of redemption before meeting his end which is about as happy an ending as he was ever going to get (Partially because of the genre, but also of course the Hays code).
Conclusion
The movie has suffered visually and socially due to deterioration of film. It’s worth noting the movie is public domain and while that means it’s easy to find a copy to watch it also means no one has really invested much time over preservation or restoration. Sadly this is quite common with Film Noir, especially for ones from the 1940’s. Still, it’s not as degraded as “The Red House” was and it’s not too difficult to see things in the darker scenes. That’s good because the film features a lot of classic Noir light and shadows, pretty typical lighting and cinematography for the genre, though with the odd flurry of creativity. Some parts work, some not so much.
Overall this is an above average Noir. Quality wise it’s not in the conversation for “best”, but it may be for quintessential. Thematically, there aren’t many movies that nail the genre so perfectly. It’s not a greatest hits like “The Big Combo”, it’s more of a template. If it wasn’t for the degraded film quality this would be a great genre primer. As it is, it’s probably not a good choice for a first noir but it’s definitely worth checking out. This just about hits 6.5/10. Had the audio/video quality not deteriorated this would be a 7, but as always I have to rate for what it is now, not what it may have been back in the day.
Today’s review is the 1951 Humphrey Bogart movie “The Enforcer” also know as “Murder Inc.” in the UK and based off the real life Murder Inc that committed around 400 murders between 1929 and 1940. A Bogart movie I haven’t seen before is a rarity in itself, but a Film Noir with Bogart in I haven’t seen is pretty much unheard of. Yet here we are. So let’s dig in!
The movie was directed by Bretaigne Windust and Raoul Walsh, not as one unit though, the movie was Windust’s but after he fell ill Walsh was brought in to finish the movie. Walsh refused to take credit, but still a good portion of the film was his work. It was written by Martin Rackin. The supporting cast includes Ted de Corsia and Everett Sloane (Both appeared in “Lady From Shanghai”) and Noir regular Roy Roberts (“He Walked By Night”, “Force of Evil”). It was Bogarts last movie for Warner.
Death of a Witness.
The story begins with a close escort and guard of Joseph Rico (de Corsia) a star witness on a trial that is due to start the following morning. The witness is scared though and after an assassination attempt, tries to escape from the precinct only to fall to his death. As the only witness to the case, District Attorney Martin Ferguson (Bogart) is left with no choice but to spend the night going over all the case notes to try and see if he can find something he has missed that may lead to a second witness or some other piece of evidence.
What follows is a series of flashbacks following the police investigation and the story of the gangsters as they come into contact with the police and Ferguson. It follows them unravelling an organisation created to sell murder, taking out “Contracts” on “Hits”. Eventually leading them to the ringlead Albert Mendoza (Sloane) and the original assassination, the only he carried out himself. There was something they missed though, something that can change the entire case when they figure it out, if they figure it out before the villains….
Cops and Killers.
This is very much a film whose strength is in the plot and not characters. While Bogart’s performance is top notch I’d be hard pressed to tell you much about his characters personality outside of “determined to get his man”. While he is the lead, he actually has very little screen time since the majority of the story is told via flashbacks where his character is not present. As a result it’s sort of a selection of short stories where a selection of criminals basically get centre stage.
Fortunately they aren’t just two dimensional hoods, but none of them especially stands out. The best of the bunch is Ted de Corsia’s “Rico”, who due to the way much of the narrative works in reverse chronological order, goes from terrified coward, to cold blooded mob boss and then street level thug. The films real antagonist though, Sloane’s “Mendoza” is unseen for the vast majority of the movie.
Right From That First Crazy Day
The plot though is interesting and unique in how it unravels the mystery. The majority of the story is told in flashbacks, bookended by fairly action heavy sequences involving the two key witnesses. We start out at one point in time, near the end of the story, but after they lose their witness and start going through the police files we see a police investigation from the start through to the current time. However, that investigation unravels the story of criminal events (Though witness statements) from the end, back towards the start. The final reveal being how the whole thing started off and what ultimately the investigation is all about. Effectively there are two timelines, the police and the criminals, one going forwards and the other going back.
Of course flashbacks are heavily utilised in the Film Nori genre with many of the most famous Film Noir’s being almost entirely flashbacks (Occasionally narrated by a dead guy), so it’s not unusual, but effectively having flashbacks within flashbacks is a little different. One of the nice touches is because they go out of their way to not show you Mendoza during the opening, so between that and the slow unravelling the audience is very much in the same position as the cops and the clue to bringing down Mendoza is there for all to see but small enough that most won’t. It’s well played out.
Everything But Himself.
Visually the film has it’s moments, such as Rico’s foolish attempt to climb a ledge of a building. But mostly the high pace and relatively short length of the movie gives little time to really indulge in that aspect of noir. Really it’s not surprising some critics don’t even consider this movie a Noir, but I would argue that as the film is built largely around flashbacks of people revealing the story of their own undoing it is very much a noir, even with the police framework. The police, even Bogart’s D.A. Ferguson are barely characters in this, they are just a narrative device to tell the story of the criminals self destruction. So it works for me.
Conclusion
Overall the film is solid and has a great plot, but lacks interesting characters and provides little in the audio/visual department that I found memorable. Bogart does a good job but has nothing to work with, making this one of his least interesting performances and not quite enough to raise the movie to the upper tier of Noir. I do like that plot though, it’s interesting both narratively and for the subject matter (Loosely based on the real life Murder Inc.). So with that in mind I’m giving this a narrow 6.5/10.
Today I’m reviewing a movie that I should really have watched years ago, “The Big Combo” from 1955. If you’ve ever found yourself googling “Film Noir” (especially images), you have definitely come across some of the films visuals. Indeed quite often if you see a heading that says “Film Noir” in some kind of article or book on the genre the cover picture is probably from this film. So that should give you a clue as to why the film is famous: It is perhaps the movie most heavily packed with classic Film Noir imagery and tropes. But since it came quite late in the era it’s not like it can claim to have invented any of that imagery. It just really indulged in it. It’s sort of a greatest hits.
The Men Behind The Movie
The movie is directed by Joseph H. Lewis, a director renowned for making the most of a minimal budget (We’ll get back to that) and the writing credit went to Philip Yordan, who possibly didn’t actually write it since he often had his work ghost-written by blacklisted writers at the time (Ben Maddow in particular). John Alton provided the cinematography and since this is a very visual film he deserves recognition for his part.
Cornel Wilde (“High Sierra”) stars, along with his wife Jean Wallace (“Jigsaw”) and Richard Conte (“The Godfather”), who stepped in at the last minute in the villain role to replace Jack Palance (Who quit because they wouldn’t give a role to his wife). Notable support includes Brian Donlevy (“The Glass Key”), Robert Middleton (“The Desperate Hours”) and Lee Van Cleef (“The Good, The Bad & The Ugly”).
The Set Up
The story follows Police Lt. Leonard Diamond (Wilde) on his personal crusade to bring down the sadistic gangster Mr. Brown (Conte). Diamond is also somewhat obsessed with Brown’s girlfriend Susan (Wallace). He claims he thinks she is the key to bringing him down but Police Capt. Peterson (Middleton) thinks he is secretly in love with her. After Susan attempts suicide she inadvertently gives Diamond a lead in the form of the name “Alicia”, which leads Diamond to pursue Browns biggest secret: What happened to his missing wife and to the crime boss he took over from?
So the first thing to note about this movie is that it was clearly made on a very tight budget, but as is often the case this just brings out the creativity in the truly talent director and this is Joe Lewis’ specialty. Indeed the movie was originally meant to be a higher budget job but after funding dried up they sought out Lewis to make it work. The vast majority of scenes are done in a single take, with a single lighting source.
The Aesthetics
On occasion though it is all too obvious they are on a sound stage, but those moments don’t last long enough to take you out of the movie. The best example of the film at it’s best and worst is in the opening scene where a brilliant chase through a series of creatively lit hallways and alleys is capped off by a static shot that is clearly on a sound stage. On the whole the film looks great.
There is a very strong focus on lighting and I have no doubt that when I talked about Film Noir influences on Blade Runner in my deep dive this was one of the movies that had a direct influence. It is a masterclass. The composition of each shoot is excellent too, with a great use of objects in the foreground such as brewing coffee in one scene and a lamp (which was also the light source of course) in another. He even throws old wagon into the background of a shot in the airport, perhaps as an in joke on the directors use of Wagon wheels in his 40’s Westerns, whenever he thought the shots looked too boring.
The Characters
As far as the characters go Conte’s Mr. Brown is the clear stand out. He gets the best lines of the movie and is the more interesting of his yin and yang pair with Cornel Wilde’s Lt. Diamond. Brown is evil for sure, ambitious and cold hearted, but he’s also charming and knows how to please a woman. Diamond however, despite being the virtuous hero, severely lacks in charm and is often somewhat callous towards the women in the movie. While it is suggested he is in love with Brown’s girl, Susan he is clearly more motivated with nail brown than protecting her. Wilde shared producer credits on the movie so had a degree of creative control and yet it is Conte’s performance that stands out. Some people just make great villains and he would play memorable ones several times in his career.
Amongst the rest of the characters, the most interesting is the fallen criminal Joe McClure, humiliated by Mr. Brown and forced to work for him, pretty much has his own story arc (Which naturally ends badly) and while Brian Donlevy plays the role well I suspect the reason for elevating the character was so they could make use of his deafness and use of a hearing aid. When we are introduced to him, we see Joe talk loudly into it to humiliate him, but later when they kidnap Diamond it is used as a full on torture device on the lieutenant, complete with a jazz drum solo on a nearby radio. Then finally when McClure is betrayed and faces death, we get to experience that in complete silence.
The Plot
The plot is a bit of a mixed bag. The scenes are strong but there tends to be a lot of conveniences to move the plot on (Such as Mr. Brown responding to the word “Spaghetti” in a lie detector word association test by blurting out the name of a retired gangster that was key to the case). Most of it works though and some of those scenes are very good. Such as the torture scene with the hearing aid, which was one they clearly spent a lot of time over (Definitely not a single take on that one).
The slow unravelling of the mystery works well and proceeds at a constant pace giving plenty of time for character moments and of course visuals. The mystery itself isn’t especially clever but it does it’s job. This is a movie of visuals first, characters second and last of all plot. But it’s coherent and well paced so I’m not complaining. There is a certain edginess to a lot of this movie though and it’s clear they were pushing just how much they could get past the censors. Remember this was a good 10 years before the Hays code was scrapped, so that torture scene was controversial.
Tropes And Controversy
Perhaps more controversial though was a scene earlier between Conte and Wallace which may be first on screen suggestion of cunnilingus, very skilfully implied without actually giving the censors anything to censor. I wonder if perhaps directors doing things like that made such a mockery of the code they decided it was time to just scrap it anyway. Certainly the film has many things they wouldn’t have gotten away with in a 1940’s Noir. Another example that seems to have slipped past most people in the day was the fact that Mr. Browns two henchmen (Played by Lee Van Cleef and Earl Holliman) were blatantly a gay couple.
While presenting an A to Z of Noir tropes and visuals in 1955 wasn’t exactly the most original or inspired piece of work it can’t be argued that it has in many ways become a near perfect example of the genre. If I was to recommend a movie to someone as a genre primer, this would be it and the closing shot of the film with the male and female lead silhouetted on their walk from the airport in the fog is perhaps the most famous visual in the whole genre due it’s overuse in pretty much every article about the genre. If you go and do a google image search right now for “Film Noir” it’ll probably be the first picture you get.
Conclusion.
Is it the best Film Noir? No, not by a long way. But it is probably top 20. There is a suggestion that the producers may have meddled with the film after most of it was film, most specifically Wilde may have felt outperformed by Conte, since much of the apparently added footage involves closeups of Wilde. Many of these worked against the feel of the film and it’s visual style so it’s a shame if true. Outside the great visuals Conte’s performance is the most notable thing about the film and it is probably why he was the original front runner to play Don Corleone in The Godfather. Obviously that changed when Marlon Brando came on board, so he ended up playing Corleone’s rival instead.
Ultimately, this is a great Noir. One of the best looking and Conte is one of the best villains of the genre. The movie’s occasional slip both visually (badly covered up sound stages and awkwardly inserted closeups) and plot wise (Those conveniences) count against it a bit as does the fact the protagonist is far less compelling than the antagonist and so much of it could have been taken directly from earlier movies. However, this still get’s high marks from me. This is a strong 7.5/10.
When looking to choose a Film Noir to review there is always a good chance that I’ll be drawn to a Fritz Lang movie (Since he directed one of my favourite Noirs “The Big Heat”). When you throw in the Queen of Noir herself, Barbra Stanwyck as the lead it’s pretty much a sure thing and so “Clash by Night” largely picked itself. The supporting cast is pretty strong too featuring Noir regulars Robert Ryan (The Set Up, Odds Against Tomorrow) and Marilyn Monroe (Asphalt Jungle, Niagra). The main cast is capped off with Paul Douglas and Keith Andes. The movie is written by Alfred Hayes based on a 1941 stage play by Clifford Odets.
More Fish In The Sea.
The story is set around the fishing town of Monterey, California and the follows Mae Doyle (Stanwyck) who has just returned to town after the man she was involved with died. The man was already married and his wife and family made sure she didn’t get the money that he had willed to her. Someone bitter and cynical now she returns to her family home to meet her brother Joe (Andes). Joe works on a fishing boat owned by Jerry (Douglas) and is in love with a cannery worker called Peggy (Monroe). Joe is worried about mae’s bad attitude rubbing off on Peggy and so tries to set her up with good natured Jerry.
Mae enjoys her time with Jerry but is at first resistant to going further, feeling like she is not destined for love. She also meets his friend Earl (Ryan). Earl is in an unhappy marriage and is just as bitter and cynical as Mae. For Mae she immediately dislikes him perhaps seeing stuff she dislikes in herself in him, but Earl just sees a kindred spirit and makes at pass at her. Somewhat disturbed by this Mae decides she needs to change and make a go at a safe loving relationship and agrees to marry Jerry. years later she has a child with Jerry, but she finds herself unhappy and restless and drawn to Earl (Who is now divorced).
Dramatic Tension.
As you can see from the synopsis this is very much a drama based Noir. Not unheard of in the genre or outside my experience as I’ve seen the likes of “The Lost Weekend” and “Mildred Pierce”, but it is unusual. It is a character study more than anything else and unlike most noirs has no body count. This isn’t what I expected from Fritz Lang who is generally known for making more edgy noirs. Many of the characters though are very much Lang characters. Moody, aggressive and feeling like they may snap at any moment. This puts an edge onto what is basically a romantic drama. Though really it’s more of an anti-romantic drama. A story about relationships with a gritty realism to it that tells the viewer, sometimes you have to just be grateful for what you have.
The movie if formatted into two main parts with a time jump in between. Though the story of both is somewhat similar. Effectively starting with Mae worn down, having a moment of doubt and then deciding to opt for stability, the difference between the two is the second half plays out in a far more heated fashion since that doubt manifests into an affair and then the fallout of it being discovered. On the surface it’s not a great plot, but between Stanwyck’s performance and Lang’s directing it still works.
Queen Of Noir.
Stanwyck’s portrayal of the flawed Mae Doyle gives the character a vital likeability. Her cynicism and tendency towards self destruction ultimately comes from a place of self loathing. It’s a complex emotional situation that could be lost with a less capable actress but with Stanwyck you can see her fighting with herself internally and that struggles has you sympathise with her even though she’s stringing along a good man, sleeping with his friend and threatening to take his child. Deep inside Mae wanted to be loved, she just didn’t feel she deserved it. Along with her inner conflict Stanwyck brings fierce independence and a sharp wit to the role that gives her character charm even at her most cynical. By the end of the story though she realises Jerry was what she was looking for all along.
Masculine Aggression.
This isn’t just down to Stanwyck though a lot of this is Fritz Lang’s speciality too. Many of his characters are deeply flawed but have redeemable traits. Obviously Mae fits that description, but so too does her brother Joe. Who is really portrayed as both the best and worst of the hyper-masculine male. On one hand he is sometimes rough with Peggy, even teasing hitting her and makes light of her story about another worker at the cannery that was hit by her boyfriend. On the other hand though he is fiercely loyal and dependable, tells Peggy to leave him unless she can commit for the long term. He also does his best to support Mae even though he clearly doesn’t approve of her actions.
Joe would likely not go down well with modern audiences. But there are also elements of Mae’s personality that may not go down to well. It is a little ambiguous at the end whether it is Jerry’s forgiveness that leads to her wanting to give it another go or the fact that he tried to strangle Earl. Up until that point Jerry had been the “safe” man, perhaps seeming weak. But while he was disgusted with the fact he committed an act of violence, perhaps him finding a touch of inner darkness allowed Mae to find her inner light. There’s certainly a lot of criticism that could be put to these flawed characters, but it does make them seem more genuine.
The Saint and Sinner.
Jerry and Earl on the other hand are perhaps a little bit too simplified, though this is likely deliberate as they effectively represent the two conflicting parts of Mae’s personality. Jerry represents safety and security and is generally optimistic if lacking confidence, while Earl represents aggression, selfishness and pessimism. Really it doesn’t make any sense the two are friends, except that Jerry pretty much refuses to see bad in people.
These archetypes are pushed to the extreme with Jerry being disgusted with himself for even laying his hands on Earl out of anger and making a point to kick out his drunk lodger from his house for use of pornographic photos in his bedroom. Earl meanwhile largely forces himself on Mae, makes racist impressions, regularly gets pass out drunk and rarely has anything nice to say about anyone. He is truly the opposite of Jerry.
Light and Shadows.
Given the movie is based on a drama play you’d probably not be expecting too much in the way of interesting visuals in this one, however Fritz Lang is not one to disappoint and as a result pretty much every scene is framed in visually interesting ways, with good use of shadows and in several scenes water. In addition the opening scene introducing us to a day in the life of this fishing village and the workings of it’s factory remind me a little bit of the opening to “Sweet Smell of Success” and the more modern movie “Lord of War”, though it’s true fish is a lot less interesting than newspapers or bullets, but it’s still a great visual opener.
Conclusion
Overall, while the plot is simple, repetitive and not especially exciting in itself, Stanwyk’s portrayal of Mae raised the story up enough to keep my interest and the aggressive style of Lang’s directing provides far more tension to the events than is probably warranted. It has an air of authenticity to it that made it easy to ignore the weaker elements. The movie has not aged especially well though and I can see modern audiences not liking it at all. Not a huge problem for me though, so I’m giving it a 6.5/10.
So, we’re a week into November. I’ve had my post-October break, but my fingers are itchy to get to a new review done, so it’s time to start the Noirvember season! I’ve decided that moving forward I’m going to only give a brief synopsis instead of full plot. This way it’s easier to avoid spoilers, should keep my reviews under 1000 words and you can find the full plot on Wikipedia anyway, so you can always check their if interested.
For my first movie found the perfect transition from Horror to Noir by finding a film that shares aspects of both. This is “The Red House” from 1947. The horror aspects aren’t strong enough to justify it as a horror, but it’s pretty close to that line and by being there it moves to the fringes of what counts as Noir too. Interestingly Wikipedia has declared it a horror, but IMDB lists it as Drama/Film-Noir/Mystery with no mention of horror. Having seen it now I’m going to say IMDB was closer there but it shows how it’s not clear cut.
There’s A Red House Over Yonder.
The movie is written and directed by Delmer Daves, who also directed the Bogart/Bacall classic “Dark Passage” that same year (1947) along with the classic western “3:10 to Yuma” (Which is marginally better than the surprisingly good remake). He also wrote the screenplay for “The Petrified Forest” way back in 1936, which is one of my favourite movies of that decade. The movie is based on the novel by George Agnew Chamberlain and stars Lon McCallister in a very typical role for him (Good natured country boy) along with Allene Roberts and the legend and Film Noir regular Edward G. Robinson.
The story revolves around Nath (McCallister) who is helping out at a local farm thanks to his friend Meg (Roberts). The farm is owned by Meg’s adopted father Pete Morgan (Robinson). Pete warns Nath not to go near a certain area of the forest on his land, but he and Meg become curious about it and so keep looking for this mysterious “Red House” that is meant to be there. As they get closer, Pete becomes more unstable and the petty criminal he hired to keep people off his land becomes more aggressive to those trespassers. Ultimately the secret of the red house will be revealed and the lives of all involved will not be the same.
The Tell-Tale Heart.
Performance wise Robinson unsurprisingly steals the show. While he is more famous for his roles in Gangster movies, the Noir era gave him a chance to explore more complex characters with a bit more vulnerability. His role here is pivotal and it is his character and his internal that makes the movie a Film Noir. Like many of the genre the story is really about how dark secrets of your past eventually catch up to and sometimes destroy you. It’s one of those elements that instead of fighting against the Hays code, embraces it. Crime does not pay, but Noir is often based around a characters attempts to delay their inevitable fate.
Pete Morgan has carried his secret with him since Meg was a child, but not just in his tainted soul but in a very physical form. He could have destroyed The Red House and with it all evidence of his crimes, but instead he left it there as a constant reminder and he must have known one day his secret would come to the surface. The truth is there is a definite Streisand effect here. Should someone stumble upon the house it wouldn’t mean anything to them, but his determination to keep people away from it naturally made them curious. Pete’s mental stability weakening every step along the way, with him slipping and calling Meg “Genie” (Her mothers name) several times. When Meg finally stumbles upon the place she found it strangely familiar. Ultimately Pete ends up confessing his crime.
Bad Prints and Good Natures.
The problem is that Pete is not the movies lead. Really it is a joint lead of Nath and Meg, but they are fairly straight forward good natured country girl/boy archetypes. Not characters that really lend themselves to film noir. Though Nath initially being in a relationship with Tibby does give his story a mild Noir twist since she is very much the type of woman that would lead a man onto the wrong path, though ultimately that doesn’t happen and instead she gets herself get in to more trouble than she bargained for with her infatuation with outlaw Teller. Nath and Meg are basically the outsiders in this dark world, which is really where the film starts to bend towards Horror, but only a little as there is no intentional malice with all this.
Another thing to note with this movie is the poor quality of the physical film print. Although most of the 1940’s Film Noirs I’ve seen have been well preserved and and pretty high quality every now and then you come across a movie that has obvious seen significant degradation. Sometimes it doesn’t impact the movie experience, but this movie has a lot of scenes that you can barely see anything in between the lighting and the film degradation. The trouble is I have to judge it on the film as it is now, because it’s not like you can hop in a time machine and go and watch this back in the day.
Conclusion
This would have been a much better movie had it focused more on Robinson’s Pete Morgan and less on Nath and Meg. This is basically a tell tale heart story and for that kind of thing you really want to focus on the person hearing the knocking (or in this case screaming). Not to mention, this is Edward G Robinson we’re talking about and he had top billing anyway, so it seems a missed opportunity. The story is interesting though so between that and Robinson’s performance it just about hits a 6/10.
You must be logged in to post a comment.