Tag: Film Noir

Clash By Night (1952)

Posted on by fenrisfil

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.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

The Red House (1947)

Posted on by fenrisfil

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.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley: 1947 Vs 2021

Posted on by fenrisfil

I’m going to do something a little different with this review and review and compare two movies. Both adaptations of the same source material, “Nightmare Alley” by William Lindsay Gresham, published in 1946. The first movie was adapted from the story one year later in 1947; Directed by Edmund Goulding and starring Tyrone Power as “Stanton Carlisle” it is considered a Film Noir classic (Hence why it seemed fitting to review both given my passion for Film Noir). The second movie is the latest from visionary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and features an all star cast including Bradley Cooper (as “Carlisle”), Cate Blanchett (As Dr. Lilith Ritter), Willem DaFoe and Ron Perlman (the last two in minor roles).

Remake or new take on the same source?

Though Del Toro initially claimed his movie is not a remake of the Film Noir, the ending of the movie and the inclusion of a key line added for the 1947 movie suggests otherwise. It seems the truth is Del Toro’s movie falls somewhere between the source and it’s first adaptation. That said, as far as I can tell (Having not read the novel itself) the first movie was pretty close to the source material already so it is hard to tell where Del Toro is following the novel and where he is following the Noir. One notable difference though is that the 1947 movie adds some story to the end (which was not present in the book) while the 2021 film adds a little to the start. The bulk of the story is however the same.

Framing changes everything.

What makes the new versions distinct however (aside from being in colour of course) is some framing of the events and the personalities. In the 1947 version Tyrone Power’s “Carlisle” is competent and confident throughout. He is a clever man always on the lookout for angles. Ultimately he goes one scheme too far and becomes a victim to his own hubris. But he’s not totally irredeemable. In this version he sidesteps the fate laid out for him in the novel but ends up instead repeating the fate of the toxic relationship between his two Mentalist mentors in his early days at the carnival. So the ending is bitter sweet.

The Life and Times of Stanton Carlisle

Cooper’s Carlisle though has a much darker soul, while not without some positive qualities (For instance showing some empathy towards the Carnivals “Geek”) he has a bitter and violent side to him. Unlike Power’s version he is not a natural grifter swayed into darkness, instead the film lets us know he already has a taint on his soul, a dark act that follows him around and perhaps a hatred in his heart. This Carlisle learns the grift directly from the Carnies and with Cooper I always felt he was lying as much to himself as those he deceived.

The most notable difference between the two is how they act when things fall apart. Power’s character has become dislikable and yet I still felt some sympathy for him. He is ultimately destroyed by his two great strengths, his confidence and ability to read people. The former lead him to ignore the latter when it involved those closest to him. Cooper’s version while also a victim of his own hubris, reveals his true colours the moment things fell apart and at that point I knew his fate was sealed. It is difficult to decide which of those approaches I prefer.

For the majority of the film I would have to give it to Tyrone Power, whose performance was intense and believable, however I always felt the last act of the film where things fell apart seemed out of place for someone as together as Power’s Carlisle. Bradley Cooper’s version while I had difficulty buying his progress to the top, his fall felt both real and inevitable. The line taken from the earlier movie that has Carlisle acknowledge his own destiny seems all the more fitting in Del Toro’s movie because of this.

The Primordial She-Demon

As far as the supporting cast goes, the main other player in this story is the psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ritter, played by Helen Walker in the earlier movie and Cate Blanchett in Del Toro’s movie. She’s not actually in most of the movie, but her role is pivotal. In the battle of these actresses Blanchett easily wins. I always found the characters betrayal somewhat out of place in the earlier movie, sure she gets to profit financially but as a high paid psychoanalyst I felt like she should have had more to her motivation. But much like with Cooper’s Carlisle, Blanchett’s Ritter is as a far darker version of the character, bitter and twisted and holding a personal grudge against Carlisle for publicly showing her up when they first met (Even though she was trying to show him up).

She doesn’t even care about the money, she just wants to see Carlisle destroyed. What comes into question is did she plan for Carlisle’s scheme to fail all along or would this betrayal have happened further down the line anyway. It is hard to say, but either way Blanchett’s Dr. Ritter is a sociopath. It’s worth noting that as the character escapes punishment, the Motion Picture Production Code that was in play in 1974 would probably have prevented the character being portrayed in quite such a negative light for the earlier movie. Even as her role as a Noir Femme Fatale she is pushing those boundaries. It is clearly no coincidence that her name is “Lilith” (Which for those that don’t know is the name of the primordial she-demon and first wife to Adam, effectively the original Femme Fatale). Maybe it’s a little on the nose, but she earns the name for sure.

The Burden of a Good Woman

The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Molly, Carlisle’s primary love interest has more of an elevated role in the Film Noir than Del Toro’s movie. She is the “Good Woman” character that was pretty common in the 1940’s and used in Film Noir to contrast with the Femme Fatale. She is loyal, dependable and good at heart. Because of this she is often the voice of conscience to Carlisle. It is ultimately her good nature and principles that leads to Stanton’s fall but also provides the opportunity for redemption. Ultimately the biggest failure of the grifter was to predict the actions of a good woman. While she plays essentially the same role in Del Toro’s movie she feels somewhat removed from the story until she is required to throw a spanner in the works. It seems in this darker world a “Good woman” would seem a bit too out of place, plus the trope isn’t a popular one with modern writers. So the end result is she is just kind of there.

Carnival of Lost Souls

Conversely however the other Carnies are a lot more fleshed out in Del Toro’s vision and rather unsurprisingly Willem DaFoe puts in a top notch performance to his role as Carnie boss Clem Hoatley. The Mentalist couple, Zena and Pete, that take Carlisle under their wing in the Carnival seem a lot more fleshed out too, but then Stanton has a lot more to learn about the trade in the 2021 version so they had to be. Not that they were ignored in the 1947 version, indeed their relationship provides the template for where Stanton and Molly’s ends up and because of this Pete is depicted as far more of a washed up hasbeen, with little indication to his past glories. Last of all Molly’s romantic partner at the start of the movie is significantly different between films with it being a Strong Man in the original (and not a great performance) and the carnivals Dwarf in the modern version. I couldn’t say which is closer to the novel though (If you know, feel free to tell me in the comments). The Dwarf however is backed up by Ron Perlman’s Bruno so Carlisle still get’s punched for his indiscretions. 

Speaking of the Carnival, one of the most notable differences between versions is what the movies chose to show and what they chose to imply. The most obvious thing here being the carnivals “Geek”, which to those unfamiliar with the use of the work in this context, a carnival “Geek Show” features an apparently crazy man that chases around live chickens and eventually bites their heads off. The 1947 version shows only the audience reaction to this, but never shows it. Del Toro however directly depicts it. Of course they likely couldn’t show that in 1947, but still the implied spectacle was always pretty effective in film noir so that makes the approach a difficult comparison.

The Final Verdict

It’s not just the Geek that is given a more graphic spin, Del Toro also adds in a disturbing mutated baby in a jar (shown above) that also provides the film it’s final shot. None of this is really a surprise from Del Toro who always embraced the visually macabre. Of course Film Noir has its own visual style and Nightmare Alley is no exception, though it is not the best cinematography of the era. But then the 2021 version is not Del Toro’s best visual work either (Which is probably still “Pan’s Labyrinth”). Ultimately though I do have to give this one to the newer movie. One of the key elements of Film Noir is fatalism and it is actually the later movie that truly embodies that more than the first. The truth is the story here is a dark and twisted tale about not just human nature but about the dark side of the entertainment industry and it is fitting that the newer movie is so brutal in its approach. In my opinion however, this is not a great story in itself and so both versions surpassed the limitations of the source material to provide something truly entertaining.

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

Posted on by fenrisfil

My final November Noir is a big one that I am long overdue for watching. This is “Sweet Smell of Success” from 1957. Adapted from Ernest Lehman’s novelette of the same name, this is a Noir Drama and one of those that may not be obvious as a Noir just from the synopsis but themes and style are very much in the genre.

Directed by Alexander Mackendrick (of Ealing Studios fame, having directed such movies as The Man in the White Suit (1951) and The Ladykillers (1955)), with double Oscar winning cinematographer James Wong Howe seeing to the visuals the legendary Elmer Bernstein providing the score. Add to that Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster and this was always going to be a good one.

Curtis takes the lead as morally bankrupt press agent Sidney Falco, with Lancaster as the overbearing columnist J.J. Hunsecker, support is given by the beautiful Susan Harrison as Hunsecker’s sister Susan and Martin Milner as her love interest, Jazz guitarist Steve Dallas.

Sweet Sound of Success

The first thing that hits you right out of the gate is soundtrack that manages to be both explosive and sleazy at once with an instantly recognisable hook. This is a Bernstein soundtrack more along the line of “The Man with the Golden Arm” (1955) than his later work and it fits perfectly for this movie.

It’s worth noting the music for this movie isn’t entirely Bernstein as the film also featured music by the Chico Hamilton Quintet, itself quite a ground-breaking group as it featured Cello as a lead instrument. Though here much of the focus is the guitar due to it being the instrument of choice for key character Steve Dallas. This was the first movie to have two separate soundtrack releases one for Bernstein’s score and the other for the Quintets (Something that is commonplace today).

Sweet Look of Success

Accompanying the soundtrack in the intro are some fantastic bits of cinematography which lets the viewer know they are in for a treat as we briefly follow a newspaper run straight off the print, into trucks and to it’s final destination to the hands of Sidney Falco (Curtis).

This is a late period Noir and has a lot more polish than a lot of the genre, but it doesn’t move away from the classic shadow play. James Wong Howe’s style is certainly smoother and less claustrophobic than a lot of the genre but it works beautifully for this movie. Of particular note are the wide cityscapes that really capture Manhattan in the late 50’s.

Sweet Plot of Success

The premise is pretty straight forward on the surface. Falco has been asked by columnist J.J. Hunsecker to derail the romance of his younger sister that he is over protective of. Having failed to do so by the start of the movie Hunsecker has frozen him out of his column, which has cost him one of his clients. Hunsecker gives him a second chance, which allows Falco to come up with a scheme to manipulate the couple into ending their romance. The plan involves smearing the guitar player and forcing a confrontation between him and J.J. that paints Hunsecker as the injured party and forces his sister to stop seeing him. Of course things are never that straight forward.

What follows is a web of manipulation where morality and integrity become both a weakness to exploit and an obstacle to overcome. Falco stoops ever lower to achieve the bullying Hunsecker’s demands and eventually his ability to read and manipulate people fails him causing the whole web to unravel.

Sweet Themes of Success

This is a story about morality and how far people are willing to go to achieve their goals. But it’s also about denial and how people delude themselves that they aren’t being immoral. As Falco’s morality becomes more and more flexible he also becomes more and more defensive of his own motivations, most notably when he whores out a “friend” as a form of bribe and seems to be justifying it to himself more than her that it is for her good.

His plan to break up the couple hinges on using Dallas’ morality against him, but while he reads the guitarist like a book he fails to read either of the Hunsecker’s reaction to situation and between them his fate is sealed. By the movies conclusion he is well aware of how far he has fallen but yet doesn’t seem willing to accept any of the blame himself. Rest assured though this is the 50’s so naturally he won’t escape punishment.

While Falco is still descending in his morality, Lancaster’s Hunsecker has already reached the point where he can no longer tell how far he has fallen. Indeed after having achieved his goals he is so insulted by being called out for what he really is by Dallas that he pushes his luck just a little too far. Indeed he sees the attack on his moral fibre to be an attack on his readers. He has bought into his own hype, he sees his view as moral and Steve’s as immoral. Really, this is a very accurate portrayal of Journalist. On one side willing to stoop to any depth to achieve his ends but on the other seeing himself as a true pillar of the community.

All told this is a superb movie. Curtis and Lancaster nail their roles, the dialogue is superb, the plot appears simple on the surface but sees it’s share of twists and turns, the themes are strong throughout, the characters believable and compelling and the movie looks and sounds great. Definitely well worth seeing.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

The Crooked Way (1949)

Posted on by fenrisfil

 

Tonight’s November Noir is 1949’s “The Crooked Way”, directed by Robert Florey and staring John Payne (Kansas City Confidential) as Eddie Rice a WW2 Veteran with a piece of shrapnel in his brain that has caused him permanent amnesia. Support comes from Sonny Tufts as crime boss Vince Alexander, Ellie Drew as Nina Martin, Eddies ex-wife and Rhys Williams as Police Lt. Joe “You’ll hear from me later” Williams. The movie is based on the radio play “No Blade Too Sharp”.

Our story begins as Eddie heads back to Los Angeles with the hope of bumping into someone that knows him. That seems quite hopeful but he is recognised the moment he exits the train station by local law enforcement. He soon discovers he was previously known as Eddie Riccardi, a key figure in organised crime in the area. Through a series of additional encounter he comes to realise he turned states evidence on the local crime boss Vince Alexander to avoid jail time himself. Suffice to say Vince is not happy to hear about Eddies return, neither is his ex wife.

The Amnesiac’s Way

Interestingly this is not the only Film Noir to feature an amnesia plot for a war veteran with 1946’s Somewhere in the Night having a similar start but going in a very different direction. Sadly I’ve not seen that movie yet so a direct comparison will have to wait. What I can say is this movie had a lower budget and was considered brutal by comparison. Indeed critics of the day took issue with the violence, though of course by todays standards that violence is pretty tame. 

The idea of memory loss as a plot device is always pretty compelling. To not know ones own past instantly creates a mystery and makes the protagonist sympathetic as he learns everything the same time as the viewer and when that protagonist’s past is dark it creates interesting moral questions such as are there some things it is better not to know and how much guilt should one have for misdeeds you don’t even remember doing? Despite the set up this film is a bit more direct in how Eddie copes with these things but to be fair as a Soldier (and a war hero) he is not the kind of person to run from his responsibilities. Instead he tackles them head on. This leads to being framed for murder and on the run with both the police and the local crime boss gunning for him.

The Noir Way

This is a fast paced noir with a lot of action for the genre, making it seem more like a 30’s gangster movie in places, but the themes (specifically being unable to escape a dark past or a terrible future), the camera work and lighting are very much of the Noir genre.  The cinematography is creative, with lots of unusual angles, close ups and wide shots (All very common in the genre, but used heavily here).  Perhaps because of the low budget the lighting is played very much on the dark side with a lot of emphasis on shadows, in some cases getting more of the screen than the actors that are casting them. I have to say, I loved the visuals in this movie it was a really highlight and as far as the use of darkness goes it reminds me just how much better they were in the 40’s and 50’s at using it in artist ways while still allowing the viewer to actually see what was going on. These days, it’s basically the opposite.

The restrained use of music in The Crooked Way is interesting too. It is used sparingly to ramp up tension when anticipating a major event, but completely absent in a lot of the movie including for most of the final shoot out. Again this was probably for budgetary reasons but what is there works well and this is actually an excellent example of how creative directors in the 40’s and 50’s could be with limited resources. The story is pretty simple really effectively just leading Eddie from one violent encounter to the next as he tries to make sense of things. The actors for their part do a fine job but not really stood out as anything special to me. The ending was a little disappointing in it’s convenience and largely coming out of nowhere. Really this is a film made on the back of it’s strong visuals and rapid pacing rather than the story itself or the actors performances. Overall it’s a solid Noir. 

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

There’s no trailer for this movie (that I can find) so here is a random scene. You can also watch the whole movie via archive.org.

The Long Night (1947)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s Film Noir is Anatole Litvak’s “The Long Night” from 1947 staring Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men) with support from Barbara Bel Geddes (Vertigo) and Ann Dvorak (Scarface) and the legendary Vincent Price (Who despite being mostly known for horror, actually did quite a lot of Film Noir too).

The Long Con

Before I talk about the plot, there is an interesting story involving this film that is a real lesson about just despicable Hollywood was historically. This movie is actually a remake of the French movie “Le jour se lève” from 1939. RKO acquired the distribution rights for the movie in preparation for remaking it and then set about buying up any and all available prints of the original film. These weren’t collected for prosperity, no they collected them to destroy them. They actually found a story they thought would be good for their market, bought it and then tried to completely erase the original movie to prevent the public from ever finding out their version wasn’t the original.

The moral of the story? Hollywood was always a cess pool. Fortunately more prints were later recovered in the 1950’s so their effort was for nothing. Sadly that was actually the second attempt at suppression for the movie as it was also banned during the occupation (Apparently for being demoralizing). Despite all that it didn’t stop the critics of the day from comparing this remake to the original and find it wanting.

The Long Story

Anyway, the plot starts of in a very traditional Film Noir style with our lead “Joe” (Fonda) barricaded into his top floor department after killing a man. The police are outside and we are given the impression Joe won’t survive the night as he seems determined not to surrender. Of course while he waits for the end he thinks back to how he got into this situation.

The story that lead him there is pretty straight forward really. He fell in love with a a woman, Jo (Geddes) but she was involved with another man. This Man, Maximillian (Price) is a real dirt bag. Charming but manipulative, lying and determined to have his prize. He has a novelty act as a dog trainer, though it turns out he abuses the dogs. At first Joe backs off and instead gets involved with another woman that shares his dislike of Maximillian, his former assistant in his dog show Charline (Dvorak). Eventually though he wins Jo around and in doing so discovers just how much of a dirt bag Maximillian is. After realising it’s over between him and Jo, Maximillian heads to Joe’s apartment with the intention of shooting him but ends up being shot by his own gun.

The Wrong Night

There are a lot of changes to this movie from the original French version. The biggest one being the ending, which is actually quite puzzling. We know Hollywood likes happy endings but the change here is jarring and doesn’t really fit within the Noir genre. Instead of the fatalism that is present in the majority of Film Noir we are presented with a much more hopeful picture. In some ways Joe is the opposite of a character like Philip Marlowe. While Marlowe is a white knight in a Noir world, Joe is a miserable fatalist surrounded by optimistic people that want him to know they care. It’s a strange thing to see in the genre.

For most of the movie Joe and Jo seem simple and naïve. This makes them easy pickings for the manipulative Maximillian. Charline by contrast though is a great character. A woman of genuine strength and wisdom that really deserves much better than jerks like Max and fools like Joe. She wants Joe to fall for her but figured pretty early on that he was in love with someone else. The truth is though, the ease with which she deals with things doesn’t make her feel that genuine and that is a big problem I had for all these characters. None of them felt real.

The Song Night

The acting though is pretty good from all involved and the film looks and sounds good. Of particular note is the score that makes heavy use of the Allegretto second movement of Beethoven’s seventh symphony. It’s a great piece of music and it does enhance the feelings of absolute despair in the siege scenes. The problem being that since the ending swerves on the viewer all the tension built up from the score seems a bit wasted.

Overall. Well it’s a very average movie really. It starts well and has its moments, but ends like a totally different movie. Characters are stupid and inconsistent and ultimately it feels like a poor take on strong source material (And that is without having seen the French original).

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Odds Against Tomorrow (1959)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The Odds Against Tomorrow.

Today’s November Noir is 1959 classic “Odds Against Tomorrow”. Directed by Robert Wise (The Haunting, Andromeda Strain) and staring Robert Ryan (The Wild Bunch, The Dirty Dozen), Ed Begley (Hang ‘Em High, Twelve Angry Men) and legendary singer Harry Belafonte (Who produced the film as a vehicle for himself).

The plot is basically a bank job, though it’s really more about the characters and the building tension which crescendos with the job itself (which is the final act). Burke (Begley), an aging ex-con has a plan for what seems like the perfect heist, a poorly protected bank with an abundance of cash. He brings in two war veterans Slater (Ryan) and Ingram (Belafonte) to work the job with him. Both carry heavy burdens with them, Slater seems damaged by his time in the war and is bitter from his time in jail. He is an angry man with little nice to say to anyone but his girlfriend Lorry (Shirley Winters) whom he is determined to support (Though that doesn’t stop him having an affair with a neighbour (Played by Noir legend Gloria Graham).

Ingram’s burden meanwhile is his gambling addiction. He has a loving wife and daughter and steady work but his debts have gotten out of control and now the lives of those he love are in danger if he doesn’t settle up. Ingram is basically our hero in this movie, though Slater is introduced first. He is at his core a good man, but he is desperate. He’s also not too keen on the racist attitude of Slater. This tension between the two of them ultimately leads to the failure of the heist and the deaths of all involved (What’d you expect, a happy ending?). Burke for his part does his best to keep everyone calm and focused and I felt genuinely bad for him when he meets his own demise, even more than for Ingram who by the end is just as full of hate as Slater. 

The Odds Against Analysis.

I have to give the three leads a lot of credit here for the intensity of their performances. Especially Ryan, who feels positively dangerous and unstable to be around. Belafonte also puts in a top level performance, which is especially impressive given he was more of a singer/composer than an actor. Begley has the least to do of the three but he excels at selling his characters concerns and emotions with just the odd glance here and there, most notably whenever Slater says something racist.

I can’t talk about this movie though without referencing the superb Jazz score by the Modern Jazz Quartet. This is appropriate given this is 1959, one of the most ground breaking years in the history of Jazz and this soundtrack stands up well to the other giant compositional works of that year. It’s worth noting the MJQ actually worked some of the tracks on this score into their regular repertoire. The music is thoughtful, melancholy in others and somewhat dreamlike but also assists in building tension when needed. People tend to think of Film Noir as filled with this sort of Jazz music and it actually isn’t, it’s just a handful of films at the very end of the Noir period, such as this one.

The Odds Against Symbolism.

Accompanying the score is some great imagery. It opens with a shot of some wind blown standing water from a drain at the side of the road and ends with a very similar shot (Though accompanied by a sign saying “Stop – Dead End”). There’s also a moment just before the heist where a contemplative Ingram is staring at some water down by the dock. Nothing is said, but the score and the scenery along with the actors expressions say it all. The movie features a lot of shots of empty streets and worn down looking buildings and a repeated use of wind, both as background noise and visually blowing stuff around in the streets. Everything looks cold, empty and barren. It’s almost post apocalyptic (Which is interesting considering Belafonte ‘s previous film was actually post apocalyptic).

Where there is life often it’s kids running around. Slater, the racist war veteran’s first interaction of the film is actually a friendly one with a small black child. That’s is in stark contrast with his generally angry, bitter attitude and very open racism with Ingram later. The movie seems to be drawing a dividing line between the innocence of the children and the heavy burden carried by the adults.

The most obvious bit of symbolism in the film comes after the explosive finale… literally explosive, where the burned remains of Slater and Ingram can’t be disguised from each other: “Which one is which” asks one of the police officers. It’s worth noting in 1959 this was the first Film Noir with a black lead and needed Belafonte producing the film himself to get there. This was a very different world, but the themes of hatred (Mutual by the end) leading to mutual destruction and the reminder we are all just humans underneath is still very valid.

The Final Verdict – An Excellent Movie

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Three Strangers (1946)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Three Strangers Movie Poster

Three Strangers

Tonight’s November Noir is 1946’s “Three Strangers”. This was part of a series of movies starring Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet that were marketed as spiritual sequels to “The Maltese Falcon”. The pair made nine movies together and when they weren’t supporting Bogart their pairing became the selling point. They had great chemistry and who doesn’t love a trailer that starts out with Greenstreet offering to tell us an astounding story. Joining them in this one is the very talented Geraldine Fitzgerald who plays the pivotal character bringing the three together, though this is very much Peter Lorre’s movie.

The movie was based on a John Huston idea that he came up with at a party and after bouncing the idea off Alfred Hitchcock presented it to Warner. Originally Humphrey Bogart was on board but that changed and at director Jean Negulesco insistence they settled on Peter Lorre as lead. It’s worth noting Negulesco had worked with both Lorre and Greenstreet previously with the very entertaining “The Mask of Dimitrious” and was clearly a fan of the pairing.

Peter Lorre, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Sydney Greenstreet

Three Stories

The movie is basically three shorter stories linked by pivotal meetings between the three strangers. These meetings were instigated by Crystal (Fitzgerald) who believed an old superstition about her bronze statue of the Chinese goddess Kwan Yin (The goddess of fortune) who would grant three strangers that meet at her statue at midnight on Chinese New Year their wish (of fortune). She convinces the other two strangers, Johnny (Lorre) and Jerome (Greenstreet) to go along with it and Johnny offers up his sweepstakes ticket he purchased with the last of his cash at the end of the day as the source for that potential fortune if the others buy out a third of the ticket. After the initial meeting their stories progress separately until the first horse of the sweepstakes comes in and then they return to the apartment for the conclusion of both the sweepstakes and their own stories.

Of course this is Film Noir, not a fantasy or comedy. So as we get into the individual stories we see that these are broken people heading towards disaster. Jerome is a dishonest accountant embezzling money from a trust fund to make a profit on the stock exchange. A proud man that refuses to admit his own guilt and so when his schemes start to collapse he becomes desperate. Crystal meanwhile is a manipulative Femme Fatale refusing a divorce to her estranged Husband and trying to drive a wedge between him and his lover (Who he wants to marry).

Three Tragedies

Johnny however is not himself a bad person and though in a desperate situation remains calm and it seems has a good heart. He is on the run from the law, but in truth he is only a petty criminal (If even that) mixed up with something much more dangerous due to his alcoholism and agreeable nature. He has been framed by one of the criminals he was mixed up with for the murder of a policeman.

In traditional Noir style things obviously don’t end up well for Jerome or Crystal but Johnny does find some redemption by the end of the story and is ready to change his life (and even stop drinking). This movie landed well with me from start to finish. But it’s worth noting that Johnny’s story is by far the highlight. Jeromes is fairly bland though Sydney Greenstreet has his moments in the role. Crystals story is an interesting one as is her character. Although a Femme Fatale, Crystal is not your typical one as she is driven more by her idea of a fairy tale ending than greed and selfishness. She actually deals honestly with her fellow strangers and it’s only in dealing with her husband that her darker side comes out.

As I said though Peter Lorre is the star and he nails it. The little Hungarian may have had a funny voice and a strange face but he had buckets of charm and talent in equal measure. His story is the most complex of the three and his supporting sub-cast is the most entertaining. Greenstreet barely has a supporting cast and it’s not a surprise really he is at his best when meeting up with the other strangers. Fitzgerald’s supporting cast is basically her husband and his lover and they are fine but it’s Geraldine herself that makes that story interesting.

One Resolution

Overall this was a very crafted story. The weaker third is the shortest and the stronger third the longest which keeps the pace solid and for the time given all the stories did their job. The three leads were all superb and the linking anchor added a really interesting element to the stories. I have to admit I am a sucker for stories involving strangers meeting up in unusual circumstances. It’s just something that I find narrative gold. The elements of gambling on a fortune are also very much ones you see regularly in Film Noir, though usually ancient Chinese goddesses aren’t involved in the gamble. Then on top of that we have several classic Noir tropes with the alcoholic, the dishonest businessman and the femme fatale. Lorre’s character though is somewhat outside of the usual Noir gallery and that allows the film to feel unique.

There aren’t really any negatives her outside of not especially being into Greenstreet’s Story. But as a Film Noir I do have to examine the use of visuals and there is really nothing special here. Competent though Negulesco is, he was not one of the great visionaries of his day and I recalled that fairly straightforward movie style from his “The Mask of Dmitrios”. The music is your average affair for the time and doesn’t especially stand out. But this is all fine because the John Huston story is what makes this film work. I’m giving this a strong 6.5/10

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.