Friday, July 16, 2010
The Power of New Technologies...
Thanks to a Wednesday night screening of MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS on TCM, a whole new gaggle of people found my introduction on YouTube. Lesson: Always be prepared, because you never know when other people's inspiration is going to hit.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Dark Mirror (1946)
From the AFI:
"When a prominent physician is found stabbed to death, police detective Stevenson's investigation leads him directly to magazine store clerk Terry Collins, who works in the doctor's office building and is identified by co-workers as the murdered man's girlfriend. Stevenson is puzzled by the conflicting descriptions of Terry he hears from people with whom she works, even that of another doctor, Scott Elliott. When Stevenson goes to Terry's apartment, she introduces him to her identical twin sister Ruth, and he understands the witness' discrepancies. The sisters admit that they often fill in for each other at the magazine stand, but when neither will confirm her whereabouts the night before, Stevenson arrests both."
My biggest problem with this film is that it sets up Detective Stevenson as the main character, positioning itself as a mystery, instead of the thriller it becomes. It really is almost two inter-related films, the first third a detective mystery with requisite comic relief and following of clues, and the last two thirds a psychological thriller about twins and the (recurring) old wives' tale that states one of a set of twins must be defective. But this is a complaint about narrative structure and not an indictment against its status as a film noir. In fact, it's not the only film noir that has used a "straight" to give us access to that underbelly of crime (see: KNOCK ON ANY DOOR). And once we get to the psychological thriller, the film is much better. Olivia de Havilland is quite good in her dual role, and I had a hard time (at least in the print I watched) picking up on the line in the process shots. Stevenson returns at the end of the film to help with the denouement, but it's mostly deHavilland's show, and she carries it. The film doesn't have an overabundance of shadow, but mirrors are used very effectively. One thing detracting from the noir atmosphere is the score, which is standard 1940s Hollywood (heavy on the strings) and used far too much, especially after hearing David Raksin talk about scoring LAURA.
Judgment: noir.
"When a prominent physician is found stabbed to death, police detective Stevenson's investigation leads him directly to magazine store clerk Terry Collins, who works in the doctor's office building and is identified by co-workers as the murdered man's girlfriend. Stevenson is puzzled by the conflicting descriptions of Terry he hears from people with whom she works, even that of another doctor, Scott Elliott. When Stevenson goes to Terry's apartment, she introduces him to her identical twin sister Ruth, and he understands the witness' discrepancies. The sisters admit that they often fill in for each other at the magazine stand, but when neither will confirm her whereabouts the night before, Stevenson arrests both."
My biggest problem with this film is that it sets up Detective Stevenson as the main character, positioning itself as a mystery, instead of the thriller it becomes. It really is almost two inter-related films, the first third a detective mystery with requisite comic relief and following of clues, and the last two thirds a psychological thriller about twins and the (recurring) old wives' tale that states one of a set of twins must be defective. But this is a complaint about narrative structure and not an indictment against its status as a film noir. In fact, it's not the only film noir that has used a "straight" to give us access to that underbelly of crime (see: KNOCK ON ANY DOOR). And once we get to the psychological thriller, the film is much better. Olivia de Havilland is quite good in her dual role, and I had a hard time (at least in the print I watched) picking up on the line in the process shots. Stevenson returns at the end of the film to help with the denouement, but it's mostly deHavilland's show, and she carries it. The film doesn't have an overabundance of shadow, but mirrors are used very effectively. One thing detracting from the noir atmosphere is the score, which is standard 1940s Hollywood (heavy on the strings) and used far too much, especially after hearing David Raksin talk about scoring LAURA.
Judgment: noir.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
LAURA v. Laura
LAURA is a film noir that stands out for several reasons. It is surreptitiously told in flashback and post-mortem from the point of view of the killer, Waldo Lydecker, though the majority of the film, and the narrative thrust, is carried by Lt. Mark McPherson's investigation. Despite this, much of the psychological complexity comes from McPherson, and his obsession with the presumably deceased Laura. Otto Preminger's style does not focus on low-key lighting and off-kilter angles. Instead, he moves his camera, smooth and dream-like, to change the composition of the shot, and uses his ubiquitous three-shot to clarify relationships.
Also, it doesn't fit neatly into the violent and gritty world that most associate with noir. The characters in this story are mostly upper-crust Manhattanites. This murder is an intrusion on their staid existence, a shock to a system which thrives on the urbane and the sophisticate. Not only does this not sound noir, it doesn't even sound hard-boiled.
It is no surprise, then, to find that the novel the film is based on defies most categories as well. True, it is a crime story, and the mystery surrounding the murder still exists, but the film actually does great service to the tone and complexity of the novel. It is presented in five sections. The first, and longest, much like the film, is the beginning of the story, from Lydecker's first-person point of view. The second section picks up the investigation from McPherson's first-person perspective, as Laura makes her reappearance. The third section is a short transcription of an interview between McPherson and the ostensible suspect, Shelby Carpenter. The fourth section is Laura's, and the final short section wraps up the story from McPherson's point of view.
Even for someone who knows the story, it is hard not to root for Lydecker, the self-proclaimed champion of the victim, seeing a third of the book through his eyes. But it is truly the story of three people, forced into a perverse love triangle, and each individual personality is given its due time. What in the film seems to be a clever ploy, plays as if it were the only possible solution in the novel. Of course, the technique is different. Where the author Vera Caspary has pages of passages to explore the self-aware workings of each individual, Preminger achieves much the same effect by placing his camera so that Laura's portrait is looking over McPherson's shoulder. But the psychology and obsession are there, in vivid detail.
Yet for all its eccentricities, LAURA comfortably sits inside the definition of film noir, as a film told from the criminal's perspective, utilizing realistic violence (most shots fired kill someone) and formalism (subtle, bewitching style by Preminger) to tell a story that features oneiricism (flashback) and eroticism (true love with a dead woman). And Laura fits within the understanding of noir literature, in that it deals with the downfall and ultimate end of a man driven to crime by obsession, and in this case, the fundamental obsession with a woman.
Also, it doesn't fit neatly into the violent and gritty world that most associate with noir. The characters in this story are mostly upper-crust Manhattanites. This murder is an intrusion on their staid existence, a shock to a system which thrives on the urbane and the sophisticate. Not only does this not sound noir, it doesn't even sound hard-boiled.
It is no surprise, then, to find that the novel the film is based on defies most categories as well. True, it is a crime story, and the mystery surrounding the murder still exists, but the film actually does great service to the tone and complexity of the novel. It is presented in five sections. The first, and longest, much like the film, is the beginning of the story, from Lydecker's first-person point of view. The second section picks up the investigation from McPherson's first-person perspective, as Laura makes her reappearance. The third section is a short transcription of an interview between McPherson and the ostensible suspect, Shelby Carpenter. The fourth section is Laura's, and the final short section wraps up the story from McPherson's point of view.
Even for someone who knows the story, it is hard not to root for Lydecker, the self-proclaimed champion of the victim, seeing a third of the book through his eyes. But it is truly the story of three people, forced into a perverse love triangle, and each individual personality is given its due time. What in the film seems to be a clever ploy, plays as if it were the only possible solution in the novel. Of course, the technique is different. Where the author Vera Caspary has pages of passages to explore the self-aware workings of each individual, Preminger achieves much the same effect by placing his camera so that Laura's portrait is looking over McPherson's shoulder. But the psychology and obsession are there, in vivid detail.
Yet for all its eccentricities, LAURA comfortably sits inside the definition of film noir, as a film told from the criminal's perspective, utilizing realistic violence (most shots fired kill someone) and formalism (subtle, bewitching style by Preminger) to tell a story that features oneiricism (flashback) and eroticism (true love with a dead woman). And Laura fits within the understanding of noir literature, in that it deals with the downfall and ultimate end of a man driven to crime by obsession, and in this case, the fundamental obsession with a woman.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Hey! I'm a Hit! (on YouTube)
Since I put the videos of my introductions to some of the films in the last film noir series on YouTube, they have slowly but steadily getting viewed. And now I have learned that both the KISS OF DEATH intro and the MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS intro have gotten over 50 hits. A mere blip in the cloudsphere of the interwebs, but what it means to me is that George Eastman House has reached out to 50 more people that weren't at the shows this winter. Maybe they're just looking for Richard Widmark or Joseph H. Lewis. But maybe they're watching the film or DVD after seeing the intro, and taking a little bit away. I'm really excited about these new possibilities, and I hope to do several more in the future.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Justified 1.13
Fathers and sons, justice and vengeance, religion and business, all come to a head in central Kentucky. A season finale that kept my eyes open the entire time. And I'd give Walt Goggins any sort of organ he needed. That's how good he is.
Give me a little time, and I'll try to overview the season.
Give me a little time, and I'll try to overview the season.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Justified 1.12
This episode didn't get posted until late last night, so I didn't get a chance to watch it, but here's the description:
"Raylan is ordered to enlist his estranged father's help against the increasing threat of Bo Crowder."
"Raylan is ordered to enlist his estranged father's help against the increasing threat of Bo Crowder."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)