From AFI:
"After Ernie drops [his wife] Pauline off at the florist shop where she works, he seeks advice from his best friend, dispatcher Stan Hogan ... Aspiring actress Linda James joins the men at a drugstore lunch counter and shares the good news about her upcoming audition for a Broadway play. At the florist shop, meanwhile, Pauline plans to run away to Paris that night with her lover, thief Victor Rawlins, after he closes a $50,000 deal. Ernie drives up to the shop hoping to smooth things over with Pauline, and sees her kissing Victor. When Victor attempts to hire Ernie’s cab, unaware that the driver is Pauline’s husband, Ernie angrily drives away. Pauline is terrified because Ernie has seen them together, and tells Victor that she fears for her life. ... At the cab company, Stan attempts to curb Ernie’s explosive outburst about his wife’s betrayal, even after Ernie unintentionally slams him against a car. Ernie agrees to finish his shift, but is waylaid by Linda, who says she killed the play’s producer when he tried to force himself on her. Linda takes Ernie to the apparently empty theater to see the body, and after she dramatizes the event, Ernie reluctantly agrees to dump the body in the river. To his horror, the “body” gets up, after which several people, including the play’s director, Waldo Daggett, the writer, Lloyd Morgan, and the publicist, appear from the dark house to congratulate Linda on her performance. Ernie then learns that Lloyd arranged the ruse to prove Linda’s acting ability to Daggett. Linda gets the part but loses her friend Ernie, who is so infuriated by the practical joke that he strikes Morgan when the playwright attempts to pay him off. Several other men get involved in the fray, but Ernie overcomes them and leaves. The publicist then calls the police in hopes that even negative publicity will help the play. ... In another part of town, Pauline accompanies Victor to his apartment, where he convinces her to call Ernie and arrange for him to meet her at a nearby bar. After she hangs up, Victor wraps a scarf around Pauline’s neck, in an apparent loving gesture, but continues to pull it tight until it strangles her. When Pauline fails to show at the bar, Ernie returns to their apartment and packs his belongings. Linda arrives soon after to apologize. After assuring him she has quit the play, she warns Ernie that there is a warrant for his arrest for assault and battery. Although Ernie is still angry at Linda, she refuses to leave his side and when they climb into his cab, they discover Pauline’s dead body in the back seat."
This is only about half of the synopsis from AFI, but it's a very convoluted plot, and I didn't want to give away the ending. This film definitely falls into the "hero forced into criminal action" arena, and its most interesting aspect is that our main character is forced to act like a criminal for two different crimes he didn't commit: the murder at the theater (which never happened) and the murder of his wife (which did). And he's led into these frames by two different women, femmes fatales, if you like, although I'm not sure how well that definition fits over them. John Payne, of MIRACLE ON 34th STREET is quite good in the lead, and Brad Dexter is creepy again (as he was in ASPHALT JUNGLE). Evelyn Keyes does her best wide-eyed Audrey Totter and performs that weird sex dance that seems to be relegated to the early '50s. There isn't much of the chiaroscuro lighting, or even the clever mise-en-scene of Otto Preminger, and it's interesting to note that the more noir I see, the less I see noir. Is style as important to the genre as I've believed so far? It is a question to be answered later. Anyway, if you want to watch the film, it's on Hulu until September 1. Watch it here:
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Dear Blog -
I know I haven't written much recently, but I've been really busy. I just finished an article for publication. My parents were in town, plus I went to the Baseball Hall of Fame induction. I've seen a lot of films for research, plus I have that whole day-job thing going on. Please understand that my neglect is not malicious. I still love you, and I still need you in my life. Please stick around, and I promise I'll take better care of you.
Love,
Jared
Love,
Jared
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)