Sunday, November 17, 2013

Noir November - Day 6 - Panic in the Streets (1950)

Another medical thriller/crime noir hybrid, Panic in the Streets is tightly written thriller with great acting by Richard Widmark as Clinton Reed, an officer (and doctor) with the US Public Health Service. It also features Jack Palance in his debut as Blackie, a low-life gangster who contracts pneumonic plague. The movies follows the Widmark's attempt to track down everyone who was exposed to the plague, while Blackie, wanted for murder, tries to evade the authorities, his every breath carrying HOT DEATH!!!!! Or something like that.

Panic is a solid, entertaining film. The film features the usual reflexive decision by the authorities to cover up what is happen. Blackie's murderous nature, coupled with the threat of the disease getting out of New Orleans and killing millions, provides the requisite amount of tension. Widmark makes for a solid hero, although he is missing the morally ambiguous qualities of the best noir protagonists. Director Elia Kazan (On The Waterfront) and DP Joseph MacDonald make good use of the location shooting (the entire film was shot in New Orleans) particularly a great climatic chase through the warehouse of the Port of New Orleans.

Panic is entertaining and an above-average example of both the noir and medical thriller genres. Check it out.


Jack Palance is all set to spread some panic in the streets.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Noir November - Day 5 - The Big Heat

Within the first 10 seconds of The Big Heat, a man - we only see his hand - picks up a revolver and shoots himself in the head. Director Fritx Lang (M, Metropolis) knows how to start a movie. After such an arresting opening does the rest of the film hold up? The answer is a resounding "yes!" The Big Heat grabs you from minute one and leaves you satisfied when "The End" appears on the screen.

(Spoilers Ahead)

Police officer Tom Duncan, the man in charge of the Police Records Bureau, is the suicide. His wife Bertha (played to soulless perfection by Jeanette Nolan) finds the body and contacts crime boss Mike Lagana (Alexander Scourby). He in turn contacts Vince Stone (Lee Marvin) to "handle it." In this scene Debby (Gloria Grahame in "hot and sleazy" mode), Vince's girlfriend, is also introduced. Homicide detective Dave Bannion (Glenn Ford) is assigned to look into Duncan's death. It appears to be an open and shut case; however, after talking to Lucy Chapman (Dorothy Green), who was Duncan's mistress and who is tortured and killed right after talking to Bannion, he starts to dig deeper. He uncovers other inconsistencies in the story Bertha told him, but is ordered off the case. Bannion, understandably, suspects there is more here than just suicide.


Bannion, hat in place, ready to dispense justice.
Bannion and his wife, Katie (Jocelyn Brando) are threatened at home by an anonymous phone call. He immediately confronts Lagana at home, roughing up one of his thugs in the process. Why he suspects Lagana is not clear at this point, one of a handful of story problems. While it is stated that Lagana is the most powerful criminal in the city, Bannion has no particular reason to suspect him. However, this gap in the plot soon gets blown away by Lagana's response...trying to have Bannion killed. A car bomb meant for Bannion kills Katie, setting Dave on the road to revenge. When the smoke clears: Dave has beaten and tortured people; Debby is disfigured by Vince, turns to Bannion for comfort and help, kills Bertha and is killed by Vince; Vince, Lagana, and the corrupt politicians get their comeuppance, heading to jail for their myriad crimes; and Dave gets his job back with the cops, fighting crime the Bannion way.

The Big Heat is memorable for its complex characters. Bannion starts as a seemly average cop with a nice home life. He changes into a vengeance machine, wanting to find the killers of his wife and punish them, using any means necessary. He beats people, sets up one of Vince's henchmen to be murdered and almost strangles Bertha (she has evidence that would prove Lagan's criminal activities and the depths of corruption in the city government that will come out if she dies) only to be stopped by the timely arrival of a couple of cops. Although he has shown concern towards women being brutalized, he has no problem almost killing one to get what he wants. The Bannion we see before his wife is murdered has a strong moral code and a good home life. There is an easy chemistry between Ford and Brando, one that effectively conveys the sense of a real relationship. And it is obvious why people would see him as a good, if bull-headed cop; Ford has an intensity about him, one that would translate into an effective detective. It is the dark aspects of his character that come out after the death of Katie, however, that round him out and make him a noir protagonist. He is obsessed with vengeance, a good man giving in to darker impulses, but is grounded enough to be able to resume his "normal" life once Lagana et al are brought to to justice.


Debby, in pre-Sanka days.
Other characters are less well-developed, but still memorable. Debby's journey from boozy, superficial bimbo to angry killer is believable. She is young and hangs out with Vince because he spends money on her. As she says, "I've been rich and I've been poor; believe me, rich is better." A line like this fleshes out her background, providing her with a back story that explains why she is with a brutal thug like Vince and can so quickly turn against him. Once she is scarred (an intense scene in which Vince splashes hot coffee in her face after finding out she was with Bannion after Bannion humiliated Vince in a nightclub) her only tool for the good life, her looks, are gone. She aligns with Bannion not out of a sense of social right and wrong; she wants Vince to pay for hurting her. In this way she is like Bannion. He has given up on the concept of social justice, because he sees that society is corrupt. Unlike Debby. in the end he "returns" to society. He doesn't directly kill anyone and is satisfied that Lagana and the corrupt members of the city government will go to jail. Debby does not have this opportunity. Her final acts are to murder Bertha (finishing the act that Bannion was prevented from carrying out) and hurt Vince they way she was hurt (scalding water in the face). She also haa a redemptive moment before she dies. While she's bleeding out after being shot by Vince, she convinces Bannion to tell her about Katie (something he wouldn't do before). Her final words are "I like her a lot." Does this ring true? If they met in life, Katie would have seen Debby as a drunken party girl and Debby would doubtless have looked down on the stay-at-home cop's wife. After what she has been through, however, she realizes at the end that the life she had been leading was both superficial and harmful, that the money she loved was made by men who hurt and killed people to make it. Her final words really say "the path society lays out, one of law and order, traditional families and a belief in the system is the correct way to live."

The villains, Vince, Mike and their henchmen, aren't fleshed out as much as the protagonists. However, the actors bring an interesting mix of cunning and brutality to the roles. Lee Marvin is the stand-out actor. His Stone is a smooth talking killer. He is casually violent, but reflexively subservient to Lagana, transitions that Marvin handles well. Scourby's Lagana has less to do, but he still projects an intelligence that makes his crime boss, one who holds unassailable sway in the city, believable.

While the look of the film isn't particularly memorable - Lang opts for a flat, realistic look to the film, forgoing stylish shots - the characterizations are fascinating, offering complex, engaging people who evolve during the course of the film. While there are a few plot holes, none are particularly egregious. Check it out.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Noir November - Day 4 -Dark City (1998)

Can a science fiction film be film noir? Of course it can, particularly when it is so self-consciously modeled after the genre as Dark City. There is a claustrophobic, nameless city, locked in perpetual night, the distillation of the noir urban jungle. A protagonist - John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) - who may be a serial killer with a serious case of amnesia. His law enforcement nemesis, police detective Bumstead (William Hurt) who is relentlessly pursuing John and the truth. and, mysterious benefactor, Dr. Schreber (Keifer Sutherland), who knows the secret of John's past - and that of everyone in Dark City. Finally, we have the mysterious Strangers, bald, pale and dressed in leather bondage gear and black dusters...oh, and they can fly.

(Spoilers Ahead)

The story is pretty simple. Murdoch is looking for clues to his identity and to his past. As the film unfolds, he finds that he isn't John Murdoch, that John Murdoch has never existed. No one in Dark City is who they think they are. They are being injected with false memories by the Strangers, who are aliens conducting psychological experiments on the inhabitants of Dark City, humans abducted from Earth and brought to a massive space station orbiting a distant star. John has developed immense psychokinetic powers (called tuning) - like those possessed by the Strangers - and he uses them to liberate Dark City. The end.

Our protagonist is tormented by his lack of a past. The partial memories he has - he woke up during the implantation, so it was not completed - were those of a killer, driven to murder women due to his wife, lounger singer Emma (Jennifer Connelly), cheating on him. These fragments initially propel him on his journey of discovery. His obsession with the past - exemplified by memories of a place called Shell Beach - is what drives him. In doing so, he realizes that all memory in Dark City is a lie. The truth does offer enlightenment; but at the price of authentic identity. Bumstead is also obsessed, fist with finding Murdoch when he believes he is a killer, and, eventually with finding out the truth of Dark City. When he does, it is fatal for him. Again, truth becomes is both liberating and destructive. Dr. Schreber, as an agent of both truth (in that he helps John) and lies (because he creates the false memory templates and administers them for the Strangers), is also haunted by the what the aliens did to him. After kidnapping their specimens, they decided to use him as their "memory engineer" since he understood humans and they did not. They forced him to delete all parts of his past not related to his scientific knowledge,leaving him knowing more of the truth than anyone else, but also fully aware of what he lost. And, finally, the main antagonist, Mr. Hand (the very creepy Richard O'Brien) has his own problems with memory and identity. He is injected with the same template as John Murdoch, in the hope that those memories will help the Strangers track him down. Instead, it drives Mr. Hand to commit murder and, eventually, to die, unable to exist as an individual.

The look of Dark City is an exaggeration of the heightened reality of noir. Every image is highly stylized, with most backgrounds lost in darkness, faces obscured by shadows, lights dim and barely illuminating the scenes. Even in brightly lit scenes - for example, an interior at an automat - the light is an unhealthy, sickly green. There are amazing images, including a scene of the Strangers manufacturing documents and artifacts to go along the new identities they create. And the Strangers machinery, in which they harness their "tuning" powers to remake Dark City, is beautiful, a black metal cathedral in Hell.

There are some problems with the film. Some of the CGI - particularly that of the Strangers' true form, a cross between a slug and squid - is very dated. There are plot points that don't make sense. The Strangers motivations, while explained, leave a lot of questions unanswered. For example, they are dying race, a hive mind that shares a single consciousness; it is not clear how learning about human individuality is supposed to save them. Some characters also are one dimensional, the most obvious being police detective Eddie Walenski (Colin Friels), a person who has become aware of the true nature of Dark City. It really isn't explained how he has learned so much and he really just serves as a vehicle for exposition. Also, it isn't clear how the Strangers can have a completely controlled environment, but have a hard time tracking down Murdoch. If they don't know where everyone is at all times, how are they monitoring people?

Problems aside, Dark City is an impressive film. It asks questions about identity and the meaning of truth in an interesting fashion and is full of beautiful noir imagery. Check it out.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Noir November Day 3 - Les Diaboliques (1955)

Les Diabolique starts with A bright white paper boat floating serenely in a mud puddle, only to be smashed by the wheels of a truck. This is an apt metaphor for the damaged characters who populate the film. Each has been crushed and distorted by a combination of lust, greed, fear, weakness and violence. It is also significant in that water plays an early, symbolic role in a film that is centered on tubs and pools.

Spoilers follow.

Christina Delassalle (Véra Clouzot) and Nicole Horner (Simone Signoret) are teachers at a run-down private school for boys. The headmaster, Michel (Paul Meurisse), is Christina's husband and Horner's lover, a relationship that he flaunts. In short order, the audience is shown that he is physically, emotionally and sexually abusive to both women. The audience also learns that they are conspiring to do something about him. What isn't clear until later in the film, is that the "something" is a plot to drug and drown him at Horner's home, over a holiday weekend. They appear to succeed, transporting Michel's body back to the school and dumping it in the pool, hoping to pass his death off as an accident. However, when the pool is drained and the body isn't there, the nerves of the two women begin to fray. Is someone playing a game with them, is Michel really dead or is his ghost haunting the killers?

Les Diaboliques is best known for its twist ending, one which I won't reveal, although it is not as surprising or shocking today as it may have been in 1955, a testament to the impact the film had on subsequent cinema. An amusing side note: Les Diaboliques concludes with an end title asking viewers not to tell people who haven't seen the film how it ends. Spoilers were a problem even 58 years ago.

Beyond the ending, there is a rich, rewarding film. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic; abused Christina is the person most people will identify with and she does have good cause to kill her husband...except, why not just divorce him? She says it is because she is Catholic; but she plans to murder him. It's been a while since Sunday school, but I think murder trumps divorce as a sin.

Paul Meurisse smooth acting gives Michel a slimy charm. He is superficially attractive; however, he is such a violent, repulsive person - casually raping his wife, giving his mistress a black eye, shoving his affair in Christina's face, inflicting petty torments on the staff and students - that he begins to slip into the mode of a caricature. This is important, as it keeps our sympathies, such as they are, with the killers. If anyone deserves to die, it is him. It also raises some questions about Nicole's overall motivation, as revealed in the finale, one of the few weak points in the film.

Both Clouzot and Signoret are captivating in their roles as the abused damsel-in-distress and femme fatale, respectively. Clouzot believably pulls off the shifts from fragile and doll like (her primary characteristics) to resolved (on a few occasions) believably enough. She also conveys the role of follower - whether to domineering Michel or take-charge Nicole - well. Signoret, beautiful and ice-cold, is perfect as a personification of Christina's independence and willpower, damaged as it may. What Nicole get's out of the relationship is a little less clear, although one scene near the end, where Nicole tells Christina they should leave the school together and Christina rejects her, hints at a relationship that is not just a friendship born of necessity and hardship. While based on undertones and interpretation rather than clear plot-points, there is some indication that they are lovers. If so, this clearly shows that Christina is evolving as a character, killing one domineering (and abusive) lover and ultimately rejecting another (although Nicole is not physically abusive towards Christina).

The film itself is filled with great moments, both scenes and images. There is a disturbing dinner where Michel forces his wife to eat a piece of fish while the staff and students look on that conveys the discomfort that everyone around Michel feels toward shim...and that none of them will stand up to him. A scene late in the film has Christina walking down a dark corridor of the school, her white nightgown slowly becoming the only thing clearly visible, emerging from the shadows like a ghost. A sequence at Nicole's home shows how the signs of the murder are interpreted by others. While she fills a bathtub to drown Michel in, her upstairs tenants complain about the pipes making so much noise late at night, while they are tying to listen to the radio. Scenes like this abound in the film, creating a complex environment for the story and one that repays close viewing and analysis.

There some plot-holes, mostly having to do with the ending and therefore something I won't go into. On second viewing, some of these are cleared up, but only because the viewer now has the complete story and can fill in some of the blanks and overlook some unexplained parts of the plot. Also, the finale includes a reveal that relies so heavily on exposition that it wouldn't seem out of place at the end of a Scooby Doo episode, a rare moment of clumsy writing. Les Diaboliques is a classic for a good reason; it is a masterpiece of film, a merging of story, acting, sound and images that creates a world of such depth and complexity that one can overlook the plot-holes. See it immediately, both to enjoy a great noir film and to see where many tropes of the thriller movie genre were popularized.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

One Paragraph Review - Olympus Has Fallen (2013)

Netflix is now carrying Olympus Has Fallen, so I decided to check it out. What a terrible movie. There are some decent action sequences, but even these lack much of a sense of logic. The acting is bad (and there was a pretty good cast). The effects are pretty good, although there are numerous technical inaccuracies. Basically, the North Koreans attack the White House, in order to use a fail-safe system in our nuclear arsenal to blow up all of our missile, devastating America. Gerard Butler is a lone Secret Service agent trapped in the White House, who kills dozens of people and saves the President (Aaron Eckhart). Meanwhile, acting president Morgan Freeman (as the Speaker of the House) pretty much surrenders to the North Koreans. But, no worries, Butler saves the day, Eckhart gives a speech about how the attack will bring Americans together - I assume we will all be together in the our desire to nuke North Korea - and then the movie just ends. There are no apparent repercussions, not much of a plan by the NorKors (the fail-safe system needs 3 security codes; if no one gives them up, their plan ends with Pyongyang a glowing crater), and stupid, senseless decisions by most of the characters that makes holding on to your suspension of disbelief almost impossible. For the $70 million dollars they spent on this loud, moronic mess, maybe they should have bought a story that made sense. If you have Netflix, there are some decent action sequences to watch. Otherwise, avoid.

Noir November - Day 2 - The Sniper (1952)

"A word about the picture which follows: High among police problems is that of the sex criminal, responsible last year alone for offenses which victimized 31, 175 women. Adequate and understanding laws do not exist. Law enforcement is helpless. Here, in terms of one case, is the story of a man whose enemy is womankind."

And that's just the opening titles for The Sniper. We then cut to a dingy one bedroom apartment. Even before we see the antagonist, we see his rifle, as he opens a locked drawer revealing the shiny black gun.

Played by Arthur Franz, Eddie looks like a normal guy; but, of course he is not. As the titles state, this is a movie about a man who hates women. Within a few moments of the opening, we see him take aim through the rifle's telescopic sight at an attractive brunette across the street, as she kisses a man. He pulls the trigger. The gun dry clicks; empty. A not too subtle comment on his own sexual performance problems?

While walking the streets of the city later that night, Eddie encounters other women (all dark haired) who reinforce his psychosis. A tall brunette tells her friend how she is happy to be rid of her boyfriend, that their are "plenty of fish in the sea." A moment later, a mother strikes her crying son, causing Eddie to wince and reach for his own cheek. Mostly through visuals, we are given a quick tour of his psyche. The gun is his sexuality, empty and impotent. Women are the enemy, creatures who callously use men or beat their children, something Eddie was apparently subjected to by his mother.

While these scenes are not subtle, they are handled efficiently and without resorting to exposition. We have no scene of Eddie blubbering about his mother, cursing the fairer sex or, at this stage, saying anything at all. As he roams through a city park, all he sees are happy couples. The city - San Francisco - is awash in sexuality, a far cry from the image of the 1950s as a neo-Victorian, family-values era.

The first words from Eddie are when he calls an operator and ask for the "State prison at Huntsberg." Here is a man we already saw "hunting" even if only vicariously. Has he killed yet? Or, are his violent feelings still kept in a prison? He is calling to talk to a prison doctor, about a matter of life and death. It is clear that Eddie is on the verge of some kind of breakdown, that the doctor was helping keep the hunting urge, the violence, locked away. No one is available to help, a recurring theme.

Eddie rushes back to his apartment and in an intense scene, turns on his hot plate and jams his hand onto it. The shot is beautiful, with the camera in the position of the burner, the radiant heat causing a shadow of Eddie's hand to fall on the ceiling. Later, in the hospital, he is told by the doctor tending to his hand that a stove is something for "women" and that he needs a wife, even though they "have you coming and going." The doctor knows the burn is self-inflicted. He tells the doctor that he was in the "psycho ward" while in prison and that he was there for assaulting a woman. Eddie wants to be locked up; but the hospital staff releases him due to laziness and being distracted by a sudden rush of patients.

The next day, we join Eddie on his job, as a delivery man for a dry cleaning company. He makes a delivery to one of his customers, the attractive Jean Darr (Marie Windsor). Eddie obviously is attracted to her; something she doesn't realize. She innocently compliments him and even flirts a little. Eddie doesn't take it well when her boyfriend shows up, although only we see his violent outburst.


Marie Windsor
Later, Eddie stalks Jean in a beautiful nighttime scene. The city seems deserted except for hunter and prey. Jean is all in black, like a free roaming shadow. Eddie follows her to a neighborhood dive where she works as a piano player and sets up a sniping position on a roof. This is another great shot, with a nice depth of field. While he is in the foreground, behind him, we see the bar and the pedestrians. As he loads his gun, we get a sense of how he must feel when he has his gun, bigger and above the people he fears and hates.

As she leaves the bar, she halts for a moment in front of an illuminated poster of herself. We hear a shot and she collapses, dead. Eddie has taken his first life, a woman he had coveted, his first obsession, consummated with a bullet.

After the police show up, we are introduced to the protagonists, police Lieutenant Frank Kafka (Adolphe Menjou) and Sergeant Joe Ferris (Gerald Mohr). We are also treated to a nice bit of symbolism. As Jean's body is wheeled out of frame, the light over her poster goes out.

Eddie takes one of the dresses that she had dry-cleaned and places it in the drawer with his gun, the repository for his fears and desires. He later burns the dress with a mix of glee and anguish on his face. His life is one of constant rejection, even by children. When he innocently tosses one a ball during street baseball game he "ruins it" according to a dark haired teenaged girl.

He sends a note the police, telling them to find and stop him before he kills again. But he does kill again, shooting a woman who had flirted with him - then rejected him - in a bar earlier in the film. The scene is stunning in its intensity. The camera watches her in her room through a window as she prepares for bed. A single note is played the entire scene. We see what Eddie sees, even though we never see him (the camera follows her up the street, into her home and then remains fixed on the room) or where he is located. We know that a shot is coming; but the scene plays longer than our expectations would be. a masterful moment by Edward Dmytyk, a director who knows the language of images.

As the police investigation proceeds, a police psychologist - Dr. James Kent (Richard Kiley) - is introduced to provide psychological insight, including a profile that fits Eddie's psychosis. He also provides the film's only slow point. He gives a dull, long-winded speech extolling the virtues of early treatment - or indefinite incarceration - of sex offenders. While not necessarily wrong as public policy, it is out of place in this movie and cause a break in tension.


Arthur Franz looking for a victim in The Sniper
.After this slow section - it comes during a meeting of the mayor and a group of civic leaders that goes no where - things get moving again, as the police apprehend a young man on a roof top with a broken gun, who gives a truly disturbing rant about how he can get as many guns as he wants and how the city is full of people who hate everyone.

Eddie is behaving increasingly erratic. He successfully shoots another woman, but does a couple of things that lead the police his identity. The police stake out the dry cleaners, but Eddie is waiting on a rooftop elsewhere for his next target. He is spotted, shoots the man who saw him another visually impressive scene and flees. He makes it back to his boarding house, where the land-lady identifies him and calls the police. When Kafka and Ferris break into Eddie's room, they find him on the bed, cradling his rifle, crying. The end.

Tthis is a great movie. The story is engaging, the acting very natural and appropriate for the characters. It was shocking to see Marie Windsor killed so early. In a more conventional film, she would have been the woman Eddie obsessed over, while killing others, until finally coming after her at the end. There are no particular missteps in directing or camera work (Burnett Guffey, the director of photography, pulled similar duties on other memorable films, including Bonny and Clyde and The Violent Men). The images, whether stylized or naturalistic (such as the many scenes shot on the streets of San Francisco) are stunning and memorable.

This is a movie that any fan of the cinema should see. Both cast and crew are close to perfect, the story is straight forward, the plot compelling, and the visuals captivating. Check it out.

What Is Film Noir (To Me)

Since I'm writing about films noir this month, it's probably a good idea to define what I think makes a movie part of this genre. Coming up with an all-encompassing definition is difficult. Noir films are generally crime movies from the '40s and '50s. However, not all crime movies from the '40s and '50s are noir. And, there are films that fall outside of that date range that are what I would consider noir films. Finally, there are films in other genres (horror, science fiction, western) that are also noir movies.

I look for five general general characteristics that make film noir?

First, the visual style. While film noir can be in color (e.g., A Kiss Before Dying (1956), Vertigo (1958) and most post-50s film noir) the majority are in black and white and filmed in a stylized fashion, where the light and shadow become characters of their own. Unlike most films, where lighting is used to fully illuminate the action, in noir, what is lost in the shadow is equally as important. The lighting can be naturalistic, but is often not; it is used to maintains a sense of reality out of alignment, where the shadows are seeping into the light.

Second, characters are often morally conflicted. In some of the best noir films, there are no traditional heroes. The Asphalt Jungle (1950) is my favorite example of this. Every character, including the protagonist, Sterling Hayden, is a criminal. Hayden is a thug, someone who doesn't "reform" in the end. More traditional protagonists often have serious flaws, even if they are the hero of the film. Ralph Meeker's Mike Hammer in Kiss Me Deadly (1955) is almost as bad as his opponents, taking apparent pleasure in dispensing violence (as well as making a living blackmailing adulterous spouses).

Women in film noir are femme fatales, beautiful, alluring, strong characters, who are just as dangerous as the men. While there are women who are "good girls," many of them have their own flaws, some severe. Simone Simon, the star of the 1942 noir horror Cat People, is at best, dangerously delusional, believing she turns into a panther due to an ancient curse. AT worst, she really can turn into a panther, symbolically a "woman" unable to control her passion. (I'll have more on Cat People when I review it later this month). Female characters in noir films are often more complex than those in traditional movies of the time. A character like Marie Windsor's undercover police woman in The Narrow Margin (1952) is rich and complex, one that has multiple layers and is three-dimensional. Many other female roles are similarly complex in films of this genre.

Third, obsession is a common theme. Most of the characters want something, to the point that they will do anything to get it. This obsession leads them - protagonist and antagonist alike - to bend the rules of society...or break them. This is important, as obsession plays off the visual styles - of the shadows of relentless obsession overcoming the better light of a more balanced approach to life and of the stark imagery denoting how the characters see the world. It is a place of things to possess in a very black and white, zero-sum manner. The characters, often full of passions (whether obvious or smoldering just beneath the surface) have a focus. It can be a Maltese Falcon, a faded Hollywood career (1950's Sunset Boulevard) or a quest for one's true identity in a surreal city of perpetual night (1998's Dark City). It doesn't matter what the thing is, as long as there is an obsession that will overwhelm the character's moral center as they struggle to possess it.

Fourth, most film noir have an urban setting. Not all, of course; for example, Key Largo (1948) is set in a hotel in the Florida Keys and Red River (the 1948 Howard Hawks masterpiece) takes place on the trail of a cattle drive in the late-19th century. Most of the movies in this genre, however, are set in cities, in urban jungles as dangerous as any wilderness. The ultimate expression of the noir city is seen in Blade Runner (1982). Los Angeles of 2019 is a vast metropolis of megastructures, almost always seen at night and in the rain.

The urban setting is important as it becomes a character it its own right. The great cities of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are the usual settings for noir films, representing the pinnacle of America's urban/industrial power in the mid-20th century. Significantly, they are also, home to thieves, corrupt cops, drunks and floozies, a man-made eco-system of predators and prey.

Fifth, while noir films do exist outside of the 1940s and 1950s, the closer you get to modern cinema, the more you see that many of the defining characteristics of film nor have metastasized throughout the cinema. This is particularly true of the morally ambiguous characters, which are now standard for movies of all genres. While I will look at some movies outside these two decades, they are fewer and in some cases (Like Christopher Nolan's Memento (2000)) they are conscious homages to the noir genre and, therefore, of a different nature than the films they imitate.

A stylized look, where the interplay of light and shadow creates a sense of reality out of balance, characters who are morally ambiguous and motivated by consuming obsessions, a setting that depicts the greatest accomplishments of our civilization - the cities - as dangerous "asphalt jungles," where you are either predator or prey (and often times both). All of these things go into making a film noir...at least from my point of view.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Noir November - Day 1 - The Killer That Stalked New York (1950)

The Killer That Stalked New York is an interesting film, a combination low-life character study/medical thriller. While the two story-lines don't completely mesh, they do unfold with an urgency that is engaging. The movie is also populated with a lot of colorful characters (and well-known character actors) and benefits from some inventive camera work and a partially documentary feel (at least the scenes that deal with the medical story).

(SPOILERS FOLLOW)

Sheila Bennet (Evelyn Keyes) an attractive blonde, is returning to New York City after working in Cuba as a night club singer. She is also smuggling diamonds into the country for her husband, Matt (Charles Korvin). Unknown to her, she has also become infected with smallpox.

She arrives by train at Penn Station, followed by a customs official, Treasury Agent (repeatedly referred to as a "T-Man" in the narration) Johnson (Barry Kelly). Sheila calls her husband - who is sleeping with her sister, Francie (Lola Albright, who was later in an awesome sci-fi movie The Monolith Monsters) - and gives Agent Johnson the slip.

She starts feeling sick and is brought to a neighborhood clinic by a police officer, where the protagonist is introduced, Doctor Ben Wood (William Bishop). He sends her on her way with some cough syrup. Soon, smallpox cases are showing up in the hospitals. Wood and the city government try to halt the spread, while Sheila, after being abandoned by her husband once he has the diamonds, spends the rest of the movie trying to locate him. After her sister comes to a tragic end, Sheila's goal changes to murder.

In the finale, everyone's paths cross, mass vaccination stops the disease from wiping out the city, Matt comes to a well-deserved bad end and Sheila, before expiring, helps Dr. Wood by telling him of everyone she had contact with. The end.

The most significant problem with this movie are the two stories. They do inter-relate in broad terms; it is Sheila's movements that spread the disease and her motivations - first to avoid the police, then to kill her husband - that keep her from going to a hospital as she becomes increasingly ill. However, most of the details of the Sheila story are melodramatic and uninteresting compared to the other story, the attempt to organize a response to the disease and Dr. Wood's grappling with his own fears, exemplified by one scene where he imagines New York City, empty of people, decimated by smallpox.

The smallpox story has some fascinating little touches, which led to the documentary feel. There is a brief scene at a US Army disease research center, where tissue samples have been sent to confirm the disease is smallpox, that is a forerunner of every lab scene in every police procedural and disease movie and TV show, where 1950 state-of-art technology is on display. Another scene that has a very "real-world" feel deals with local vaccine producers telling the mayor (Roy Roberts) they can't provide all the vaccine he wants because of health regulations. After he tells them to ignore the regulations they all look like they're calculating how much they're going to lose in the post-crisis law suits.

There are a lot of memorable bit characters as well. Jim Backus plays a sleazy, borderline rapey, bar owner. Seeing Mr. Howell trying to force himself on Sheila is a little traumatic for a child of Gilligan's Island. Connie Gilchrist channels every nosy landlady stereotype, while delivering important life lessons to Sheila - "Matt's a cheating bum...now where's my rent." Most of the supporting cast is similar, having a few scenes to create a memorable, if one-note character.

What makes this a film noir? Dr. Wood's story really isn't "noir." If stripped of the diamond smuggling/desperate criminals and losers story, it would be a pretty straight-forward medical thriller. It is even shot is a flatter, less stylistic manner, helping create the feeling of watching a documentary. The characters behave believably as city officials and health care professionals trying to halt the disease, first while withholding the truth form the public, then with a mass vaccination campaign.

Sheila's story is where the noir elements come in. Like all good femme fatales, she is beautiful and corrupt. She has no heart of gold; she really is a low life, corrupted by Matt. Their story is one of shady deals and, from Shiela's perspective, obsessive passion. Even after she finds out that Matt has slept with her sister, after her sister kills herself over the affair and Sheila has vowed to kill Matt in revenge she still calls out to him desperately, as he falls to his death. Obsession is a constant theme in noir; it is obsession that turns people away from a balanced "good" life.

It is also in Sheila's story that we get more of the traditional noir images. There is one stylized shot of her, emerging from her hotel at night, trying to avoid Agent Johnson, standing in the dark street, where everything is black except for her and the neon signs. She is a lone figure, trapped in a shadowy realm, where only the artificial lights promising tawdry entertainments burn through the darkness. Sheila's scenes are grittier, taking place in flophouses and bars, while Dr. Woods is in brightly-lit hospitals and offices, creating a visual environment for each character that reflects their characters. It is telling that the last scene featuring the two leads takes place at night, first in a dark office and then on a building ledge, where Wood has to rescue Sheila and bring her, if only briefly, out of her world and into his.

While the movie does suffer form the story issues already mentioned, The Killer That Stalked New York is worth watching. It's medical thriller story is well-developed and all of the characters, while mostly one-dimensional, benefit from a good cast. Check it out.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Resuming Transmission 5 November

Noir November begins on the fifth with five reviews.  I'm currently getting my groove on at the Voodoo Music Festival, which means 12 hours rocking out, followed by booze and sleep.  So, check back in a few days for tales of desperate men and dangerous dames.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

31 Days of Halloween (Day 31) - Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

What better way to celebrate the big day, than with the most underrated film in the Halloween series. Yes, Halloween III, the only film I know of to feature murderous druids using Halloween masks to enact a mass sacrifice of America's children. Fun!

Before getting into that, a little announcement: starting Monday and going through all of November, The Last Great Roadshow will be devoted to film noir. Yep, it's time for Noir November. Each day, I'll check out a noir film, from the most well-known to the most obscure.

Now, on to Halloween III!

The movie drops the audience right into the action. It is October 23rd on a lonely road in California. Harry Grimbridge (Al Berry) is running for his life, pursued by two men in a car. He kills one, evades the other and stumbles into a filling station, clutching a Halloween mask and muttering "they're coming." Harry is taken to a hospital where we meet our hero, Dr Challis (Tom Atkins). He's an alcoholic doctor with an ex-wife (Nancy Loomis). Not exactly a matinee idol. A few hours after arriving, a man in a suit (not unlike the man Harry killed) shows up and kills Harry, then immolates himself in his car. It's an effective opening, one that grabs your attention and one that let's you know something is weird and sinister is happening, without spoon-speeding you information.

Later, Challis is approached by into Grimbridge's daughter, Ellie (the yummy, if bland, Stacey Nelkin) and the two of them travel to Santa Mira, home of Silver Shamrock, makers of the mask that Harry had in his hands. Why they do this is not really well established; it's the last place Ellie knows he was and thinks there is something fishy about the company and Challis goes along because...well, she's hot.


This is why parents tell kids not to eat too much candy on Halloween.
True story.
Santa Mira is the definition of a company town. Most of the people work for the Silver Shamrock, which is run by Irish immigrant Conel Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). Surveillance cameras are mounted everywhere, there's a curfew, and men in suits patrol the streets, but no one seems to have a problem with this (well, one guy does, but he comes to a bad end).

Over the course of the film, we find out that Cochran is a late-20th century druid who has a) stolen a megalith from Stonehenge, b) placed microchips made from the stone in each of the masks, c) created a spell that will be broadcast on Halloween (the feast of Samhain, as Cochran points out, when the "barriers are down between the real and unreal") and will cause the wearers head to erupt into a fountain of snakes, insects, and other noxious creatures as part of a sacrifice to the old gods. Oh, and he's also made killer robots that look like people (i.e., the dapper hitmen).

Challis does his best to stop Cochran's plans. He kills Cochran and his underlings and blows up the factory; however, he fails to get all of the TV stations to pull the "big Halloween give-away" which is carrying the signal and the film ends with Challis screaming "stop it" as the ad plays and we fade to black. The end.

I appreciate what the filmmakers tried to do. With the death of Michael Meyers at the end of Halloween II, producers Debra Hill and John Carpenter wanted to create a new film each Halloween, but not limiting it to the increasingly crowded slasher genre. The story, by Nigel Kneale, the man responsible for the Quatermass series (with rewrites by Carpenter and director Tommy Lee Wallace; Kneale was not happy with the amount of violence in the film and had his name removed) is an interesting critique of commercialism, the power of corporations, and growing paranoia (healthy, in this case) in the expanding surveillance society. It also has some neat ideas, particularity the melding of ancient religion and primal magic with cutting edge technology. And, as an apocalypse-film junkie, I like the idea of a quasi-magical disaster, one that is realized, not averted by the last minute heroics.


Stacey Nelkin's only expression...come on crack a smile or something...you're creeping me out!
But, there are a lot of plot holes. While I don't need everything explained to me, I do need some things - like character motivations - made clear. Also, there is one plot point - where Ellie is replaced by an android, which we find out later when she attacks Challis - that makes no sense at all and was obviously put in just to give the audience a last little jump. It fits in with the theme of tricks being played (Cochran says his murderous plan is, in part, "a trick on the children") but is so nonsensical it greatly detracts from the film.

The acting is uneven. I like Atkins; although his motivation is a weak, he does make for a believable reluctant hero. O'Herlihey seems to be enjoying his part, effectively mixing joviality with a sinister undertone. Nelkin, however, doesn;t have much range, coming across as a blank slate. And none of the other characters make an impression.

The effects are in general good - there are some nice gore effects including a well-done decapitation - although there are some weak one's as well. The direction by Tommy Lee Wallace is adequate, with some standout night photography that effectively creates tension and has a rich depth of field (the result, I assume of DP extraordinaire Dean Cundey). The score by John Carpenter is great (assuming you like Carpenter's music, which I do).


Apparently, Tom Atkins really doesn't like telemarketers.
Calm down man, they gotta eat too.
It is in the terms of story and plot that the film has it's faults. There are numerous moments - particularly in the third act - when you really, REALLY have to suspend disbelief. A few are addressed in the film. My favorite occurs when Cochran is monloguing to Challis about his plans while standing in front of the Stonehenge megalith, telling him that he "wouldn't believe how" they got the stone to the US. It's a clever moment; this throw-away line hints at greater forces at work behind the story we are being told. However, for every smart bit of writing like that, there are a lot of other plot points that make no sense. How can Cochran create lifelike androids in a run down factory in Northern California? Why are technicians still chipping off pieces of Stonehenge hours before the signal is going to be broadcast? The final scene, with Challis trying to get the signal pulled from air, makes no sense. Who is he even talking too? Someone who can get a commercial pulled nationally off of every channel...except one, of course. Cochran has one of his androids kill a pathologist (Teddy played by Wendy Wessberg) who is working with Challis and discovers that the hospital assassin was an android. Why does eh do this? In a few hours, every kid who has a Silver Shamrock mask on is going to have his or her head burst open in a shower of snakes and crickets. Won't that be enough to have the US Air Force bombing Santa Mira out of existence the next day? And these are only some of the problems with the story.

In the end, with the numerous problems of story and character development and motivation, is Halloween III a movie worth watching? Yes, it is. The film is still engaging and there is a real sense of danger. There are a lot of fun and interesting ideas, even if they are not all fully realized or adequately integrated into the story. And the movie does get points for trying something different, a techno-magical apocalypse, one that does not have a happy ending. Released into a sea of slasher films, this was a bit of a gamble, one that unfortunately didn't pay off as Halloween 4 would see the return of Mike Meyers.

Finally, as my own little trick, watch the video below and see if you can ever get rid of the Silver Shamrock advert jingle once you hear it. And...Happy Halloween!!!!!!!