Film Noir HoF III

The Big Heat (1953)


Fritz Lang's The Big Heat is like a grandfather to modern, action-packed crime thrillers from Steven Seagal to Die Hard to Taken. It doesn't have their graphical violence or choreographed scenes of mayhem, but the characters, twists, and almost vigilante justice make it seem surprisingly modern. And has that car bomb scene been copied somewhere because it feels very familiar?

The Big Heat has a faster pace than other films I've reviewed this far. It paints its characters with broad strokes, but Lang manages to make them feel like people still. They don't have deep histories, there are no unneeded details to their schemes, and Lang ties loose ends on a personal, emotional level. It's so much like a typical action film that it's odd how noir it still is.

Glenn Ford shines as Bannion, who's more interested in justice than law or his career. He also has good chemistry with both his wife and Debby. Lee Marvin is also perfect in his slimy dirtbag role. I guess I like the whole cast. The direction is top-notch, and Lang's faster tempo is a welcome change from the earlier, slower films.

I had my hopes high for this due to Fritz Lang, and I didn't have to disappoint. It wasn't exactly as I imagined it, but as a fan of 80s trash, I had no issues in enjoying this missing link between the golden age of Hollywood and straight to video action

__________________

The Stranger presents us with the Nazi-hunting trope that has been used many many times today. Almost every bit of it has been done again, whether it's the noir aspect, philosophy/morality aspect, or story telling aspect.

The Stranger, however, does remain a very gripping and conscious thriller, one that perhaps is not quite yet as fleshed out as the films that would come later, but is still admirable, and presents another remarkable technical achievement from the great Orson Welles.

And really, the best thing about the Stranger is the cinematography and tense tone (the former likely increasing the latter). Shadows are used brilliantly, and Welles really knows how to do black and white cinematography, although of course Russell Metty was officially in charge. It is no surprise the lighting and shots are so well constructed; Metty would also go on to shoot Welle's more famous the Touch of Evil (famous for its one shot opening), Spartacus (which he would win the Oscar for), and All That Heaven Allows.

Scenes inside the house are darkly lit, and we often see silhouettes of the characters. I could see Coppola watching this and saying "That's how I want the Godfather to look." It certainly is beautiful to look at.

It slightly overshadows the story, but that's not much of an issue. The Stranger, released just a year after World War II ended, was surely important then, and perhaps remains important now. It hasn't aged as well as other noirs of the time with it's over dramatic score and sometimes stiff acting. But that is excusable, since the Stranger digs into some deep topics and is overall a rewarding and engaging film. Well done, Welles

__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd

This is quite the original perception to a film I've seen countless times. Thank you for that!!
Like @Citizen Rules expressed and this little amusing anecdote:I'm sure a lot of us others feel the same about: agreeing on how you feel about older films (30s/40s and the like) and very happy to see you discovering such. Much like the incredible list of films you get to check out for the first time in the Recommendation HoF, the same will go for films in those eras as well -- ENJOY!!
Some great points for a great read!! BRAVO

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

Fritz Lang is genuinely incredible. What can the man not do? I've seen three of his films now, an epic war fantasy, a dystopian sci-fi... and an American film noir! All top notch! He seems to be a filmmaker that isn't so much an auteur but could be compared with people like Sam Mendes nowadays - a ****ing good director.

Everything here is so top notch, and proves that Lang really did possess that charm he was last seen wtih in 1931's M. Everything here is smooth, calculated, yet never cold. Characters have feelings and nothing feels rushed, which can't be said for every noir I've seen. At the heart of it all is Bannion's personal struggle between his life and his career.

The Big Heat is unique in that it deals with a main character's personal struggle. Many other noirs discuss crime, the cycle of evil and violence, and deceptive love. This one is so incredibly different; there is no femme fatale, no female villain reveal. Instead, Bannion's wife (who dies) is a pivotal and important character in the first half. We see his four year old daughter, and see what a great relationship they all have. So when Katie dies it's so depressing. Bannion turns vile and cruel especially after that incident, but it is his encounter with Debbie that turns him back into a human.

Some of the conversations the two have together, stowed away in his hotel room trying to crack some murder cases, are genuinely insightful into the human condition; why we love, and if we would choose justice for the evil over the safety of the people around us.

Which is the burning question at the end of the Big Heat (get it lololol): Was it worth it? Bannion has defeated the corrupt high officials, and now the town is likely much safer. But in the process everyone he had close to him - save his four-year old daughter - has died or been changed for the bad in some way. As Debby slowly dies on the carpet, it's one of the bleakest "happy endings" ever.

The thing, is to me, Bannion's story is a tragedy. The film manipulates us to think that Bannion's real goal is to solve the murder; in the end, we - and he - realize that it was not so. He will never have his wife, or Debby, back. And that's terrifying and infuriating. **** those crime bosses.

The Big Heat is a masterpiece of suspense and mystery, and also adds themes that are super provocative and interesting. Fritz Lang never disappoints.

-

AMEN to Fritz Lang as a Director. I remember utterly falling in love with his films back in my late teens/early twenties. When you talk of expressionist styled films he's top on my list. Add the emotional depths and contrasts of his characters, he is just astounding.

List of Lang films I've seen
Spies ANYONE who loves spy flicks NEEDS to see this
Metropolis
M
You Only Live Once which I scarcely remember since it's been forever since I've seen it.
Scarlet Street where my man Edward G. Robinson steps out of his iconic persona and plays a timid man.
The Big Heat

and two silent films I NEED to see by him is Destiny and Dr. Mabuse the Gambler, along with, (why I have NOT seen yet is a downright shame,) Fury. And a couple of other crime films like Man Hunt.

I almost nominated Lang's Ministry of Fear for this HoF, but compared to some of his other work (particularly Metropolis and M), it's a little disappointing. I still really enjoy it, and it does have an amazing opening, but I think the film I ultimately nominated is a better noir, and figured it would be the one more people would enjoy.

When I saw that the The Big Heat was also nominated, I thought I had at least avoided giving us two films from the same director...but we ended up with two from Dmytryk instead haha.

__________________

M in particular looks so amazing, but I look forward to the others as well

I considered nominating Fritz Lang's Fury (1936). I thought that would be a nice example of proto-noir. It's been a long time since I seen it, but it left an impact.

The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

I've always been a big fan of most of John Huston's work, from The Maltese Falcon (1941) through to Prizzi's Honor (1985). As far as noir films, the former may have been the first mainstream instance of the form in its classic presentation.

Huston's The Asphalt Jungle is one of his better films, especially so as a noir example. Cinematographer Harold Rosson was fresh from filming On The Town (NYC) and Key to the City (San Fran), so he had experience representing the feel and power of big cityscapes, which was on display right from the git-go in Jungle's opening scenes: the post war stylized fedora-wearing mug framed by the enormity of building arches; the shadowy doorways and litter shown in urban alleyways-- mostly filmed in Cincinnati.

As a heist film it was notable for showcasing early variations of the now familiar story mechanics: the gang is formed; the plan is made; the characters are developed; and the complicated burglary is pulled off-- although not without some bad luck. It's also the first time in memory that the thieves must slide on their backs underneath an electronic eye.

In my view the standout performance was by Marc Lawrence, playing the underworld bookie wannabe big shot gangster. His performance never varied or weakened, and was completely believable. Sam Jaffe also gets plaudits as the mastermind ex con, Doc Riedenschneider. And Jean Hagen had a tough part to play as the weak gal named Doll who was head over heels for ex con Dix Handley (Sterling Hayden), and she came through in spades. Hayden himself was convincing as the tough guy who was looking to make a big score so he could return home to buy his family's previous horse farm. Much of Hayden's performance, as well as most of the other cast's, was over-acted by today's standards; but yet they didn't want anyone missing the point in those days.

Louis Calhern did a journeyman's job as the regal but untrustworthy financier of the operation. Calhern's approach was pretty similar most in any role that he played. Anthony Caruso was starting to get notice here as Louis Ciavelli, the expert safe cracker. Much notice has been made of Marilyn Monroe as Calhern's mistress. She certainly exuded allure and raw sexiness as a dimwitted plaything, who eventually causes Calhern's end.

The picture was fairly long for its era, but filled all of its 1' 52" effortlessly. It was nominated for 4 Oscars that year, and remains today as one of our finer noirs.

Attachments

 

I never knew the old Vienna before the war... with its Strauss music, its glamor and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better. l really got to know it in the classic period of the black market. We'd run anything if people wanted it enough and had the money to pay. Of course, a situation like that does tempt amateurs... but, you know, they can't stay the course like a professional. Now the city, it's divided into four zones, you know, each occupied by a power-- the American, the British, the Russian and the French. But the center of the city, that's international, policed by an international patrol, one member of each of the four powers. Wonderful ! What a hope they had, all strangers to the place... and none of them could speak the same language, except a sort of smattering of German. Good fellows, on the whole. Did their best, you know. Vienna doesn't really look any worse than a lot of other European cities. Bombed about a bit.

The Third Man has a quiet sadness to it... it's in the air of post-war Vienna. Or perhaps the remains of it - the four "regions" dominated by different countries. There is no "culture" left; nothing to be inspired about. We see ruins of old buildings and unusable cars. Deep beneath Vienna are the sewer lines, which run for miles to the Blue Danube itself. Never is the war and its effects truly brought up in the thick story of the Third Man, but it is looming there, making each character question his or her motives.

As is so often with noir, the Third Man deals with evil and corruption. No character is good completely, and no character is rotten to the core. A case could be made for Harry Lime, who was causing - and allowing - innocent death through his illegal alteration of penicillin. But at the very end we the see the fear in his eyes, before he dies; the desperate hope that he just wanted to be successful, and he wasn't trying for any evil plan.

Every character of the Third Man is desperate. What brings Martins to Vienna in the first place is desperation; for a job, and perhaps, for a life. It later transforms into his desperation to find Lime's murderer, and by the end has developed to a profound desperation to gain back his morality and sense of what is right and wrong. Anna on the other hand, is so desperate for Lime that even when she discovers he is alive and avoiding her, she cannot let him go; she finds out the evil things he does and holds fast in her belief that he is innocent, causing Martins to question his own choices in the matter.

Lime himself has a desperation for something more concealed. Orson Welles was the perfect choice to play him; he is mystical, almost a God-like figure until of course the ending chase scene. He has some of the most thought-provoking and profound quotes in the film, but through it all his stone-cold heart is looking for money and power. Is that it? Or is Lime a deeper character himself? I almost want a sequel/backstory to this, but that would ruin it entirely. The mystery is what makes Lime such a great character.

The needs of everyone in the Third Man dissolve by the end, whether they die or simply lose the will to live. The final shot is so so beautiful... Anna walking down the road after the funeral, while Martins patiently waits for her. Without a glance, she walks by him, shielding her eyes, trying to forget. Was it worth it? For any of these characters? It's the burning question.

This is one of those movies that could not be made in color, or at least, shouldn't be. The harsh, dark, shadows, the lighting, everything about it screams that black and white was the perfect choice. Every shot seems to framed meticulously, and I seriously think it's one of the best looking movies I've seen. The final chase scene is one of the best - technically - I've seen in a while.

High up there somewhere sits God on his throne who deems right and wrong. He infuses his passion and "glory" into human beings, and he trusts in us that we may choose - and know - the difference. Perhaps almost as high up sit Lime and Martins on that ferris wheel. As Lime points below to the dots on the ground scurrying about and explains his philosophy about life and death, we feel both revolted and entranced. Here is the man who was best friends with Martin. Here is the man that Anna defends with her life. Here is the man who nearly makes us feel sympathy for him as he dies on the stairs of the sewer. Perhaps the Devil isn't so evil after all; he simply forgot the difference between right and wrong.

+

Just finished Spellbound. Apologies to Hitchcock, but this was probably my least favorite film in this HoF this far.

EDIT: What newer film replicates the overture intro from this (it may have been an interlude, don't remember)? I know I've mentioned it in my post about the film but couldn't find it with the search and now it's driving me nuts.

EDIT 2: Did more searches and finally found the other film guilty of this non-sense: Jeremiah Johnson.

I don't know what it is about derisively calling the overture "non-sense" that made me laugh, but it amuses me for some reason haha.

I also didn't like the overture in Spellbound, and agree with whoever cut it from the other releases of the film in the first place. I might be misjudging its intended usage, but it's the kind of thing I imagine playing as background music while everyone is piling into the movie theatre. So I don't hate the concept, but it's completely unnecessary when you're watching the film at home, and now have to sit and wait through the entire thing before the opening credits.

If it is something the filmmakers legitimately wanted us to experience and enjoy, perhaps to help set the mood, then I might have to rescind my previous statement where I said I wouldn't hold it against the film. I did like Spellbound more than you did however, so I'd half forgotten about it once things got going.

I liked the overture because the music was so beautiful! Miklos Rosza was such a fantastic composer and won a deserving Oscar for his score here. I didn't have a problem with it at all.

Spellbound may not be one of Hitchcock's best works, but it's far from bad. I think with a director like Hitch his lesser films are actually going to get less acclaim - how can a movie like Spellbound be compared to masterpieces such as Psycho and Vertigo? Yet if it was directed by someone else, I really do think Spellbound might be a bit more acclaimed. Bergman and Peck obviously give stellar performances, and there's an atmosphere to the film that's super unique.

As someone taking - and immensely enjoying - a psychology class right now, Spellbound is fascinating to look at in regards to how mental illness/psychology was seen "back then". There are some things that may come across as rather non-PC these days; the use of the word "normal" and "insane" for instance to separate the mentally ill from fully functioning people. But that's to be expected; if anything, it was Hitchcock correctly documenting his time period.

I love the sympathy Spellbound has for these mentally ill characters, though. It clearly has Freudian inspirations (how can a psychology film not?) and delves into our childhood, our past trauma, and how our memories affect our current physical and emotional state. All really powerful themes, but in the end Spellbound is simply a beautiful tale of how love and passion can transcend science.

As I said before, Bergman is so incredible here. Aside from Casablanca, this is my favorite performance from her. I loved that she got to play the lead; I haven't seen a noir yet that has a female lead, but Spellbound pushes that stereotype even back when noir was getting started. It's incredible, and in many ways even delves into deep embedded gender stereotypes. Notice Dr. Constance is the only female at her institution, and in fact in the entire film! Perhaps this is simply to make her stand out as a female character, but there is a severe sense of loneliness she must feel in a world surrounded by men.

Gregory Peck is also quite fine, although I suppose I liked him more in 1950's The Gunfighter. Both these actors bring warmth and passion to their characters, making us really care about what will happen next. Seeing Peck's character detained at the end was infuriating! Partially because it's a Hitch movie and I expected a true sad-ish ending. But also partially because I love both of their characters. But when the authority is rooted out and the two lovers end happily in each other's arms, it's spectacular.

Spellbound was, well, spellbinding. After first seeing three of Hitchcock's masterpieces (Psycho, Rear Window, and Vertigo) I was afraid I had gone through them all too fast and I wasn't to really find anything I loved that much from him. I don't love Spellbound that much, but it showed me that any movie of his can have a passionate magic that shines through, entrancing you for the entire time.

+

Which means I've wrapped up for this HoF. @Citizen Rules do you want me to send in my list or wait until if you've decided on yours?

Congrats on finishing. Yeah please hang onto your voting ballot until I've decided on mine. I'll let everyone know when my own ballot is done and finalized.

I rewatched The Third Man yesterday, but probably won't write anything about it until this evening, or maybe even tomorrow. I have no idea how I'm going to rank these films, so I'm sure CR will be long since finished watching all the nominations before I'm able to send my list haha.

She's not the only female character in the entire film, since the patient she's seeing at the start is also a woman, but you're right that she's shown to be alone in an industry dominated by men.

She doesn't have the same respect that they do, as they often talk about her being a woman first rather than a psychoanalyst. Some of that may just be dated concepts from the time of the film's release, but there are a number of instances that indicate it's intentional commentary.

Oh, yeah, forgot about that scene. Totally agree, seems sort of subtle but intentional.

Hitchcock characterized Spellbound as, "Just another manhunt story wrapped up in pseudo-psychoanalysis." But yet it was the first big film which featured psychoanalysis. Evidently when Hitch came back to the States to do the picture, Ben Hecht was assigned to it. Hecht was "very keen" on psychoanalysis, so Hitch felt that he was a very fortunate choice for a picture that was so dependent upon that theme. But Gregory Peck was simply not a Hitchcockian actor. He had chemistry with I. Bergman, but less so with the story. Hitch was happy to get the big stars; and he admitted that occasionally it clouded his judgement.

I must say I'm surprised in these old movie HOFs, especially so with a noir theme, that some folks criticize the films for being corny, or dated, or shmaltzy. These movies are 75 years old! They cannot be compared shoulder to shoulder with contemporary films. Many of the films that we discuss in various threads were cutting edge at the time, and very innovative. But they've all been copied over and over to the point where further copying would be seriously trite and anachronistic. IMO it's an important distinction to keep in mind when thinking about many of these great old films.

~Doc