Film Noir HoF - Part 2

Kansas City Confidential chronicles the tale of an ex-con who was framed played by John Payne who seeks revenge on the group of people who robbed him of his new guilt free life. I'm not sure I really have much to say about this film, it's kind of a by the numbers noir. It's not bad by any means I would say it's overall a solid movie, but I feel the only thing that sets it apart from the others is the revenge plot. I thought it was a cool twist considering you follow the robber during the first part of the movie and you think it's going to be centered around them. Payne does a good job at playing the witty man who still has a hard edge, pretty much what Bogart played in the earlier films discussed, he's interesting enough. I think I enjoy this film so much because I'm reading in to it more than I should. His journey is kind of cool, but if this character can't find a job why is he going around spending exorbitant amount of money everywhere he goes. He doesn't seem that desperate to me. I think it's interesting how the director captures these weasel-y degenerates who stole from him with close up shots that overexpose them and show their criminal side, it's a good choice by the cinematographer.

Kansas City Confidential offers an interesting story about this man looking for revenge, but it's kind of a little too familiar as a film.

+

__________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

Cole you're on a roll! That's 6 nominations that you've reviewed. I just read all your last 3 reviews and you very well spoken on the subject. I've seen all 3 before but I don't really remember Spellbound well enough to commit on what you said. The Killers is one of my top favorite noirs, love that film and you're spot on in your review. Kansas City Confidential, I just watched that one for the second time and what I noticed when looking for photos for my review was....that movie had a lot of great scenes, like the one you used, love the photo.

The Big Sleep:I thought a rewatch might raise this a bit but my thoughts remained the same. I love it but there is something holding it back from being a favorite. Bogart is fantastic and is given such great dialogue to work with. I noticed this little script thing watching this time that was so great. The second time Marlowe and Rutledge meet they have a very playful moment. Rutledge says Marlowe likes to play games, he smiles and agrees. Much later after Marlowe knocks out a thug, he states that he hates people who play games. Subtle, such a great character moment. Fantastic writing and the type of thing that lets you know you are watching a movie that could be studied, and a character that begs to be studied. I probably will never have the time to give it the attention it deserves, but I respect the heck out of this film and will be happy to return to it again. In addition to the characters and dialogue this movie looks amazing. The shadowing and framing is perfect. Sets great atmosphere and makes you know you are inside a Noir. Really great stuff. We have rebooted so many things in the past few years, I would love to see Marlowe on the screen again. You could do so much with the character and crime stories are endless and timeless.

__________________
Letterboxd

“Except for markf, you’re all a disgrace to cinema.”

Just caught up with Cole's thoughts on The Killers. I am so pleased people are enjoying this film as much as I did on a first watch. I am so looking forward to a second watch to solidify it as a favorite.

The Killers...you can't go wrong with Ava Gardner as the femme fatale

Just type in: noir femme fatale in a Google image search and guess who comes up on top of the page???

I really enjoyed this one. Couple of minor issues but overall very good. I love the setting here and consequently the cinematography. Maybe one of my favorite Hitchcock's to look at, with the setting and the iconography really sticking out. I love the themes explored here. One of my favorite portrayals of men in film is one that has to stand on his principles all alone with no one but him and God knowing all the facts. A character that has to keep his mouth shut and suppress his natural urges to prove his manhood is much more appealing to me than one who puts himself in physical danger. Because of those themes and the way Hitchcock weaves the story, the end was brilliant for me, as Hitchcock's endings often are. I even welled up during a couple moments.

I did think this movie could have been better. At just over 90 minutes there was time for more character moments. Keller in particular is a character who could have been fleshed out much more in my opinion. If he had been better developed the court scenes and the ending could have really hit like a sledge hammer. I loved Malden here, as I usually do, but I wish he was given a little more to do also. I was expecting a juicy scene when Clift goes to see him at one of the film's turning points. It didn't happen though. In fact that scene turned out to be barely a scene at all.

I have seen quite a few movies over the last couple of years with Clift and Baxter, separately obviously. I put them both in the same category. Their style of acting is conducive to certain characters, but not so much to others. I think Clift's character here is perfect for him. He is playing a tortured soul, struggling with his inner man. Not knowing which way to turn. Clift does great with this type of man. He looks as if he may break or vomit at any time. Baxter on the other hand is miscast here. She is cute as a button and thus easy to watch. However her style of acting is much more suited to the opportunist in All About Eve than the demure love sick character she is portraying here. Her style has an artificial quality that is believable in the former and not the latter.

Overall I am very pleased to have finally caught up with this film. It will be one I mention in conversation and recommend with small reservations. Certainly enough her to warrant a revisit from me in the future.

Sean, I was very curious as to your views on I Confess, nicely done write up! I enjoyed it. And I'll have a couple of question for you at the end of this post.

I watched a short documentary with Peter Bogdanovich on I Confess and like you said it's considered one of Hitch's best use of lighting and cinematography. And it has a lot of on-location scenes and shots, done inside actual churches and buildings, which is very unusual for Hitch as he was a detail orientated director and preferred working in the confines of the studio where he could control all the variables. Hitch usually prefers flat, bright lighting but here it looks great with it's long dark shadows.

That type of character appeals to me too. The morally strong, but not self serving-violent type. In a way this reminds me of High Noon....I think Montgomery Clift is a fine actor. He was a troubled man and had a drinking problem. I think you picked up on his self contained-inner torment, that's what makes him so interesting.

But I never got the feeling that his character of the priest was walking in the grace of God. He never seemed to have an inner strength...He always seemed alone. Your thoughts on that?

Question: Sean, you're watching films that have a spiritual side for your A Cinematic Journey Of Faith
would I Confess qualify for that thread? Did you get a sense of spirituality from the movie? Or is it mainly a film about religious beliefs?

The Big Sleep


This is a film I would expect and want to love. With The Long Goodbye being a top ten film for me, I'd really expect to love a film where Marlowe is played by the awesome Bogart. But this film just left me cold and confused. I never really figured out the plot, the characters, the motives. I was never fully engraved in the story to be fair, but that's partially the films fault as well. On a technical aspect it's mostly great. Solid cinematography and a great script. Bogart has a lot of great lines and makes a fitting Marlowe, not nearly as perfect as Gould though. However I didn't find the performances of the daughters convincing, nor did I find their characters interesting. The last 30 minutes were exciting, but just as an individual set. Frankly by the end I didn't follow how it all tied in . Probably a film that deserves more attention from myself on another viewing.

I will second Seanc, we need a new Marlowe film, as he is a superb character!

__________________

Orson Welles had the same reaction to The Big Sleep (though he did like it)...so your in good company

You have heard of Catholic guilt? I think this might be one of the best portrayals of it I have seen in film. There is a real sense that this character cannot figure out what the right thing to do is. Grace is a fairly easy concept to come to terms with intellectually, but in practice it is almost impossible for us to grasp. We see it as being a gift for others, but when it comes to ourselves we don't believe it possible. This is true for any believer I have ever known. For an old school Catholic, this characterization seemed very real to me. You noticed he didn't go to his perish head for advice? In fact, that character seemed very unapproachable. I really like the way the priest hood was approached by Hitchcock. I think it did a good job of showing its flaws and virtues.

I think it would definitely qualify. There is a ton to delve into about moral responsibility. Grace, like talked about above. Fidelity is a big part of this film. I really like the way that was handled as well. If this film was remade today it would be highly sexualized. I love that it is not because I think that allows us to see how emotional attachment informs the characters. Which to me is way more compelling than who is banging who.

Hope this answered your questions. Maybe some others will jump in as well. I feel like there is a lot to talk about with I Confess.

Spellbound: I didn't have a great reaction to this one, I thought it was decent though. Started out great in the first twenty minutes. Hitchcock sets up the characters really well. It is funny and smart. Once the mystery starts to unravel, the film does for me as well. The pop psychology just doesn't work for me. Everyone in this film is PHD, MD, and Sherlock Holmes all wrapped into one. That makes for some fun scenes, I like the old mentor in Rochester, but it also makes everything seem pretty contrived. I really dislike the skiing scene, oh boy, that was rough. Bergman and Peck were good and I was still watching a Hitchcock, co I was never bored or checked out. Just not up to the high standards I have for him.

Thanks Sean for explaining. I agree if I Confess Spoilers*** was made today, "it would be highly sexualized."....I'm surprised it hasn't been remade, but it probably will someday

I thought this was interesting:

That was interesting. I don't think I like it as much though.

Personally I don't like remakes. The original is good enough!

I hope to watch another Noir tonight, perhaps a rewatch of Spellbound.

I'm with you, but I do think you can take a story give it a twist and make it fresh. Speaking of Hitchcock, a couple years ago Stoker is basically the same narrative as Shadow Of A Doubt. Definitely has its own feel and tone though. I don't mind remakes in that sense.

I never heard of Stoker, but just looked up and see it has Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, two good reasons to watch it

Shadow Of A Doubt is very well done Hitch film, I like that one. It was Friendly Mushroom's nomination in the first Film Noir Hof.

I wanted to see this movie for quite some time, as I knew it was the first and last movie directed by Laughton.
I have to say I wasn't expecting nothing like this!
The soundtrack is haunting and the cinematography is magnificent, well beyond its time!! The story seems quite disconected, which I suppose was intentional but it got a bit distracting after a while, making this film longer than it really is! I loved Mitchum acting, the rest of the cast was only decent.
It's a pity Laughton didn't direct more, he sure showed a huge potential!!!

I'll do a write-up about Spellbound too, as I watched it recently:


Not one of Hitch's best films but still with some brilliant elements.
The soundtrack and the use of music is astonishing and the cinematograpy has some really great and inovating bits.
The plot is nicely arranged and entertaining enough. It's probably one of the first films adressing psychoanalysis, which is by itself very interesting.
The acting is solid especially by the one and only Ingrid Bergman and a very curious appearence by Michael Chekhov, one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, one of the greatest theatre actors of all time and a man I've been investigating and learning from in the past 6 months, to my masters thesis. It's wonderful to see him in action, as the only thing I knew of him were his books and the books about him. He got nominated for an Academy Award with this small role and it's a pity he made so few Hollywood films.

It takes a special kind of genius to create something like this!
Overall, there is not a single scene that's not perfectly framed, with the camera work creating the mood more than anything else! The amazing soundtrack helps too but this all about visual story telling, and there's nobody who could do it better than Welles.
The acting and script are superb, especially the performance of Welles as Quinland, one of the most amazing villains I ever saw on a movie! He's so incredible because his heart is on the right place, we can understand his reasons but he doesn't let himself be stopped by rules, to him the ends justify the means and that's scary! I don't know why, all I could think of was Donald Trump everytime Quinland was on scene, and it enfuriated me the possibility of him going away with it!
Regarding the story, I am not sure about the pacing on the first half of the movie but the last hour is just perfect! The way the tension is build is just as if I was watching a nightmare, and the last scene is brilliant!
Bravo, Mr. Welles!!!