Film Noir HoF - Part 2

Kansas City Confidential

It has been years since I have seen this. So I admit that this is, yet again, a movie that I nominated in one of these because I wanted to watch it again.

I like this kind of noir. It is a typical story of a guy getting into a situation that was beyond his control, and then he goes to various lengths to rectify his problems.

I liked the acting in this one. This isn’t one of the heavier noirs out there. Therefore, it doesn’t really need any heavy acting. This is just a straightforward story with no need to have anyone put on such a show to possibly get nominated for an Oscar. I think the acting was fine for the story that it is.

I kind of prefer John Payne in stories that are lighter in their themes, but I also think he does a good job as the fall guy in here. And I think each of the other actors fit their roles perfectly. Preston Foster, basically, had the responsibility of kind of playing two characters (well, a character with two personae, I suppose ), and I think he does that pretty well. I liked each one of his partners in crime, but I particularly like Jack Elam. I think I remember thinking the last time that I saw this that it is just a shame that his character couldn’t have gone on a little longer. I really enjoyed watching him. As for Coleen Grey, I could honestly take or leave her in this. She is OK, but she doesn’t really have that big of a role in here (although it is somewhat necessary to the plot) to make me care to even comment about her in particular.

I know this isn’t a film that will be considered for a list of “classics”. But as I’ve said here before, you don’t have to like a picture just because it is considered a classic. And the opposite could also be said. You don’t have to dislike one just because it isn’t considered a classic. And it just so happens that I did, and still do, like this non-classic very much.

__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe

Ha! That's funny, and what's serendipitous is, I watched Night of the Hunter, last night and was thinking along the same lines with poor Shelly Winters...she just doesn't mix well with water


Your answer

Night of the Hunter (1955)

Is there anything more iconic that Robert Mitchum's LOVE HATE finger tattoos? Those ink marks have been imitated everywhere, from rock musicians to the Simpson's TV show. Just Google Love Hate finger tattoos and you'll see they're everywhere...even on toes!

I'd seen Night of the Hunter before when I was first getting into noir and I remembered that it had impressed me. This time around I'm even more impressed and for the reasons Neiba gave: the unique cinematography and set designs. Especially the river voyage scene where the children drift downstream in a small boat. I loved the way the river set looked, it's poetic with the small animals along the shore and in the background silhouettes of old farm houses. I loved the lighting and the star filled sky too and that was all done on the set. No it doesn't look real, and it doesn't look gritty noir either, it wasn't suppose to...It does look storybook, as the children take the same journey Moses did down the Nile.

I thought this film balanced it's religious themes quite nicely. One of the highlights was when the stalking Reverend (Robert Mitchum) was singing Leaning on the Everlasting Arms cappella with Rachel (Lillian Gish). I like the juxtaposition of how the evil Mitchum sings lean on me while the good Lillian Gish sings lean on Jesus. A nice touch to define the difference betwixt them.

While we are on the subject of "A Place In the Sun", did you know that it was based on a true story? I knew it was based on a novel, but I didn't know that the novel was a true story. I saw something quite a few years ago. I am not sure what the program was - maybe it was about old crimes or something like that - that was on The History Channel. And I was listening to this story about this guy, in 1906, that did all of that - which is done in the film - with this girl. And I actually thought to myself that this story sounded like it would make such a good movie. And then they eventually said that "A Place In the Sun" was based on the story. I couldn't believe I was so stupid and didn't put the two stories together.

Yeah, I figured that. Silly, isn't it?

A Face In the Crowd

It was interesting for me to see this nominated in a Film Noir HoF because I don’t think this film is anything but a drama. But what do I know, I suppose? I don’t think any of the Star Wars films are sci-fi (I think they are fantasy/adventure) and I don’t think “Psycho” is horror (I think that is more like Suspense – or a Crime Thriller at the most). So, if others say that it is a Noir, then a Noir it shall be. For this HoF, at least.

I’ve always been a very big fan of this one. In its own way, it is almost a morality tale for adults, based around power and greed. It is almost giving you a lesson to show how fast a person can rise and how fast a person can fall – if that person isn’t careful.

I think Andy Griffith is fantastic in this (and I’d also like to add that I really like his voice when he sings – I actually don’t just like the sound of it, I love it). This is clearly one of the best performances of the decade, and I think it is one of my all-time favorite performances by any actor. He nails the smarminess of the character. There may have been others who could’ve played this part (although I can’t come up with one name), but I really think it would’ve been hard to find an actor who could’ve played it as well as he does. The crazy thing is that even though I am so impressed with his performance each time that I have watched this, I actually detest the character of Lonesome Rhodes. He is, basically, everything that I could hate a person being. Maybe that shows how good Griffith is in this. After all, I hate this character but I consider this to be a favorite performance. Isn’t that crazy?

I also really like Walter Matthau in here. He is the opposite to Griffith. And I think that may be why I like him so much. He’s quiet and not the least bit obnoxious. And he really plays his part well, too. Patricia Neal is fine, but I have issues with her character. I just never fully understood her character. I don’t know what would keep him in her life (money aside). I never had much feeling towards her because I could never see myself being like her. So, while she is good in her performance, I am kind of quite apathetic towards her because of the character.

Anyway, Elia Kazan did an excellent job. Not only does he show the what can happen with a person who is given too much attention, power and money, but he also shows just how gullible the public can be. I’ve always said that if you say something that people really want to hear, you will always gain a following before any of those people get a chance to realize just who it is that they chose to follow. And this is a perfect example of that.

I could go on about this movie even more, but I think this is more than enough. It is a movie that I recommended a couple of times, I believe, for the 50’s countdown. And I not only hope to see it on the list, but I would like to see it do well. And I liked getting the chance to re-watch it now (even if I don’t consider it to be a Noir ).

Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958)

Marlene Dietrich once said of her time working with the great Orson Welles, ''People should cross themselves when they speak of him''. Indeed, Orson was a genius and he shows his mastery of visual arts in his 1958 film noir, Touch of Evil.

The films opening sequences goes down in the annuals of cinematography as one of the great camera shots of all time. We, the audience, sees one long and uninterrupted tracking shot. Orson set the bar with this shot which latter would be duplicated by other film makers.

Originally Universal Pictures, the studio bank rolling the movie, wanted the film to be shot on a studio lot on constructed sets. But Orson would have none of that preferring to shoot in a real city. He decided to film almost exclusively at night, which gave him control over the production. Sadly, during post production editing, Orson was out of the country and so despite his objections, the film was cut up by the studio. A situation that ironically Orson complains about in the movie Ed Wood.

With the sole exception of Citizen Kane, Orson's feature films would all suffer the same indignation of being hacked up by the studios, thus destroying much of Welles' film vision. And ultimately causing him to retreat from Hollywood, which robed us of what might have been a large canon of masterpieces by Welles.

Touch of Evil is a triumph for Orson Welles, thanks to a turn of events his film was restored to his vision in the 1998 cut. When Orson Welles initially discovered the studio had cut his film in his absences, he fired off a detailed 58 page memo on how he wanted the film to be edited. The memo was presumed lost until found to be in the position of Charleston Heston, years latter. Universal Studios in 1998 gave it's OK and the once cut up film was restored to Welles ideas, giving the boy genius his film back.

One of the hallmarks of Touch of Evil is the cinematic idea Welles adopted after watching (and being confused by) another great film noir, The Big Sleep. Welles once stated his goal was to infuriate the audience with a closed-lip plot. He does that by keeping the audience in the dark as he shows us the events as they happen and at almost real time. We go along for the investigation and are told nothing of the back stories of the characters we encounter. Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston) is our proxy and we are kept as clueless as he is at the start of the film. Only as he begins to discover the truth, do we. Welles extenuates that feeling by use of many closeups and low dutch angle camera shots, which makes us feel like we're a fly on the wall, listening in.

Welles chews the scenery in most films he appears in. Sometimes that doesn't work well, but like Kane his characterization here helps give the film impact. I liked Charleston Heston in this, I think he makes a fine proxy for the audience as we go along for the ride at his side. Janet Leigh made a good victim! And woo hoo! we even get Zsa Zsa Gabor and the great Marlene Dietrich. I love Marlene's character in this film and she loved being in it and working with the master, Orson Welles.

Attachments

 

Scarlet Street

Really liked the dark atmosphere of the film. I agree that there were times Robinson felt a bit out of place, but for the most part I didn't see anything truly wrong with his performance. The last ten minutes of the film is what I really enjoyed. Those were some really well done scenes. As an overview I thought the film was pretty entertaining but yet it was something that I entirely loved. I think the dialogue is what kept me hooked and i must say that seems like a rather important piece to the noir genre. Most noir films I love have excellent dialogue and I thought this one was pretty close to matching what it needed to be on that aspect.

-

Tarantino named Kiss Me Deadly as one of his favourites movies of all time, so the answer is yes!

The Night Of The Hunter: This is my second time through and I see some great aspects here but as a whole this movie doesn't grab me the way it does others. Mitchum is great, and creepy, but I never feel like I have enough to time to be as uncomfortable as I should. I need more scenes like the wedding night. Mitchum is menacing but I never truly feel the menace of the story. The film does look mostly great. The use of shadow is excellent. They were trying some things with super imposing backgrounds that were really bad though. This is a good watch for me, I just wanted it to be great.

That's it for me. I will be sending in my list minus Maltese sometime this weekend. Thanks for another great HOF guys.

__________________
Letterboxd

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

Man I haven't nominated a film you loved in awhile

It's all payback for Ambersons.
You nominated Descendants last round. I love that.

I watched these 2 some time ago but I didn't post my thoughts:


The predecessor of the more well-known Lumet's Network, and in my opinion a much better film!
The first 30 minutes are simply superb and the bar is set really really high with a frenetic pacing, brilliant dialogue and with subtle but deep character construction. Lonesome Rhodes is presented as this energetic and somewhat sincere man, that only says who goes in his mind. However, Kazan gives us little hints about what is going to happen. The jail scene is filled with these, and that moment with all the dogs when he realizes he has an effect on people is, IMO, key in understanding what happened to Lonesome after.
After that, he goes from one job to the other, in a meteoric ascension, showing more and more signs of his corruption, and less and less moments of purity. The scene where he wants to leave because he doesn't want to do ads he doesn't agree with, is his last moment of innocence completely crushed when he finally conquers Marcia and when, in the next morning, Joey announces he seld his show. That is the beginning of the end.
What I loved the most about the movie is that Kazan gives us all these elements so early on the film and just lets things happen after. Everythings that happens in the second half of the movie feels natural because they all are a direct consequence of something happened in the first half.
There's also the prophetic side of this film! If a story Lonesome Rhodes was possible in the 50s, it's even more possible now, with the social media being completely dominated by charismatic but brainless characters, being corrupted and manipulated by bigger characters.
A wonderful nomination!!!

I just seen this post. Thanks Neiba! I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised.

You've been batting a 100 with me on your films so far I loved all of your nominations.

Yup that was a good one. Have you guys seen the new Coen Brothers film with George Clooney? Hail! Ceasar....I watched that the other night, mostly I liked it.

The Night of the Hunter

i watched this on criterion a few weeks ago and loved it so last night i decided to watch it with commentary. obviously the cinematography is indisputably great, but i was struck by how powerful the images were even with a commentary track over them and not the normal dialogue. the river scenes were still some of the most transcendent moments in the history of cinema and the brilliance of mitchum's performance was still evident in every frame. on the commentary track they kept mentioning how it echoed the silent era with it's expressionism and lillian gish, among other things. i still get chills just thinking of some of the shots in the film, like pretty much any shot involving mitchum's silhouette. i will likely rank this one above my own nomination.

__________________
letterboxd
criticker

Nice write up Inmate. I almost watched the commentary track too, I'm glad someone did. If you can watch the movie without really being able to hear the dialogue and still be blown away it, damn! I'd say that's fine cinema!

I have seen it twice so far. I like it, and think it has some great moments. Overall not as funny and engaging as I want from the Coens though. I give it a 3.5.

Friendly Mushroom has just told me he will not be able to complete the Hof. His movie nomination Spellbound is no longer required to watch. I thank him for letting me know and I enjoyed his movie.


.

Attachments

 

I'll still probably watch that, but I'll watch it last. The Big Sleep I'm targeting for Wednesday.

It's a Hitchcock film so if you haven't seen it, it's worth watching (but not required)...And I really don't think Pelican is going to be showing, he must have been sent up to the big house or something. So Maltese Falcon is on hold and most likely will be DQ.

This is a copy of a post I made in the rate the last movie you saw thread-



My wife and I both loved this. She wasn't even going to watch it, but she thought it looked good in the first few minutes when she was doing whatever. The majority of the movie had us laughing quite a bit with it's dark humor. The ending then takes a dark and haunting turn. Edward G. Robinson plays a naive sad sack going through a mid-life crisis, Dan Duryea is a hilarious sleazeball, and Joan Bennett is the dame you know is no good from the get go. It's directed by Fritz Lang, is on the top 100 noirs list, and is a nomination in the current Noir Hall of Fame. I thought it was very entertaining and memorable, and I added it to my early list of contenders for the eventual 40's countdown.