Posted by Solomon
on 9/13/2009, 11:16 am
72.75.200.9
To resuscitate this entry...
I watched this noir as it aired this past week. I had several impressions. All are open to discussion. I did not study this movie. I'm relying on memory, which can be quite faulty.
First, as Don Malcom observed, George Nader's facial expressions are really well done. He's awfully serious, self-absorbed, manipulative. He does not engage in self-pity, however, despite his dire situation. Women seem to like him a lot better than men.
This is one of the very bleakest noirs there is. It's downbeat the whole way. George is really a very unlikeable person who cons and manipulates everyone in sight. He apparently grew up in such a way that being alone and being a successful con man by being alone gave him his gratification. The movie makes almost no attempt to generate any sympathy for Nader's character at all. He pets no dogs and helps no children that I recollect. Maybe he tipped someone. Maybe not. One can admire only his quickness and presence of mind. He's adept at calculation and planning to achieve his ruthless goals.
About the only thing that makes his character look even halfway palatable is that Bernard Lee's character is even worse. He doesn't just want half a loaf or an adjustment in his pay, he wants it all. He comes across quite nasty and brutish in his dislike and physical treatment of George.
The camera work is superb in bringing out Bernard Lee's domineering streak and George's quandaries, as well as in all other respects. Many low-angle shots with superior black and white compositions.
Maggie Smith's character is a bit of a mystery to me. I'm not totally sure why she does what she does. Her fiance has not exactly left her, but his abrupt departure seems to have jilted her feelings for him, so that she is open to a new man, and Nader has his charm. He appeals to her mother instinct and sympathy, I suppose. I also get the feeling that she's out for a bit of spark and adventure in her life. There is no reason for her to have much feeling for obeying the law. She's from a well-to-do family and that's part of it too. She might be using and toying with Nader about as much as he is with her.
The ending is duly an unhappy one for the main character. One thing is for sure -- he never gives up. He just keeps trying to escape his fate no matter how bad his luck is. Luck is a theme in the film, mentioned early and repeated several times. His is awful, from his initial sentencing to an unexpected arrival of a policeman who knows him when he is trying to collect his loot, and on and on. But it's the kind of luck that is not out of place in real life. So that the theme seems to be that there is no escape. It might even be that the negative fate he meets accords with the negative deeds he deals out. I was not unhappy when he met his end. He left quite a trail of misery behind him, and I can imagine that he would have continued it without change had he made it past this episode.
Nader fakes a cripple at one point. Maybe the theme is that these characters are mostly crippled in one way or another. Although the criminal is often featured in noir, I wonder if these films are making the point that our society is quite insane, and that the criminal is therefore not as insane as he may seem. Shock Corridor is that kind of allegory. Is that the case with most noirs?
The movie vaguely reminds me of Odds Against Tomorrow, made about the same time. Maybe it's the jazz. The tunes seem just about right for what we are seeing on the screen. I am unable to explain why this is so, even though I have listened to jazz for 60 years now. That is, if I heard the music apart from the film, I'd never associate it with this film's emotions, and yet combined with what is on screen, it works, and, if memory serves, the same is true of Odds Against Tomorrow. This deserves more thought.
I'll watch this one again in 5 years or so.
Responses: