There were so many mistakes by so many "historians" that I felt I had to devote an entire webpage to debunking them. (Elliot Lavine railed against my criticism of him, which he voiced on the Blackboard, but that didn't in the least excuse/correct his misinterpretation that I cited.)
I recognize that Bill MacVicar provided a succinct "review" of Raw Deal, whereas I posted an in-depth analysis of the film in a separate webpage from the one that critiqued the historians. (This post, and its follow-up, were originally provided to The Blackboard as a Noir of the Week.)
Nonetheless, it isn't difficult to see that MacVicar and I treat Raw Deal extremely differently. How? Bill barely addresses the role/impact of Marsha Hunt, whereas I center my analysis of Raw Deal on it.
And, if doing so, it caused me to criticize my esteemed mentor, Bob Ottoson, then so be it. Bob at least made a cogent appraisement that I disagreed with. And Bob, unlike Elliot, didn't berate me for disagreeing with him.
However, Bill's final sentence, "It's hard-core noir, to be sure, sinister and brutal, but shot through with a redemptive touch of poetry," is too ambiguous for me to respond to.
That is, why is Raw Deal "hard-core noir?" (What does "hard-core noir" mean. If we knew what Bill meant, would it be what I've devoted decades of my life to debunking: the "hardcore noir paradigm?")
Furthermore, what makes Raw Deal have "a redemptive touch of poetry?" There's no explanation for this comment whatsoever.
The short-writing format of IMDb leads to such contributions as MacVicar's -- useful if you are curious as to whether the film noir of his review is worth watching; but, given its brevity, his post can't allow us to know what his own full-scale interpretation of the film would be.