ERROL23

Gun Crazy(1950)

23 posts in this topic

 

Barton Tare(Russ Tamblyn)is a young boy whos hobby is guns.Barton steals one from a hardware store and is caught by the police.After doing time in a reform school and serving in WW2,Barton(John Dall)returns home where his sister,Ruby(Anabel Shaw)and his two friends Dave(Nedrick Young)and Clyde(Harry Lewis)welcome him back.

 

 

They take Barton to the circus where Barton meets Annie Starr(Peggy Cummings)a crackshot and her jealous manager,Packet(Berry Kroeger)Packet offers $500. to anyone that can beat her.Barton not only wins the contest,but Annie.Annie is a spoiled tart who wants money at all costs.Barton and Annie go out on a major crime wave,much to the shock of Ruby,Dave,and Clyde.

 

 

Co titled,Deadly Is The Female.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun Crazy is a GREAT movie!! I found it on YT and immediately recorded it and am glad i did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film is notable for Peggy Cummins' first appearance -- entering from the bottom of the frame! -- and the unbroken take showing the bank robbery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dying to watch this movie! Its looks and sounds so good. I hope TCM will show it soon.

 

Your wish is granted;   July 16th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the first noirs I've ever seen (about 13 or 14 years ago). I really like John Dall, not only in this film, but also in Rope and The Man Who Cheated Himself. He could play pretty much any character - the good, the evil, etc. A pity that he didn't have a better career.

 

The leading lady did a fine job, but she wasn't nearly as memorable as he was.

 

Anyhow, it's a terrific noir! I've seen it several times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of the first noirs I've ever seen (about 13 or 14 years ago). I really like John Dall, not only in this film, but also in Rope and The Man Who Cheated Himself. He could play pretty much any character - the good, the evil, etc. A pity that he didn't have a better career.

 

The leading lady did a fine job, but she wasn't nearly as memorable as he was.

 

Anyhow, it's a terrific noir! I've seen it several times.

 

John Dall is also first rate in the Bette Davis film The Corn is Green.     Yes, pity his film legacy is 'light'.   That happened to many young actors that got there start in the late 40s because after their initial studio contract ended in the 50s,  the studio system was starting to break down (T.V. being a reason),  and studios were a lot more reluctant to sign actors to long term contracts like they did in earlier decades. 

 

Gun Crazy is terrific,  but note that Peggy Cummings career faded even more so than Dall's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Dall is also first rate in the Bette Davis film The Corn is Green.     Yes, pity his film legacy is 'light'.   That happened to many young actors that got there start in the late 40s because after their initial studio contract ended in the 50s,  the studio system was starting to break down (T.V. being a reason),  and studios were a lot more reluctant to sign actors to long term contracts like they did in earlier decades. 

 

Gun Crazy is terrific,  but note that Peggy Cummings career faded even more so than Dall's.

 

 

Oh yes, I forgot about The Corn is Green! Great film with a terrific cast/acting.

 

I heard that John Dall didn't have a better career because he was homosexual, but there might have been other reasons, like the one you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I so remember the day I casually grabbed "Gun Crazy" on VHS at the store and sat down to watch it. I was completely captivated by it. The acting was so good, Peggy was so beautiful, and movie kept me at the edge of my seat all the way through. It also had one of the best noir songs "Mad About You" which Sinatra actually recorded at the time. A text-book example of what film noir is all about. John Dall was very convincing as being head over heals with Peggy, but in real life he was actually homosexual. He hinted at that in "Rope" a year or two earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Gun Crazy is probably one of the films which got me into noir. It's one of the first noirs I've seen.

John Dall was homosexual, but he could do a very convincing job of playing a straight man. For example, see the 1950 film The Man Who Cheated Himself. In Rope, the two killers were very likely both gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kjrwe said:

I think that Gun Crazy is probably one of the films which got me into noir. It's one of the first noirs I've seen.

John Dall was homosexual, but he could do a very convincing job of playing a straight man. For example, see the 1950 film The Man Who Cheated Himself. In Rope, the two killers were very likely both gay.

In Rope all the 3 main characters were gay.    Stewart just didn't play the part as such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

In Rope all the 3 main characters were gay.    Stewart just didn't play the part as such. 

"Rope" is very unusual movie but I love anything with Stewart in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Stewart's character in Rope considered to be gay? There was no indication of him being gay - no evidence whatsoever.

Rope is certainly an unusual film, and it's also based on a true story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kjrwe said:

Why is Stewart's character in Rope considered to be gay? There was no indication of him being gay - no evidence whatsoever.

Rope is certainly an unusual film, and it's also based on a true story.

No, no. Not Stewart. At least not in this movie. Farley Granger and John Dall are the one's. You have to remember back then it was very subtly implied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kjrwe said:

Why is Stewart's character in Rope considered to be gay? There was no indication of him being gay - no evidence whatsoever.

Rope is certainly an unusual film, and it's also based on a true story.

In the book the character is gay as well as in his early 30s.   This is one of the key reasons the college 'kids' bonded with him and are so easily influenced.      I believe Stewart didn't know this until after the film was shot.  One could say the plot-line is 'evidence'.    E.g. ancient Greek culture and the relationship between teacher and student.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

In the book the character is gay as well as in his early 30s.   This is one of the key reasons the college 'kids' bonded with him and are so easily influenced.      I believe Stewart didn't know this until after the film was shot.  One could say the plot-line is 'evidence'.    E.g. ancient Greek culture and the relationship between teacher and student.   

 

Interesting James. I never knew that about the story. I have to watch it again soon in that light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2018 at 8:44 AM, decojoe67 said:

No, no. Not Stewart. At least not in this movie. Farley Granger and John Dall are the one's. You have to remember back then it was very subtly implied. 

Of course back then they had to imply it in a very subtle way. The thing is that there is NO indication in the film that Rupert (Stewart) is gay - nothing subtle, nothing at all.

As for the two criminals, it's pretty obvious that they were gay. Hitchcock wasn't subtle about that. In the film, they seemed to bond with Rupert because of his outlandish ideas about who should or shouldn't live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kjrwe said:

Of course back then they had to imply it in a very subtle way. The thing is that there is NO indication in the film that Rupert (Stewart) is gay - nothing subtle, nothing at all.

As for the two criminals, it's pretty obvious that they were gay. Hitchcock wasn't subtle about that. In the film, they seemed to bond with Rupert because of his outlandish ideas about who should or shouldn't live.

It is my understanding Hitchcock didn't tell Stewart anything about the 'nature' of the character he was playing.

As for the other two;  clearly they come off as gay,  but I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that they were gay.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:16 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

It is my understanding Hitchcock didn't tell Stewart anything about the 'nature' of the character he was playing.

As for the other two;  clearly they come off as gay,  but I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that they were gay.    

It seems actors are often picked for roles that relate to their real lives. I'm sure Hitchcock did just that knowing that they'd play the roles convincing. Granger and Dall were likely delighted to do those roles for the same reason. I must watch that one again. A really odd, dark little movie for the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, decojoe67 said:

It seems actors are often picked for roles that relate to their real lives. I'm sure Hitchcock did just that knowing that they'd play the roles convincing. Granger and Dall were likely delighted to do those roles for the same reason. I must watch that one again. A really odd, dark little movie for the time.

Well under the studio system most actors were under contact,  as well as directors and in most cases the producer would assign the director and the actors,  picking from the list of under-contract talent that was available.

Often I see people ask 'why was 'joe' cast for this part,  he is miscast',  and the above is the answer.

Of course studios would loan out their talent but this was rare and a deal had to be made typically trading similar box-office level actors,  but sometimes just cash, like Bette Davis in The Little Foxes (which really upset Davis when she found out Jack Warner got a lot more for loaning her out then he was paying her!   (so yea,  Jack gave her some more money to keep the peace).

But Hitchcock was independent and produced and directed most of his American films;  Note that the Production Company was Transatlantic Pictures which was founded by Hitchcock and the film distributed by Warner Bros. (which mean they didn't own the rights).

Therefore Hitchcock got a lot of his actors either from those under contract with producers (and thus independent to a degree) instead of studios and of course paying studios for an actor that was under contract with said studio. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us