misswonderly3

Eddie's comments this week on "The Narrow Margin" were particularly enlightening. For instance, I was unaware that Howard Hughes had tried to interfere so much with it. SPOILERS Hughes, for all he may have been brilliant in some ways, clearly had no feeling for story, or anyway, for smart stories. Imagine, he actually wanted Marie Windsor to be the actual gangster's wife, and Jaqueline White to be just some ordinary random lady passenger. How uninteresting would that have been ? ! I mean, aside from anything else, one of the whole points of the film is that people are not always what they seem. Which is why it's disappointing to hear that Hughes idiotically insisted that a plot point, the one about Brown's partner having been on the take, be deleted from the final cut. You can see that Brown had tremendous admiration for his partner; at one point he even tries to make Windsor's character feel guilty by observing that his partner was dead while she was still alive - - "some trade". He goes on about what a great guy Forbes (the partner) was, how he had a wife and family, etc. etc. So if it had at some point been revealed that this partner he's practically canonizing had been "crooked", a taker of bribes from the underworld, it would have been yet another shock for Brown, and another example of how people are not necessarily who we think they are. Too bad Hughes was too undiscerning to realize how effective such a plot point would have been. A couple of other thoughts about "The Narrow Margin", ones which I think I have posted somewhere on these boards before: I think it's a hoot the way these old crime movies always show someone - usually a tarty woman - listening to loud, not especially good, popular jazz, as though to signal to the audience that she must be cheap and no-good if she spends her time hanging around (usually sprawled seductively on a couch), smoking and playing forgettable jazz music at high volume. So first, this is just plain funny- - "oh look, Marie Windsor must be as trashy as Charles McGraw expected, she's wearing a flashy polka dot dress and playing crummy jazz music really loud." But second, whoever wanted to add the phonograph jazz record bit into the story (writer? director? Marie Windsor?) was so enamoured of this cheap music = cheap woman trope that they got a little carried away. Given how difficult the situation was already, it's unlikely Windsor's character would have insisted on bringing the phonograph player (plus the records ! those things were heavy ! ) onto the train in the first place. And in the second place, she definitely would not have drawn attention to where she was hiding out by playing the damn records ! But this is just a quibble, and anyway, the trashy loud music she likes to play kind of adds to the atmosphere of the story, so I kind of like it. But here's a big problem I have with "The Narrow Margin": Poor Marie, she sacrifices herself to protect the real Mrs. Neal, but nary a thank you does she get from anyone, much less Detective Brown. As Eddie remarks in his "outro" comments to the film, we need a scene where Marie's body is carried out on a stretcher under the remorseful gaze of a sadder but wiser Brown. But no, there's no such scene, (not even a pre-existing scene that was cut), and Detective Walter Brown just carries on as though this poor much maligned lady did not deserve so much as a parting glance. No acknowledgement that she was actually a worthwhile person who gave up her life to save another. Not to mention a memorable trash-talking dame with a fondness for crisp bacon, cigarettes, and loud big band music.

I cannot resist. Here's a fun version of "Funiculi Funicula". I'm afraid it's not very noirish, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44UC6muN8KY

Right, I remember that scene. But I feel it doesn't really "count" in terms of the the two look-alikes encountering one another, because Dr. Bartok does not see Muller (a painfully disappointing moment when he just walks out of the room with nothing happening) behind the door. What I meant when I said I'd have liked a scene they're both in together is one where they actually see, meet, and talk to each other, the tone and topic of such a conversation could have been really interesting.

Hibi, watch your language !

Hmm, so no comments on "Hollow Triumph" aka "The Scar" today. Interesting....first time in ages, I think, that no one's posted about Eddie's Noir Alley choice of the week soon after airing. Lorna, I blame you, since you're often the one who leads off on this. Ya gotta get that out-of-sync-in-real-viewing-time issue resolved, noir fans are counting on you. (Have you contacted your cable company about the problem? I realize that's an obvious question to ask...) Well, dammit, I'm going to comment on "Hollow Triumph". First, this title is way better than "The Scar", and a much more noirish title, too. Also - SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER - such a big deal is made about Henreid's villainous character's giving himself the scar on the wrong side of his face (as opposed to the scar of his doppelganger, whom he wants to supplant), but in fact, this mistake does not make one whit of difference to his plan. Nobody, not even his classy girlfriend (a tiny role, this character hardly comes into the story at all), nor his lover / secretary (ah, Joan Bennett) notice that this man they presumably know well has suddenly switched the side of his face his scar is on. In fact, in a way that's one of the points the film is making - nobody ever notices anything ! The only one who does is the cleaning lady, who remarks upon it to Muller as he's about to abandon his entire usurped life. He's actually grateful to her for noticing it, maybe because she's the only one who has. Anyway, enough about the scar - a red herring, that's all I can say about that. But ! I'm happy to say that I really enjoyed "Hollow Triumph". It was my second viewing of it. The first time I saw it, years ago on a poor quality (and probably semi-illegal ) video, I did not like it much at all, and in fact was a bit disappointed that this was Eddie's selection this week. I don't know if it was the much-superior copy Eddie showed, or whether I've changed in some way, but this time around I thought the film was very good. Paul Henreid demonstrated he's just as good at playing bad guys as good ones; I quite like this actor. But for me, the film belongs to Joan Bennett. She's always so damn good, is Joan, and "Hollow Triumph" gives her a lot to do; she plays a three-dimensional complex character, and she plays her with utter conviction. One thing that bothered me a little: how come Henreid's character ("John Muller" - no relation to Eddie !) has absolutely no curiosity about this man who so completely resembles him? Dr. Bartok doesn't just look like Muller, they could be identical twins. I was really hoping for at least one scene where they meet each other, just to see what would happen. It could be done then - like in "A Stolen Life", made two years earlier. They could have used the same technique to film Henreid playing both characters in the same scene. But we never get this- you can't count the part where Muller picks up Bartok in his cab. And speaking of that -SPOILER AGAIN - I also feel a bit cheated that we don't see Muller's murder of his look-alike. How does he do it anyway? We just see him standing on a bridge, waving away would-be helpers who think he has car trouble. However, despite these quibbles, I thoroughly enjoyed "Hollow Triumph", perhaps all the more because I wasn't really expecting to. Anyone else catch this odd little film?

Right Hibi, people come and go here. Sometimes we get people who post here a lot for a while, and then stop altogether.... But I don't believe "finance"' ( that's how I think of him, not by his more recent poster name) was one of those. I don't believe he got bored with this site and just stopped. He posted here for years and years. I'm sorry to say, I think nothing short of serious illness or death itself would have stopped him from coming here.

I just realized it was exactly a year ago today that a long-time member here posted for the last time. His screen poster name was "DownGoesFrazier", but before that, he was known as "finance", and it was mostly under that name that he participated here, for years. The reason I wanted to create a thread about him was this: We regard ourselves, I think, as a community on these boards. The people who post here regularly, who contribute and respond and discuss and share opinions and jokes and ideas on this TCM message board, are part of a group. I know it's just an internet group, we don't really know one another, but it's still a kind of social community. So when someone who's been a long-term and very active member of that community suddenly just disappears from it, I think they deserve some kind of attention, or acknowledgement, or something. "finance" was a very active member here; he posted just about every single day, a lot, on a lot of threads. His style was brief- he liked to post a lot, but all of his comments were very short. He liked to make little jokes, or "zingers", and he often contributed information about a film, or , just as often, asked a question about it. I did not always enjoy or agree with his posts, sometimes I even found him a bit annoying (but maybe we could say this about us all, once in a while), but I considered him to be one of the most engaged, active members here, and as such liked him, and certainly noticed when he stopped coming here. I do not know why "finance" stopped posting here.It was very sudden; one day he was as active as ever on these boards, the next, nothing, complete silence. I believe if he could, he would still be participating here. To be honest, I think he must have died - either that, or experienced some kind of health problem that has rendered him no longer capable of posting. I just think that when someone has been as fully engaged in a community, even a digitally maintained community, as finance was, they deserve some kind of acknowledgement. Otherwise, it kind of feels like all the time and thought and interaction with others here goes for nothing. It's been a year now, so I thought this was a good time to do this. So here's to you, DGF, or "finance", as I knew you for most of the time you posted on this site. You were one of the first people I ever connected with here. You were proud of your short, pithy posts; you liked film noir, sports, and music. Your absence here has been noticed. Thanks, everyone. mw

Well you never actually see Rhonda doing the secretary thing. It's just mentioned, almost in passing (I could be mistaken, I didn't get to watch the film this time around...)

Or you can just type in big bold block caps, SPOILER ! ! ! , preferably with a suitable number of accompanying exclamation points, before you reveal the plot point you want to discuss.

"The Killers". It's that scary opening scene, the one where Conrad and that other guy frighten everyone in that diner; they're looking for Burt Lancaster. In some ways, it's the best scene in the movie.

spence: I say this respectfully, god knows I've gone down the "gotten my actors mixed-up" road a few times myself, but I think you may have confused Alan Ladd with Dick Powell. 'T'was Dick Powell who was in "Farewell My Lovely". (Of course, Ladd was in some fine noirs too.)

Cry Danger ! ! All right ! Yes, noir fans, if you haven't already seen this cool film, try to watch or record it this weekend. It's got Dick Powell in full noir mode (shirley everyone likes Dick Powell as tough guy), along with Rhonda Fleming, also in full femme noir mode. These two factors alone would make it worth the watch. But ! It's also got Richard Erdman ( he of "The Blue Gardenia" and "Stalag 17", just to name a few) as Dick's booze-sodden sidekick, dispensing wit and cynicism in equal measure, William Conrad as the brains behind the bad guys (surprise !), and a perky Jean Porter as a sweet, although perhaps not-so-innocent "muffin" (or "mouse" or "doll"). All this, plus location shooting in Los Angeles' Bunker Hill neighbourhood, AND a trailer park ! Ok, it probably wouldn't have been fun to live in a trailer park, but it's definitely fun to watch other people living in a trailer park, at least in a film noir from 1951. Set your DVRs, or cancel your church-going plans, or do whatever it takes to catch this one.

I wish I knew. Despite my being an Elsa fan, I haven't seen nearly as many of her films as I'd like. I do know she was in "The Big Clock", where she played another of her hilarious quirky characters. In "TBC" she's an eccentric artist, who plays some kind of key role in Ray Milland's quest to establish his innocence. She's not in this film nearly as much as she's in "Mystery Street". but she makes the most of the time she does appear in it. However, I don't believe she comes to a bad end in "The Big Clock". Which, by the way, I'd love it if Eddie decided to show on Noir Alley. Also, speaking of Elsa Lanchester, I'm down for her being Star of the Month some time.

Back to "Mystery Street". A fun movie by any name smells as sweet - noir, procedural, drama - whatever you call it, "Mystery Street" is well-made, well-done, and thoroughly enjoyable. I remember the first time I saw it (I think yesterday was the 4th time around), I loved it - and that was on a sketchy old cheapo video that was a pretty bad copy. So, "Mystery Street" is one of those noirs ( or quasi-noirs, whatever) that I would cite if I were to ever start that thread I mentioned a long time ago, a thread about how many noirs are funny, some of them are almost comedies. I know many will vigourously disagree with me, but I can't help it, there are quite a few noirs that make me laugh, and "Mystery Street" is one of them. I mean, look at that crazy landlady ! Oh, Elsa Lanchester, thank you for your many delicious and hilarious performances, any movie you are in is automatically more entertaining. Elsa's greedy, sneaky, ever-dissembling Mrs. Smerrling ("Mrs. Smerrling" ? ! What kind of a name is that?) is a treat to watch. In a way, she steals every scene she's in, and almost the entire movie. You gotta love her blatant unashamed hypocrisy; she's always presenting herself as a respectable morally pure citizen, when in fact she's so greedy and dishonest and scheming, it's almost endearing. Just one example of how funny Elsa makes her: When Vivian's murderer comes to Mrs. Smerrling's parlour (I want to call it a parlour) to retrieve his gun, he asks her if her husband lives there, too. "Not exactly", Mrs. Smerrling purrs. So then he asks her if she's even married, and she again purrs back, "Not exactly". There's something about the way she says "Not exactly" twice like that, that's just hilarious. I vote this character into the Top Twenty Noir Hall of Fame Most Memorable Characters (a non-existent Hall of Fame at this point, but still....) Another really fun bit in this film: Detective Morales goes to interview a funeral parlour director ( is that what they were called back then?) whose name appeared in the little black book. The guy is so pious, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. And there's this funereal organ music playing in the background ! Really ? ! The actor who plays this character makes the most of his five minutes; he fairly reeks of hypocrisy and self-interest .Plus, when he finds out Vivian has died, he actually asks, "Will there be any need for services?" or some such question. Hey, when you find out your former B-girl has "passed on", why not see if you can make a little money out of her passing? Other things I love about "Mystery Street" : Jan Sterling's trampy but somehow likable "toe dancer". Too bad she's only around for the first twenty minutes or so - I can always use a few more minutes of Jan Sterling, an exceptionally pretty and talented actress who always kicks azz in everything she's been in. And she's not afraid to play trashy characters ( look at "Ace in the Hole"). And how 'bout those weird Harvard Medical School scenes? That bit where they're matching up faces to the skeleton head is eerie, to say the least. I do have to wonder, though, if a body tossed into the bushes on a beach would be so completely stripped of any, uh, decomposing matter, in just three months. I don't know how long it takes for a dead body to become a skeleton, just a set of bones, but I was surprised that poor Vivian's body had become just that in 12 weeks or so. Maybe - - yuck ! -- her bones had been picked clean by wild beach creatures. Oh well, it's a detail that doesn't really matter. There are loads of other fun details about "Mystery Street", but I'll just wind up by saying the final chase scene on the railway tracks is satisfyingly exciting. I always say, you can't go wrong with train track scenes, especially in film noir (or even "procedurals".)

Oh, ok, Lawrence. I hadn't realized that - although come to think of it, there was "The Mortal Storm", probably the only other anti-war film from that period I'm familiar with (well, there was a lot more going on in that film than anti-war sentiment....) I guess I was thinking of all the jingoistic pro-military American movies that came from Hollywood - but, as you say, not so much in the early 1930s. Interesting post, thank you.

Aw, I think that's kind of sweet, Lorna. Although I suppose I had some idea, if I were to think about it at all, that you don't usually attend church, at least not on Sunday mornings, since I've been under the impression that you watch a lot of Eddy's noirs in real time - on Sunday morning. While we're on the topic of church-going: I do not frequent any place of worship, but my husband, born and raised a Catholic, attends Mass every Sunday morning without fail. He does mind missing Noir Alley, although this is now somewhat alleviated by the new Saturday night screening time. Anyway, what I wanted to say was, the Roman Catholic Church, at least here in Ontario, offers several masses, including a Saturday afternoon one, for those who might want to sleep in (or watch Noir Alley). Not that I care, but it's always struck me as somewhat cheating somehow, going to mass on Saturday when it's supposed to be Sunday. However, I am not familiar enough with the finer points of Christian theology to dispute the matter. Plus, I don't really care.

Good points, all of them, cmovieviewer. I thought of all those things too.But I bolded the ones you made that really struck me. I, too, thought that it was significant that the accused guy's name was not in Vivian's little black book. That in itself would not prove his innocence , but you'd think it would go some way towards at least giving the detectives an idea of the possibility that he might not be guilty. However, I can see why they still made a connection between the two: there were witnesses testifying that they saw Henry Shanway leaving the bar with Vivian the last time she was seen alive. Your comment about the phone number on the wall was exactly along the same lines I was thinking...I kept waiting for Lieutenant Morales to see it there - it drove me crazy, waiting for him to notice it, especially as I think at least twice he uses that very phone, the same phone Vivian used the night she called her erstwhile lover (and soon-to-be murderer), with the killer's phone number jotted down on the wall right beside where Morales was speaking ! ! Of course director Sturges must have done the non-observance of the damning phone number on purpose, to make us all go "Look ! Ricardo, look at that phone number! Right there on the wall next to that strange flowery wall paper ! !" And yes, the missing of the phone number on the wall was somewhat compensated by the fact that Morales noticed the fateful baggage ticket in the bird cage - - a nicely suspenseful scene, since he nearly missed that too. As for what you said about blackmailers thinking they can safely be alone with the ones they are trying to blackmail - at least if the blackmailing is about murder - I've often thought that. I can't remember how many movies I've seen where the would-be blackmailer, blissfully demanding a huge amount of money from someone they know is a murderer, is promptly murdered in turn by the furious blackmailee (is there such a word as "blackmailee"?) By the way, when the murderer- a nasty piece of goods, "respected for hundreds of years" or no - - asks that venal landlady "Do you know the penalty for blackmail?" I wanted her to reply "Do you know the penalty for murder?"

Nice write-up, kingrat. I'd never heard of this film either, but thought I'd give it a shot (no pun intended.) I liked it, although, "that said", it's probably just as well that the film is only 70 (?) or so minutes long. In his intro to The Eagle and the Hawk, Ben mentions that it can be construed as an anti-war movie, and I think he is right. Pretty unusual for 1933, especially for an American film. Fredric March's character's loathing for what he has to do, every day - - which is basically to kill Germans in planes - - really comes across. There's an interesting scene where he's asked by some superior officer to give a speech, a kind of pep talk, to the new young recruits who've just arrived at the air force base. March is regarded as a hero by everyone except himself, because of all the enemy planes he's shot down (and also all the enemies he's killed.) At first he tries to beg off the pep talk, but the officer won't take no for an answer. So March's character (his name's Jerry Young), conflicted as he is, says what the authorities want him to say to the young newcomers - his talk is all about how the enemy is bad, and their cause is just, etc. War-time platitudes, and Young knows it. March does a fine job of giving lip-service to the ideals of the "right side", yet showing he has no pride in what he does. I've always liked Fredric March. Don't ask me to explain what I mean by this, but to me there's something noble about him. I like his serious - looking face, and how he always seems principled and decent (well, except maybe when he's turned into Mr. Hyde). I saw him recently in "I Married a Witch", and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Oh, thank you, Lorna, I'm so glad you posted about this unusual little movie. I just watched it tonight too, like you, in "real time" (my sympathies about the out-of-sync sound problem. I hate that, it's very distracting.) I love "On Dangerous Ground". Shall I count the ways? Well, first, I love the way it's hard-core classic noir for the first third or so, and then morphs into a strange little drama /love story. Most noirs start out bleak and end up bleaker (although not all), but "On Dangerous Ground" starts out bleak and ends up redemptive. And it somehow manages to be redemptive without being in the least bit preachy or sentimental. So, genre-wise, I enjoy its surprises and the way it doesn't easily fit into any cinematic category, really. Second: as Lorna pointed out, the film's score fits the movie so well, it's beautiful and haunting. Of course that's not surprising, given it's composed by the great Bernard Herrmann. There's one point in the film where the music reminds me of the score for "Vertigo" - - it strikes the same felicitous combination of suspense and mystery. And then there are the performances. Ah, Robert Ryan...he's got to be one of the best classic Hollywood actors ever. No one can get across psychological conflict and pain like Mr. Ryan - it's all in the eyes. And in "On Dangerous Ground", he handles Wilson's transition from bitter angry messed-up vicious city cop to compassionate gentle helper with absolute believability; it's a tall order, that kind of character transition effected within 90 minutes, not everyone could do it. As for Ida Lupino, I don't think I've ever seen her in a sweeter, more sympathetic role. Ida is so lovely and so versatile - it's sad that her name is not more well-known today. I've read that Nicholas Ray was not happy with this film; I don't know why. I'm a fan of Ray's, and off-hand I'd say I like all his movies. But "On Dangerous Ground" is exceptional even for him; its blend of toughness and compassion, of despair and hope, makes it a uniquely moving film. When Ryan holds out his hand to Ida as she's tentatively feeling her way down those stairs, and she clasps it, I'm almost moved to tears. Wonder if Eddie will ever show this one ?

Yes, Sterling just towers over skinny little Frank. Although maybe that's supposed to be tempered by the fact that he's sustained a severe (?) bullet wound to his arm, so he's handicapped and in pain. Also, one of the interesting chunks of dialogue in "Suddenly" is when Frank /John Baron starts going on about the power of the gun, and how it renders its possessor god-like in its capacity to take life. And all the time he's waving his gun around. And in the end, when he's shot (by the gun that Gramps was hiding in the hanky drawer) and disarmed of his own beloved gun, he whimpers and whines before he dies (making the point that without his gun he's a childish coward.) This is all by way of saying that Sterling's character had to contend with a seriously injured arm plus the awareness that Baron had a gun and he did not. But for sure, I can see James Whitmore in the sheriff role. But then, would Ellen have succumbed to his charms the same way? "If I'd been the sheriff I'd have counselled that nasty hit man. I was good at that."

Yes, you're both right about the way Frank's supposedly tough hit-man character talks too much. My extensive experience with hit men is the most effective ones tend to say very little. Still, I enjoyed Frank's blathering. Obviously this is a hit-man who's given to self-reflection. Maybe under different circumstances he'd have been a philosopher or a Buddhist. If he hadn't yapped on so much it would have been a less interesting movie. By the way, apropos of nothing, I loved all the little household details, like the pictures on the wall and the hankies in the drawer, the frilly kitchen curtains, etc. It's something I always look for in old movies, how the place is decorated. There's something fun about that stuff.

Well,we're in agreement about Sinatra's acting - this guy was good. I always enjoy watching him act, whether it's in one of those silly light-weight musicals ( which I do like), or the dramatic stuff like this film or, say "The Man with the Golden Arm". But what do you mean when you talk about resenting the "effortless quality of Sinatra's vocals"? Much as I love my rock n roll and all the great music of the latter half of the 20th century, Sinatra was the greatest singer of that century. One of them, anyway, for sure. Nobody could interpret a song, could nail what it was about, the way Frank could. Shirley you weren't saying that you don't like Frank Sinatra's singing, I must be getting something wrong.

I noticed the smoking hot tv repairman too. I looked up James O'Hara, and was interested to find out that he was the brother of Maureen O'Hara ! Which actually, isn't surprising - obviously pulchritude runs in the family.

Yeah, I noticed that. Interesting, the introduction of certain words that you just know were never said in movies before. Like ( and I think you pointed this one out at the time) the use of the word "pregnant" in "Tomorrow Is Another Day". And along the same lines - this is kind of trivial, but also kind of funny - at one point the kid says "I have to go to the bathroom", maybe one of the first times in film you see such an acknowledgement that bodily functions exist. I suspect that previously that line of dialogue might have been "I need a drink of water", a euphemism for "going to the bathroom".

Sorry to take up two posts talking about "No Questions Asked", but the drag thing deserved its own post. SPOILERAMA That (the drag "twist") was the delicious icing on this well-baked noir cake (sorry, I'm in a silly mood), but the whole film is hugely entertaining from beginning to end. I'm not the biggest fan of Barry Sullivan, but I have to say he's pretty darn good in this. As is Arlene Dahl (she really had me guessing for a while, whose side she was on). But, as I think Eddie pointed out in his commentary, it's Jean Hagen who's the real star of the picture. I love Jean, everything she did was interesting and fun ; in fact, she's an actress who always looks like she's having a good time in whatever she's in. This is not to say that she doesn't look convincingly sad when sadness is required. For instance, when Barry/Steve dumps her (and he doesn't even have to dump her, she knows as soon as he walks into the restaurant where they're supposed to have a date), she gets drunk. But she gets drunk in style, with a little cake and candle, plenty of champagne (I think it's champagne), and a torch song she sings in accompaniment to the jukebox (it's "I've Got You Under My Skin", and since we all know Jean can really sing, I was kind of disappointed when she was interrupted after only two lines....) How come Steve can't see that she's the girl for him, not that scheming false-hearted Ellen? A few other things in "No Questions Asked" that delighted me: you just know that there's a reason for that pool scene where the gangster, Franko, is practicing holding his breath under water. But it's still fun. Franko -played by a gleeful Howard Petrie - comes across as so mild-mannered and goofy, it's hard to imagine him as a threat. But don't let the speech about "beating the Olympic record" and his slightly nerdy demeanour fool you, he's a mean one. Like, for instance, later in the film, he doesn't hesitate to consider using steam to scald the perfidious Ellen into telling where the jewels are. I've never seen scalding used as a method of torture before, and for some reason I had to laugh at the ingeniousness of the idea. (I'm not a sadist -- you don't actually see or even hear anyone being scalded, and in fact I think they don't actually do it -- it's just the originality of the idea that amused me.) Anyway, lots of neat little details like that in this film to enjoy. Thank you, Eddie, for bringing "No Questions Asked" to TCM, and to at least one noir fan who got a fresh dose of noir today. Honestly - no question about it.