Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Barton_Keyes

Noir Alley

Recommended Posts

I like the original better as well. The remake didnt  use the twist and was longer. Worth seeing if you hadnt seen the original..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my favorite movies.  As best I can tell, The Forty-Niner was an actual Southern Pacific/Union Pacific/Chicago & Northwestern joint train between Los Angeles and Chicago.  This was train they arrived in Chicago on.

Central Pacific Railroad's The Golden West Limited was fictitious.  The CPRR was a subsidiary of the SPRR at the time.  

However, the Santa Fe did operate The California Limited between Chicago and Los Angeles via La Junta CO.  Most passenger car exteriors are of Southern Pacific cars.

 

This is probably first movie in which I first identified Marie Windsor and have been a fan ever since.  Same for Charles McGraw, although I recognized the face.

 

The film was remade in 1990 as Narrow Margin with Gene Hackman and Anne Archer.  Though based on The Narrow Margin, it is fairly different.  It is set primarily in Canada and uses VIA Rail Canada's Canadian.

 

While I like The Narrow Margin better, they are both good movies and well worth watching.

The second film 1990 lost my interest with the helicopter and actions sequences. Film Noir were fairly simple as soon as remakes forget that and get too ambitious they lose that overall Noir zeitgeist, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second film 1990 lost my interest with the helicopter and actions sequences. Film Noir were fairly simple as soon as remakes forget that and get too ambitious they lose that overall Noir zeitgeist, in my opinion.

 

 

Yes. They brought in the effects. It was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there are new apartment buildings on the old site, across the driveway to the apartments to the south is 644 N. Hill Place that, is still standing (just quick checked on Google maps).

 

 

I see. That sounded miraculous! LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at Today's schedule Out of the Fog (1941) and The Long Night (1947)  are films I'm sort of ambivalent about, the first is on some Noir lists the other on most but is a remake of Le Jour se Leve (1939) both versions are decent but not on my top 100 list. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at Today's schedule Out of the Fog (1941) and The Long Night (1947)  are films I'm sort of ambivalent about, the first is on some Noir lists the other on most but is a remake of Le Jour se Leve (1939) both versions are decent but not on my top 100 list. 

 

there's not really a lot to OUT OF THE FOG....As I recall it, it's kinda short and more like a filmed stage play (very static location)

also, as in THE SEA WOLF- the emphasis is not on the love story between Garfield and Lupino, which is odd, because you have two marvelous actors with real chemistry together.

 

AGAIN THOUGH, this is AS I RECALL IT, and it's been a while since i've seen it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the synopsis, I remember seeing The Long Night, but dont remember details at all. NOT a good sign........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's not really a lot to OUT OF THE FOG....As I recall it, it's kinda short and more like a filmed stage play (very static location)

also, as in THE SEA WOLF- the emphasis is not on the love story between Garfield and Lupino, which is odd, because you have two marvelous actors with real chemistry together.

 

AGAIN THOUGH, this is AS I RECALL IT, and it's been a while since i've seen it.

 

The Garfield character in OOTF is not worth loving.   He is a mean, selfish brute.   While the Lupino character does fall for him,  her motive for doing so is to get out of the fog (the dreary place she lives),  but finally wises up and decides the price for doing so is too high. 

 

Note this is somewhat similar to the Bogart\Lupino romance in High Sierra in that Bogart is a criminal but with a good heart.   He doesn't enjoy having to use violence like Garfield;  it is just a means to an end.    While Lupino is jealous of how Bogart helps the other gal (Joan Leslie),   it does show the sensitive side of the character.    

 

While both criminals die in the end,  Bogart's character is set free from a world that wasn't meant for him.  In the case of the Garfield character,  society is set free from him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(spoilers for In A Lonely Place follow)

 

At the risk of getting people mad at me, Eddie mentioned that one of the themes of In A Lonely Place is unconditional love.  I would interpret this to apply to Gloria Grahame's Laurel and if she could love Humphrey Bogart's Dixon without knowing whether he is a killer or not.

 

When I hear the term unconditional love I normally think of the love between a parent and a child - a parent will love their child for their lifetime regardless of what the child does or if the child will love them back.  I don't think you usually hear this term applied to the love between adults (unless they are married or in a committed relationship), and how would this apply to having love override considerations for personal safety?

 

Is it some noble act for Laurel to stay with Dixon even though he is reckless and potentially dangerous (even life-threatening)?  (Especially if the original ending was used!)  With a more modern view of domestic violence, I don't see how this concept should be promoted in any way.  Perhaps those who have thought about the film can set me straight.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(spoilers for In A Lonely Place follow)

 

At the risk of getting people mad at me, Eddie mentioned that one of the themes of In A Lonely Place is unconditional love.  I would interpret this to apply to Gloria Grahame's Laurel and if she could love Humphrey Bogart's Dixon without knowing whether he is a killer or not.

 

When I hear the term unconditional love I normally think of the love between a parent and a child - a parent will love their child for their lifetime regardless of what the child does or if the child will love them back.  I don't think you usually hear this term applied to the love between adults (unless they are married or in a committed relationship), and how would this apply to having love override considerations for personal safety?

 

Is it some noble act for Laurel to stay with Dixon even though he is reckless and potentially dangerous (even life-threatening)?  (Especially if the original ending was used!)  With a more modern view of domestic violence, I don't see how this concept should be promoted in any way.  Perhaps those who have thought about the film can set me straight.

 

Discussing the themes of a film is NOT promoting said themes.      E.g. if No Way Out was shown the host shouldn't mention racism, because 'with a more modern view of' racism,   "I don't see how this concept should be promoted in any way'? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing the themes of a film is NOT promoting said themes.      E.g. if No Way Out was shown the host shouldn't mention racism, because 'with a more modern view of' racism,   "I don't see how this concept should be promoted in any way'? 

I am not saying that Eddie promoted anything.  I am saying that for the concept of unconditional love to apply to this movie, one has to come to terms with how that would relate to domestic violence.  I am attempting to discuss the film and the concepts it contains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw the promo The Narrow Margin (1952) Monday at 10:00AM (EST)

 

Marie Windsor - one of the great sexy tough broads of the movies in this film.

 

46eba707584a1625ba24efb8f4a10ec6--marie-

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that Eddie promoted anything.  I am saying that for the concept of unconditional love to apply to this movie, one has to come to terms with how that would relate to domestic violence.  I am attempting to discuss the film and the concepts it contains.

 

Laurel does initially does have unconditional love for Dixon.   This is made clear in the scene at the cop's house with his wife where she defends him.    Like a lot of women Laurel knows he has a violent temper but believes it will not be directed towards him (a folly associated with unconditional love).   After a few more incidences she realizes that it could be directed towards her and decides to leave him.    The ending makes clear that this was a wise decision.

 

Sadly this is fairly common behavior, yesterday and today.

 

PS:  I don't view unconditional love between parent and child as noble.   A common cocktail party question I will ask parents is 'would you bury the body?'.    I.e.  a son comes home with a body in the trunk and asks his father for help.   Does the parent call the police or help the son hide the body?     Most parents admit they would cover for their child because their love is unconditional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In a Lonely Place is all the better for it's almost murder; if Dixon had actually killed Laurel, it would have been just another violent crime movie ending.

The film is more tragic because Laurel lives (saved by the telephone call that "would have meant so much" if it had come just a few minutes earlier), letting the horror of what might have happened, and what was almost certainly going to happen, sink in for both Dix and Laurel.  

Obviously there is no way Laurel can stay with him after that.

 

Well Laurel, at least, has the self survival instincts to leave Dix. That wouldn't necessarily apply to some other women, unfortunately. They'd be back for more of the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurel does initially does have unconditional love for Dixon.   This is made clear in the scene at the cop's house with his wife where she defends him.    Like a lot of women Laurel knows he has a violent temper but believes it will not be directed towards him (a folly associated with unconditional love).   After a few more incidences she realizes that it could be directed towards her and decides to leave him.    The ending makes clear that this was a wise decision.

 

Sadly this is fairly common behavior, yesterday and today.

I would not refer to that form of relationship as unconditional love, I would refer to that as misguided love, which could occur because someone does not know another person well enough.  As you mention, her view of him ultimately changes as she sees the way he behaves.  In the parent-child relationship or married couple relationship one knows almost everything about the other and chooses to love them no matter what.

 

That is basically what my point is - Laurel is still learning who Dixon is and like anyone 'dating' another person, they should be able to opt out of the relationship at any time.  For me this situation does not illustrate an unconditional love situation, and it is problematic to try to apply it to this film because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not refer to that form of relationship as unconditional love, I would refer to that as misguided love, which could occur because someone does not know another person well enough.  As you mention, her view of him ultimately changes as she sees the way he behaves.  In the parent-child relationship or married couple relationship one knows almost everything about the other and chooses to love them no matter what.

 

That is basically what my point is - Laurel is still learning who Dixon is and like anyone 'dating' another person, they should be able to opt out of the relationship at any time.  For me this situation does not illustrate an unconditional love situation, and it is problematic to try to apply it to this film because of that.

 

We have a very different take on unconditional love.    In addition, to me, you overstate how much a parent or married person knows about their children \ spouse.      No one really ever knows what someone is capable of,  ever.     Just ask O.J.'s mother.    (who, due to unconditional love, still believes he was just misunderstood and didn't commit any crimes).

 

Based on your 'opt-out' comment it appears you believe once one has unconditional love,  that this love can never change.    I don't view it that way.      Therefore if one has my view of unconditional love,   Laurel can be viewed as a role model as it relates to that and domestic violence.     I.e.  if conditions change the wise person changes their view and their love is no longer unconditional and they leave the situation.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a very different take on unconditional love.    In addition, to me, you overstate how much a parent or married person knows about their children \ spouse.      No one really ever knows what someone is capable of,  ever.     Just ask O.J.'s mother.    (who, due to unconditional love, still believes he was just misunderstood and didn't commit any crimes).

 

Based on your 'opt-out' comment it appears you believe once one has unconditional love,  that this love can never change.    I don't view it that way.      Therefore if one has my view of unconditional love,   Laurel can be viewed as a role model as it relates to that and domestic violence.     I.e.  if conditions change the wise person changes their view and their love is no longer unconditional and they leave the situation.   

 

Sorry, but that is really twisting my words.

 

Isn't the whole point of the concept of unconditional love that it doesn't change?  By definition it can't be unconditional love if it changes when conditions change!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Laurel, at least, has the self survival instincts to leave Dix. That wouldn't necessarily apply to some other women, unfortunately. They'd be back for more of the same.

 

 

Yeah, and I believe in the parlance of Law Enforcement, this is known as a "domestic disturbance call", Tom. ;)

 

(...and something of which I understand our men and women in blue just LOVE responding to)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw the promo The Narrow Margin (1952) Monday at 10:00AM (EST)

 

Narrow%2BMargin%2B102.jpg"Sunburn wear off..... on the way out?"

 

The majority of the film takes place upon the RKO "Golden West Limited" set as it rattles and rolls through movie magic very believably towards Los Angeles.  It's a work of Studio/Stage/Special Effects Art, the great design of the various rail car sets, the lighting effects, plus an all immersive sound design. This is all intercut with second unit exterior location material and stock footage that convey the illusion of " the jornada", a road picture on rails. There are not many road pictures as tight as this one just judging it visually and audibly alone. One of my favorites 10/10

 SPOILERAMAS !

 

Ok, I like Narrow Margin a lot, too. And I agree, it has to be one of the best movies (in any genre, not just noir) set almost entirely on a train. Ya gotta love the tough-talking interplay between cynical street-hardened Charles McGraw and equally flinty Marie Windsor  (I love this noir lady - and as for toughness,she could give Anne Savage a run for her money...)

There are all kinds of fun little details in the film...the big fat guy who keeps blocking off the narrow train passageway from everybody,  the ultra-noir dialogue  (how can you not love a line like "She's the sixty cent special. Cheap. Flashy. Strictly poison under the gravy."?) , and damn, how about that loud trashy swing music Marie keeps playing in her train compartment?  And why does she keep drawing attention to herself in this way? Just to prove she's  trashy, the kind of woman who plays cheap popular music at full blast ? and  how come she's brought a record player onto a train? ( or is it a radio?)  Even back then, when train accommodation was roomier than it is now, that would have been kind of awkward.  But I enjoy the loud swing music thing, and the implication that anyone who plays that kind of music is trash.  ( A common device in old movies, especially noirs - show the person's shallow character by letting them listen to loud popular swing music. It always makes me laugh...)

 

Anyway, I'm digressing a bit. What I really wanted to say was -  SPOILER   -  of course we find out that the trashy fast-talking Marie Windsor is a police officer, set up as a decoy to confuse the would-be assassin and derail ( pun intended) him from killing the real gangster's wife.  What bothers me, a lot, actually, is that when poor old Marie is killed, Charles McGraw, even after he finds out who she really was, doesn't bat an eye. This woman risked her life - and lost it - in the line of duty, protecting a key witness, knowing that the odds of getting killed herself were high.

Yet does McGraw say one word in her favour? Does he express any regret for the nasty assumptions he made about her, and the rude way her treated her?  Nah. He's too busy trying to curry favour with the real gangster's wife - who of course is everything poor old Marie Windsor was not ( decorous, quiet, "decent"...)

Every time I see this film, I want him to give a speech about how wrong he was, how fine a person Windsor was for giving up her life so the wheels of justice McGraw claims to respect so much can keep turning. But nope, he just doesn't care.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that is really twisting my words.

 

Isn't the whole point of the concept of unconditional love that it doesn't change?  By definition it can't be unconditional love if it changes when conditions change!

 

"Love's not love

When it  is mingled with regards that stand

Aloof from th'entire point."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good point MissW(and welcome back, btw), and I also always got the impression that McGraw's character in this film was also a little slow on the ol' uptake quite often.

 

Maybe that's one of the reasons his character acts the way he does when he finally discovers the truth about Marie's character.

 

(...he can only juggle one concept in his mind at a time)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marie Windsor - one of the great sexy tough broads of the movies in this film.

 

46eba707584a1625ba24efb8f4a10ec6--marie-

 

Is it just me or does that picture of Marie Windsor make her look a little like Allison Janney?  (Played C.J. on The West Wing, among other roles.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second (NARROW MARGIN) 1990 lost my interest with the helicopter and actions sequences. Film Noir were fairly simple as soon as remakes forget that and get too ambitious they lose that overall Noir zeitgeist, in my opinion.

The second NARROW MARGIN lost my interest with Ann Archer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does that picture of Marie Windsor make her look a little like Allison Janney?  (Played C.J. on The West Wing, among other roles.)

 

And who is absolutely hilarious on the sitcom "Mom", btw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does that picture of Marie Windsor make her look a little like Allison Janney? (Played C.J. on The West Wing, among other roles.)

Holy Cats you are right!

 

(speaking of, I think Marie qualifies as part feline, in answer to your question about cats in noir, Cigar.)

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

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...