Jump to content

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

Noir Alley

Recommended Posts

"Love's not love

When it is mingled with regards that stand

Aloof from th'entire point."

It is an ever fixed mark, yeah sure.

That's lovely.

 

However...

 

While I have to admit that I personally have not dated a lot: from a personal standpoint, i securely say that my love comes with conditions, not many, but one of those conditions is that you not try to literally choke the life out of me.( **No matter how much you might want to.)

 

Call it a condition, call it a standard, call it what you will. But you just got to draw the line at some things.

 

My love ends there and then.

(...at attempted strangulation, that is.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an ever fixed mark, yeah sure.

That's lovely.

 

However...

 

While I have to admit that I personally have not dated a lot: from a personal standpoint, i securely say that my love comes with conditions, not many, but one of those conditions is that you not try to literally choke the life out of me.( **No matter how much you might want to.)

 

Call it a condition, call it a standard, call it what you will. But you just got to draw the line at some things.

 

My love ends there and then.

...at attempted strangulation, that is.

 

I take it "rule-of-thumb" wouldn't quite cover it then, right Lorna?! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Thank you, I went to refresh myself in re: the plot on the film's Wikipedia entry after I wrote that. I had forgotten that Garfield plays an out and out villain in it...was it the only time he ever played such a character?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it "rule-of-thumb" wouldn't quite cover it then, right Lorna?! ;)

Well again, in LITERAL terms...

 

(for the record, if someone was trying to choke the life out of me in METAPHORIC terms, I could forgive that and keep on loving them. We all do to that people we love to some degree in the end.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I went to refresh myself in re: the plot on the film's Wikipedia entry after I wrote that. I had forgotten that Garfield plays an out and out villain in it...was it the only time he ever played such a character?

 

Well, as I recall, Jules wasn't exactly "Mr. Cuddly" in his very last film, HE RAN ALL THE WAY, Lorna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I recall, Jules wasn't exactly "Mr. Cuddly" in his very last film, HE RAN ALL THE WAY, Lorna.

 

Thank you, Ive never seen that one.

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.)

Janney has won 7 Emmys.  Four for The West Wing and two for her role on the currently popular Mom.

And yes not that you mention it, they do resemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second NARROW MARGIN lost my interest with Ann Archer.

I liked her in that role and most others that she plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Ive never seen that one.

 

Garfield was a criminal in other films like Force of Evil (lawyer for the mob),  and Postman Always Rings Twice (of course) and Nobody Lives Forever (but going to war made him a better person). 

 

(and he wasn't actually a criminal in They Made Me a Criminal). 

 

In these other films the character of the person he way playing wasn't that of a thug and there were redeeming traits (sometimes these lead to salvation and other times not,  these being noir films).

 

 In Out of the Fog he is just a thug.     In He Ran All the Way he is a thug but he wasn't a hardcore one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Here is a partial answer from a Five-O interview:

 

Stanley Rubin (SR) What happened with "Narrow Margin" was kind of interesting. We finished the picture in '51. Howard Hughes had taken over the studio. He ran the finished cut, our cut of "Narrow Margin," one midnight, which was rather typical of Mr. Hughes. By the way, I never met him. I did get memos, but never met him in person. Hughes had bought the studio while we were making "Narrow Margin," but later he brought in Jerry Wald and Norman Krasna to head up production at the studio. In any case, Hughes ran the picture, which had gotten very good word of mouth already. I got a memo from Mr. Hughes, saying he thought it was a very good film, but that he wanted to hold it — instead of releasing it when it was due to be released, the memo stated that he wanted to hold it for a while and he wanted me to think about some way to turn "Narrow Margin," which we had shot for under $250,000 and in under 15 days, into an A-picture. Well, there wasn't any way to turn "Narrow Margin" into an A-picture unless you just scrubbed the picture and recast it with A-names and shot it all over again. I communicated that feeling to Mr. Hughes, but he persisted in thinking that there might be some way to turn it into a big picture. And he held it under his arm or in his vault for a year and that's why "Narrow Margin" was released a year, year and a half after it was finished.
 
Five-O: Was the Hughes cut much different from yours and Fleischer's?
SR: Hughes added at least one additonal heavy. I think Dick Fleischer shot those scenes. I was gone. I was already at Fox. Hughes added one heavy, and then he did another thing which was not smart, it was just an oversight, I guess, on his part and we didn't discover it until one night at Cinematheque at the Egyptian.
 
They ran "Narrow Margin" and someone asked: 'How come Charlie McGraw and Jacqueline White didn't go to pay their respects to Marie Windsor, who'd been shot and killed in the line of duty?' And I said, of course they stop to see her, before you saw them sneaking off the train to go down the tunnel to get into town. Well, we looked at the picture again and that scene had been removed. That moment we had shot was gone. That was a bad, bad, bad oversight on the part of Mr. Hughes. Nonetheless, the picture was a good picture. We were all very proud of it, and people were impressed with the performances, the pace, with the plot turns... The picture was screened by Darryl Zanuck and that motivated Fox to make me an offer to come over there. Dick Fleischer went on to do "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" for Disney. Both of those things came from "Narrow Margin."
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garfield was a criminal in other films like Force of Evil (lawyer for the mob),  and Postman Always Rings Twice (of course) and Nobody Lives Forever (but going to war made him a better person). 

 

I wouldn't call Garfield a criminal in Postman. He's an ordinary guy (with whom the audience identifies) drawn into murder through his love/lust for a woman. You can get all technical on me and say he becomes a murderer, that makes him a criminal, but it hardly compares to the professional thug he played in Out of the Fog, a guy actively exploiting and intimidating others for his own gain, or the thick witted robber he played in He Ran All the Way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an ever fixed mark, yeah sure.

That's lovely.

 

However...

 

While I have to admit that I personally have not dated a lot: from a personal standpoint, i securely say that my love comes with conditions, not many, but one of those conditions is that you not try to literally choke the life out of me.( **No matter how much you might want to.)

 

Call it a condition, call it a standard, call it what you will. But you just got to draw the line at some things.

 

My love ends there and then.

(...at attempted strangulation, that is.)

 

LOL. Not unreasonable..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second NARROW MARGIN lost my interest with Ann Archer.

 

 

Yeah, the character was a lot less interesting than Marie's.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

 

 

Someone posted some years ago here, there was a scene about that, but it got cut. That used to bother me too. Everyone forgets about her at the end. Dunno why they cut that scene!

 

And McGraw's character was no saint either. He was tempted at one point to take the money and look the other way.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an ever fixed mark, yeah sure.

That's lovely.

 

However...

 

While I have to admit that I personally have not dated a lot: from a personal standpoint, i securely say that my love comes with conditions, not many, but one of those conditions is that you not try to literally choke the life out of me.( **No matter how much you might want to.)

 

Call it a condition, call it a standard, call it what you will. But you just got to draw the line at some things.

 

My love ends there and then.

(...at attempted strangulation, that is.)

 

Well, I really just wanted an excuse to quote that beautiful line from King Lear. Cordelia's just been dumped by her fiance when he finds out Lear isn't giving Cordelia any money (well, Lear doesn't quite put it like that), so the king of France speaks up and says he'll be happy to marry the young lady  ("She is herself a dowry." )   I've always liked that scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I really just wanted an excuse to quote that beautiful line from King Lear. Cordelia's just been dumped by her fiance when he finds out Lear isn't giving Cordelia any money (well, Lear doesn't quite put it like that), so the king of France speaks up and says he'll be happy to marry the young lady ("She is herself a dowry." ) I've always liked that scene.

Oh shoot, I thought it was from SONNET 114(116?) "Love is not love which alters where it alteration finds" (?)

 

I've been SHAKESPEARED!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Cats you are right!

 

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

 

 

Allison Janney:

 

allison-janney-2.jpg

 

 

 

Marie Windsor:

 

mariewindsor_bellestarr.jpg

 

 

 

Cat:

 

our-cat-shop-image.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shoot, I thought it was from SONNET 114(116?) "Love is not love which alters where it alteration finds" (?)

 

I've been SHAKESPEARED!

 

Well, here's the thing with Shakespeare, Lorna baby...he wasn't above plagiarizing his own stuff. He probably liked that "love is not love" line so much, he decided to recycle it.

So we're both right.

 

Shakespeare-TShirt-(8254).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait...today?

I thought today was supernatural day, I'm watching BLITHE SPIRIT right nOW

I forgot it's going to be on Monday, when I posted about it yesterday i was under the impression it was the next day but it wasn't Sunday was it  :D

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...