Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, TomJH said:

I was a little disappointed by the writing of the film's resolution. We don't know what happens to Carter or the murderer. And after the film was over I was still trying to figure out the title. Okay, a night editor tells the story. So what? His character rates being the title of the movie? Still, I thought it was a good little film, with Janis Carter effective in her role. It's always enjoyable making discoveries of good, unpretentious little films like this that are rarely seen.

Didn't Eddie explain it as a "framing" set-up,  with the newspaper guys who work in the middle of the night hanging around playing poker and swapping stories?  And since it was originally conceived as a series  (like "The Whistler" or something along those lines),  they could have had a different story every time, with the framing set-up of the night editor guys listening to some woeful tale whilst playing poker.

Also, as james said,  they got the idea from the radio show of the same name.  But I think even the radio show was referring to the idea of a bunch of graveyard shift newspaper writers /editors  hanging out  in their newspaper office in the middle of the night and swapping stories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, laffite said:

"But in both cases she didn't get a good look at the bodies and for two weeks after babbled nearly incoherently about wanting to see the bodies while laughing hysterically. Hey, Where's Johnny?

That's right, laffite, of course there's an ice pick murder in Scarlet Street.  I thought of mentioning it before, but it doesn't have much in common with the other two films with ice pick stabbings being discussed here, so I didn't  (til now.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, as usual,  I'm going to be perverse  (  perverse, dammit, not perverted !)  and say that I don't get this thing a lot of you guys here have for Janis Carter.  Yeah, sure, if I saw her in real life, I'd think she was a good-looking woman.  But maybe because we see so many exceptionally good-looking women in Hollywood movies,  she doesn't stand out to me. Her looks seem kind of ordinary, actually.  She doesn't seem any sexier than a multitude of noir ladies I've seen in these kinds of films.

Her acting is good, no problem with that. But I just don't get all you guys drooling over her.  She doesn't have screen persona, or magnetism, or whatever it's called, as far as I'm concerned.   And I don't agree that she's the most interesting character in the film;  she's too broadly drawn for that.  To me, the most interesting character is Tony Cochrane, who at least shows a bit of conflict, a wider range of emotions, than Jill.    (so sue me.)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

That's right, laffite, of course there's an ice pick murder in Scarlet Street.  I thought of mentioning it before, but it doesn't have much in common with the other two films with ice pick stabbings being discussed here, so I didn't  (til now.)

Not that Johnny. The one in Night Editor.  Johnny disappears from the room and the narrator in the editor's chair notices that Johnny disappears and says, "Where Johnny?" I submit that as the follow-up to the made-up little dittie about Jill in prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Didn't Eddie explain it as a "framing" set-up,  with the newspaper guys who work in the middle of the night hanging around playing poker and swapping stories?  And since it was originally conceived as a series  (like "The Whistler" or something along those lines),  they could have had a different story every time, with the framing set-up of the night editor guys listening to some woeful tale whilst playing poker.

Also, as james said,  they got the idea from the radio show of the same name.  But I think even the radio show was referring to the idea of a bunch of graveyard shift newspaper writers /editors  hanging out  in their newspaper office in the middle of the night and swapping stories.

Yeah, I think Eddie may have said that. But the title of the film is still a misnomer, in my opinion, since anyone would assume the film to be a newspaper drama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

ut maybe because we see so many exceptionally good-looking women in Hollywood movies,  she doesn't stand out to me. Her looks seem kind of ordinary, actually.  She doesn't seem any sexier than a multitude of noir ladies I've seen in these kinds of films.

I said above in my first post that Carter did not move me/ She's clearly fatal but only her actions as stated dispassionately. But her screen presence was not extraordinary to me. So, I agree with you on this.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TomJH said:

Yeah, I think Eddie may have said that. But the title of the film is still a misnomer, in my opinion, since anyone would assume the film to be a newspaper drama.

But perhaps not back then. Night Editor would have perhaps been known (as MissW suggests), especially if it was on radio. So it's not really a misnomer. It only seems like that today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, laffite said:

But perhaps not back then. Night Editor would have perhaps been known, especially if it was on radio. So it's not really a misnomer. It only seems like that today.

I suppose but you have to know about its radio origin (which very few today will know), otherwise it makes little sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TomJH said:

I suppose but you have to know about its radio origin (which very few today will know), otherwise it makes little sense.

But Tom ... it doesn't need to make sense in the way you suggest ... We, as old-movie buffs, have learned to suspend judgement on stuff regarding the oldies, like titles, mores, norms, etc. And once we get the word, i.e. Night Editor was something known and had its conventions (that we wouldn't necessarily know about now) we we can see that it surely made sense back then. Isn't that enough? No mo on this from me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:

Yeah, and again there's that voyeurism. Sharon does the same thing in Basic Instinct to Michael only this time with Dorothy Malone. 

Of course the audience saw a bit more of Sharon Stone than they did of Janis Carter. I'm not sure that the

screenwriter or director of Basic Instinct were influenced by Night Editor. The ice pick may just have

been organic to the whole plot of Basic Instinct. While there are superficial similarities, I don't know

it there was any actual connection between Night Editor and Basic Instinct, especially there being a

more than forty year gap between the two movies. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes, with these noirs that have titles that don't always connect much with the movie, I try to think of other more appropriate titles for them.  But it's hard !

Maybe, for Night Editor, we could have something like "No Way Back", since despite Tony's efforts to extricate himself from the situation he's in, he just seems to get deeper and deeper into trouble?    

Or how about "Dilemma"?  Tony Cochrane, through his own past behaviour, finds himself unable to act because by revealing the truth, he risks his own reputation and private life (his marriage, etc.)    Yet his job, his  conscience, and his own personal set of ethics all call for him to set things right.

I dunno, it's fun but hard to think of alternative film noir titles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Of course the audience saw a bit more of Sharon Stone than they did of Janis Carter. I'm not sure that the

screenwriter or director of Basic Instinct were influenced by Night Editor. The ice pick may just have

been organic to the whole plot of Basic Instinct. While there are superficial similarities, I don't know

it there was any actual connection between Night Editor and Basic Instinct, especially there being a

more than forty year gap between the two movies. 

If the screenwriter saw Night Editor,  and I have have no doubt he did, it wasn't just the ice pick. Again, 2 beautiful, rich, psychopathic blondes who were overly  se-x-ual and are voyeurs and get involved with cops. Remember Garagan and Douglas are both cops obsessed with these women .That's more than superficial.  Sharon's character also gets bored easily and is always looking for thrills, just like Janis' character. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Of course the audience saw a bit more of Sharon Stone than they did of Janis Carter. I'm not sure that the

screenwriter or director of Basic Instinct were influenced by Night Editor. The ice pick may just have

been organic to the whole plot of Basic Instinct. While there are superficial similarities, I don't know

it there was any actual connection between Night Editor and Basic Instinct, especially there being a

more than forty year gap between the two movies. 

But a lot of more recent directors were familiar with older movies.  (Look at Martin Scorsese, for one.)  And Paul Verhoeven strikes me as the kind of director who would have sought out old noir movies-  he made a lot of "neo-noirs"  himself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

But a lot of more recent directors were familiar with older movies.  (Look at Martin Scorsese, for one.)  And Paul Verhoeven strikes me as the kind of director who would have sought out old noir movies-  he made a lot of "neo-noirs"  himself.

Dorothy Malone made sure he watched The Big Sleep.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lavenderblue19 said:

If the screenwriter saw Night Editor,  and I have have no doubt he did, it wasn't just the ice pick. Again, 2 beautiful, rich, psychopathic blondes who were overly  se-x-ual and are voyeurs and get involved with cops. Remember Garagan and Douglas are both cops obsessed with these women .That's more than superficial.  Sharon's character also gets bored easily and is always looking for thrills, just like Janis' character. 

The rich, bored, sexy, nutso with a clueless hubby is kind of a noir/crime stereotype, though she isn't always a blonde.

The cop who goes gaga over a woman involved in a crime he is investigating is pretty familiar also. I haven't seen Basic

Instinct in a while, so I took a quick look at the plot. Unlike Night Editor, neither Douglas or Stone is married. Stone is

a novelist who makes her own living while Carter seems to leech off men, nttawwt. And apparently Stone isn't even

the killer. So there are just as many superficial differences as there are superficial similarities between the two movies.

Now whether the people who made Basic Instinct had seen Night Editor and copied some of its plot and characters

I don't know. It's possible, but I find it just as likely that any similarities are coincidental and not the result of one

film "borrowing" from the other. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:

But a lot of more recent directors were familiar with older movies.  (Look at Martin Scorsese, for one.)  And Paul Verhoeven strikes me as the kind of director who would have sought out old noir movies-  he made a lot of "neo-noirs"  himself.

That's certainly true, though I think Scorsese was more obsessive about watching old movies than other

directors. Whether Verhoeven ever saw Night Editor before and "copied" parts of it for Basic Instinct

I have no idea. I just don't see any necessary connection between the two films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I disagree. I see it and so does Miss W. I had already written that Sharon's character  was an updated, modern day woman.  I never wrote they were exact copies of each ,other,I'm saying that one was  most likely inspired by the other . Both women are psychotic, both have an ice pick and both are voyeurs and both are overly sex-ual. You commented some posts ago that she deeply kissed her husband in front of Gargan. That's  just as Sharon's character, flaunting Dorothy Malone's character in front of Michael and both male leads are portraying cops .  btw, you write Sharon isn't the killer, except the story ends with the shot of the ice pick under the bed while they are in bed together,and we are lead to believe Michael is going to get it. Never said the stories are exactly the same,  for me it's more than coincidence that their basic characters are so similiar. It's fine that you don't see " necessary" connections, Maybe rewatch Basic Instinct, I do see those connections.

 

edited by me

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chaya bat woof woof said:

Lavender:  Fortunately, in noir movies of an earlier era, femme fatales didn't expose their private parts. 

Only in the censored by the Legion of Decency and the MPPC Hollywood films, you should read the source novels. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:

Well, I disagree. I see it and so does Miss W. I had already written that Sharon's character  was an updated, modern day woman.  I never wrote they were exact copies of each ,other,I'm saying that one was  most likely inspired by the other . Both women are psychotic, both have an ice pick and both are voyeurs and both are overly sex-ual. You commented some posts ago that she deeply kissed her husband in front of Gargan. That's  just as Sharon's character, flaunting Dorothy Malone's character in front of Michael and both male leads are portraying cops .  btw, you write Sharon isn't the killer, except the story ends with the shot of the ice pick under the bed while they are in bed together,and we are lead to believe Michael is going to get it. Never said the stories are exactly the same,  for me it's more than coincidence that their basic characters are so similiar. It's fine that you don't see " necessary" connections, Maybe rewatch Basic Instinct, I do see those connections.

 

edited by me

As I've already noted, these characters, while they're individuals, are also classic noir/crime types that one

might expect to show up in this genre. That doesn't equate with one movie with such characters being

influenced by a particular earlier movie with similar characters. That's why any such similarities don't lead

me to think that the earlier movie influenced the later. I find it perfectly plausible that the one has nothing

to do with the other. It was the Jeanne Tripplehorn character that was the actual murderer, at least according 

to the plot summary.  And in Night Editor the ice pick just happens to be handy; in Basic Instinct it's part of

the killer's MO.  So while there are similarities I don't see them as evidence that the earlier movie was an

influence on the later one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all entitled to believe and see what we want. Personally, I don't care. We'll never know for sure whether one film influenced the other. I believe that Night Editor had some influence on Basic Instinct and as much as you want to argue the point, in the long run it doesn't matter. I might suggest you actually see both films not just read summaries. You focus on the ice pick in your statement, there are other similiar plot points you are not addressing that I mentioned., In any case, I have no problem with you believing what you believe, please respect my opinion and let's leave it at that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok, I'll bite....there's been some discussion here as to which scene,  exactly,  Eddie was referring to.  If you're sure which one it was  ( there's been at least 3 suggested so far), please tell us.

ps:  I like Eddie's little tiki bar set-up.  Of course he doesn't imbibe all that alcohol himself, he has shapely dangerous ladies to help him with that.

The part where Jill is desperate to see the dead body, desperate to the point of climax.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one thing I'm sure of about all these comments and conclusions. We were all "Noir starved". I don't recall this much chatter about a Noir Alley film in quite awhile. If NIGHT EDITOR can generate this many posts imagine what's in store for the coming attractions.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok, as usual,  I'm going to be perverse  (  perverse, dammit, not perverted !)  and say that I don't get this thing a lot of you guys here have for Janis Carter.  Yeah, sure, if I saw her in real life, I'd think she was a good-looking woman.  But maybe because we see so many exceptionally good-looking women in Hollywood movies,  she doesn't stand out to me. Her looks seem kind of ordinary, actually.  She doesn't seem any sexier than a multitude of noir ladies I've seen in these kinds of films.

Her acting is good, no problem with that. But I just don't get all you guys drooling over her.  She doesn't have screen persona, or magnetism, or whatever it's called, as far as I'm concerned.   And I don't agree that she's the most interesting character in the film;  she's too broadly drawn for that.  To me, the most interesting character is Tony Cochrane, who at least shows a bit of conflict, a wider range of emotions, than Jill.    (so sue me.)

 

It's a guy thing. 😀

As for the Basic Instinct connection, I don't see it.  Of the thousands and thousands and thousands of movies and TV shows made, there are always similarities between some of them.  Doesn't necessarily mean the screenwriter saw the other one when he wrote his or hers.  Did the screenwriter(s) for Basic Instinct see Night Editor and copy parts of it?  

As for the scene which Eddie mentioned, only he knows what he was talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok, as usual,  I'm going to be perverse  (  perverse, dammit, not perverted !)  and say that I don't get this thing a lot of you guys here have for Janis Carter.  Yeah, sure, if I saw her in real life, I'd think she was a good-looking woman.  But maybe because we see so many exceptionally good-looking women in Hollywood movies,  she doesn't stand out to me. Her looks seem kind of ordinary, actually.  She doesn't seem any sexier than a multitude of noir ladies I've seen in these kinds of films.

Her acting is good, no problem with that. But I just don't get all you guys drooling over her.  She doesn't have screen persona, or magnetism, or whatever it's called, as far as I'm concerned.   And I don't agree that she's the most interesting character in the film;  she's too broadly drawn for that.  To me, the most interesting character is Tony Cochrane, who at least shows a bit of conflict, a wider range of emotions, than Jill.    (so sue me.)

 

I don't know that anyone here was ranking Janis Carter alongside Rita or Ava when it came to the female oomph factor (for that matter, didn't you once question what guys see in Ava Gardner, too, MissW?). But her psychopathic portrayal (along with her undeniably attractive appearance) clearly makes her a more interesting (as well as intriguing) character than the detective. And Carter's performance is effective, even if not in quite the same league as some other screen femme fatales. The fact that her character is wackier than most (heck, who's wackier?) plays a big role.

William Gargan is not the most interesting or charismatic of actors though his largely deadpan portrayal is serviceable and doesn't hurt the film. To be honest, though, I half wondered what Carter saw in Gargan in the first place. Just the element of danger by doing it with a married man who's also a cop, I suppose. This is a character in a constant search for the newest psycho erotic thrill ride (as opposed to, say, Gilda who turns out to be a "good girl" who likes to tease).

65378538.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 4:34 PM, Janet0312 said:

I thoroughly enjoyed this morning's noir and knew right away what scene Eddie was referring to. 

Me  (MIssW)     "Ok, I'll bite....there's been some discussion here as to which scene,  exactly,  Eddie was referring to.  If you're sure which one it was  ( there's been at least 3 suggested so far), please tell us."

Janet0312   "the part where Jill is desperate to see the dead body, desperate to the point of climax."

(sorry, I couldn't seem to get the multiple quote function to work.)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You know,   I seem to be the only person  here who does not think Jill was sexually excited at the idea of seeing a recently murdered dead body.   I just did not pick up that she was aroused by the idea.  I agree, she definitely was interested in seeing that body, but I got the feeling it was more morbid curiosity than erotic excitement. She struck me as just being kind of willful and whiney about it,  like a bratty kid,  ("I wanna see!") rather than all charged up about it.

It makes a lot more sense to me that Eddie was referring to the penultimate scene in which Jill asks Tony to kiss her "one last time" ,  and then, while he's kissing her, stabs an ice pick into his back.  Although even that,  she doesn't look all that sexually worked up to me.  

I've also heard someone suggest that it's the scene where Jill and Tony are on the couch in Jill's mansion and she tries to entice him back to be her sexual slave again, the way I gather he was before the film actually begins.  They have a weird conversation,  but I can't remember the details.

It's interesting that Eddie was so confident we'd all know the scene he was talking about, when he said something that suggested it was an outrageous  (especially for 1946)  exhibition of sexual arousal and violence, very kinky.  He said we'd all know the scene when we saw it.  Yet there's some disagreement around which scene it actually is, so  clearly it's not as obvious as Eddie seemed to think.

I will say, although I liked the film,   I really  don't get all this talk about how steamy the relationship between Cochrane and Jill was, and how Jill  (Carter) just exudes dangerous sex simply by her very presence.  I didn't think  either character was all that sexy, not even in a kinky way,  and I think this whole "decadent sex" thing has been exaggerated.

Having said that, I'm open to a re-read of the film, including re-viewing that   "I want to see !"  scene.  (Still,  "desperate to the point of climax"  ???  )  Maybe I need to see Night Editor again.

  • Like 1
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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...