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

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Vautrin said:

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.

If I remember right one of the Chandler novels or short stories features an ice pick killer too.  At one point in time an ice pick was a common household kitchen utensil after all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

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.

I know, I know,  it's really tacky to quote your own posts.  I apologize.  But honestly, I was a bit surprised that no one here picked up on that idea about how many noirs have titles that don't  say anything as to what they're actually about.   don't you guys agree about that?  And wouldn't it be kind of a fun idea for us to "re-name" some of these films that have almost no connection between title and story?    oh well...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

If I remember right one of the Chandler novels or short stories features an ice pick killer too.  At one point in time an ice pick was a common household kitchen utensil after all.

An ice pick in 1992 a common household item as in Basic instinct? OK.   You guys ( other than MissW) have missed the points I made. It wasn't just about the ice pick, so many other similiarities are there that are being overlooked but if that's all you got to prove your point, so be it. As far as I'm concerned it's a weak argument  only focusing on the ice pick and the stubborness here makes a disagreement futile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TomJH said:

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).

 

Well, this is the kind of thing we could argue til the cows come home  (where are those cows off to ,   anyway?)  and of course not arrive at a consensus, since it's all subjective.

I will just say,  I wasn't really talking so much about Janis Carter's physical beauty and comparing it to legendary beauties like Rita Hayworth or Ava Gardner  (and yes, you're right,  I don't think Ava's  "all that" either, but I know everyone else thinks she is...)

No, I was thinking more about that indefinable something that some film actors have,  "screen presence"  or "magnetism" or whatever you want to call it.  Often it has nothing at all to do with looks per sec.  (  For instance,  I always thought Barbara Stanwyck had "it", and she's not traditionally "beautiful".)

I also maintain my earlier stance that Jill isn't the most interesting character in Night Editor.  .Just because she's amoral and kind of kinky doesn't make her "interesting" to me.  She's too  amoral and "bad",  there's no nuance or depth to her character.  I agree that Tony Cochrane is pretty stodgy in comparison,  and the actor who plays him didn't set the world on fire or anything.  But at least, as I said before,  there's a bit of conflict  in his psyche,  whereas Jill is just a one-note kinky nasty selfish shallow woman.  (I know that sounds like I don't like her,  and I don't,  but there are plenty of nasty selfish women in noir who I do like, or at least find interesting....)

Anyway, as someone here noted a few posts back,  it's great that the first offering on Noir Alley has elicited all this discussion.  Let's hope Danger Signal does the same!

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

I know, I know,  it's really tacky to quote your own posts.  I apologize. 

I don't do this often but if I feel that provides info that might help the present post I'm working on, then I will unabashedly quote myself. I don't think it is inherently "tacky." But it can be if it used too often and if it self-serving in some way. Two cents. 

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

Well, this is the kind of thing we could argue til the cows come home  (where are those cows off to ,   anyway?)  and of course not arrive at a consensus, since it's all subjective.

I will just say,  I wasn't really talking so much about Janis Carter's physical beauty and comparing it to legendary beauties like Rita Hayworth or Ava Gardner  (and yes, you're right,  I don't think Ava's  "all that" either, but I know everyone else thinks she is...)

No, I was thinking more about that indefinable something that some film actors have,  "screen presence"  or "magnetism" or whatever you want to call it.  Often it has nothing at all to do with looks per sec.  (  For instance,  I always thought Barbara Stanwyck had "it", and she's not traditionally "beautiful".)

 

Janis Carter initially hoped to be a singer in the movies. She can be briefly glimpsed as one of a chorus of beauties in I Married An Angel, a Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy operetta.

IMarriedanAngel13.jpg

While I agree with you that she doesn't have that extra magical charismatic something in Night Editor, one of her first major efforts, neither did Rita or Ava in some of their earliest roles. That doesn't mean it necessarily would have come with time either but the truth is Carter never got the star push by a major studio that Hayworth and Gardner eventually received. It's been years since I saw it, though, so I could stand to be corrected, but I saw her in a crime drama, Framed (1947), with Glenn Ford, and she favourably impressed me.

You got to give her credit for one thing, though. She took a very nice publicity shot.

MV5BMmNlOGM1MzUtY2JlYS00ODBmLWFlODMtMWQz

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

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.

This is not the first time I have seen Night Editor and I never thought she was sexually aroused by the murder or wanting to see a dead body.  Still don't.  I think it was part of her character that she wanted to see something she had never seen before.  The body of a human viciously murdered right after it happened.

I still don't know what scene Eddie spoke about.  None of the three(?) discussed seem to show all that sexual arousal and violence.  As for Jill (Carter), it is more than just her beauty, but also the dangerous sexuality and total domination of the relationship.  Gargan was a wuss.  

42 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Well, this is the kind of thing we could argue til the cows come home  (where are those cows off to ,   anyway?)  and of course not arrive at a consensus, since it's all subjective.

I will just say,  I wasn't really talking so much about Janis Carter's physical beauty and comparing it to legendary beauties like Rita Hayworth or Ava Gardner  (and yes, you're right,  I don't think Ava's  "all that" either, but I know everyone else thinks she is...)

No, I was thinking more about that indefinable something that some film actors have,  "screen presence"  or "magnetism" or whatever you want to call it.  Often it has nothing at all to do with looks per sec.  (  For instance,  I always thought Barbara Stanwyck had "it", and she's not traditionally "beautiful".)

I also maintain my earlier stance that Jill isn't the most interesting character in Night Editor.  .Just because she's amoral and kind of kinky doesn't make her "interesting" to me.  She's too  amoral and "bad",  there's no nuance or depth to her character.  I agree that Tony Cochrane is pretty stodgy in comparison,  and the actor who plays him didn't set the world on fire or anything.  But at least, as I said before,  there's a bit of conflict  in his psyche,  whereas Jill is just a one-note kinky nasty selfish shallow woman.  (I know that sounds like I don't like her,  and I don't,  but there are plenty of nasty selfish women in noir who I do like, or at least find interesting....)

Anyway, as someone here noted a few posts back,  it's great that the first offering on Noir Alley has elicited all this discussion.  Let's hope Danger Signal does the same!

See my comment above re: Janis Carter's attraction in this movie.

I don't think there were any standout characters in this movie and maybe it was meant to be that way.  They all did good jobs, but nobody was spectacular.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, laffite said:

I don't do this often but if I feel that provides info that might help the present post I'm working on, then I will unabashedly quote myself. I don't think it is inherently "tacky." But it can be if it used too often and if it self-serving in some way. Two cents. 

Ok, laffite, thanks.  But what I'm really interested in, and the reason why I quoted myself, was I wanted to generate or at least see if there was  interest in my idea about how often film noir titles don't really match the film,  sometimes the titles are quite random, as though nobody could think of anything that fit the story. Now, sometimes the title really works, as in "Out of the Past" or "Double Indemnity", to give two really obvious examples.

But often  -  and as is the case with "Night Editor"  (although yes, we did discuss why it might have been called that) - the title of the movie doesn't seem to have much or any connection with the story or ideas in the film.  A couple of examples of this are  "I Wake Up Screaming"  and "Too Late for Tears"; intriguing though these titles are, they seem random and don't say much about the film itself.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong about this.  I just know there've been   lots of times when I've watched a noir and afterwards wondered where the frig they got the title from.

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

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong about this.  I just know there've been   lots of times when I've watched a noir and afterwards wondered where the frig they got the title from.

It might be a good idea, as a matter of course, to check the book (if any) that it might have based on. Perhaps they just simply use the title of the book, then change the story so much the title no longer applies.

:lol:

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

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.

I have seen both films, though it's been a while since I've seen Basic Instinct, which is why I took a look at

the plot summary. The death by ice pick thing seems to be the thing that jumped out at people, though

there were other similarities. Those other similarities are just standard characters who appear in any

number of crime films and I'm not surprised they appeared in both films. I find it totally possible that the

people behind Basic Instinct could come up with that idea on their own without having have seen Night Editor,

which isn't exactly a well-known movie. I just find it somewhat silly that on such a tenuous basis one film

was supposedly copied from another one, one that came out so long before the later film. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

If I remember right one of the Chandler novels or short stories features an ice pick killer too.  At one point in time an ice pick was a common household kitchen utensil after all.

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure that between 1946 and 1992 there was a person killed by an ice pick

in a movie. Maybe they saw Night Editor too.

 

Maybe they should have titled Night Editor Ex-Cop Selling Cigs. That would have

lured people in.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

If I remember right one of the Chandler novels or short stories features an ice pick killer too.  At one point in time an ice pick was a common household kitchen utensil after all.

 If I remember correctly there is a film were someone was killed by an ice making machine.    Isn't that where neo-noir started?

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, you guys are very funny. Voyeurs, flaunting other lovers in front of the current lover. cops as the femme fatale's lovers, an ice pick that's used in an attempted murder while being held in an intimate way and the other femme fatale about to use that ice pick while being intimate with her lover and both those gals never being satisfied  so they have to look for the next thril. Please let us know if you can think of some noir titles that have all of those same plot points.

I find  it incredible that you can't imagine that a screenwriter and a film director watched a noir even one that isn't well known. Of course it's possible they thought this one up without any other film influencing them,, I introduced the possibly  that one was influenced by the othe rbut you guys are hell bent on nixing that idea, hey, that's my story and  I'm sticking to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SPOILERS!!!!

 

 

The Ending Flirts a bit with being akin to a film noir episode of POLICE SQUAD!


I kept waiting for William Gargan to start trying to do charades Since all the cops were clearly too dense to see he had JUST been stabbed in the back.

First word? Sounds like? (Guy makes stabbing motion)...

Link to post
Share on other sites

SPOILERS CONTINUED

 

a Better ending would’ve been if the idiot cops never realize that Cochran has been stabbed in the back with an ice pick, comment on how overworked and pale he is, “You’re dead on your feet buddy”; put him in the back of a squad car, and take him home where his  emotionally distant wife puts him to bed, and all the while NOT ONE OF THEM notices he’s DEAD until fours days later when he starts to stink up the joint. 
 

THE END

 

(now THAT is NOIR!)

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, laffite said:

It might be a good idea, as a matter of course, to check the book (if any) that it might have based on. Perhaps they just simply use the title of the book, then change the story so much the title no longer applies.

:lol:

Well, actually laffite,  I'd thought it could be a kind of game here, where all us noir afficionados here could name a film noir with a puzzling title  (not really related to the story) and then we'd all try and come up with a better, more suitable title.    However, clearly I'm the only one who's thought of this, and the idea's a flop.

 I wasn't really  thinking of researching the origins of the film title  (good idea, though.)

not being self-pitying.  It might not be that great an idea after all.  Just out of curiosity,  I looked up a list of classic noir film titles,  and not all that many were a "disconnect" to the film after all.    oh well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have now just finished watching it on YouTube. 

And my impressions of it were pretty much exactly the same as what Tom posted 8 hours ago , and that first, while Janis Carter was no Rita or Ava, I thought she played the femme fatale pretty well overall, and that William Gargan performance while adequate, left a little bit to be desired.

Secondly, and at about half way through it, I began thinking how much better the film would have been if only it were made just a few years later and would have instead starred Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer.

Thirdly, yeah, I suppose there is a little connection with this film and with that of the Sharon Stone movie. A little.

(...AND while I missed Eddie's comments this week, once I read in this thread that he stated there was a scene in which he thought would've been considered shocking for its time, I would think it would HAVE to be the scene were an excited Janis Carter wanted to see the dead girl's body)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dargo said:

I too have now just finished watching it on YouTube. 

And my impressions of it were pretty much exactly the same as what Tom posted 8 hours ago , and that first, while Janis Carter was no Rita or Ava, I thought she played the femme fatale pretty well overall, and that William Gargan performance while adequate, left a little bit to be desired.

Secondly, and at about half way through it, I began thinking how much better the film would have been if only it were made just a few years later and would have instead starred Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer.

Thirdly, yeah, I suppose there is a little connection with this film and with that of the Sharon Stone movie. A little.

(...AND while I missed Eddie's comments this week, once I read in this thread that he stated there was a scene in which he thought would've been considered shocking for its time, I would think it would HAVE to be the scene were an excited Janis Carter wanted to see the dead girl's body)

 

So ,  you're in the   "that scene Eddie was talking about is the one where Jill wants to see the murdered girl's dead body"  camp,  Dargs?  Guess that's the majority opinion here.  I guess I'm just remembering how Eddie joked, in his "afterward" commentary,  that it would have been awkward taking your 10 year old to see "Night Editor",  how would you explain "the scene" to the kid?    My guess is, a kid wouldn't question all that much a woman wanting to see a freshly murdered body,  but he or she might ask their parent why the lady asked the hero to kiss her and then stabbed him in the back while he did so.

Actually,  although I like Eddie Muller a lot, and always enjoy his commentaries,  I do think in this case he was really "over the top" in his enthusiastic discussion of the "kinky" Jill Merrill and her lustful ways.  He really built up an expectation in his intro that just wasn't fulfilled  (IMO.)

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...