love

Author Topic: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017  (Read 18230 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2017, 10:50:58 PM »
I threw it in there so I could make this. Wasn't think of it as Noir, though it is a murder-mystery. Winter's Bone felt more Noir, but it's a small step from that to Frozen River to Wind River.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2017, 12:26:51 AM »
Because there are only 13 titles to go, I'm aiming to complete the list of 250 Quintessential Noir Films. Films I want to post about remain few and far between. The biggest disappointment this month is Edge of Doom, which I is the 2nd highest rated MartinTeller Noir I hadn't seen. (#1: Female on the Beach.) My problem wasn't even Farley Granger's performance. It was the mixture of manly melodrama and a very unsubtle application of Christianity. Also one of the most lifeless Dana Andrews performances, but I don't know if anybody could've made his character interesting.

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2017, 01:00:01 AM »
Is It Always Rains on Sunday on that list? Has anyone seen it besides PeacefulAnarchy?

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

ProperCharlie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Am I right sir? Ithangyou.
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2017, 04:56:27 AM »
Is It Always Rains on Sunday on that list? Has anyone seen it besides PeacefulAnarchy?

pixote

I saw It Always Rains on Sunday three or four years ago during a BFI season that in my mind was a Sydney Tafler retrospective, but probably wasn't.

I enjoyed it.  It's a bleak, mean little film that nevertheless still manages to offer a comforting sense of law and order and of community in a country that's trying to get back on its feet.  Cinematically it is poised on the cusp of at least three different genres.  It's been called a noir, and it is a noir, but it's also at the tail-end of the Jack Warner police procedurals, and a harbinger of the kitchen sink dramas to come.  All those 1940s, post-war, war films are hanging there in the background as a contrast as well.

The thing that most stands out in my memory is the wonderful photography and the use it makes of a bombed out, wet, foggy and cold Bethnal Green. 






In the words of Nigel Tufnel, soon to be born in nearby Squatney at the time this film was made, "How much noir could this image be?  The answer is none.  None more noir."  Worth watching if you can get hold of it.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 05:08:40 AM by ProperCharlie »

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2017, 05:07:55 AM »
Ha, thank you for plagiarizing my unwritten review. Saves me time. :)

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2017, 07:58:16 PM »

The Midnight Story (1957)

A couple of days ago I complained about Edge of Doom, which makes the murder of a priest into a religious melodrama. This one also centers around the murder of a priest, but it takes the form of a police investigation with a lead character whose spiritual guidance keeps him from making bad decisions. Basically, where Edge of Doom preaches, this one puts religious ideals into practice.

It's anchored by an unusually strong performance by Tony Curtis. (I don't not like him, but he's rarely this good.) He makes uneasy friends with lead suspect Gilbert Roland (also well above his average.) There is a daughter played by Marisa Pavan, an actress I'm not familiar with. She's like Anne Bancroft or Natalie Wood in West Side Story. In other words, she's great and I'd like to see more of her work. There's also the great Jay C. Flippen (in uniform below) who is never bad in anything.


The story beats are very familiar with Roland going back and forth from looking totally innocent to appearing completely guilty. The friendship between him and Curtis starts in a most unbelievable way and for a while this crippled the film, but it learns to walk on the strength of the performances and by the end it even manages to fly.
Rating: * * * - Okay





The Missing Juror (1944)

Typical of what I've been watching this month. The story is designed around a big reveal, however there's a character wearing a very obvious disguise and the moment they show up, you know the magician's trick and just wait for it and wait for it. Directed by Budd Boetticher, who doesn't like to take time establishing... anything. That's a blessing in under 70 minutes, but it also feels like he couldn't be bothered to try and set anything up right. A few good character actors show up for a scene or two, but there are also a few truly terrible performances.
Rating: * *

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2017, 09:37:56 PM »
Because there are only 13 titles to go, I'm aiming to complete the list of 250 Quintessential Noir Films. Films I want to post about remain few and far between. The biggest disappointment this month is Edge of Doom, which I is the 2nd highest rated MartinTeller Noir I hadn't seen. (#1: Female on the Beach.) My problem wasn't even Farley Granger's performance. It was the mixture of manly melodrama and a very unsubtle application of Christianity. Also one of the most lifeless Dana Andrews performances, but I don't know if anybody could've made his character interesting.

I'm struggling to get through this myself right now. It's quite the slog.

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #57 on: November 24, 2017, 12:01:15 AM »
It irks me that the creators of the list chose the word "Quintessential" for a list based on the following...

Quote
Based on research, these are the 250 most cited noir films in film history. In other words, these noir films aren't necessarily the best (although they would be very close to it), they are simply the films that have most often been cited as noir in publications and across the world-wide-web.

More of a popularity contest than a list of Quintessential titles. It seems a list of the 250 Best noir or the 250 that best fit the most rigid Noir criteria would yield something better and more fun to watch. It just baffles me (and I'm sure Martin too) that when you go down the Noir rabbit hole you'll find titles not on this list that inarguably should be. Also, when you're looking at a genre that's not even 1000 titles deep - and that's including proto-noir and neo-noir - perhaps 250 is too large a number. (I found 2 lists on iCM of 1000 Noir films and neither of them could come up with that many films.)

Looking at the sources shows a surprisingly small amount and a big chunk of the pie comes from Wikipedia.

Anyone want to tell me what 'Post-classic miscellaneous crossovers (sock puppet noir)' is?


The Good News is I have 7 titles to go.
I, the Jury (1953)
The Killer That Stalked New York (1950)
Kiss the Blood Off My Hands (1948)
The Second Woman (1950)
Southside 1-1000 (1950)
The Strip (1951)
Suspense (1946)

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2017, 03:20:32 PM »


The Maltese Falcon  (John Huston, 1941)

I've seen this film too many times to understand how I truly feel about it at this point. I've also read Hammett's source novel and seen the two earlier film adaptations, experiences which only further muddy my relationship with Huston's movie. I thought this latest screening of The Maltese Falcon — my first in a very long time — might be a chance for a fresh evaluation, but, no, the past still casts a fog over it. I emerged rather underwhelmed but I can only guess as to why.

I'm going to focus here on what I think of as the film's great flaws, but I should acknowledge first that it's a very impressive production, especially considering Huston was a first-time director. It's very cleanly filmed and edited, perfectly cast, generally well edited, and influential for rather obvious reasons.

* * * spoilers * * *

Flaw #1: The murder of Miles Archer. I can't remember for sure, but I believe this short scene might be the only break from Bogart's point-of-view. Either way, it's a mistake. It feels very cheaply filmed, as if done by a B-unit after the fact in response to studio notes, and it sets the wrong tone for the movie.

Flaw #2: Brigid O'Shaughnessy. Blame here might be shared equally between Huston, Hammett, and Mary Astor, but this character doesn't quite work for me, especially when the attraction between her and Sam Spade is played as genuine. It doesn't ring true. As bad as Satan Met a Lady is, Bette Davis brings more substance to this role and does more to make it work. Astor sort of just flits her way through it, with her character at the mercy of the story rather than the other way around.

Flaw #3: Deus ex malta. Captain Jacoby stumbling in on the brink of death with the falcon in his arms is such a disappointing and unearned plot development. I go along with it begrudgingly because it turns the story in an appealing direction, but at the same time I'm like, "Is that really the best you could do?" This would have been a much better time to break away from Bogart's perspective and show the action. As presented, this moment underscores just how rather empty the story is on close analysis.

Flaw #4: Denouement. The story bogs down in the third act when it should be at its peak of excitement. The long conversation between the characters in Bogart's apartment isn't without interest — the cast and direction ensure that — but it still makes me restless. Wilmer's being rendered unconscious by a single blow to the head — for exactly the amount of time that the script finds convenient — is an example of a surprising, anti-dramatic impulse in the story. He's the wildcard in the bunch, the character with the most chaotic potential, and he's just left to groan occasionally on the couch.

So, those are the main things that bother me in The Maltese Falcon. They don't stand in the way of its being a fun, entertaining movie, but they do preclude me from considering it a masterpiece.

Grade: B+

Up next: This Gun for Hire

pixote
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 03:22:27 PM by pixote »
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Noirvember Group Marathon 2017
« Reply #59 on: November 24, 2017, 06:39:33 PM »






























This Gun for Hire  (Frank Tuttle, 1942)

An opposite experience of The Maltese Falcon, in that I'm pretty sure I'd seen this before, but this viewing was a completely fresh experience. I wish I'd jotted down some notes after the screening — especially since I can't remember my reasoning for leaning towards a grade of B instead of B+. Poor Robert Preston. Has any top-billed leading man ever been more disposable and overshadowed in a film? It's like Veronica Lake and Alan Ladd are trying to start a noir revolution and Preston keeps popping up to try to hold them back. Ladd is perfectly used here. Every shot of his icy stare just sizzles with cool, something Jean-Pierre Melville would spend his whole career trying to recreate. Ladd's one scene of emotion (a monologue) is a bit awkward by comparison, but I liked it nonetheless. Lake pairs with him well, all light against his shadow, matching the look of the photography. Meow.

edit: Thinking back on this some more, I think the pulpier aspects of the storytelling are what kept me from rating the film more highly. I'm realizing that, as a younger viewer, I was much more forgiving of wild coincidences in films of this era — narrative silliness I would never accept in a modern film but somehow found endearing in films from the 1940s. That no longer seems to be true.

Grade: B

Up next: The Glass Key

pixote
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 08:53:37 PM by pixote »
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

 

love