#it's the most wonderful time of the year (noirvember) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fibula-rasa · 5 years

Text

October 2018 in Review

October was way more hectic than I thought it would be and I didn’t watch as many movies as I usually do. I spent a week in Korea (a post about my visit to the Korean Film Archive will be up soon!) And I was motivated to watch a lot of new movies (a.k.a. was on a long-haul flight).

You may have already heard the news, but the irreplaceable Filmstruck is shuttering this month after two wonderful years. Fair warning: I’ll probably spend a good deal of this month (November) trying to watch as many new-to-me movies in my queue as I can. I think I’ll try and write them up quickly over on my letterboxd, we’ll see!

Also, though The Vamps was intended to be an October series, the month’s general hecticness meant I didn’t get the final essay finished before the end of the month. So, in November, you all have that post to look forward to. (See if you can guess who it is! Hint: she’s a Dane.)

The reviews below are essentially transcriptions of the notes I took right after watching the films. They’re presented in the order in which I watched them.

Enough blathering, on to the movies. BELOW THE JUMP!

Dolls (1987)

29 May 1987 | 77 min. | Color

As a long-time devotee of the Band family’s productions, I’m always down for a Band film I haven’t seen. (When I was a kid, we probably spent a dozen times what it would have cost to buy Pet Shop (1994) renting it from Dollar Video.)

Yes, I did talk about haunted doll movies in my last roundup but this one was more fun, okay? The cast of characters are a great larger-than-life assortment of weirdos. I wish that 1980s English punks would just keep popping up in horror films after the 1980s. I particularly liked the performance of the little girl’s father. In most other movies, it would be a terrible performance, but in Dolls, it’s pitch perfect.

Dolls is a fairytale story that creates the atmosphere of a child’s viewpoint. The dolls are scary and do scary things, but, of course, they can be reasoned with.

As with many Full Moon movies, Dolls had a great balance of scares and campy humour. The doll designs are gross and fun–especially their wet, bloodshot eyes.

Dolls is a great choice for someone who watched a lot of Are You Afraid of the Dark? growing up and wants a “grown-up” version of that.

Funland (1987)

16 October 1987 | 98 min. | Color

After watching Dolls on Amazon Prime, this film was recommended. From the plot description and the featured image, we expected a fun slasher film. And, with William Windom (who I’m pretty sure took time off of Murder, She Wrote to make this movie!!!) in the cast, we couldn’t resist. What we got was… a… comedy? I guess?

There’s no doubting that there are some talented performers in this movie, but it’s just not funny. The only reason I’m writing about Funland at all is that it’s a good example of the kind of cheesy movie where you can see what could have been a good (or at least more interesting) movie underneath the movie that was actually made.

How exactly do you think: “I’m gonna make a movie about a killer clown fighting mobsters!” and then come up with this movie? I wrote a much longer complaint but, I won’t subject you to it. In short, Funland doesn’t execute its plot very well.

I definitely wouldn’t recommend this one. However, I am curious if any Atlanta natives have feelings about this movie? It seems like it features a lot of locals.

Flying Air Canada

The movie below are what I watched on my plane journeys to and from Seoul. I was flying Air Canada and I need to rant for a sec before moving on to my thoughts on the films.

There are a lot of reasons why captions (or subtitles, if you’re British) are necessary. They’re needed by lots of people, including people who aren’t d/Deaf or hard of hearing. If you want to learn more about why captions are good Jessica Kellgren-Fozard has you covered.

Personally, I have sensory processing disorder (SPD). This prompts me to have captions on when I watch most things. At home, I do this because not every movie or TV show I watch has decent sound mixing. It seems to be an art a lot of film/video makers are neglecting nowadays. Ho hum. I keep captions on so I don’t need to constantly change the volume. On a plane, my SPD is significantly worse because the noise of the plane is so loud that there’s little to no chance of me catching dialogue without raising the volume too high for my own comfort. Unlike the airlines I travel on within the US, Air Canada’s captioned offerings are practically nonexistent. That’s why so many of the movies I ended up watching were foreign-language (or ASL) films–they came with English subtitles.

Now, Air Canada, listen: Most of the movies you had on offer are definitely available with captions elsewhere. Even in theaters they likely had open-caption screenings. What is the deal? Seriously.

Anyway, sometimes I take for granted that we do some things right in America.

Okay, back to movies.

Mary Shelley (2017)

9 September 2018 | 120 min. | Color

This film didn’t have captions, which honestly might have weighed negatively on my experience of it. I was excited to see Mary Shelley. Mary and Percy Shelley are two of my absolute favorite literary historical figures and I love their work. This movie was a let down. It seemed like it was meant to be a character piece but the characters felt more like types than people. Also, don’t get me wrong here: I give no ground to fuckboys, but the depiction of Percy Shelley felt particularly oversimplified.

A Quiet Place (2017)

9 March 2018 | 90 min. | Color

Everybody raving about this movie was totally right. Definitely check it out if you haven’t already. Even if you’re not big on horror, it’s worth a shot.

How Long Will I Love U (2018)

18 May 2018 | 101 min. | Color

Scrolling through Air Canada’s film options, I got the feeling that time-travel romance is pretty popular right now in China and Korea? I think I picked the right one to watch in How Long Will I Love U. The premise put me in mind of The Lake House (2006), a movie I don’t like but can never resist watching when it’s on TV. This movie is a lot better than The Lake House. The premise is pretty cool and the plot is spurred on by a proper sci-fi concept. The leads are very cute together. I love that the main characters both kinda suck but become better people in getting to know one another. The special effects are good looking, conceptually fun, and not excessive.

I highly recommend this one. It’d probably be a great date movie or a Friday-night-with-some-Chunky-Monkey-and-a-cuddly-pet movie.

JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure: Diamond is Unbreakable — Chapter 1 (2017)

4 August 2017 | 119 min. | Color

Listen. I have friends who are big fans of the JoJo manga and anime. I have never read any of the manga and couldn’t get past the first episode of the anime. That said, when I saw Takashi Miike directed this live-action adaptation of a story arc in the multi-generational JoJo series, I hit that play button right fast. Then, to my surprise, I enjoyed it! I often struggle with the visuals in live-action adaptations of anime and manga, but I loved how Diamond is Unbreakable played with the characters’ unique styling and design. The superhero-like story drew me in a lot faster than the anime and might just get me to look into some of the manga.

This movie might be a hard sell for a lot of people but if you wanna see something that’s out there and imaginative with supernatural overtones, Diamond is Unbreakable might be fun for you. Don’t worry–it’s easy to follow even if you don’t know who Joseph Joestar is. (Yes, that really is a character’s name.)

Un Traductor / A Translator (2018)

19 January 2018 | Color

I had no idea that following the Chernobyl disaster, some of the victims were sent to Cuba for medical treatment. I also had no idea that the program continued until 2011?! So, Un Traductor was a modern history lesson for me! Un Traductor is a model film for propaganda filmmaking–and I mean that in a fully complimentary way. The film does an admirable job of communicating how life for Cubans changed with the fall of the Soviet Union and how they adjusted to persevere.

You can probably gather from what you just read that this isn’t a fun watch, but it’s worthwhile if you have any interest in modern Cuban history.

A Casa Tutti Bene / There is No Place Like Home (2018)

14 February 2018 | 105 min. | Color

I don’t have a lot to say about this one frankly. It’s a decent family dramedy. Massimo Ghini and Sabrina Impacciatore both turn in good performances. *shrugs in Italian*

That’s all for this month’s roundup! Are you all ready for Noirvember? How about Kicksgiving? If you’re a Filmstruck subscriber, what are you marathoning this month?

3 notes · View notes

filmista · 6 years

Text

Out Of The Past (1947)

“Nothing in the world is any good unless you can share it.”

French director, Jacques Tourneur's ‘Out Of The Past’ has over the years become what’s considered the best Film Noir ever made, though it somewhat disputes over that title with ‘Double Indemnity’, a lot of people find one of the two the best.

I have however during the time that I’ve been participating in Noirvember (there’s more to cover), obviously quite a few films in the genre, and I can instantly say without hesitation that ‘Out Of The Past’ has been my favorite one that I’ve watched so far.

It’s also save to say that outside the context of Noir and Noirvember, it’s simply one of the best films I’ve had the pleasure of watching, just one of those films that quite simply put leaves you feeling like you’ve just watched something spectacular and well crafted.

it makes me regret that I didn’t take the decision to participate in Noirvember earlier, anyhow it’s wonderful to immerse yourself fully in a genre, discover and learn about it and obviously watch a few films of it.

And Out Of The Past was along with Double Indemnity one of the films that my Cinema History book kept mentioning (probably one of the first books I’d try to save in a fire) and various corners of the internet kept recommending to me. By now I was immensely curious about the film, even so much as its film poster somehow exuded a certain cool.

So later I sat down to watch it. And I think it speaks very positively of the film, that I watched it with someone who’s absolutely not a fan of anything that’s not in color and so-called Classics, but she claims to have had as much fun with this one as I did.

When we were about ten minutes into the film, and the picture starts to craft an air of mystery and intrigue and you already know something’s wrong, she said “I love this”, “It’s already so suspenseful, it’s like one of those cheap detective books”.

And with that, she pretty much hit the nail on the head. I found out that Noir works closely with pulp fiction, which is actually nowadays usually considered quite cheap entertainment, the thing that’s considered a guilty pleasure to read; but they did sometimes have interesting themes in them, and filmmakers saw that and could work with it.

Noir’s a dark and pessimistic genre, it literally means black in French, that its name is European also has its reason, it’s what French critics started to call the genre, but it fits perfectly.

It originated in a pessimistic period, before and until after World war two, many of its directors and stars, we’re Europeans that fled Europe, so while it’s an American genre, it’s safe to say that it’s a genre in which both continents held each other’s hands.

War doesn’t bring out good qualities in humans generally, but even during wartime, people have been known to undertake courageous and goodhearted actions. And the genre, some films more than others reflect that.

Most of them very clearly seem to say the world is rotten and the people, even the ones that don’t know it are bad, sometimes they become forcedly so; but it very has the idea that everyone has the potential to become a bad person, a person capable of double-crossing and murder, murder seems to be written in capital letter M all over the genre.

Yet under all that seeming bleakness, pessimism, hopelessness and darkness, there are glints of hope and hints at the possibility of a happy ending, the tragic thing about the genre is that it’s acknowledged but it doesn’t go there, sometimes because it’s characters just can’t take that route, they just aren’t able to connect, and chose to either save their own skin or will take a route that’s going to going to endanger them.

And what I loved so much about ‘Out Of The Past’ is that it very much has those elements, and becomes in a way almost a retelling of a tragic, doomed to fail love story, only it shouldn’t have been doomed, the characters made it so themselves.

It very much plays with what other films in the genre also play with, ambiguity between good and bad, and it has as I’ve mentioned all the elements of the genre, a troubled protagonist whose past comes back to haunt him, character’s smoking like chimneys, a femme fatale, pretty night scenes, and a large part of the story taking place in an urban environment.

But still something about this one is unique; as many people have recognized, out of all the Noir I’ve seen in November this is the one that’s really engraved in my memory. Some people say it doesn’t even seemingly look like Noir, at first sight.

It’s too bright and too sunlit, too much of it takes place in sunlight and in pretty surroundings, that have nothing to do with seedy, crime-filled streets of some films in the genre.

Still agreed it’s agreed that it is Noir, as it has in its storyline and in its cinematography typical elements.

But when I myself thought about it more deeply (and I’m not the only one) you can almost say that the film has two parts, one that looks less typically Noir and one that’s more typically so, night scenes, fights, double-crossing, playing with shadows. But amazingly it watches like one cohesive whole.

It might be somewhat of a lighter one in its genre, literally in its lightning, but also as in that it really builds your hope up and for a moment when you’re watching for the first.

You think everything even after the characters has been double-crossing each other like crazy, you still think it’s two lovers have a chance of being together, but then the film makes sure to remind you what kind of film you’re watching.

And that’s what I found so great about it, that it’s two lovers have moments of happiness and you see what could be there, and because of their own doing, it doesn’t happen, and it’s tragically and sublimely sad.

What I truly loved about this one is watching the relationships between characters, and watching Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer act opposite each other, there’s a ton of other actors in there (amongst them Kirk Douglas) but Mitchum and Greer compliment each other perfectly and it’s a joy to watch. Its storyline doesn’t even really matter too much, and it’s a challenge, to sum up...

Mitchum Bailey is a private detective who tries to say goodbye to his job after a few nasty experiences. As a garage owner, he tries to start a new life with his girlfriend Ann (Virginia Huston). His anonymity, however, is short-lived when thug looking Joe Stephanos (Paul Valentine) manages to trace him on behalf of professional gambler Whit Sterling (Kirk Douglas).

Whit was shot some time ago by his beloved Kathie (Jane Greer). Since then, she has disappeared from his life, as well as $ 40,000. Whit wants her and his money back and asks Jeff to go and investigate. Somewhat cautiously, Jeff takes the job, old habits die hard I guess.

He meets Kathie in Mexico. She tells him exactly what’s going on but nothing about the disappeared money. Jeff believes her, falls for the charms of this femme fatale and tells Whit that he was unable to find her. Soon, however, Kathie doesn’t seem as sweet as she looks anymore...

Does Kathie really care about Jeff? Does she love him despite her inability to endure difficult situations for him and despite her fatalistic attitude towards love?

And how sincere is Jeff towards her? Has he succumbed to her again? These questions haunt your mind while seeing 'Out of the Past'.

As traditionally in this genre, the riddles around a fateful love remain unclear. Who is lying, who is honest? Nobody can be trusted and that makes watching a film noir of this level is so irresistible.

And as it should be; you don’t get clear answers to all of these questions, and thus as I’ve seen in a lot of reviews, people speculate and come to their own conclusions when watching the film.

You see two interesting directions: In some Jeff is the victim. An innocent man, forced to make bad choices but who didn’t enjoy them, but who fell victim to the whims and seduction of a femme fatale, to them Kathie’s a monster, that tormented an innocent man, and there’s no real effort to look any further.

No one in the genre is entirely innocent, Jeff’s aware he’s being played but still consciously chooses for the woman he knows is no good, he still acted out of free will, no one really forced him into anything.

And then the femme fatale herself, a monster? Or just a flawed human being that made mistakes? As I mentioned when it comes to that, you see people mostly veering in one of these two directions.

Personally I think she’s one of the most brilliant characters in the film; Greer portrays her in a subtle yet confident way, that’s almost dizzyingly exciting to watch, she infuses her role with confidence (the kind of confidence of a woman who knows how beautiful she is) but at other times also a deep vulnerability and even fear.

Throughout the film she’s in a world that surrounds her with violent men she’s afraid of the man that she stole the money from, she believes he’d never leave her alone and would almost certainly come after her, and she turns out to be right.

You can understand why she stole the money even, she hated the guy's guts and wanted to get away from him, and if you’re running away from a dude with anger issues, why not do it in a place with an agreeable climate? I certainly wouldn’t like hearing this:

“You're gonna take the rap and play along. You're gonna make every exact move I tell you. If you don't, I'll kill you. And I'll promise you one thing: it won't be quick. I'll break you first. You won't be able to answer a telephone or open a door without thinking, 'This is it.' And it when it comes, it still won't be quick. And it won't be pretty. You can take your choice.”

The exciting element in Greer’s performance comes from, how composed seemingly even cold she seems throughout much of the film, but when you look closer there’s intense emotion, and she remains a riddle, a mystery.

I spent much of the film trying to read her, and she very much has both bad and good at her, she doesn’t regret shooting a man, and when Jeff fights another man, after she speaks the words “why don’t you break his head, Jeff?” she seems almost aroused watching the two men fight, which certainly indicates some twisted personality trait.

But then she also ultimately seems to really love him, as she later in the film goes back to Jeff and gives herself fully over to him, as she chooses to trust him fully, but he is at this point deceiving, maybe still in love with her, but certainly not willing to die for her, and he’s posing himself as more in love than he really is.

But at this time; Jeff has already decided she can’t be trusted, as he told her: “You can never help anything, can you? You're like a leaf that the wind blows from one gutter to another.” and he’s unwilling to give her a second chance or to forgive, and on that tragic note, both their loveless fates are sealed. So it can also be regarded in my eyes as a tragic love story, maybe Jeff could even be seen as a coward in his inability to forgive in love.

The big joy in the film, however, is how good Mitchum and Greer are (that and how beautifully filmed it is), while Greer seems to do not much else than bat her big doe eyes with their luscious lashes at Mitchum and make him fall head over heels with her, she has as I said a subtle emotionality, there’s depth to this femme fatale if it isn’t clear, I loved her performance.

And Mitchum’s Jeff has an air of indifferent, unforced cool, and seems to come across almost as if he doesn’t give a damn about anything or anyone that surrounds him, as if he’s somehow outside of present events, he only seems to care about either Kathie or ultimately himself.

Mitchum portrays this figure almost perfectly. Like Humphrey Bogart (who was considered for the role, but not even Bogie could be at two places at once ...), he has a certain inner peace about him, which gives him independence and self-confidence.

The man behind this film is French director Jacques Tourneur, who made his name in the United States in 1942 with both the artistically and commercially successful 'Cat People' (which is noted on my list of stuff I want to see). Tourneur was a master in creating the right mood and atmosphere and that skill came in handy when he made 'Out of the Past'.

The typical film noir look - with striking use of shadows and contrast - is certainly present here (the fight scene is a beautiful playing around with shadows as well as the scenes on the beach) but less dominant than in, for example, 'Double Indemnity' (1944). It makes 'Out of the Past' a film that looks pleasant and easy and literally and figuratively is somewhat lighter than its genre and contemporaries.

Out of the past is a dark, cynical treat with an intelligent script, razor-sharp dialogues and a finale that stays with you. Highly recommended!

“If you're thinking of anyone else, don't. It wouldn't work. You're no good for anyone but me. You're no good and neither am I. That's why we deserve each other.”

11 notes · View notes

fibula-rasa · 6 years

Text

As Noirvember Ends...

Before I begin, I’m going to clarify that, unlike the first list, the following films are personal favorites of mine that can be categorized as Noir. So, they may not be the best illustrations of the style/genre nor necessarily the best films that happen to be Noir. Honestly, the first list is better for that, though it has less detail.

In a way, you can view this list as “further viewing.” I will also be pairing this list with where you can find the movies at Movie Madness.

Here are my personal go-to Films Noir as Noirvember careens away down an abandoned highway on some rainy midnight. All films are profiled in detail BELOW THE JUMP. Happy viewing!

Ministry of Fear (1944)

87 min. | Director: Fritz Lang

Screenwriter: Seton I. Miller (Novel by Graham Greene)

Stars: Ray Milland, Marjorie Reynolds

What’s the story?

Stephen Neale (Ray Milland) is making his way to London after his release from a countryside asylum. Neale happens upon a village fair run by the Mothers of Free Nations and wins a cake in a guess-the-weight contest he wasn’t meant to win. After boarding a train to London, Neale is accosted over the cake but manages to escape unscathed. With the backdrop of London in the midst of the Blitz, Neale and a private investigator try to get to know what the Mothers of Free Nations is all about. Carla (Marjorie Reynolds) and Wili (Carl Esmond) are refugee siblings who run the charity and they begin to lead Neale down a serpentine path of espionage.

Why should I watch it?

Like The Third Man (1949), Ministry of Fear is an adaptation of a Graham Greene novel. Greene did not collaborate on the screenplay for this film though, and it shows. But, other aspects of the filmmaking more than make up for it. Much credit is due to some shared talent with Double Indemnity, which came out the same year: Art Directors Hans Dreier and Hal Pereira, Costume Designer Edith Head, and Music by Miklos Rozsa. While Ministry is a bit of a tonal shift from The Third Man, it’s a compelling and suspenseful Noir. The pacing is perfectly matched to the whirlpool Neale’s fallen into in the film. I personally think this is one of Lang’s best, particularly among his American films.

What really puts the film over the top for me is Ray Milland. While Milland never considered himself a very good actor, thankfully many great directors disagreed with him. Milland has the unique talent of injecting a touch of levity through his reactions, movements, and expressions at just the right moments. He can make characters that, on paper, might be unlikeable, unsympathetic, or just plain bland into very real people. In Alias Nick Beale (1949), Nick Beale is a seedy underworld operator. Not too much is explained about him but you feel so much about his past and his character through the small (or large) falters in the Beale facade that Milland portrays. In The Lost Weekend (1945), Milland finds a balance with Don Birnam by evoking in the viewer similar feelings to what you may feel when someone you love is suffering from mental illness. You continue to feel deeply for him despite his stream of self-destructive actions. You understand exactly why his loved ones would stay or go. In Ministry of Fear, Milland channels the feelings of being in the midst of a nightmare while also having pitch-perfect reactions to the film’s absurdities that border on the surreal. I should stop now before I go into my spiel on how he “plays English” versus how he “plays American.”

Where can I find it?

At Movie Madness under Classic Directors - Fritz Lang

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)

87 min. | Director: Orson Welles

Screenwriter: Orson Welles

Stars: Rita Hayworth, Orson Welles

What’s the story?

Sailor Michael O’Hara (Orson Welles) saves the beautiful and married Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) from some robbers in Central Park. Elsa and her lawyer husband, Arthur (Everett Sloane) are on their way via the Panama Canal to San Francisco and Michael is hired to work on their yacht. Michael starts to fall for Elsa. Arthur’s business partner, Grigsby, sees his opening and convinces Michael to collaborate on a plan to fake his own death. As it turns out, there are scams on top of scams, and Michael ends up framed for murder and he must now rely on Arthur and Else to defend him.

Why should I watch it?

The Lady from Shanghai is a very unique film for the time, in ways that made it unpopular with many contemporary American viewers, but also in ways that make it well suited for modern viewers. Distaste for Rita Hayworth playing against type is not much of an issue for a viewer in 2017. The on-location shooting adds naturalism despite the film’s stylized lighting and cinematography. To a 1948 viewer, this could be too much of a departure from form, but it’s fully normal to a 2017 viewer. One of the most spectacular elements of the film is a shootout climax in a hall of mirrors, which a 2017 viewer has seen replicated a few times since (most recently in John Wick 2). While Lady from Shanghai should hold a lot of familiarity to an audience in 2017, it still feels novel and imaginative. It’s also a film that doesn’t narratively hold your hand. You’re along for the ride and you best keep up.

Where can I find it?

At Movie Madness under Classic Directors - Orson Welles

Leave Her to Heaven (1945)

110 min. | Director: John M. Stahl

Screenwriter: Jo Swerling (Novel by Ben Ames Williams)

Stars: Gene Tierney, Cornel Wilde, Jeanne Crain, Vincent Price

What’s the story?

After a chance encounter on a train, the well-to-do Ellen Berent (Gene Tierney) and novelist Richard Harland (Cornel Wilde) fall in love a little too quickly. Ellen falls because of Richard’s notable resemblance to her late father. Richard falls because of Ellen’s mysterious nature and brooding beauty. Ellen jilts her more socially-acceptable fiance Russell Quinton (Vincent Price) for Richard and they move to his remote home in Maine. Ellen’s obsessive and possessive tendencies get deeper and more dangerous after Richard’s disabled baby brother comes to live with them and it all goes to hell from there.

Why should I watch it?

Leave Her to Heaven has no shortage of selling points. Gene Tierney gives one of her best performances in this film. She has such subtlety early on, hinting at the storms to come, and Ellen’s neuroses-driven cruelty is rendered so effectively. Tierney was absolutely ahead of her time.

Leave Her to Heaven is strikingly beautiful. The locations in Maine and New Mexico are exquisite and made more interesting by the contrast to the twisted psychology and cruelty of the characters. This one might need content warnings though. I don’t want to give away too much to a general readership, so if you have any concerns, let me know!

Where can I find it?

At Movie Madness under General Classics A to Z

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946)

116 min. | Directors: Lewis Milestone and Byron Haskin

Screenwriter: Robert Rossen (Novel by John Patrick)

Stars: Barbara Stanwyck, Van Heflin, Lizabeth Scott, Kirk Douglas

What’s the story?

Young Martha Ivers tries to run away from her strict and antagonistic aunt with the help of a poor boy called Sam Masterson. The attempt fails and when returned home, Martha and her very wealthy aunt have a blowout and Martha knocks her aunt down the stairs, killing her. The scene is witnessed by another boy, Walter O’Neil. With the help of Walter’s father, they manage to cover up the crime, blaming the murder on an intruder. Years later, Martha (Barbara Stanwyck) has built up a very successful business with her inheritance and is a staple of the Iverstown community. She is also in a strained marriage with Walter (Kirk Douglas), now the District Attorney. When Sam (Van Helfin), now a detective, chances his way back to town, Walter and Martha’s paranoia over the cover up reaches a boiling point.

Why should I watch it?

As someone who has spent a lot of time in Pennsylvania, I must say that Iverstown is a perfectly captured factory town. That might be a too specific draw for a movie, but that’s okay, there’s lots more to love about this film. The structure of the plot is almost flawless. The Strange Love of Martha Ivers is a master class in how to build conflict and tension around dramatic irony in a modern setting. That’s all I’ll say on that to avoid giving too much away. Barbara Stanwyck puts in one of her best performances in this film and Kirk Douglas holds his own in Stany’s wake despite it being his first film. It’s no wonder he became one of the biggest movie stars of the last century.

Where can I find it?

At Movie Madness under Classics - Film Noir

Diabolique / Les Diaboliques (1955)

107 / 114 min. | Director: Henri-Georges Clouzot

Screenwriters: Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jérôme Géronimi (Novel By by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac)

Stars: Simone Signoret, Véra Clouzot, Paul Meurisse

What’s the story?

There’s an awful lot going on at a rundown boarding school just outside Paris. The headmaster, Michel (Paul Meurisse), lives there with his ailing wife Christina (Véra Clouzot) but is carrying on a relationship with English-teacher Nicole (Simone Signoret), who also lives at the school. Michel is abusive to both of them, but the women seem to have a cooperative and caring relationship with one another. Eventually, Nicole can no longer abide the abuse and cooks up a plan with Christina to murder Michel. After they put their plan in action, the aftermath isn’t quite what they anticipated.

Why should I watch it?

Diabolique is one of the greatest suspense films ever made. If you’re a Hitchcock fan, this is a must-see movie. Hitchcock praised the film often and its influence can be seen strongly in his work in the late-1950s into the 1960s. (The novel Diabolique is based on was written By Boileau and Narcejac who wrote the source novel for Vertigo (1958).) In my estimation, it creatively revived Hitchcock as a director.

The locations are hauntingly shabby and mirror Christina’s internal strife, both her physical ailment and psychological stress. In all honesty, I’m struggling a little bit to discuss the high points of the film without giving too much away. That shouldn’t be too surprising though, given that this is one of the first films to carry a spoiler warning.

“Do not be evil! Do not destroy the interest your friends might have in this movie. Do not tell them what you saw. Thanks for them.”

Where can I find it?

At Movie Madness under French Film - French Directors - Henri-Georges Clouzot

Mildred Pierce (1945)

111 min. | Director: Michael Curtiz

Screenwriters: Ranald MacDougall, Catherine Turney (Novel by James M. Cain)

Stars: Joan Crawford, Jack Carson, Zachary Scott, Ann Blyth, Eve Arden

What’s the story?

Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott) is murdered, shot dead in his beach house. His wife, Mildred Pierce Beragon (Joan Crawford) flees the house. When Mildred is brought in by the police, she finds out that her first husband, Bert, is going down for the murder. In an effort to protect him, for she knows him to be innocent, Mildred begins telling the detective the story of the past few years of her life that led her to that beach house with her ex-husband’s gun. However, the story may be a little more complicated than she lets on.

Why should I watch it?

Mildred Pierce was adapted from a novel of the same name by James M. Cain, whose work was also adapted for Double Indemnity (1944) (which I mentioned in my last Noirvember post) and The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946). If you like those films, there is a very good chance you’ll also like Mildred Pierce, but this film is a little less hard-boiled than the others. Mildred Pierce is a skillful intertwining of noir with “weepies,” the melodrama sub-genre. How far the love of a wife and mother can reach is not a common Noir story, but how twisted that love can be is actually perfect Noir fodder.

Joan Crawford rightfully won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the title character, but she’s girded by rich performances from the supporting cast. Eve Arden and Butterfly McQueen always stand out to me in this film, both infusing a whole lot of character into their rather small roles.

Mildred Pierce is also shot beautifully. It’s a perfect Noir image of rainy mid-century Los Angeles.

Where can I find it?

At Movie Madness under Classics - Classic Actors - Joan Crawford

121 notes · View notes