| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| demonic |
Posted - 04/17/2011 : 15:55:26
And on to the second edition of the 'Four Word Film Review' Movie Viewing Club...
From an idea originally suggested by TitanPa, we plan to choose, view and discuss a new film twice a month - with each new round set to begin on the 1st and the 15th of the month.
Everyone is welcome to contribute if you have seen the film in question, and all the better if you have recently seen or have recently rewatched the film. With all films chosen up to a month in advance it will allow those interested in contributing to source and view the film in question, either bought, rented or borrowed on DVD; through an online subscription service or simply viewed online. You are also welcome to comment on previous rounds.
Each film will be chosen by fwiffers in order of initial interest shown on the discussion thread here. If you want to select a future title simply express interest on the thread linked above.
The current line up is as follows:
01.04.11 - TitanPa - TEETH (2007)
15.04.11 - GHCool - DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
01.05.11 - demonic - THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928)
15.05.11 - Se�n
01.06.11 - benj clews
15.06.11 - bife
01.07.11 - Cheese Ed
15.07.11 - [matt]
01.08.11 - wildheartlivie
15.08.11 - ChocolateLady
01.09.11 - BaftaBabe
15.09.11 - Tori
01.10.11 - Randall
There's no commitment to watching and commenting on every movie in every round, but all reviews, comments and contributions will be very welcome from all comers. It goes without saying these threads will be a spoiler heavy area, and anyone reading posts before viewing the film in question should be fully aware of this.
------------------------------------------
The film under discussion for MVC #2 is "Double Indemnity", the classic 1944 film noir directed by Billy Wilder from James M. Cain's novel and starring Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. It would be a crime not to comment. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 23:06:10
Yes, apologies, that's my negligence. I've had a madly busy time since Sunday but thanks for the prod Sean, I will post the new thread shortly. Additional posts are still welcome on this thread even though we're moving on. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 22:47:51
Shouldn't we already be on The Passion of Joan of Arc? There're only 10 days left of that one, then Monsturd.  |
| Chris C |
Posted - 05/04/2011 : 18:21:18
For those of us in the UK who haven't seen this yet, it's on Sky Movies Classics tonight at 7.10pm.
I shall be watching (or recording for viewing asap) |
| randall |
Posted - 05/02/2011 : 23:00:11
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
First time I saw this film was on a re-release in the cinema a couple of years back accompanied by a discussion about it afterward. A great way to see it and it's definitely justified in its status as a noir classic and one of the best American films of the 40s. Watching it again last night for this thread was fun - but to avoid duplication of ideas I'd like to write a bit about the acting in the film.
Barbara Stanwyck is great throughout - keeping a fine balance in vulnerability and predation. You're never quite sure how trustworthy she is, a feeling that Walter quite rightly shares with the audience. Did she kill the first Mrs Dietrichson? Is it her intention from the very first moment to use Walter to kill her husband for her own ends, and then potentially get rid of him too? Most of those questions are answered for us by the end, but some of that ambiguity makes the story stay interesting. As a side note much was made of the horrible wig that she was forced to wear in the post-screening discussion I attended. Having it pointed out like that does really flag it up... it is dreadful. :)
MacMurray is reliable, but less impressive as Neff. A little too stolid and almost comically "hard boiled" at times, baby. He has to lead the film from the first frame to the last and does well - just not as nuanced as he could have been for my taste. He's served very well by Wilder and Chandler's script which allows him some terrifically pithy retorts. In fact the best scene in the film is almost certainly the opening duologue between Phyllis and Walter - the sexual tension zings marvellously. Their scenes never quite reach the same peak as that initial one even at the fatal final face-off.
Edward G Robinson is pure class and a more relaxed screen presence than MacMurray - which to be fair is a proper reflection of their roles - his speech to the dull witted boss Jackson regarding the impossibility of Dietrichson's suicide is great work.
A final point I want to bring up is something about the ambiguity of Walter's eventual fate. I read that Wilder shot a scene where he went to the gas chamber with Keyes looking on but cut it in favour of the current end. In my memory I thought Walter died propped up in the doorway with the cigarette in his mouth, but watching again it's clear that even though he can't walk anymore having lost too much blood he's not quite done for yet, and the ambulance in on the way. It raised an interesting thought in my mind about the likeability of Walter and how much we don't want him to get arrested and executed at the end - it's preferable for us that he dies with his friend and father figure at his side - justice is served, but not the cold and clinical justice of trial and death penalties. Mr Dietrichson is never shown to be a particularly nice man (although we never see him treat his second wife as badly as she suggests) and Phyllis plans to kill Walter as he plans to kill her - but even though he murders two people in the film he never loses our sympathy. He's never especially regretful of his actions and even at the last seeks to get away with what he's done. Perhaps that's something to do with how we trust the judgement of Keyes, further credit to how good Robinson is in the film; Walter is wrong and should not get away, but still deserves some respect, and at the least that last cigarette. 8/10
Bravo! That's a very cogent dissection of the movie. I wonder how many viewers born since, let's say, 1980, realize that both MacMurray and Robinson were playing against type, or at least defying the ones they'd laid.
For another role against type for MacMurray in collaboration with Billy Wilder, check out The Apartment.
Excellent spot! And for Robinson against type, go to his final film, SOYLENT GREEN. It's not a classic, but he still breaks your heart. |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 12:18:34
Ah, no I have seen that, of course. :) |
| GHcool |
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 07:45:25
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
First time I saw this film was on a re-release in the cinema a couple of years back accompanied by a discussion about it afterward. A great way to see it and it's definitely justified in its status as a noir classic and one of the best American films of the 40s. Watching it again last night for this thread was fun - but to avoid duplication of ideas I'd like to write a bit about the acting in the film.
Barbara Stanwyck is great throughout - keeping a fine balance in vulnerability and predation. You're never quite sure how trustworthy she is, a feeling that Walter quite rightly shares with the audience. Did she kill the first Mrs Dietrichson? Is it her intention from the very first moment to use Walter to kill her husband for her own ends, and then potentially get rid of him too? Most of those questions are answered for us by the end, but some of that ambiguity makes the story stay interesting. As a side note much was made of the horrible wig that she was forced to wear in the post-screening discussion I attended. Having it pointed out like that does really flag it up... it is dreadful. :)
MacMurray is reliable, but less impressive as Neff. A little too stolid and almost comically "hard boiled" at times, baby. He has to lead the film from the first frame to the last and does well - just not as nuanced as he could have been for my taste. He's served very well by Wilder and Chandler's script which allows him some terrifically pithy retorts. In fact the best scene in the film is almost certainly the opening duologue between Phyllis and Walter - the sexual tension zings marvellously. Their scenes never quite reach the same peak as that initial one even at the fatal final face-off.
Edward G Robinson is pure class and a more relaxed screen presence than MacMurray - which to be fair is a proper reflection of their roles - his speech to the dull witted boss Jackson regarding the impossibility of Dietrichson's suicide is great work.
A final point I want to bring up is something about the ambiguity of Walter's eventual fate. I read that Wilder shot a scene where he went to the gas chamber with Keyes looking on but cut it in favour of the current end. In my memory I thought Walter died propped up in the doorway with the cigarette in his mouth, but watching again it's clear that even though he can't walk anymore having lost too much blood he's not quite done for yet, and the ambulance in on the way. It raised an interesting thought in my mind about the likeability of Walter and how much we don't want him to get arrested and executed at the end - it's preferable for us that he dies with his friend and father figure at his side - justice is served, but not the cold and clinical justice of trial and death penalties. Mr Dietrichson is never shown to be a particularly nice man (although we never see him treat his second wife as badly as she suggests) and Phyllis plans to kill Walter as he plans to kill her - but even though he murders two people in the film he never loses our sympathy. He's never especially regretful of his actions and even at the last seeks to get away with what he's done. Perhaps that's something to do with how we trust the judgement of Keyes, further credit to how good Robinson is in the film; Walter is wrong and should not get away, but still deserves some respect, and at the least that last cigarette. 8/10
Bravo! That's a very cogent dissection of the movie. I wonder how many viewers born since, let's say, 1980, realize that both MacMurray and Robinson were playing against type, or at least defying the ones they'd laid.
For another role against type for MacMurray in collaboration with Billy Wilder, check out The Apartment. |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/01/2011 : 01:24:55
Thanks for your comments guys. Just reading Randall's last post reminded me that as far as I'm aware I've never seen any other films with Barbara Stanwyck or Fred MacMurray in - so you're right I had no conception of the change in their usual roles before or after! Good point about Perkins though- and a dreadful shame - I think he was a terrific actor sidelined into lesser movies just because he was so damn good in that one. |
| randall |
Posted - 04/30/2011 : 21:16:59
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
First time I saw this film was on a re-release in the cinema a couple of years back accompanied by a discussion about it afterward. A great way to see it and it's definitely justified in its status as a noir classic and one of the best American films of the 40s. Watching it again last night for this thread was fun - but to avoid duplication of ideas I'd like to write a bit about the acting in the film.
Barbara Stanwyck is great throughout - keeping a fine balance in vulnerability and predation. You're never quite sure how trustworthy she is, a feeling that Walter quite rightly shares with the audience. Did she kill the first Mrs Dietrichson? Is it her intention from the very first moment to use Walter to kill her husband for her own ends, and then potentially get rid of him too? Most of those questions are answered for us by the end, but some of that ambiguity makes the story stay interesting. As a side note much was made of the horrible wig that she was forced to wear in the post-screening discussion I attended. Having it pointed out like that does really flag it up... it is dreadful. :)
MacMurray is reliable, but less impressive as Neff. A little too stolid and almost comically "hard boiled" at times, baby. He has to lead the film from the first frame to the last and does well - just not as nuanced as he could have been for my taste. He's served very well by Wilder and Chandler's script which allows him some terrifically pithy retorts. In fact the best scene in the film is almost certainly the opening duologue between Phyllis and Walter - the sexual tension zings marvellously. Their scenes never quite reach the same peak as that initial one even at the fatal final face-off.
Edward G Robinson is pure class and a more relaxed screen presence than MacMurray - which to be fair is a proper reflection of their roles - his speech to the dull witted boss Jackson regarding the impossibility of Dietrichson's suicide is great work.
A final point I want to bring up is something about the ambiguity of Walter's eventual fate. I read that Wilder shot a scene where he went to the gas chamber with Keyes looking on but cut it in favour of the current end. In my memory I thought Walter died propped up in the doorway with the cigarette in his mouth, but watching again it's clear that even though he can't walk anymore having lost too much blood he's not quite done for yet, and the ambulance in on the way. It raised an interesting thought in my mind about the likeability of Walter and how much we don't want him to get arrested and executed at the end - it's preferable for us that he dies with his friend and father figure at his side - justice is served, but not the cold and clinical justice of trial and death penalties. Mr Dietrichson is never shown to be a particularly nice man (although we never see him treat his second wife as badly as she suggests) and Phyllis plans to kill Walter as he plans to kill her - but even though he murders two people in the film he never loses our sympathy. He's never especially regretful of his actions and even at the last seeks to get away with what he's done. Perhaps that's something to do with how we trust the judgement of Keyes, further credit to how good Robinson is in the film; Walter is wrong and should not get away, but still deserves some respect, and at the least that last cigarette. 8/10
Bravo! That's a very cogent dissection of the movie. I wonder how many viewers born since, let's say, 1980, realize that both MacMurray and Robinson were playing against type, or at least defying the ones they'd laid. Anthony Perkins never escaped PSYCHO, but MacMurray casually fell into "American dad" roles -- isn't the iconic dumb husband the same guy? -- and Robinson could, himself, never escape "Rico," one of the reasons the audience is so jittery about his role here.
The rat-a-tat dialogue between the spider and her fly is one of the purest expressions of film noir. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/30/2011 : 01:54:15
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Barbara Stanwyck is great throughout - keeping a fine balance in vulnerability and predation. You're never quite sure how trustworthy she is, a feeling that Walter quite rightly shares with the audience. Did she kill the first Mrs Dietrichson? Is it her intention from the very first moment to use Walter to kill her husband for her own ends, and then potentially get rid of him too? Most of those questions are answered for us by the end, but some of that ambiguity makes the story stay interesting. As a side note much was made of the horrible wig that she was forced to wear in the post-screening discussion I attended. Having it pointed out like that does really flag it up... it is dreadful. :)
MacMurray is reliable, but less impressive as Neff. A little too stolid and almost comically "hard boiled" at times, baby. He has to lead the film from the first frame to the last and does well - just not as nuanced as he could have been for my taste. He's served very well by Wilder and Chandler's script which allows him some terrifically pithy retorts. In fact the best scene in the film is almost certainly the opening duologue between Phyllis and Walter - the sexual tension zings marvellously. Their scenes never quite reach the same peak as that initial one even at the fatal final face-off.
Edward G Robinson is pure class and a more relaxed screen presence than MacMurray - which to be fair is a proper reflection of their roles - his speech to the dull witted boss Jackson regarding the impossibility of Dietrichson's suicide is great work.
A final point I want to bring up is something about the ambiguity of Walter's eventual fate. I read that Wilder shot a scene where he went to the gas chamber with Keyes looking on but cut it in favour of the current end. In my memory I thought Walter died propped up in the doorway with the cigarette in his mouth, but watching again it's clear that even though he can't walk anymore having lost too much blood he's not quite done for yet, and the ambulance in on the way. It raised an interesting thought in my mind about the likeability of Walter and how much we don't want him to get arrested and executed at the end - it's preferable for us that he dies with his friend and father figure at his side - justice is served, but not the cold and clinical justice of trial and death penalties. Mr Dietrichson is never shown to be a particularly nice man (although we never see him treat his second wife as badly as she suggests) and Phyllis plans to kill Walter as he plans to kill her - but even though he murders two people in the film he never loses our sympathy. He's never especially regretful of his actions and even at the last seeks to get away with what he's done. Perhaps that's something to do with how we trust the judgement of Keyes, further credit to how good Robinson is in the film; Walter is wrong and should not get away, but still deserves some respect, and at the least that last cigarette.
Its funny how I've had the same exact thoughts, never put them into words, and now that I see them written on the page, these thoughts are given new life. Thanks Demonic, especially for your observations on the film's ending.
I agree also agree with you that the ambiguity of Phyllis's guilt was intentional. Walter commits the two murders in the film (Mr. Dietrichson and Phyllis). The sins of Phyllis are not portrayed as brutally. Phyllis�s sins include the planning (but not the actual execution) of Mr. Dietrichson�s murder, shooting (but not actually killing) Walter, and the suspected killing of the first Mrs. Dietrichson (alluded to by Lola, but never proven). I think it has something to do with 1940s morals: a woman could be manipulative femme fatale and could use a weak-willed man to do her evil bidding, but no woman could commit murder on her own (at least on screen). This has the unusual effect of making Phyllis both more and less of a feminist creation. |
| demonic |
Posted - 04/29/2011 : 18:03:24
First time I saw this film was on a re-release in the cinema a couple of years back accompanied by a discussion about it afterward. A great way to see it and it's definitely justified in its status as a noir classic and one of the best American films of the 40s. Watching it again last night for this thread was fun - but to avoid duplication of ideas I'd like to write a bit about the acting in the film.
Barbara Stanwyck is great throughout - keeping a fine balance in vulnerability and predation. You're never quite sure how trustworthy she is, a feeling that Walter quite rightly shares with the audience. Did she kill the first Mrs Dietrichson? Is it her intention from the very first moment to use Walter to kill her husband for her own ends, and then potentially get rid of him too? Most of those questions are answered for us by the end, but some of that ambiguity makes the story stay interesting. As a side note much was made of the horrible wig that she was forced to wear in the post-screening discussion I attended. Having it pointed out like that does really flag it up... it is dreadful. :)
MacMurray is reliable, but less impressive as Neff. A little too stolid and almost comically "hard boiled" at times, baby. He has to lead the film from the first frame to the last and does well - just not as nuanced as he could have been for my taste. He's served very well by Wilder and Chandler's script which allows him some terrifically pithy retorts. In fact the best scene in the film is almost certainly the opening duologue between Phyllis and Walter - the sexual tension zings marvellously. Their scenes never quite reach the same peak as that initial one even at the fatal final face-off.
Edward G Robinson is pure class and a more relaxed screen presence than MacMurray - which to be fair is a proper reflection of their roles - his speech to the dull witted boss Jackson regarding the impossibility of Dietrichson's suicide is great work.
A final point I want to bring up is something about the ambiguity of Walter's eventual fate. I read that Wilder shot a scene where he went to the gas chamber with Keyes looking on but cut it in favour of the current end. In my memory I thought Walter died propped up in the doorway with the cigarette in his mouth, but watching again it's clear that even though he can't walk anymore having lost too much blood he's not quite done for yet, and the ambulance in on the way. It raised an interesting thought in my mind about the likeability of Walter and how much we don't want him to get arrested and executed at the end - it's preferable for us that he dies with his friend and father figure at his side - justice is served, but not the cold and clinical justice of trial and death penalties. Mr Dietrichson is never shown to be a particularly nice man (although we never see him treat his second wife as badly as she suggests) and Phyllis plans to kill Walter as he plans to kill her - but even though he murders two people in the film he never loses our sympathy. He's never especially regretful of his actions and even at the last seeks to get away with what he's done. Perhaps that's something to do with how we trust the judgement of Keyes, further credit to how good Robinson is in the film; Walter is wrong and should not get away, but still deserves some respect, and at the least that last cigarette. 8/10 |
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/29/2011 : 04:48:39
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I saw Double Indemnity for the first time in film school, loved it so much that I bought it, and then saw it again recently at home.
I chose the film because it is the primary (and some say the first) example of film noir.
I wouldn't agree that it's the first (here are a few earlier ones although some are dubious) but it certainly ticks all the boxes; it's classic noir all right.
I am in agreement with the French critics who cite The Maltese Falcon (1941) as the first film noir. According to Robert Sklar's indispensable Film: An International History of the Medium, there are other critics who consider 1944 to be the birth year of film noir with the releases of Double Indemnity and Murder, My Sweet. |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/28/2011 : 06:00:56
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I saw Double Indemnity for the first time in film school, loved it so much that I bought it, and then saw it again recently at home.
I chose the film because it is the primary (and some say the first) example of film noir.
I wouldn't agree that it's the first (here are a few earlier ones although some are dubious) but it certainly ticks all the boxes; it's classic noir all right.
I watched this last year (while on a noir catch-up binge). I remember enough about it to know that I really liked it but not enough about it to contribute much to this discussion.  I chose not to watch it again (too many movies, too little time  ). As a general rule I don't watch movies twice, with a few exceptions (generally for convoluted thrillers that I didn't 'get' the first time), and a few more exceptions for movies I can watch many times (generally these will be for their atmospheric quality).
The classic film noir era (1940s-1950s) is my favourite Hollywood era, without a shadow of a doubt  . The lowest score I've given to a noir film on IMDb is 7, with plenty of 8s, 9s and 10s. There's something about the grim fatalistic darkness that appeals to me. I love a movie where nobody lives happily ever after. 
9/10
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 04/27/2011 : 22:33:09
The psychosexual themes of film noir are clearly present in Double Indemnity. The first time we see Phyllis, she is dressed in nothing but a towel. Neff immediately stops thinking like an insurance salesman; his mind is consumed with lust (�I wanted to see her again; close, and without that silly staircase between us�). He briefly and half-heartedly tries to sell Phyllis insurance as her anklet captivates him. Then she taunts him by asking him to come by again when her husband is home. This comment would discourage most men, but not Neff, and curiously and consequently, not Phyllis either. Once it becomes apparent that the real reason why Phyllis is attracted to Neff is because she thinks that with his help, she can get away with the murder of her husband, Neff does not leave her in disgust. Instead, in the words of Roger Ebert, �Walter is willing [to assist her in the murder], ostensibly because he's fallen under her sexual spell.� |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 04/27/2011 : 20:27:00
It's impossible to assess any of Wilder's films without recalling his connection with the rise of Hitler, and how he constantly revisits the themes of personal power in light of the dictator's inescapable bamboozlement of so many.
In that sense, Double Indemnity exemplifies every aspect of that theme; you can virtually analyze every shot as a piece of the puzzle of control and futile resistance.
Wilder uses both sex and money as artefacts in the power game - they were there in Cain's original novel, but Wilder turns the heat way up. And, a funny thing, but it's a heat that will surround the elements, without actually touching them, without feeding on them to flare and die. In that sense, it's as false a heat as the quasi-passions of Nazi speeches - or indeed those of many leaders and politicians. Fire without truth or substance.
Love wasn't supposed to come into the game, but it does eventually. And it's the reaction to that most basic of emotions that proves how ill-equipped the between-the-wars generation was at separating reality from the ersatz slogans that drove them to falsely define enemies, to follow despots, to sacrifice lives, and to exploit each other.
What raises this noir above a simple thriller is the bedrock of that philosophy. With the help of Chandler's super-smart dialogue and some superb b&w camera-work, Wilder presents characters who have such potent personal agendas, they will use anyone and everyone - almost without realizing it - to satisfy their emotional emptiness.
We meet Phyllis, as does Walter, at a time when she's finally understood that she will fall into an abyss of conventionality if she doesn't do something and fast! Her step-daughter, an innocuous girl, provides a clue to the benign life Phyllis could easily succumb to.
She's clever, our Phyl, but not quite clever enough. Devious without real intellect. Even if she can plan and carry out the perfect murder, even if she could collect the money and coast on the profits, Wilder's shown us she has no clue about how to find satisfaction. Her values are all surface - and both she and Walter deliver their lines as though they're reading a script. I can't think of too many other directors than Wilder who can make that kind of irony believable.
It would never occur to Phyllis to find what she might actually enjoy doing in life, what might make her proud to be herself. She clutches at the shreds of melodrama that will never fully clothe her.
Walter's even less in touch with his motivations, because they're more complicated. Of his two main relationships, he's least in control of that with Keyes. He may suspect Keyes wants to offer the hand of professional advancement because in some way that would indemnify Walter to the older man. But he feels Keyes' pressure as both a challenge and an entrapment.
To fall under Keyes' protection would weaken Walter, but he has a supreme respect for the way Keyes has strengthened his grip on power. Walter's blatant declaration of love for Keyes is both sarcastic and - in a deeper way - quite genuine. There have been very few anti-heroes so complex before or since. The fact that Wilder carries you along on the sled of the plot without hitting you over the head with these subtleties is a mark of his genius.
At first, Walter recognizes Phyllis as a fellow player, and intuitively he sees she's in deep emotional trouble. He never sets out to heal or protect her, but merely to co-opt her into the control game that presents itself. In fact he makes her feel as though she's in control, which has precisely the effect he wants - that she will trust him and ultimately yield to him.
It's only when he half-recognizes that he has indeed fallen in love with her that he must destroy her. To reverse their power roles would leave him feeling a failure, he would have betrayed himself. So he redefines her as betraying him, and - with the added pressure of Keyes picking up the breadcrumbs - he realizes there is no future with Phyllis, or, for that matter, no future for her.
By presenting the inevitable dead ends of such plodding pursuit of power, and by hinting that the holders of real power are no more deserving of it only that they're smarter at playing the game - Wilder gives us a truly entertaining genre picture that redefines itself into art.
GHCool is right - this is a film truly worthy of discussion. Thanks for selecting it.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/27/2011 : 16:52:02
One of the best things about this movie -- and it's the same thing Ebert focuses on -- is that the two people don't really want to kill for the money, or so they can be together. They just want to do it to see if they can. I think the idea is that these two people, the trophy wife and the insurance salesman, had simply stalled out in their lives, gone as far as they could in their roles, and needed to become murderers to evolve as people.
|
|
|
