The Howling (1981) Patrick McNee Salute/Joe Dante Festival

Werewolf films are plentiful but not as scary as they once were. "Twilight" seems to have turned shape shifting human/wolves into domesticated pets.  1981 however, was a landmark year for werewolf based movies. From April to August we got "Wolfen", "An American Werewolf in London" and this subversive genre bender that combined humor and horror before it' more famous counterpart was released in mid summer. "The Howling" is a low budget horror film that used humor to differentiate itself from more traditional drive-in cinema. A clever script and efficient directing and editing make this a film that everyone should see.

Last night I attended a return visit from master horror film maker Joe Dante, to the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood for another program sponsored by the American Cinematique. Just a couple of months ago we were treated to s special presentation of his two "Gremlins" films. Last night focused on one film but two film makers. Joe Dante, the director of "The Howling" and Patrick Macnee, one of the stars of the film. Mr. Macnee passed away at the end of June, and this was a fitting film to feature since it was one of his biggest roles in an American film. (The Cinematique will also be playing "This is Spinal Tap" in the near future.)

Mr. Dante shared a number of stories about Patrick Macnee, including the fact that he was a nudist, which somehow seems to fit in pretty well with the cult like atmosphere of this film. The budget for the movie was one million dollars. (That is not a mistake, that is a cheap budget for a cheaply made film). Dante revealed that his directors contract was non-union and he received no residuals for performance of the movie. He also acted as an editor and before he was paid, the film company went out of business. So although this is one of his big successes and his first big movie, he has never seen a dime of cash in relationship to it.  As the audience warmed up, a number of questions were asked and most of them were pretty simple: How did you cast Dee Wallace, What was the role of Rick Baker on the Film, how did you work with Pino Donaggio? The Rick Baker question may be the most important one. Baker was scheduled to do the film and had worked on much of the special effects make-up, but he was poached by John Landis for "An American Werewolf in London" and they had a bigger budget. Rob Bottin, was a protege of Bakers and he took over and made the film himself. Robert Picardo, who played Eddie in the film, had to endure a couple of overnight make-up and set design sessions. It's hard to believe but he spent up to a dozen hours in some cases being set up for the transformation sequences.

I'll get back to some of the behind the scenes material in a minute, let's take a couple of minutes to talk about the film itself. With the first shots, we are plunged into the middle of a news story about a serial killer who has contacted a local newswoman who has agreed to meet him. The cops and the newsroom editors are on a radio link, but that's as much back up as she gets. Hollywood in those days was pretty seedy (although according to Joe Dante, it had nothing on Times Square in Manhattan in the 70s). Karen White, the Dee Wallace character, agrees to meet "Eddie" the calling killer, in a porn shop. She is to look for one of the peep show booths marked with a smiley face sticker. In a modern world where emoji are ubiquitous, that might not seem a big deal, but in 1981, it was a little subversive to use the cutesy image as the talisman of a nut job killer. That sticker showed up in three other shots in the film and nearly stamps "LOL" on the screen for us. Karen survives an attack but is suffering from PTSD and can't remember much about what happened. The TV psychologist who assisted in profiling the killer, invites her and her husband to a retreat, known as the Colony, to get some group help and recovery time. Dr. Waggner (a name that is based on the director of the original Wolf Man movie from forty years earlier) is a proponent that people be in touch with their wilder animal sides,although as played by mild mannered and dignified Patrick Macnee, you would not suspect any danger. Of course something is not right at the Colony and all kinds of hell breaks loose.
This is where you will get a lot of horror movie and Werewolf based tropes being used to build suspense and then being turned with a quick visual shot or comments. At one point, another couple is watching the original "Wolf Man" on late night TV and just as the issue of how one would become a werewolf comes up, there is Maria Ouspenskayain the background explaining it. Or as a call is being made to compare investigative information, one of the people on the phone has to put down their copy of Ginsburg's "Howl". It doesn't hurt the humor at all that John Carradine, who had a fifty plus year career in Hollywood, also starred in films like The House of Frankenstein" and "The House of Dracula" so he fits in with all the Werewolf mythology like a bouquet of wolf-bane.

The real stars of the movie though are the special effects make up and the transformation scenes. A combination of prosthetics, air bladders and make up wizardry, produce some of the most authentic and frightening horror effects of the day. When you add in some of the scenes of sensuality and the medical descriptions  in the morgue sequence, you get a great set up but the payoff actually lives up to it. If you watch the trailer above, you will get a splendid preview of the kinds of inventiveness dominate the last third of the picture. Like most films of this time, after a quick opening, it is a slow build to the climax, rather than a series of mini climaxes along the way. (That sentence is also fraught with sensuality).

Dante pointed out last night that there was only one "Werewolf Suit" for the film, and that the attack at the end which seems to feature a dozen werewolves is all an accomplishment of editing. Somehow they got an extra fifty thousand dollars to work on the make-up effects. The studio was so thrilled with the dailies, they would not allow the scenes to be cut down. Although it had been the plan originally to have the transformation completed in one continuous shot, that concept had to be abandoned for cost reasons. It also would have created a story problem with the victims staring at the long transformation. In fact, when a group of kids auditioning for a show on the next stage, were shown the scene, one of them asked why the lady just stood there instead of running?.

In addition to Robert Picardo, who became a favorite of Joe Dante, B-Horror icon Dick Miller appears in this film as a bookstore owner. His interaction with the investigating journalist is some of the best material in the film. Dante says that originally, Miller was not very enthusiastic because the part was so small, but now thinks of it as his own favorite performance. You can see the future gun counterman from "The Terminator" in the bookstore owner. Dante said that the store they used was originally on Hollywood Blvd. but like most things from the old days, it is long gone. He said they needed to do virtually nothing to set dress the store for the film, it was exactly as it appears in the movie.

The script was considerably reworked by fellow director John Sayles, who added all of the new age cult material to the movie. That background is one of the things that raises the Howling above several other horror films of the day, it had a perspective connected to the times and it reflected that in the plot. So, a ton of good actors, a creative make up team, a shanghaied screenwriter and a novice director, manage to put together a pretty terrific horror film. It has it's 1980s pedigree all over it, but I would say that is a medal of pride rather than a badge of shame.

Inherit the Wind: The Argumentative August Blogathon

The blogathon that we are participating in here, is designed to focus on films in which a courtroom battle is featured and argument is the main source of drama. I know a little bit about films, a little bit about argument and a little bit about "Inherit the Wind". I hope that such a background will reassure you that I am not troubling my own house for no purpose. My purpose is to bring attention to a fifty-five year old film that is based on an ninety year old case that will prove that in nearly a hundred years, we as a culture are still capable of being riled up by events that we see as earth shattering, but in the long run are only a small part of human progress.

If you are unfamiliar with the film, let's start with the fact that it is largely based on real events. The "Scopes Monkey Trial" may be only a hazy memory to you from your American History class, but it was nationally famous in it's time. If the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, has dominated the news in recent weeks, imagine a similar kind of focus on a local trial in 1925. In reaction to religious anxiety about Darwin's theories on evolution, in Tennessee, the Butler Act had made it a crime to teach evolution in state funded schools. Nearly a hundred years later, we have the same kind of preclusion against teaching anything that might challenge evolution. Intelligent Design as a theory is heavily criticized by academics and scientists, with similar criticisms as those of evolution from the 1920s. So in essence, the same battle is taking place with the presumptions reversed. The tide of history repeats itself.

One of the reasons that the Scopes trial drew so much attention was the confrontation between two towering figures of the early twentieth century. Clarence Darrow was a renown labor attorney who migrated to criminal and civil cases and in a hundred cases where the death penalty was at stake had lost only once. The year before he was involved in the Scopes Trial, he had defended Leopold and Loeb in one of the early "trials of the century". The two were University students who had committed a "thrill" killing of a fourteen year old boy. Two other movies have been based on that case, "Compulsion" features Orson Wells playing essentially Clarence Darrow. Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope", has no trial in it so it does not fit the criteria for this blogathon, but you should see it anyway. In the current film, two time Academy Award winner Spencer Tracy plays Henry Drummond, the character based on Darrow.

His opponent in the actual case was three time Democratic Nominee for President and former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan.  Imagine if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry came forward to prosecute a local case and oppose a political philosophy they abhorred. Bryan was a populist who was known as the Great Commoner and he was also a famous orator, which meant so much more in the days before mass media. He was a strong opponent of Darwinism and took his religious faith so seriously that he considered it an obligation to participate in the trial. He had spoken on the Chautauqua circuit for years, arguing that the theory of evolution was a threat to the foundations of morality and an evil force in the world. In the film, he is portrayed by two time Academy Award winning actor Fredrick March as Matthew Harrison Brady.



The events surrounding the trial in the film, based on the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (no not that one) are somewhat exaggerated, and an elaborate background of the town minister, his daughter and the high school teacher who was being prosecuted, was all invented for the film.  The circus like atmosphere of the trial however was real. More than two hundred reporters covered the trial. It was big international news. A radio broadcast of the trial did appear on WGN and there were trained chimps performing on the lawn of the courthouse. The trial  in Scopes was a stunt designed to challenge the law, and substitute teacher John Scopes purposefully incriminated himself to make a prosecution more likely. In the film, Bertram Cates, the teacher on trial is presented in a much more noble light, as a beacon of knowledge to high school students everywhere. Future "Bewitched" star Dick York plays Cates with sincerity more than anyone else in the film.

The play, film and coverage of the original trial by journalist  H.L. Mencken are all heavily slanted against the prosecution case and against Bryan/Brady. In a battle over ideas, the story here is that the media influenced public opinion more than the arguments did.Henry Drumond (Tracy) understands the importance of the media but despises some of it's practitioners, including the character modeled on Menken,a straight dramatic role from Gene Kelly as E.K. Hornbeck.His job in the story is to ground out any nuance in the arguments of the case and help sensationalize them for the world. His cynicism at everyone else in the story actually results in him being one of the sadder characters in the story. Here is a good example of dialogue that reflects the snide attitude he has toward the locals, but it also extends to everyone else as well:

Townswoman: You're the stranger, ain'tcha? Are you looking for a nice, clean place to stay?
E. K. Hornbeck: Madam, I had a nice clean place to stay... and I left it, to come here.

Drummond's approach to the case is to undermine the law under which Cates is being prosecuted. The problem is the judge will not allow any of the expert testimony in defense of evolution to be heard. Henry Morgan as the judge appears to be a strict constructionist who believes it is the legislature that should make the laws, not the courts. He takes the very valid position that the law is not on trial but the accused is. Social Justice warriors will find this belief old fashioned but it happens to be the correct legal interpretation. Ultimately, the importance of a single accused man is not what attracted all the attention. The supposed conflict between religion and science is the draw. Until a key moment in the trial, the prosecution had the upper hand and all the best lines and public support. The film though does go out of the way sometimes to make Brady a figure of ridicule. There is a scene where he is speaking with a bib around his neck and he appears to be picnicking at the trial, burping and wiping his greasy fingers from fried chicken on his clothes. Matthew Harrison Brady is portrayed as being out of touch and a figure from the past. His eloquence is right for a tent show revival or Chautauqua stage, but bellowing on the radio isn't going to work. He has sincere religious beliefs that are referenced during the trial and that is the mistake that he makes as a prosecutor. Drummond baits him into basing arguments from the bible and then calls on him as an expert witness on the book. In the real world this sort of thing is not likely to happen right? The prosecutor being a witness cross examined by the defense,that's ridiculous. It's also just what happened in this case. The real Clarence Darrow cross examined the real William Jennings Bryan for two hours on the seventh day of the Scopes Trial.

This is the key dramatic point for the film. The confrontation of the two political giants and the two acting giants, in a courtroom confrontation. Fireworks do ensue but inevitably the imbalance of the views comes crashing down on the scene. Drummond trips up Brady with inconsistencies in the stories of the bible. He uses the average persons presumption against paradox as a fulcrum to wedge the audience and the jurors away from their inclination to side with the Biblical text. He twists Brady's word to make it seem as if Brady is holding himself out as God's spokesmen on Earth, a self concept that would be at odds with any average man's view of another in most situations. The legal argument is largely abandoned in favor of a generic attack on fundamentalist beliefs, some of which are backed by evidence but many of which are unsupported ad hominem attacks directed at the prosecutor rather than the case. As Brady sputters to reconcile contradictions, Drummond mocks him mercilessly in front of the jury. It makes for a great dramatic sequence but a lousy piece of legal argument. In the Scopes trial, all of that interchange was stricken from the record and the jury was admonished to ignore it. In the drama of the film, one character figuratively performs a  coup de grâce on his opponent.

The freedom to offer controversial points of view in a classroom is sacrosanct from the view of those with tenure. The sciences and math being two fields where not much controversy is supposed to exist, but there is plenty of controversy in science. That is part of the scientific method, to continuously test the theories and beliefs that are "settled".  For a parallel to the evolutionary debate of nearly a hundred years ago, look at the climate issues discussed now. Imagine a "non-believer" challenging the settled science of climate change in a classroom today. They are very likely to be chastised and hounded ("denier") because they don't accept orthodoxy. One thing that has not evolved, is the human desire to control other people's  thoughts. The difference today is that the shoe is on the other foot.

Modern audiences might find the style and performances of the actors in this film to be stilted or hammy. March's character is supposed to be that way because he comes from an old school of declamation that cherished bombast and speeches as sermons. Yet even Tracy's Drummond has moments of corn built into it and that will strike today's audiences as mannered. The humanist approach taken by Drummond is a fair one. He acknowledges that change comes at a cost. Look in the following passage:

“Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.
Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.
Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat.
Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.

The actual Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial

When I read arguments on line about films, especially older films, that get criticized for their effects, style, pacing or racism,  I am reminded that progress costs us. Technology may allow us to see things that could not be visualized before CGI, but what happens to our sense of gravity or physics? Editing and digital video may make a story move quicker, but we lose character and suspense. An evolved mind should dismiss the thinking of the past, but you will lose the ability to enjoy the wonder of the past from their perspective.

"Inherit the Wind" reminds us that 1928 was a different time, that 1961 was equally different as well. The argument continues, what is progress and what is worth keeping? Film makers and society continue to try to answer that question, and to honest, the answers are not always satisfactory.

Dune 1984

Having done an extensive review and historical post just last December for this movie, I will refer you to that page on "30 Years On". This film is a personal favorite of mine, a characteristic it shares with my oldest daughter Allison. We had originally planned to go together but she had some other conflict and missed out tonight. Since I'd already bought the tickets, my wife agreed to go with me and I'm happy to say she liked the film quite well.

Once upon a time I might have felt a little guilty defending this movie against it's detractors, but that hesitation is gone. This movie is much better than it's reputation and it was even better tonight than I had remembered. The image on the big screen really brings out the spectacular set design and the quality of the costuming. The music is impressive from the beginning and the work by rock veterans Toto, combined with a little added "spice" from Brian and Roger Eno and Daniel Lanois with the prophesy theme was extra special. Coming at us in full theater sized dolby stereo made it sound really impressive along with the sound design of the film which was the one category that the movie was acknowledged for by the Academy.

As I sat watching and listening to the film, I was surprised at how well the plot really did develop. I had thought before that it was somewhat clunky, relying on verbalized inner thoughts to hold things together. When I paid close attention, I think half of that dialogue could go away and the movie would still make sense and be a bit less obvious.  The villains do chew some scenery, but the visualizations and their maniacal gleams, remind you how awful the Harkonnens really are. The sequence with the Baron showering in who knows what effluent and then taking sexual pleasure in the murder of a frightened young man was very David Lynch and very disturbing. The rest of the cast succeeds because they were well chosen and played their parts with a bit more subtlety. I especially appreciated Jürgen Prochnow as the doomed Duke Leto. He has some lines that end up resonating bigger themes in the story and if you listen to them, he sounds both sad and inspiring.

I can't say enough about the look of the film, it was just as amazing as I always thought it was. With the exception of some of the spacecraft shots and one or two scenes with the sandworms, these effects can stand up to scrutiny and outclass a lot of the CGI junk that gets foisted on us nowadays. One bit of collectible ephemera I neglected to share in the post on "30 Years On", was the standee for the VHS release that I snagged from the Music Plus store back in 1985. Here it is in the back patio room where it has sat since we moved in to this house 21 years ago. That's a three dimensional display with the foreground figures on one section and the background on another.

There was a fair sized crowd at the theater, "The Sherman Oaks Arclight". Since this is probably a big nostalgia piece for any of you reading, the "Arclight" in the valley is located at the site of the old Sherman Oaks Galleria. You know, the mall featured in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Valley Girl". It is now an outdoor shopping area with a few upscale stores and a few stylish eateries. For an 80's classic like "Dune", it was fun to think about as we walked from the parking structure.

Wearing my "Visit Scenic Arrakis" shirt, designed by my daughter, and sitting with my favorite person in the world.

Mission Impossibe: Rogue Nation

Thirteen Minutes of pontification. It's really a great action  film.

Mr. Holmes

The conceit of this movie is that Sherlock Holmes was a real person and that his life of private consulting was well known due to the writings of Dr. Watson. There are movies made about him and and tourists flock to his supposed address and he is now 93 in 1947 England. From that premise we proceed into a personal mystery that Holmes is trying to unravel before his death. He is also plagued with senility that fogs his memory, much in the manner of early stage Alzheimer's disease. The character of Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain at this point. The estate of Conan Doyle controls ten stories but any person with enough creativity can invent and publish or produce a Holmes tale. That may account for why he has been one of the most widely portrayed fictional characters in cinema. This movie is sort of a coda to his adventures and it is primarily a vehicle for the amazing Sir Ian McKellen.

Many years ago, I heard a critic (Rod Lurie) refer to these English produced character pieces as "tea on the lawn pictures".  I understand completely the idea behind that description, so many films in this vain offer no action, subtle drama, and an overriding sense that the locations are the primary purpose for people watching this. Anyone hoping for McKellen to throw down like Gandalf or Magneto need not bother showing up for this film. It is languidly paced and beautifully composed and an intricate character study across a thirty year chasm in the life of the world's greatest detective. If you are willing to listen however, you will be rewarded by some clever dialogue, intricate plotting and an ultimately warm story of old age and regret. Oh, and that is not to mention a spectacular performance by a seasoned actor in a tailor made part.

Admittedly the quiet countryside and remote farm that Mr. Holmes now occupies will meet the criteria of a "tea on the lawn" movie. There are even several scenes involving the consumption of tea but they never take place out of doors so that label would be a misnomer. Holmes is trying desperately to halt his oncoming memory loss and restore enough of his powers of observation, to help him complete the true story of his last case. He is dissatisfied with the version told by Dr. Watson, and he knows that it must be wrong because there is no other logical way to explain his retirement from the practice of detective work thirty years earlier. As he tries to solve the mystery of that case, he is simultaneously working with the son of his housekeeper to preserve the apiary he keeps and discover what is causing an outbreak of deaths among the bee colony. At the start of the film it seemed unlikely that this would be an older mentor type of story but that is what it morphs into and that is when the story becomes emotionally involving. The partial details and slow reveal of the tale from original mystery from 1917 are not particularly compelling. That is because the story is dribbled out in small bits and we never get a chance to relate to anyone but Holmes as the information appears. When the plot becomes the subject of a manuscript that Holmes shares with young Roger, then we have the motivation to pay attention and appreciate the detective work.

The performance of Ian McKellen is truly excellent. It is easy to accept him as the sixtyish Holmes in the flashback parts of the story. He is in reality about half way between the two ages that he plays here. The younger version has the strong posture of an older but still vigorous man. His back is straight and his head is up. Simple make-up and hairstyle work add to the illusion of a younger man, and his manner is more forceful and articulate. As the much older 93 year old, McKellen gets the physical parts just right. He is slower in all things, his facial expressions often belie a humor that the younger version of himself would not approve of. Again the low key make up work is effective while being impalpable. This helps immensely with the drama as the sadness of lonely isolation has taken a toll on the main character. As a victim of increasing senility, his face needs to covey the kind of vacant expression of someone who is intellectually trapped inside a failing organ like the brain. Sir Ian is  very persuasive in conveying that tone. It is dangerous to make early predictions about awards at the end of the year, so many other delights await us, but it is highly likely that this will be another nominated performance for him.

Young Milo Parker is an effective foil for McKellen to sharpen his performance with. As Roger, Parker conveys the kind of sharp wit and openness to tutelage that an old Sherlock Holmes would need to stir himself. He is also quite believable as the somewhat truculent child of a war widow struggling to keep her and her son's heads above water after the war. The tension that comes from having to be nursemaid to the infirm old man when that is not really what she is being paid for makes the mother character seem unpleasant, when what she really is is desperate herself. I was happy to see Laura Linney in that part. She has worked so much in television recently that her absence from the big screen has been notable. She is all wound up temper and frustration through much of the film and when she gets a chance to release those emotions it does stir the drama up in the last act. I was also impressed with the music of Carter Burwell who has collaborated with director Bill Condon on several earlier films. I wonder if it was his work that is being played on the "glass armonica" featured in the story.

"Mr. Holmes" is a slow moving but very rewarding film. It will appeal to independent cinema fans of course but it looked to me from the audience that I saw it with that it is resonating with a different group. People over the age of fifty filled the theater today (personal disclaimer, that will include me). Everyone was very receptive to the film and there was a nice round of applause at the end of the movie. This is not a common occurrence in films, much less ones that attract a geriatric audience, but it is another indicator that there may be hope for this movie at awards time. The Academy is notoriously old and this demographic is served very well by this high quality production. I don't think my appreciation for this movie is simply a counter reaction to having to endure "Minions" and "Terminator Genysis" earlier this month. I simply think this is one of the best films I've seen this year.

SPECTRE TRAILER

Double Indemnity

Last year I participated in a blogathon dedicated to Billy Wilder. My choice was "The Lost Weekend", a dated melodrama that won the Academy Award for Best picture and bestowed upon Mr. Wilder his first two Oscars after five previous nominations. Two of those nominations were for this film which is screening as part of a TCM/Fathom Event promoting the new Blu Ray release of "Double Indemnity".  It was more deserving of the awards than "The Lost Weekend" but then the Academy is notorious for being just behind the curve.

This is a terrific film noir, set in Los Angeles and featuring some of the snappiest dialogue you are likely to encounter in a theater.

Phyllis: Mr. Neff, why don't you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He'll be in then.
Walter Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren't you?
Walter Neff: Yeah, I was, but I'm sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Walter Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I'd say around ninety.
Walter Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Walter Neff: Suppose it doesn't take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Walter Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband's shoulder.
Walter Neff: That tears it. 

Barbara Stanwyck is hot in her platinum blonde hair and white sweater. It's easy to see why Walter Neff fell into her plan so easily. Like all noir vixens, she is duplicitous and irresistible.  Even with the Hayes code still in force, the innuendo in this film is pretty smoking. The famous meetings at Jerry's Market as Neff and Phyllis cruise up and down the aisles of canned vegetables and boxed baby formula are still enticing and fun to watch. If you are from Southern California, it's also interesting to hear all the local references to neighborhoods and institutions. Both USC and UCLA get a nod in the film. Glendale, Santa Monica and Los Feliz are also named. I got a kick out of seeing Walter stop at a drive-in diner and get served a beer on a tray like he was at Bobs or Twoheys. There is also a musical interlude at the Hollywood Bowl.

Edward G. Robinson gets one of his best roles in this movie as the insurance investigator who can't be fooled. There are so many small pieces to his character that make him so interesting. His vest pockets are stuffed with pens and pencils and cigars in nearly every scene. He never seems to have a match and Walter is always so accommodating. I probably was emulating Clint Eastwood when I learned how to light a safety match with my thumbnail, but I could easily have fit into this time period with the way everyone lights up their cigarette or cigar with just a flick of the thumb. Robinson also talks about that "little man" in his chest that won't let him rest until he has done right by the case. He continues to absently tap his own chest as a visual reminder that there is another character located inside of him

The story of the step daughter and her boyfriend, some times distracts from the main focus but I recognize they are effective plot devices to allow the story to simmer more as it comes to a hard boil. The femme fatale and the cold hearted sap she falls in with are epitomized by the two leads in this film. Along with "the Postman Always Rings Twice", these are the essential tropes of a dark film from this period. Wilder's own "Sunset Boulevard" uses the same flashback plot structure as this movie. We know the fate of the lead character at the start of the film, we just have to have the story told back to us in a way that makes it compelling, and the first person descriptions allow some great observations.  Tough talking guys who call their obsessively powerful women "Baby" and hard as flint women who hide some of their emotions behind sunglasses are just what is called for on a hot day in July.


Walter Neff: Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?

After all the films I saw at the TCM Festival and the Fathom screenings of "Jaws" that I attended last month, these events are feeling more and more like the way I want to see older films. The slide show for the event listed five or six upcoming events that will also be bringing me back to the theater under the umbrella of TCM.