The Stranger

It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now abit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it wasvery predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie thatWelles is the nazi war criminal, and I’ll give you one guess as to whetherhe is caught and appropriately punished in the end.

Not worth watching. It’s sad that Welles only made three movies worthseeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch ofEvil.

Although this is not one of Orson Welles’ masterpieces, it’s a verywell made film that holds up well. It’s an espionage thrillerconcerning the hunting of Nazi war criminals in the quiet New Englandtown of Harper, Connecticut. It’s not a thriller of the modern typewith lots of gunfire, explosions, and car chases to hold one’sinterest. Instead, it depends for tension on drawing us into thevarious characters’ (justified) paranoia. It includes terrificperformances by Orson Welles, Loretta Young, and Edward G. Robinsonthat justify the time spent on their own. In addition it has many ofthe Welles signature touches like strange camera angles and brightfaces emerging from deep black shadows. There is a small detail in thebeginning of the movie which had me anticipating an entirely differentending than what was supplied. Without that one detail, the endingwould have been fairly predictable, but because that detail washighlighted the way it was, the movie managed to surprise me with theending. This was another of Welles favorite tricks, to give ussomething insignificant in the beginning of a movie to influence ourexpectations of the rest of the movie.

I was disappointed with this Orson Welles effort. The story revolvesaround the capture of a well known war criminal ………. I thought theperformances from the cast were a little wooden and the script wasunbelievable. A good overall to the entire film would have benefitedboth audience and cast, it definitely lacked something. It wasn’t oneof Welles better films in my opinion, he could have added a touch ofsuspense and intrigue. As it is, we have a film that goes through themotions of telling the story, which (to me) was tiresome. When youconsider the talents of Welles, Young and Robinson together you wouldthink you would have a chance to watch a pretty good film.Unfortunately this isn’t the case. 5/10

While it contains some inventive visual flourishes and a broodingatmosphere bathed in shadow, "The Stranger" comes off as a rather dryexercise in film noir aesthetics. Orson Welles plays a Nazi warcriminal living in America, teaching at a prestigious college, andarranged to marry Loretta Young, daughter of a prominent politician. Ina great performance, Edward G. Robinson is the DC detective out to reinin Welles and his ilk. While the subject matter is rather daring forits time (the film was released in 1946), it is dated by today’sstandards, and the machinations of the plot putter along rigidly. Savefor some striking imagery, it’s difficult to get worked up over "TheStranger"’s final outcome.

The reason people talk about "The Stranger" 60 years later is becauseit was Orson Welles’ first directorial effort after he was evicted fromthe Mercury Theater cocoon which gave us "Citizen Kane" as well as itsworthy follow-ups "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "It’s All True." Thereason "The Stranger" is worth talking about is because it features oneof the greatest performances by that criminally-ignored actor, EdwardG. Robinson.

Robinson plays Mr. Wilson, an anti-Nazi hot on the trail of awar-crimes-tribunal escapee Wilson hopes will lead him to FranzKindler, architect of the Final Solution. Kindler, we quickly discover,has set himself up as a history teacher, Mr. Rankin, at a Connecticutprep school. There he is about to marry Mary Longstreet, the daughterof a U.S. Supreme Court justice, "a liberal," Kindler relates withchilling amusement.

As Kindler, Welles gives a weak performance. There’s a scene where hechews on more than his dinner as he gives himself away, by saying Marxwas not a German because he was a Jew. Actually, I’d say the jig was upwhen he revealed his novel notions of reconstruction. The scenesbetween him and Loretta Young, who plays his too-trusting bride, areuncomfortably clichéd.

But Robinson is a marvel throughout the film. Of course, he is bestremembered for playing a gangster, but he shone playing good guys, too."Double Indemnity" is the best of them, though "Confessions Of A NaziSpy" is good, too, and somewhat to the point here as it featuresRobinson playing a role similar to "The Stranger," though at thebeginning of World War II rather than the end.

Robinson’s character here, Mr. Wilson, might in fact be "the stranger"of the title, though it seems to refer to Kindler. Frankly, Kindler maybe a Nazi bent on killing innocents, but Wilson is about as coldbloodeda character. From the beginning, he seems to be half-playing a gamewith the Nazi he is chasing, smoking his pipe and staring directly intothe eyes of his fearful prey. Perhaps the war crimes he has immersedhimself in investigating have stripped him of any human kindness. Theway he works on Mary’s brother Noah and his father the judge isremarkable for Wilson’s lack of humane concern, perhaps necessary, butstill bone-chilling. He’s like that all the way to the end. Just thinkfor a moment about that final line he says to Mary, after all she’sjust been through. He’s on the side of the angels, but Robinson turnsin one of his most devilish performances.

There are nice scenes in and around the town of Harper, and I agreewith those viewers who see shades of "Shadow Of A Doubt" in itsdepiction of small-town life, even though that took place in Californiaand this is happening in Connecticut. Billy House as Mr. Potterdominates the scenes he is in with his amiable whimsy and the eyeshadehe dons when he’s in the middle of a serious checkers game (quarterstakes).

But "The Stranger" never really gels as a movie. Welles as director isstrangely ill at ease with Wells as star. Too many cow-eyed portentousstares, not enough subtle moments like that low-key moment with Mr.Potter when he pays for a soda after finding out Mr. Wilson’s hot onhis trail. Young may have been a fine actress, but she doesn’t get muchhelp from a script that serves up every frail female stereotype in thebook. Her every reaction seems more suited to soap opera.

Yet there’s more to like here than dislike. Take the satisfyingconclusion, where Kindler/Rankin has his moment of truth in the churchtower where he has been working on the clock. It’s the one effectivescene between him and Mary, and very gripping. Welles was a giftedartist, but a superb craftsman, too, and if "The Stranger" offers moreevidence of the latter, who are we to quibble? Pleasant dreams…

Robinson is a government agent out to nab Nazi war criminal Welles,who's been living in a small Connecticut town using a false identity.Robinson is terrific as usual whereas Welles is rather wooden as thevillain. This was the second film for young Richard Long (The BigValley). Director Welles makes the most of it but the script is weak,lacking focus. The relationship between Welles and Young is neverbelievable; this can be blamed on the script as well as the two actors.Based on what we are shown about their relationship and given his dourcharacter, it is hard to believe that she would stick with him after heconfesses to being a killer. Welles has done better.

It may well be one of Welles' lesser films but there is some reallygood stuff in here. I loved the length of some of the shots, not asspectacularly long or as complicated as the opening of A Touch of Evilbut still long enough. There's one in particular when Edward G Robinso
nand the boy walk out of the doctor's office and cross the road. There'sno dialogue between them and nothing happens. They just cross the roadand think about what they have just been told - and we the audience getto think about it too. When was the last time you saw a mainstreamHollywood movie that gave you time to think about what was going on?

Or what about the long tracking shot when Rankin and Meinike meet inthe woods? It's wonderful. We get to see the actors really act. Fromthe moment two old comrades meet till the moment one of them murdersthe other. It's hypnotising. There isn't a cut between one of seventeendifferent angles every other word as so often happens these days. Andthere is some lovely acting from here from Welles. Smart and creepy.The way his hands twist and crawl on the back of the pew as he lies tohis wife in the church.

As with all Welles' movies we can only wish the Director's Cut wasstill in existence but what remains is an interesting little film.

I first saw this movie in the theater quite a while ago and found it tobe a well made film but with a forgettable plot. Second viewing doesn'treally change my opinion. It's a suspense movie, not a mystery, so youcan't really complain about the fact that we know who the killer isfrom the very beginning. But even so, a good suspense movie should havea better plot than this one.

That complaint aside, it's a fine film from the great director. Theopening sequences are especially interesting with Welles' famous rovingcamera technique used right away as we see the release of a prisonerwho is going to lead the investigator, Mr. Wilson (Edward G. Robinson)to an escaped Nazi war criminal (Welles), Professor Rankin. What'sinteresting in the basic set-up is that Rankin has managed to ensconcehimself in a small upper crust heartland community and is engaged to bemarried to a federal judge's daughter, Mary (Loretta Young). The film'stextual message, such as it is, focuses on the concept that danger andevil can exist even in the most apparently wholesome and positivecircumstances or environments.

Probably the film's most interesting scene is the dinner scene whereMr. Wilson attempts to interrogate Rankin in a very casual manner.Rankin would almost have escaped if it weren't for his momentary slipup in saying that Karl Marx "wasn't a German, he was a Jew".

Perhaps in a way the film is saying that evil is able to hide sosuccessfully in the midst of innocent and good people because as longas someone is well educated and has mastered social customs, asProfessor Rankin has; and not just that, but the fact that his evilcould only be revealed by a casual slip of the tongue implies that ourordinary social customs do not encompass or do not reveal the truenature of our selves.

Personally I didn't think much of Loretta Young in the role. Not surehow much was her fault, because the role is pretty thin in my opinion.The film never really comes to grips with the idea that this "good"woman was able to be fooled by a bigot into marriage. It would havebeen a more interesting film to me if the portrayal of the townsfolkhadn't been so clearly intended to show them as essentially "good" andWelles' character as totally different from them.

A real buried treasure directed by Orson Welles during his Hollywoodheyday. Welles plays a small-town teacher engaged to local girl LorettaYoung while carrying around a very grave secret. He's a fugitive Nazi!Edward G. Robinson is the government man closing in. THE STRANGER, witha script by John Huston is must see entertainment, not only for Wellescompletists but for noir buffs as well. Welles' typically dizzyingcamera-work is on display and he creates one of his most vilecharacters, one who will kill at even the possibility of exposure. It'sa great performance. Welles is matched by Robinson and the two maketerrific adversaries. The usually hard to take Young is just OK…sheis a bit too glamorous for her role. A very young Richard Long is in ittoo. The film's climax is extremely exciting.

Sadly, the film is in the public domain so finding a decent copy can bea chore!

If you look over the career of Orson Welles, in many ways each film hemade was a reaction to the last one, at least in terms of the problemshe had with the producers and distributors who acted against him. Afterthe butchering of what could have been his greatest film, TheMagnificent Ambersons, Welles decided he would play ball with thestudios, accepting minimal control over a project he neither wrote norchose. The result, The Stranger, was to be his weakest film.

The Stranger has in the first place a fairly absurd storyline. Therewere quite a few of these nazi-on-the-run thrillers made around thistime (Fred Zinnemann made several) and they were usually a little farfetched, but the best of them were at least good suspenseful thrillers.Welles was to make some great thrillers after this, but so far hisstrengths had been in powerful drama and a semi-documentary approach.Welles tries to make something out of the dramatic moments, but iteither needs more drama or more suspense. As it is it is neither onething or the other.

The biggest problem for Welles, and the reason why he was never a greatcollaborator, is that his style relied upon a wholeness of approach.His best films seem totally orchestrated, with images flowingrhythmically into one another, and a sense of balance to the wholeproject. To achieve this he would either need to have collaborators whowere totally on the same wavelength as him, or to be in total controlhimself – from first treatment to final cut. There is a little of thatflowing style on evidence here, with images dovetailing into eachother, and recurring themes like the clock and the game of checkersbeing given prominence, but ultimately this is someone else's movie,and not a very good one at that.

What remains of Welles is his technical style, which was in factbecoming more polished even as the overall quality of his filmsdiminished. He has a very distinctive actor-centred approach to shotcomposition. For Welles the question seems to be not "How do I shootthis scene?" but "How do I film this character?" He doesn't shoot a setwith actors in it, he shoots the actors that happen to be on the set.He even uses actors as aesthetic framing devices, like another directormight use a tree branch or the side of a building. This probably stemsfrom Welles' deep respect for the actors above all else, and the desireto purely photograph a performance.

Speaking of actors, there are three great leads here and in a way it isa shame to see them sold short by a poor script. Welles directs himselfas he often did, getting his teeth into his first really villainousrole, and just about managing to make the war criminal convincing. Ilike Edward G. Robinson as the detective, but it was of course inRobinson's comfort zone, and I wish Welles had got his way and beenallowed to cast Agnes Moorehead in the role – that would at least havegiven The Stranger something unique and interesting. The bestperformance comes from Loretta Young, who has what must be the mostdifficult role, her character having to slowly come to terms withhaving married a monster. It would have been easy for her to slip intohysterical melodrama, but she manages superbly to keep it realistic. Infact, Young's performance is probably the best thing about thispicture.

Orson Welles may be seen as a something of a crusader for the cause ofindependent directors, but his inability to be a team player was initself a weakness, and in this case may have distracted him from reallytrying to make the most of the material he was given. Still, thescreenplay is pure pulp and I don't think there's much anyone couldhave done with it without some major rewrites. Compare this to Welles'much later Touch of Evil,
in which he took a trashy novel and totallyturned it round into a masterpiece.

read comments (0)

The Big Sleep

By and large, your enjoyment of this film will depend upon how crazyyou are about its two leads.

The plot is indecipherable (almost a parody of those byzantine filmnoir stories), and there’s really not much more to the movie thanHumphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall trading saucy, dead-pan barbs.

Bogart’s o.k., but for me he’s not one of those actors who cansingle-handedly carry a movie. I’ve always been immune to the charms ofBacall. So all in all, this movie left little impression on me.

It’s enjoyable as yet one more entry in that hard-boiled detectivegenre that was so in vogue at the time, but it’s not one of the morememorable examples of it.

Grade: C

Good noire private eye film that does not concentrate on plot but more onafantasy/artistic style of presentation via escapist flow and very comicbooklike dialgue.It’s power is in it’s serious presentation and snappydialoguefans of the genre will truly enjoy.Also,the lead actors did a great jobgiving life to their characters.To be a masterpiece,this film could havehada better screenply though.Do not try too hard to understand themystery.Theart here is in the ATMOSPHERE which later (same genre) movies immitated.Ifnot a fan of this genre,you will still be entertained if you are a big fanof the lead actors……

I’m not a big fan of mystery ‘who dunnit’ films, so perhaps I may scorethis too low. On the other hand, any really good film, a film thatendures through generations, does so because it has universal appeal.

Well, I’m part of the universe and it didn’t appeal. For one, I gotconfused, confused over the essential part of a ‘who dunnit’. That is,who killed who and why. This picture just ends up with too many deadbodies and too many suspects with too many motives. After a while, youlose track. Presumably the most satisfying aspect of a ‘who dunnit’ isknowing who killed who in the end and why. This leaves you unsatisfied.

So a lesson to writers – don’t have too many bodies or suspects. Areader, or viewer, shouldn’t have to keep a chart to keep track. Keepthe story simple and focused. If you must have the necessary ‘deadends’ or ‘false trails’ make sure they don’t blur the essential truthof your story.

Also, I haven’t watched black and white since I was a kid. As an adult,and one involved in film, I can see an essential weakness – the nighttime scenes. Night scenes in black and white lose too much detail,especially around the periphery of the screen. Oft times it’s like yourpeering through a keyhole. And the contrast is either too jagged or tooblurred, depending on how the scene is shot.

Not really a legitimate critique, just an observation, like seeing theblack face actors in ‘Birth of Nation’. As modern viewers we’ve grownaccustomed to better film technique.

Like the title, a lot of the dialogue of this puzzlingly celebratedBogart/Bacall pairing noir is dated to the point of obscurity. Itdoesn’t help that the majority of the dialogue is delivered with actingthat is at best stilted but worse, is often equivocally wooden. In afilm in which the screen is an A-lister catwalk the script becomesdisproportionately important. Despite some early attentiveness todialogue from the characters at Sternwood’s house, the descent intodramatic coasting from actors and a lack of inventiveness from Hawks togive the narrative a third dimension can turn the experience into TheBig Yawn.

However, the melange is rescued to a degree by Bogart. Maybe he talksin a speedy drawl that Benicio del Toro would be proud of and can beselective about those elements of the script that suit him, but he doeshave marvellous charisma. In this film he’s given abundant opportunityto exercise his charms as well; an army of Tiller girls are wheeled onin various roles to give him something to call Sugar. The scene in theAcme bookshop offsets his only irresolute collision with a female byproviding the most surprising example of this effect.

Bacall is more of a clothes horse than Bogart’s other celebratedpartner of the period, Ingrid Bergman, providing a cool centre to thetumbling, unchecked pace of the film’s unfolding. Unfortunately, toomuch in this picture goes unnuanced and that story told in broadbrushstrokes is one of the two powerful charismas coming together tothe exclusion of most else. 4.5/10

Faulkner’s screenplay is NOT good. The movie is really not a lot likethe novel. Now, that shouldn’t be a knock, but the novel makes muchmore sense than this muddle of Hollywoodized caricatures of Chandler’stale.

The whole thing got cooked into this tongue-in-cheek Bogey/Bacallthing, because of the success of To Have and Have Not, and so theyhyped up the Bogey Sex Appeal at the sacrifice of the story, which isabout a lady who can’t keep her clothes on when cameras are around, andwhose husband is "missing".

**Analogy: Chandler’s Big Sleep is to Filet Mignon, as Hawk’s Big Sleepis to BK Broiler.**

I love Hawk’s work in the antic comedy area, but between his hammydirecting and Faulker’s (give me another mint julep *hic* honey) flat,canned screenplay, this is just a Screen Giant Personality Fest.

It was cute in To Have and Have Not, but give me a freaking’ break.Where’s the life-and-death in this thing? Film Noir? The only thing"Noir" about this was that it was "Blanc-Noir".

Jim

(A Little Spoilers Included)

For readers of Raymond Chandler, to enjoy this noir adaptation, the firsthurdle to conquer may be to forget Philip Marlowe in Chandler’s novels andto accept Marlowe performed by Humphrey Bogart. Chandler portrays Marlowe asa private eye with professional ethics and pride, not a womanizer likeBogart Marlowe, who falls for a daughter of his client. In addition, evenunderstanding the values in the 40s, it is hard to believe that BogartMarlowe can easily attract many women.

The original story is too complicated to be adapted to a film; as a result,the plot highly relies on explanatory dialogues and is difficult to follow.For example, the viewers come to know that someone is tailing Marlowe whenhe asks Eddie Mars (John Ridgely) if Mars has someone follow him; thisinformation should be given by a picture. The conclusion is abrupt; Marlowefigures out what happened to missing Shaun Regan completely out of the blue(He does so in the original novel, too, but the abruptness isless).

Aside from these problems, the film is a well-stylized enjoyable noir piece.As a prototypical femme fatale, Vivian Sternwood (Lauren Bacall) appearseverywhere as if she was a criminal mastermind behind the scene, anddevelops a romance with Marlowe, while in the novel she does neither ofthem. These factors make the plot less convincing, but enhance the noiraesthetics. Mars’ wife Mona (Peggy Knudsen) looks too plain as a mysteriouswoman in villains’ den; the 1945 prerelease version has a more suitableactress (Pat Clark). The stunning last shot of Bogart and Bacall smokingrepresents what the film is all about.

I know the people involved in this picture are supposed to be screen legendsbut what a god awful film this was! The plot is going in 50 differentdirections while people are getting shot up in all sorts of public placeswithout any cops investigating the shootings. While I did understand thestory I fail to see how some would call this one of the best films evermade. I just don’t see it.

i saw THE BIG SLEEP about 15 years ago on TV (i was only 3 in 1946 when itwas released) and i couldn’t remember a thing. when i just saw it againthis week, i was shocked at how boring and unending the "twists and turns"were and how monotonous, strained, and totally unrealistic the "tough"dialogue was. i thought the movie would NEVER end.

BIG SLEEP was actually better when Bacall was offscreen, and when otherperformers were the central focus of a scene rather than Bogart
.

just having finally seen BASIC INSTINCT (1992) and immediately recognizingthe great Dorothy Malone, one of my all-time favorite actresses and stars,iwas totally knocked out to discover Malone’s name in the cast list –playing the brittle, hateful and eventually sympatheticmoll.

Gumshoe Philip Marlowe is idolized today by many fans of "The BigSleep," but when the film first came out how did audiences regard him?And what may have been the intentions of the film’s makers in creatingan antihero with a personal code of ethics and honor that take himoutside morality and the law to serve the interests of his jadedwealthy client?

Unsavory underworld types seem to drop dead just about as quickly asthey run into Marlowe. Not surprisingly, this perfectly serves hisclient, General Sternwood, who has told Marlowe simply to "get rid of"the blackmailer who threatens to expose Sternwood’s daughter as a junkyand a slut unless he gets paid for some bogus gambling debts. Nevermind that Marlowe doesn’t personally pull the trigger on Geiger, thephony rare books seller with a sideline in blackmail. In theunavoidable logic of this fatalistic movie the extortionist’s fate issealed the moment that Marlowe walks through his door.

Just as much as he serves his client, Marlowe is the agent of doom, asymbol of the dark principle of poetic justice that informs so manynoir movies made in Hollywood during the forties and the fifties. Yethe is not so much admirable as repugnant in the role of fickle fingerof fate, like a pariah with a curse upon his head.

Should we idolize him? He never does anything that doesn’t perfectlyserve the corrupt interests of the rich. If General Sternwood owned afactory and the workers there were on strike, you can bet that aprivate dick exactly like Philip Marlowe would be on the opposite sideof the picket line attacking the strikers with a brickbat. Why? Becausea private eye like Marlowe, who comes from the same tradition as thereal life union-busting Pinkertons, would never fail to do anything inthe interest of a wealthy paying client.

There’s nothing wrong with the movie though. In fact, it’s fairlyrealistic and very well made. Like the works of the bourgeois Frenchnovelist Honore de Balzac, which were much admired by Karl Marx, thenovels of Raymond Chandler and the movies based upon them are mostinteresting for the realistic portraits they present of the criminaland upper classes, which in "The Big Sleep" seem very much alike. ButMarlowe’s no hero for getting his wealthy client off cheaply, he’s justanother cossack serving the interests of a spoiled and decadent czar.

As a Bogart fan, I was happy TCM presented it. I taped it, sat downlast night to view and could take no more than 45 minutes of it. Goodheavens, what a BOMB. The plot? Beats me and even if I were able tofollow it, there's so much extraneous nonsense tossed in, who cares? Ohsure…the steam between Bogart and Bacall was certainly percolating;the film noir was "noiring" and Howard was certainly Hawkingbut…but…who could stand such a hodgepodge of celluloid. Bogartfans…this one's really really BAAAAD. I wondered how movie fans in1946 took to it? How many theater managers were besieged with "pleaserefund my money" requests? I'll bet that somewhere along the way whenBogart was interviewed about this specific picture he told it like itwas…"I did it for the money and that's all." This had to be the worstBogart film of all time, bar none.

read comments (0)

Notorious

"Notorious" is often hailed as one of Alfred Hitchcock’s finest productions,and with a cast that includes Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains,why shouldn’t it be? Well, lets see if I can think of a reason. Inaddition to having oily fingertips, my head scratching has produced severalreasons why "Notorious" does not deserve its superior reputation: first ofall, it’s dull. If that were not enough to sink it, and I believe it is,it’s also boring. Dull and boring: the cardinal sins of filmmaking, sinsthat Hitchcock had previously committed with "Rebecca," and would commitagain with "The Paradine Case," "Stage Fright," and "Under Capricorn." The"master of suspense" did not earn that title through those films, and thereis little suspense to be found in this supposed "espionage thriller" thatis, in fact, a romance.

Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman smooch up a storm while resident villainClaude Rains steals the acting honors as a Nazi spy. The whole tediousaffair reminds me that of the four Hitchcock films starring Grant, only1959’s "North by Northwest" qualifies as a classic. Theothers–"Suspicion," "To Catch a Thief," and, yes, "Notorious"–areforgettable.

The long crane shot in Notorious is the greatest scene in the film. Therestis a typical World War 2 Nazi suspense thriller with two main Hollywoodactors and a legendary director who likes to push the limits.Why is this a good movie ……..it’s not. For 1946, its worth seeingtwiceat the local cinema. For today’s audience, maybe worth watching on publictvwhen the cable goes out.

Spoilers herein.

Hitchcock’s work is as good as any to study for the impermanence of style.Let’s completely set aside the clothes, the conceit about Germanspies/mothers-in-law, the obviously fake sets and the trite plot devices(uranium in bottles, poison in coffee). We are still left with two levels ofstyle.

I suppose it is arguable whether these are styles. I call them stylesbecause they are imposed by society, were a major part of the original charmof the work, and now are noticeably out of place, replaced by a newset.

The first concerns what it means to be cinematic: the staging, the framingand the relationship of lights to eye. Hitchcock was both a master and aninnovator of the first two. But he was steeped in the theatrical tradition.Every actor showed that they knew where the camera was. The action comes tothe camera, not the other way around. The perspective is constant, and atseated eye-level, seldom moving about as a disembodied observer might. Thisis obsolete today, even in the most mundane films.

The second deals with modern acting. Hitchcock WAS modern sixty years ago.While he had one foot in the theater and an obligation to tell a story, hehas the other foot in modern self-awareness. Incidentally marked by hiswalkons, his more pervasive use was how the actors winked at the camera.Grant was a master of this with his smile that was intended primarily forthe viewer. So we have Grant in two persona: Devlin, and the actor playingDevlin. Now Hitchcock adds a familiar mix: Devlin and Alicia’s charactersbecome actors themselves. She to deceive the bad guys, he to deceivehe.

Actors playing actors is quite old (Shakespeare’s favorite device) but tomake it all self-referential comes from modern French comedy. Inserting thenotion into `realistic’ film was the Hitchcock innovation. But this style ispasse today, as the sophistication of viewers has moved on. Now we haveextremely multileveled, simultaneous roles even in our most low-brow films(`Nurse Betty’). Now we have the camera acting as a character. Now we haveshifting narrative stances.

All this shows the danger of being a stylish filmmaker — you go out ofstyle and your film just stops working. This film is of historical interestonly — it only works if you deliberately assume the mantle of the past –which is enjoyment enough for some.

Bergman IS lovely, and I think if she were acting today, she wouldn’t be sostiff; and I presume this would detract from her appeal. Check out herdaughter for instance in "Fearless."

"Notorious" is certainly a well-made film, with a perfectly structuredscript, excellent performances and some clever camerawork. Hitchcock hadalready reached the level of an accomplished director by then, and his workhere is confident and smooth.

Nevertheless, I don’t really like "Notorious". I think it’s a verydislikable, barely entertaining film. Grant makes his character so cold anddistant (and his excellent performance is devoid of the actor’s usual charm)that the scenes where he reveals his feelings for Bergman seem contradictorywith his general behavior and are often short on credibility. I know thatall those elements were intentionally included by Hitchcock, but thatdoesn’t make them any easier to swallow. A good film, but it makes you feeluncomfortable while you’re watching it.

i was extremly disapointed at the amaturishness of the cary grant andingridbergman characters as spies. it was almost as if the devlin character,played very well by grant, wanted ingrid bergman’s character to run intoproblems early. one has to blame the interpation of the great hitchcockasthe director, since it was more the actions rather then the script. thekeywould never have been hidden by a lady in the way ingrid hid it, and shewould have been too savy not to know that at a party one usually needs agreat deal of wine. it was a goof that bothered me thruout the rest ofthemovie which was fine. i feel this film is vastly overated as a hitchockclassic. many better films of his are out there.

‘Notorious (1946)’ is one of Hitchcock’s beloved mysteries, but watching itnow, restored on Criterion Collection DVD, it seems just a bit trivial. CaryGrant is a mostly serious government agent, not his usual rascal self.Ingrid Bergman is superb as the daughter of a convicted German spy. Most ofthe movie takes place in Rio, where Alicia (Bergman) is to help the USgovernment find out why a group of expatriate Germans are there and whattheir scheme is. Devlin (Grant) is an agent for the Brazilian government andhis job is to be Alicia’s contact there. The movie was actually shot in aHollywood studio, and a 2nd unit filmed generic scenes in and around Riowhich were used via rear projection to provide backgrounds for the actors.This is explained in one of the features in the DVD’s ‘dossier.’

SPOILERS follow - Alicia is a woman of loose morals, and perfect for theassignment to get ‘close’ to the Germans in Rio, but Devlin falls in lovewith her. Duty prevents him from revealing his true feelings, instead heencourages her to accept the German’s marriage proposal. Hitchcock’s’mcguffin’ is the sandy material Devlin and Alicia find in a wine bottlewhile snooping in the cellar during a party. The sand turns out to be asource of Uranium, but that doesn’t matter to this movie. When her Germanhusband and his mum find out she knows about the cellar, they begin toslowly poison her, because if they revealed the discovery to their cronies,they would be disposed of. The climax comes when Devlin, after not hearingfrom Alicia in a week, visits their home, boldly goes to her bedroom, findsthe truth, and walks Alicia out and down the stairs, the husband knowing hecannot reveal the truth or his time is up too. The movie ends with the largedoor closing with a great ‘THUD’ on the Germans, and we know what willhappen. Meanwhile … Alicia and Devlin start their life together.

A rather simple story, well done in black and white, but comes across asquite dated in this 21st century.

The film starts with John Hubermann, an American citizen of Germanorigin, being sentenced to imprisonment for treason after beingconvicted of spying for the Nazis. The main character, how
ever, is notHubermann himself but rather his daughter Alicia who is recruited byAmerican Intelligence to infiltrate a spy ring of her father’s formerassociates. Alicia travels to Rio de Janeiro, where the gang are based,accompanied by Devlin, a handsome intelligence agent. Once there shemeets Alex Sebastian, a friend of her father and an old admirer ofhers, who is a member of the gang. Sebastian is still very much in lovewith Alicia, and she agrees to marry him in order to gain access to thegang and discover their secrets.

1946 was perhaps not the best year in which to set a film with anespionage theme. The Second World War was over, but relations betweenthe West and the Soviet Union had not yet deteriorated to the extentwhere they could be considered a cold war. The plot might have workedbetter if Hitchcock, had set it a few years earlier, during the waritself, but he was obviously unwilling to do this. Perhaps he felt thata film set in the present would have more impact than one set in thepast, even the very recent past. Seen as a spy thriller, in fact thefilm is not a very good one, certainly not when compared to, say, "The39 Steps" or "North by North-West", and the plot is rather carelesslyput together. We never find out exactly what the Nazi gang areplotting, although as uranium is involved it presumably concerns someattempt to put together a nuclear device. What makes the filminteresting, however, is the high standards of acting from the threeleads, Cary Grant as Devlin, Ingrid Bergman as Alicia and Claude Rains,as Sebastian, and the relationships between the characters they play.

In a number of Hitchcock’s films there is an element of moral ambiguityabout some of the characters, both heroes and villains. In "Strangerson a Train", for example, the villain, Bruno, is in a sense the alterego of the hero, Guy. The murder at the centre of the film, of Guy’sex-wife Miriam, is carried out by Bruno, but there is a suggestion thatGuy suffers from feelings of guilt both about her death and about thefailure of their marriage. Shortly before she died they had a verypublic quarrel in which he shouted that he could strangle her. In"Rebecca" Maxim is presented as a sympathetic character, but he bearssome of the responsibility for the death of his first wife (althoughnot as much as he did in Daphne du Maurier’s original novel).

There is a similar ambiguity in "Notorious". On a political level,Sebastian is a Nazi and therefore by definition one of the bad guys.Devlin and Alicia are trying to expose him in the interests of Americandemocracy and are therefore by definition good guys. If, however, wesimply view the characters on a human level without ideologicalpreconceptions, things look very different. Sebastian is an older mandeeply in love with his beautiful young wife, but is unaware that shehas married him not out of love but in order to use him for her ownpurposes. (Sebastian is, like a number of other Hitchcock villains suchas Bruno or Norman Bates in "Psycho" a Freudian case-study; the mostpowerful influence in his life is his dominating elderly mother. Theatmosphere inside his house is one of oppressive and claustrophobicopulence, similar to the effect Hitchcock achieved with Manderley in"Rebecca".) Moreover, Alicia’s partner in her deception of her husband,Devlin, is the man with whom she is really in love. Although Aliciapretends to be in love with Sebastian, she is in reality quiteindifferent to him and has no qualms about abandoning him to his fateat the hands of his associates, who punish ruthlessly those theybelieve to have failed them. Whatever we feel about Sebastian, wecannot help feeling a chill when, in the final shot of the film, thedoor slams shut behind him.

As with Guy, there is a suggestion that Alicia may be motivated byguilt, in her case guilt about her father’s treason. Although shedespised his activities and took no part in them, she nevertheless knewabout them and failed to report him to the authorities. The Alicia thatwe see early in the film is an alcoholic (a change from IngridBergman’s normally pure and wholesome image) and the implication isthat her drinking is the result of her guilt feelings. Images ofalcohol, in fact, recur throughout the film, with numerous shots ofpeople drinking or with bottles and glasses very prominent. The secretto the gang’s activities is eventually found inside a wine bottle.

As normal with Hitchcock, there are some effective moments of suspense,especially the scene where Devlin and Alicia are searching Sebastian’swine cellar, and the one at the end where Devlin has to try to rescueAlicia from Sebastian’s house under the noses of the Nazi gang.Nevertheless this is a film that, although ostensibly a thriller,deserves to be remembered as a first-class psychological drama. 8/10

"Notorious" isn’t my favorite Alfred Hitchcock movie, but he certainlydid a good job. When Alicia Huberman Sebastian (Ingrid Bergman) has totravel to Rio de Janeiro to spy on some Nazis, she meets T.R. Devlin(Cary Grant) and finds herself drawn into a world of intrigue unlikeanything that she’s ever known. Certainly Alexander Sebastian (ClaudeRains) isn’t quite what he seems.

Like many of Hitch’s movies, this one truly makes the most ofcinematography. And what about Devlin’s name: could it mean "devil"?The final scene is set on a staircase, a common theme in AH’s movies. Iguess that the only problem is that in some way, much of the movieseems to feature people sitting around drinking and threatening to killeach other. But other than that, a true classic.

The ending was not clear.That was the only criticism.What actuallyhappened to Alexander Sebastian.Was he killed,exiled or beatenup?Alfred Hitchcock leaves a bit too much to the imagination Apart fromthat,it is the usual Hitchcock movie.Imaginative,and always moving.Evenin silence,the plot is moving.That has always been his genius.CaryGrant and Ingrid Bergmann play their parts well.Ingrid Bergmann hasalways been good at the roles of the "helpless woman".Cary Grant wasalways tailor made for Hitchcock movies hand so he fitted into his rolebeautifully.The theme is a usual one for the late 40's-Germanspies,love stories and intrigue woven together.

Post World War 11 Hitchcock thriller starring Cary Grant and IngridBergman. Her first has been jailed for treason and subsequently commitssuicide.

Grant recruits Bergman to spy on former Nazis now living in Brazil. Heworks with the head of the unit played by Louis Calhern.

The complication here is that Grant and Bergman fall in love and she issent to her former lover- Alexander Sebastian- played with sinisterzeal by Claude Rains, in still another nominated supporting Oscarperformance. Leopoldine Konstantin (aka Madame Konstantin) steals theshow as his extremely sinister mother. While Madame is quite effectivehere, I am amazed that either Maria Ouspenskaya, Blanche Yurka orformer Oscar winner Katina Paxinou did not land this plum role.

While the picture is a good one, and the ending is superb, my majorcriticism of the film is that Bergman goes from bitter woman, to a trueAmerican patriot, to one being poisoned by Sebastian and mother whenthey discover that she is an American agent. Things move along rapidly,but don't they normally do in a Hitchcock thriller?

read comments (0)

A Matter of Life and Death

I saw what may have been the American version of this film, and am verypleased to own a cassette of it, which I watch often. The Americanversion(if that is what it was) did not have the prologue that defined the filmas"one version of which existed only in the mind of a young airman" [notquitea quote]. It also had a short scene of the angel(?) rowing about in a foglooking for the airman he expected to find.What made the film so interesting was that it was neutral as to "thetruth"about the story. Either version could be taken as thetruth.As a native of Massachusetts, I liked the opinion of Boston (biased asmine) expressed by the old revolutionary (Raymond Massey). As anAmerican,I was amused by the technique of picking the "second jury", in which everyjuror was replaced by an American of similar background. (Surely thepersonwho used this was very aware of America’s attempt to point out this aspectof the country — particularly at the time of WW II.)

A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH is a film dealing with events of epicproportions. The film has a real surreal quality which induces the feelingthat the events taking place in the lead character’s mind are justthat–inhis mind or are they? The film is also a wonderful romantic fantasy. Itexhibits class and high ideals.

This movie was directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger andstars David Niven and Kim Hunter. The movie sort of reminds you of HereComes Mr. Jordan in 1941 in which Robert Montgomery was killed tooearly and has to find another body. In this one Niven was to die from ajump with no parachute but winds up living and then falling in lovewith Hunter. 20 hours later an angel finally catches up with him andtries to take Niven back but he refuses and agrees to be heard before ajury. This is just as good as some of Powell and Pressburger’s othermovies like 49th Parallel and Black Narcissus and better then HereComes Mr. Jordan and it’s remake Heaven Can Wait in 1978.

Very clever film from the late 40s,the special effects are stunning andare very ahead of their time.The love story itself is original and madebelievable.This film shows that true love conquers all,especially inthe end when June is willing to take her place on the stairway to savepeter,how can anyone deny them being together.Love doesn't come anystronger than that.Even if your not a romantic you cant help love thisfilm.The acting is great,David Niven is at his most charming best KimHunter is great as the love interest,Raymond Massey gives a good almostcomical performance as the man who can stop their happiness together.Inall this is a true masterpiece of a film,which i was surprised wasn'tmade in Hollywood,apparently it was made by an independent company,theeffects are as good as any film that came out of Hollywood of thatera.A great film I'm glad I've added it to my collection.

British-made romantic WWII fantasy sci-fi ghost story, and it works!

One of the dozen or so great films not on DVD in the US! MartinScorcese knows about Powell and Pressburger’s masterpiece, and soshould you. The use of black-and-white film to show Heaven may throwoff some viewers, but is actually perfect in context.

David Niven gives a fine performance as the British fighter pilot whois shot down without a parachute, but somehow washes up on the beachalive and well - and falls for the woman whose voice was the last heheard before the crash. Seems there has been a mistake in Heaven.

You won’t be making a mistake if you watch "A Matter of Life and Death"(also known in the USA as "Stairway to Heaven").

I'm delighted to have found this movie again. It was so very well doneand for it's time, seamless.. Life and death were very much on people'sminds less than a year after WWII finished, with many people stillwondering where loved ones lay. This movie presented a "what if" thatwhile making one smile also comforted in an odd way. I too feel thatthis was one of the best movies ever made and can hardly wait to sitdown and watch it again. The cast of characters was wonderful, RaymondMassey, creepy as ever, David Niven as charming as ever. It brings backa memory of a different time, a kinder, more gentle time plus a feelingof when time felt so short and emotions so desperate. Had to be areason why I have remembered this movie for over 40 years…

A triumph of storytelling: audacious, enchanting and possessed of abreathtaking sense of visual style. In short, P+P at the sublime peakof their powers.

As with all the best fantasies, it begins by persuading us to acceptthe impossible (RAF Pilot David Niven bailing out of his burning planewithout a parachute, and surviving) and, having thus achieved totalsuspension of disbelief, takes full advantage of this artistic licenseto weave an increasingly improbable tale with consummate panache.

To this end it is aided in no small part by subtly judged performancesfrom all the principals, notably Marius Goring as a delightfully campcelestial messenger and Roger Livesey, exuding oodles of avuncularassurance as a motorcycling brain surgeon! Who would ever guess thatanything so magical could have been made at the behest of the Ministryof Information ?

This was the most enchanting movie I remember seeing as a child. I satthere in the Tivoli Theater just mesmerized. Now, 58 years later, I amstill loving it, but it is the dickens to find in video stores or atlibraries. Will have to buy it. This was the first time I had ever seenan escalator anywhere. Forever after, in department stores, I wouldremember the movie when I stepped upon one. It got me interested intime travel, reincarnation, angels, and the magic of film! Pretty fine.It would seem that all of us are pretty tired of movies which are,first, not well written. With the reality shows on television, which donot require the services of splendid writers, we are doomed unless weall collectively make a great noise. It is very important what we see.More people are influenced by film than they will ever be by books. Iwish that were not the case, but it is. I, for one, love movies, eversince I first stepped into a theater, in 1944!! Cheers!

I first saw this film in 1946 when it was first released, I was 12years old, and it made a very great impression on me at the time. Somuch so that I saw it three time in the succeeding two weeks. The onlyother films of that period which had similar effect on me were 'Henrythe Fifth' ( Lawrence Olivier) and 'The First of the Few' with LeslieHoward. These were all highly patriotic films produced during and inthe aftermath of WWII; which probably accounts for the initialimpressions I had; but my admiration for them has increased notdecreased in the succeeding years.

Probably one reason for my impressionable nature at the time was that Iwas growing up during WWII and lived in Blackpool which was one of thetraining areas for RAF personnel and was familiar with all the uniformsand ranks both of RAF and American personnel as one of the biggest USair bases in the UK was at Warton less than 20 miles along the coastfrom Blackpool and the 'Yanks' flooded into Blackpool ( a holidayresort) at the weekends for R&R.

It is of course possible to 'pick holes' in various features of thefilm, I could for instance 'Nit-Pick' about the cockpit layout of thestricken 'Lancaster' but these do not detract from the overall qualityof the production and the 'Staircase to Heaven' has never beensurpassed as an 'Effect'

I have lost count of the number of time I have seen 'A Matter of Lifeand Death' but it must be in excess of 30 - I am probably 'WordPerfect' on the dialogue! I never miss a chance of watching any of there-runs on Television and have a couple of VHS copies around the housef
or when I 'need a fix'. My admiration for the film is not limited tomy generation, Both my daughter and one of my Wife's nephews share thesame passion - as does my Granddaughter.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my feelings on thisexcellent and memorable film.

John Christian Priest

I wouldn't fall over myself saying "this is the best movie ever made"(some issues there, I think). In fact, there are several plot holes.(The same doctor who established that the surgery is the only thingthat can help is the person who defends the pilot, but if the pilotrealized that the surgery was going on and why, that would have negatedthe court scene, and if the doctor commented on the success of thesurgery, that means that the surgery was pointless, and thereforedamaging, and antithetical. And they never did establish, as St.Exupery would say, "did the sheep eat the rose?" Did Peter really jumpwithout a chute and survive or had he been a liar or mistaken all alongand actually did wear a 'chute? But taken as face value as a flawedfantasy, it is a very good film that confronts some of the largerissues of life (life, death, war, peace, love, attraction, loyalty,prejudice, etc.). It will remind you of being similar but not matchingto "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" without much of the humor (of the originalversion of that movie). But it is a very different movie than that.

It was telling, too, that the "afterlife" is gray and lifeless and onlythis world has color (the opposite of the Wizard of Oz) and that onlysecular humanist philosophies were used, nothing religious. I think ifthe writer had religious faith (or showed it here) that would haveadded a lot to his thoughts of an afterlife. Again, human ingenuity,human logic, win the day and eternity is something one will grudginglyhave to deal with later. Maybe this was done because quoting Scripturethat "God is love" would end the argument too quickly, since it doesn'tsay "God is law" instead. But there are some great observations andquips/quotes, either way.

A very good, touching movie that I can highly recommend as long as youreyes are not too focused on the details. And that should be no problemas they will be misty from emotion.

read comments (0)