Despite being an earlish Film Noir (1944) Siodmak's scenes are so visually and psychologically intense even later Noirs in the 1950s that were doubling and tripling down on the previous Noir style couldn't surpass them. And Ella Raines is off-the-charts beautiful, powerfully photographed in a way usually reserved for elite femme fatales like Ava in Siodmark's coming The Killers (1946) lifting the film to another aesthetic place. The film rises high above its murder-mystery plot, which also isn't bad.

It's been a while since I watched this film and I didn't remember it well. On a big home screen with the lights off it is truly one of the greats.

I didn't have much insight going into this film and it really hits you in the gut. I'm used to finding my way around once you see who the femme fatale is but I was pretty unprepared for Lawrence Tierney's tough-guy, girl-melting sociopath. A truly unique film, these two characters becoming entwined together. Each by themselves could have anchored a good Noir. Psychological Thriller, dark murder stuff, a different kind of detective. Strong secondary performances. Thumbs up.

For those who love the Noir femme fatale, some historical background

One of the hallmarks of classic Film Noir is the femme fatale figure, the dangerous woman who (due to the Hays code nearly always meets a poor end) uses her powers of allurement & her clever mind to gain advantage over an unstable situation, often by introducing instability herself. Even though she is morally condemned by plot and situation she is often the transmuting character that drives the film and can give Film Noir its haunting quality. Some Noir scholars trace the first modern presence of a positive image in art of the dangerous woman to the influential Pre-Raphaelite painting, primarily in England in the mid- to late- 19th century, a style that drew on medieval and literature themes and depicted many dangerous, beautiful women in an ambiguously affirming light.

Most interesting perhaps is that the Pre-Raphaelites, just as 19th century industrialization was taking hold in the Victorian Era, and just as women were becoming a political voice/force, were interested in bringing together an "aestheticized realism, rather than gritty industrialized realism". This contrasted combination captures some of the complexity of classic Film Noir, which is both focused on intensely gritty urban or moral realism at times, but also remains highly asetheticized in its famed use of light and shadow. There is also a certain realism in the femme fatale of Film Noir in that women are left to leverage their sexual capital in an amoral world of risk and danger, pragmatically using what leverage they can, including the realpolitik of plots and murder, yet, like in Pre-Raphaelite paintings, presented as a luminous figure of the screen, imbued by the Hollywood Close Up. And, this aestheticized/realism approach, through a transgressive figure, worked to navigate real social changes from 1940-1960, intensified industrialization and commercialization, real political and economic shifts in female autonomy/power. This stylized realism in film reflected - and also as media drove - what historians read as the new requirements of women to exhibit signatures of sexuality in the workplace, in a new dating culture, and at home, as an urban-suburban boom hit post-war American capitalist culture. The femme fatale figure sometimes is read as an expression of social anxiety over (and the attempt to subsume) increased female power in society.

If interested, a few articles in the pre-Raphaelite theme:

Witches: the Pre-Raphaelite femme fatale

The erotic pull of death in Pre-Raphaelite art

The Charm of the Witches: Magic and the Pre-Raphaelites

-

When Burts character comes back to town the dude his fame is dancing with is Tony Curtis

Younger Lee Van Cleef lookin sharp - already got that presence.

Richard Conte’s cold, killer dialogue

Trying to find out who Alicia is….

Years ago, back in the 80’s, I was at a sleepover party. There was an old movie playing, but I was the only one interested so they changed the channel and I never saw the end. I have no idea what movie it was, but I’d love to see it in entirety.
I’m pretty sure Edward G Robinson played a detective. The main character was having dreams about a murder that he may or may not have been a part of. A house of mirrors was featured predominantly.
Any ideas?

It's on Prime and Apple TV.

But if I can get 1000 subscribers, I'll post on YouTube, so I can monetize it.

I'll be uploading a bunch of short films I've made as well.

I also have 2 filmmaking tutorials there as well as some music cover videos

So please subscribe.

I'm a big fan of the more realistic action/detective movies. But most contemporary movies have a very obvious Mary Sue surrounded with idiots. And such movies typically end with a whole army of police cars arriving where the hero has already saved the day. (looking at you, 80s over the top action movies. Still fun though!)

So I figured I'd delve a bit into film noir; I'm a big fan of Heat (1995), so why not try White Heat (1949)?

I was very pleasantly surprised; Both the gangsters AND police are actually COMPETENT! All characters actually THINK before doing something! Quick smart thinking to get out of a tight spot. No spray and pray, a regular street copper could hit a perp with ONE aimed shot with his revolver. No over the top theatrics when dropping dead. Even the background characters think, behave and react realistic to scenarios.

I was on the edge of my seat the whole movie; I thoroughly enjoyed White Heat, and I will definitely check out the recommended-lists on this subreddit.

Well I watched it tonight and I'm blown away. Totally a goner. Why haven't I seen it earlier!! It kept me captivated from start to finish. The performances! The screenplay! The settings! The shots! I plan to watch it again soon so I can try to digest it!

It occurs to me just how much classic Film Noir captures the post-ww2 trauma of the "returning man", how much of "the world is fractured" of Noir is war-framed. It's a bit of trauma that we don't consider much in the romance of the genre...and that this continued into the post-Vietnam War story.

Several classic Noir protagonists are framed as post-WW2 returning men, and films like In a Lonely Place and The Breaking Point really focus on this fractured state. I never really thought how much the entire, quite famous Noir "broken universe" itself perhaps came out of the War (and indeed even out of World War 1 before that, as German Expressionism which it drew from was a WW1 reaction). It's not just a world of urban corruption, or moral breakdown, but much of it seems to be echoing the effects of world war on men, returning to society.

If so, then Scorsese's Taxi Driver properly should be read as a proper film Noir (complete with voice over, the post-war man, femme fatales and cinematically "broken" urban landscapes). American culture broken by returning men.

This also positions some of the early Noirs of the first of the 1940s in a difference place, which helps explain perhaps why they feel different. The further we go from 1945 the more Noir takes on an added spectral, corruptive, disquieting, urban quality.

Nothing beats the tension and electricity between Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall whenever they share a screen. Their back and forth is pure noir perfection — the glances they exchange, the delivery, everything just clicks when they’re together

As a long-time archivist of Edward G. Robinson's work (and translator of his memoirs), I’ve spent a lot of time analyzing his characters. I recently composed a Funk track inspired by his iconic role as Johnny Rocco in Key Largo. ​I wanted to translate Rocco’s menace and the tension of the film into a 70s Funk soundscape, featuring the atmosphere of the film with just a touch of dialogue to set the scene. ​I’d love to hear your thoughts on this musical take on such a classic noir villain. Thanks to all.

Hero/anti hero:

Femme fatale:

Heavy/thug/ gangster:

The good woman:

The corrupt authority figure:

——————————————————————————

For me it would be

Hero/anti hero: Robert Mitchum
Femme fatale: Lana Turner
Heavy (thug): Neville Brand
Gangster (boss): Richard Conte
Good woman: Virginia Huston
Corrupt authority: Sterling Hayden

I like the heavy and the boss combo that’s why I picked two separate. Also, I know Hayden was usually a good guy or anti hero but I thought he was fantastic as the corrupt police captain in the godfather and he’s one of the few actors from the time who was more physically imposing than Mitchum.

Would love to know everyone else’s choices.

Hey!

Recently watched Double Indemnity (1944, dir. Billy Wilder) and I absolutely loved it. Definitely a classic right there (obviously). I had a few questions right after watching that, even after retrospection, I'm a little confused about. There's a big chance I might've missed something because old movies are harder for me to lock in on (though I felt very locked in on this one) and my own attention span just being really bad in general.

1. What was the deal with Nino Zachetti? I mainly mean between him and Phyllis. He came over to her house a lot, was she manipulating/extorting him? I know she was telling him that Lola was seeing other men and making him mad, but what else was the connection there? I was a little confused there, unless I just said the reason and I'm thinking there's more there and there wasn't. Lol.

2. What was Walter's goal at the end? I know he went to the house and ended up killing Phyllis, but then he told Nino to call Lola. Okay. Then he confessed to the crime and Keyes overheard. Okay. But then he mentioned a border? I heard in an interview (much, much later) from Wilder that this was referencing Mexico. Is that true? Was he trying to escape? I think in the movie he mentioned needing to do "one more thing" before he died, but I was a little confused.

Again, fantastic movie, but I was a little lost by these things and if there's a proper explanation that I missed that would be cool. Or maybe I'm thinking about them too much, lol.

I just watched Ram Gopal Varma’s **Satya**. A Phenomenal Movie with an amazing story. It is known as the foundation of “Mumbai-Noir” Films. Very Stunning Shots, a beautiful love story. Great cinematography and how it does justice to the story so effortlessly and effectively.
Strongly recommended for anyone who loves crime films with beautiful shots.

I wonder what people think of this idea that has been out there that Robert Mitchum was pioneering screen acting with his at-ease, low-key acting style as opposed to more theatrically expressive types. Descriptions like this:

Robert Mitchum remains one of the most effortlessly magnetic screen actors in American film history because he made style look accidental. His heavy-lidded gaze, laconic speech, and seemingly unforced physical presence gave him an air of relaxed danger that perfectly suited noir, Westerns, war films, and later large-scale dramas. Yet the ease was deceptive. Mitchum understood screen rhythm with extraordinary precision. He knew how to let stillness suggest menace, fatigue, sexuality, or contempt, and that mastery turned understatement into one of the great acting styles of the twentieth century.

Various sources suggest that his acting style lead to Brando or Dean, etc, and was ahead of its time. I completely see how powerful he is and the description of his qualities are dead on, but I also wonder how much this was genuinely different at the time. Bogart was very at ease in his portrayed masculinity, and a lot of Film Noir leads have this general energy, and even John Wayne could be very low key and understated in Westerners.

I'm not really challenging the idea that Mitchum pioneered screen acting, so much as trying to get a handle on the larger picture of other performance types at time time, and what was similar and what was different.

Anyone have thoughts on this larger idea that Mitchum revolutionized screen acting?

Just watched Laura for the first time and really enjoyed it but asking myself, was it truly noir or more of a mystery?

Here is my review. What are your thoughts about this movie?

I’d seen this once before maybe twenty years ago, and I had a voiceover in my head that said it might very well be the quintessential noir. I still think it might be, as we have a world-weary detective (Robert Mitchum, absolutely fantastic), a femme fatale for whom he falls (Jane Greer), and murder and other nefarious machinations. (Kirk Douglas is also very memorably on hand in only his second movie role, and the scenes between Mitchum and Douglas are electric, especially given their mutual but quite different masculine personas.) There’s also some of the best and most judicious use of noir dialogue around: just enough truly witty repartee and one-liners that feel like the characters might actually say. (Let’s face it, some noirs overdo the clever lingo to the point that it distracts from the story, as if a movie might be mostly just an exercise in arch language. Not here.) Perhaps most of all, this has the noir look: stunning direction (from Jacques Tourneur) and absolutely gorgeous black and white cinematography throughout (courtesy of Nicholas Musuraca), with the highlight arguably the fist fight between Mitchum and his ex-partner in a mountain cabin. In fact, that was the noir scene that really made me sit up and watch (and listen) and ultimately led me down many noir dark alleys (and country roads, etc.) – that really got me into noir. But this time I wondered if the cinematography wasn’t almost too beautiful – and the production almost too slick (and vaguely impersonal): to some extent, these aspects almost undercut what I think of as noir, at least insofar as I think of noir as representing a rather gritty and dingy underworld. But the slick design and sometimes fake-seeming world may also be partly the point, insofar as Mitchum’s character is led down an increasingly treacherous and dehumanizing path. It also features one of the movies’ great final scenes in a simple head nod from a poignant character. Slight reservations aside, this is pretty much a must-see for classic film fans, especially those inclined toward shadowy images and characters. 5/5

https://reddit.com/link/1uwdog4/video/jrbhv24pz7dh1/player

I really had written Lizabeth Scott off as a Lauren Bacall knock off after a few films, as it really bothered me in some roles just how much she seemed to be constructed around the Bacall image (Dead Reckoning with Bogart two years before this one of those), but people on this subreddit raved about her as a femme fatale in Too Late For Tears and they weren't joking. She gives an absolutely fantastic performance with a terribly gleeful, joy-reaching energy of hope and ambition, all the while being an absolute tight-rope-walking relentless mastermind fast on her feet. To me the best femme fatales are caught between things, and you never quite know which way they'll go, they are cats landing on their feet over and over, and she's all of that.

In this great scene she explains the powerful draw of ill begotten funds the married couple had come upon which could change her life, that it was about the dignity and pressure she felt in the lower middle class. This was a huge sociological aspect of post WW2 America as men returned from the war and women were expected to exit the work place. Homes and roads would be built across the country as the urban populace was encouraged to start nuclear families in the suburbs, women to become homemakers, and men as steady financial provides, everything that would fuel 1950s Americana. Here in 1949 she is already feeling the pressure of the growing middle class, and the mere dream of a loving husband isn't enough. They live in an L.A. apartment with her sister-in-law across the hall - she's a LOT of trouble - and are struggling in the new middle class ideal.

The film and her performance is spectacular. I found myself pulling for her along every step of the way, even though the villain. Her seduction of everyone, step by step, is a big romantic, smile beaming swoon of happily ever after, not a vixen. She's very far from the smoky Bacall image that I've seen characterize her in other scenes.

I'm still not sure if this counts as a film noir, but I thought I would post it here anyway.

This is not the kind of noir film that has detectives, shoot-outs, or constant twists, but rather a very unsettling atmosphere that just hangs over the entire film.

It has got this extremely tense, constant undertone of deep, dark dread. Especially in the opening scene: nothing wrong is particularly happening, but you know something is very wrong. The entire film never lets you relax. And it builds this feeling very naturally that it becomes genuinely eerie. It has this cold, lonely atmosphere that stuck with me long after I watched it.

What surprised me most is how modern the story feels. Despite being released in 1962, the central plotline feels like it's almost predicting the cases of child predators decades before the internet was even a thing. Obviously, the circumstances are very different, but the manipulation and the false sense of trust all felt incredibly relevant today.

It's a very overlooked British film, and while it won't satisfy anyone looking for a fast-paced thriller, I'd definitely recommend for anyone looking for tense noirs that are built on physiological dread.