The strange thing about Siodmak is that he tends to combine highly expressionistic visual aesthetic of particularly pronounced contrast of light and shadow - even in the context of noirs - with uncommonly naturalisting acting and does so to an exceptionally powerful effect (a scene like the opening restaurant terror in The Killing [I know you mean The Killers - it's an inevitable confusion with those titles], wouldn´t really have worked with exaggerated performances customary for Classic Hollywood; the way Siodmak plays it, produces a singularly eerie slow burn as the gangsters keep upping the ante and grow ever more threatening - the palpable promise of the eruption of brutal violence makes it almost unbearable to behold). The "bad guys" are portrayed as three-dimensional beings - one is made to understand what makes folks like Conte in Cry Of The City tick while also seeing through their bullsh-t, recognising them as the sociopathic thugs they are.
Beautifully put, FK. That opening had me absolutely riveted. It stands as one of the most disturbingly convincing portrayals of high-stakes bullying I've ever seen on screen, and I agree that the unusual combination of noir style lighting with the naturalistic acting really works - cheers for pointing that out, I'll be thinking on that next time I see one of Siodmak's noirs. The film's major problem for me was that with the fate of one of the major characters known from early on, and the large cast of key players, the film lacked a definite focus and therefore the tension I enjoy so much in Cry. Killers was a bit too multifaceted for my liking - not a criticism, really, just an observation on the way I saw it. I will return to it sometime but a rewatch of Criss Cross will come before it.
The supporting characters also tend to be well developed and believable (it´s both hilarious and disquieting the way this huge female assassin in Cry reveals the motif for her participation in murder and torture to be that she wants to move to a farm so she can "eat well". The "banality of evil" may have become a bit of a cliche, but that doesn´t mean it´s not true through - as pointed out many times, by many a folk, in reality, sociopaths usually aren´t interesting or complex people at all. There really isn´t any "there" there.)
Yep. I remember that formidable lady more as a personality than for her actions. Same with the lawyer and the old guy in the jail. Everyone in Cry is a believable human with believable motivations... except maybe the kid, towards the very end.. but then everything about the end might have been out of Siodmak and Co's hands
Out of these 7 Siodmak´s pictures I´ve seen, Criss Cross is the one that impressed me the least, actually - although maybe I just wasn´t much receptive of its stuff on that particular day, in that particular mood.
I was underwhelmed, too, s'why I want to revisit it - I don't trust my underwhelment!
On the other hand, I was mighty impressed by Siodmak´s handling of Agatha Christie´esque whodunit suspense in The Dark Mirror - I actually found it bloody scary. The lighting & shot selection in that underrated little number are absolutely top notch (mirrors, btw, have been identified as one major obsession or recurring motif in his work - watch how the killer in Phantom Lady is positioned in front of a wraparound mirror - first we see him in one mirror pane, then the camera angle changes so he is seen in two panes and finally three, suggesting his scizophrenia & possible multiple personality disorder).
Seen neither - I'll look out for them, especially DM.
As for Lang, then yes, his overall performance seems indeed somewhat inferior to Siodmak´s with most of his work being kinda flawed in one respect or another (I don´t think Blue Gardenia is quite ´that´ awful - mainly cuz it´s outstandingly filmed even if the story isn´t very strong).
Gonna have to stand in opposition here - just saw it on the big screen a couple of days ago, wanting to like it, but it was impossible to, despite a few strong points - from my brief write up from Classics LITE (which I host): "I'm a fan of Conte when he's cast and directed right, but his performance in this left me cold. He's just flat, empty, and unconvincing in the role of a newspaper columnist. There are a few very well handled scenes, such as the disturbingly convincing build up to and culmination of an attempted(?) rape early on in the film; and solid performances from Anne Baxter, as the titular Blue Gardenia suspect, and Anne Southern [...] but generally speaking this film is a confused mess full of improbabilities. One for noir/Lang completists only... except that it's as much a drama as it is a noir."
Personally, I found The Big Heat unusually complex & effective though; the way the revenge driven cop selfishly uses Grahame´s character as an instrument of his vendetta, rings very much true in its nihilism.
Emotionally, in terms of Ford's and Grayham's characters and the dynamics between them - yes, it is complex, but the other characters were not so well drawn in my opinion, and world the two leads moved in felt somehow flat and stagey (I seem to remember that much of the film was in close-to mid-shots, as though the budget was tiny... or maybe that was an attempt to induce a kind of claustrophobia?). I do think it's a good film but, it's was just too much nihilism AND emotionally manipulative (did I say that already? writing on Word) for me - the ending and Ford's earlier loss (trying to avoid spoilers here!)
As for Dassin, then Rififi, for instance, is more like a heist movie than noir
Yeah, you're right - I'm often sort of loose with the definition because few apply the strictest criteria and even then there are arguments. But, yeah, you're right. Then I guess no director would have more than one film in my list... then again, my list would be very, very subjective
- and don´t find Thieves´ Highway or Night And The City quite as accomplished as Siodmak´s best work.
Again we disagree - over TH, one of my all time favourite films. I guess it does have a lot of drama rooted in earlier film, but to me it's about as good as it gets. Cortesa and Conte are on fire, the story unfolds a great pace, there's some incredibly atmospheric location shooting of the markets and stockyard ('railyard', what's the word?), and the trucks, the orchard... and you have Cobb (I know, many find him too hammy, but I love him in this), and Millard Mitchell, and other great faces... including what's her name - the big dame from Cry... If you haven't seen it for a while and it comes your way, I highly recommend giving it another try. BTW, I wouldn't call myself a big fan of noir per se. I just happen to like some noirs. Most of them, including NotC I don't like. Even though I often respect them.
Plenty to see from that guy though, at this point, so I´ll withold the verdict till I´ve seen more.
Me too. Haven't even seen Brute Force.
Franzkabuki, looks like yer way ahead of me in terms of film scholarship and I take my hat off to ya for it. Me? I'm mostly an enthuser on what I like and a bitcher on what I don't without a hell of a lot of technical justification either way. But I do try to back my comments as best I can with some evidence, albeit a little vague at times. Please do set me straight on any of the above if you feel I'm talking bolxxx. It's a pleasure talking with you, mate.
Yes... that's right... take your hats off in the presence of the patroon.
reply
share