Listen up, pals, this flick sure as whatever ain't it. Sure, it's an okay suspenser, but it ain't Noir, sweetheats and pals. I can point out dozens of reasons that it ain't, but let's just leave it open for discussion. Any objections? .
shareIt all depends on how strictly you adhere to the definition of film noir. If you believe it MUST have the hardboiled guy tricked by the femme fatale, then no this film is not noir. But the term can be loosely applied to many films of this era in Hollywood with a dark tone and subject matter.
Dark, at least for its day.
In summary, no this is not your typical noir, but it does share many of the same quality, comes from the same era, and shares more than a few characteristics. It may be stretching it, but I'd say it qualifies.
It definitely doesn't fit into the film noir genre. It lacks the "darkness" of the classic film noir. However, it is suspenseful and people can commisserate with the Loretta Young character in her desperation to get that incriminating letter back. The entire film is about getting it back. It also shows you how totally frustrating it can be to deal with bureaucracy in general.
Everyone plays their parts very well.
However, its on every list of film noir I have ever seen. We can all agree to disagree then or go back to watching "Fire Maidens from Outer Space" which most assuredly is not noir, but certainly is hysterical.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
I agree! Fabulous movie! I was getting ready for an appointment and had this movie on in the back ground. I ended up being late - because the movie was so suspenseful and exciting. I was on the edge of my seat. Loretta Young is a timeless actress - is she not?!!
shareYou should watch her in "The Accused" which is even better/more suspenseful than "Cause for Alarm!". It's on TCM every year.
shareEh, bit of a stretch if ya ask me ... suspense/thriller would be more like it. Now had she truly been planning his death that would be a horse of a different color. I'm a BIG Noir freak and I've never considered this film noir.
I saw this film for the first time back in the early 60s when I was a kid.I think Loretta Young (in this movie) was my first 'crush' ... hubba hubba :-)
It is however made quite clear that there was always a certain kink in Sullivan's character. His aunt says so and he himself tells the story about his childhood friend.
Then "The Reckless Moment" (James Mason, Joan Bennett) wouldn't be a film noir either?
shareGood and Bad. This one is the good kind. Who cares what else you call it?
shareThere's not one single jaunty camera angle nor a single jutting shadow in high contrast chiaroscuro, nary a scene shot at night. It is all sunny day suburbs and housewife and neighbors ranging from friendly to nosy. It does not for single moment appear the least bit like a film noir.
****BUT****
The whole theme of our protagonist, played by Loretta Young, being at odds with, and overwhelmed by, circumstances beyond her control all lining up against her is a very noir theme. It's kind of like The Hitchhiker, or Double Indemnity. She's fighting for her life, not with thugs wielding saps or gats in hand squirting lead, but just trying to get a certain letter back without being delayed by a little kid on a tricycle, a nosy neighbor, or a mailman who is a stickler for procedure and following the rules, all to save her from being framed for murder. And the way she was led astray, by the dangerous charms of the Barry Sullivan character, whom would ultimately try to do her in, it was as if he was an "homme fatale".
So, I, personally, would not put it on a list of film noir, but I must admit that the story has many classic noir elements and more or less follows the classic noir blueprint. If it had taken place in a crummy apartment house in New York and all of the action took place at night, it would fit right in there. So, I'd call it a fringe candidate for noir-ishness.
Pretty good suspenser, all right!
Here's a trivial question (no, I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking):
Why does Barry Sullivan's character have his name, George Z. Jones, listed with the middle initial?? "Z"??? How does that figure into anything??????
I would suspect that the inclusion of the unusual initial (Zeke, Zebediah, Zakariah ...)was to distinguish what would otherwise be a very common name combination of the period. As to Noir I was always under the impression that it was partly plot content and partly technique-much of that driven by another characteristic-a low budget-some criticisms of the sudden change of the character of Barry Sullivan may be due to the short length of the film not allowing much time for development.
'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c.
Having been chastised on IMDb in the past for mis-identifying noir - and I do concur and admit my faux pas - I do see that there are as many films that could be called "noir-ish" when not strictly noir. But this film is hard to pigeonhole. It presents the type of dilemma drama that is classic to noir... that of the innocent character who through no fault of their own finds themselves in a seemingly impossible situation. Our protagonist also makes the classic mistakes in judgment that most noir protagonists do. But plot alone doesn't make it noir. Nor does it contain typical "noir" dialog, and you don't get the sense that all of the characters are motivated by their own sordid interests, as they tend to be in true noir pictures. So is it noir? I concur with the others... no.
So then is it a crime drama? Well, in the strictest sense, again no. There's not one police officer or other law enforcement agent in the cast (unless you consider the letter addressed to the D.A. as a character, and even then it's weak support). However a crime is [almost] committed, and a frame-up is perpetrated, both of which are traditional plot elements in the crime drama genre.
It's not a murder story, as nobody was murdered.
Perhaps it could best be described as a "psychological drama" and a pretty darn good one at that. I liked the contrast of Loretta Young's kind-heartedness, selfless dedication and beauty against Barry Sullivan's irrationality, paranoia, and "ugliness". You don't find that too much in noir. I wonder if anyone in the film's audience in 1951 cheered when Sullivan croaked. And the suspense is built rather well once Loretta finds out that she's being framed, and every obstacle that can be thrown on the path to her salvation is. Having had days where I just couldn't get done the necessary things I set out to do because of constant and unexpected intrusions, I could really feel that sense of "what next" dread in her desperation.
So noir it's not. And I guess we mostly agree. But it is a picture worth watching even if you can't slap a label on it quite so easily.
"What is film-noir?"
If you put 5 film-noir fans in a room, you'd get 6 different answers to that question.
Not film noir. There's no venetian blinds.
share True. That settles it.
[deleted]
Enjoyable discussion so far, but shouldn’t we have more mistrustful minds?
Are people letting the fact that the heroine is a good-looking apparently innocent middle-class housewife, with the action taking place in quiet sun-filled suburban streets, blind them to undercurrents of evil?
Isn’t the death of the husband wholly in the interests of both the wife and the family doctor, who are itching to marry each other as soon as the corpse is in the ground and the insurance money in the bank? Can we be sure that she and the doc truly did everything they possibly could to keep the unwanted husband alive? What if there is a suspicious relation, a prying neighbour, or (shades of “Double Indemnity”) an inquisitive insurance man?
Beneath the surface, isn’t this tale darker than many seem to think?
"but shouldn’t we have more mistrustful minds?"
No, absolutely not. Not when it comes to this movie, anyway.
It's true that the doc was definitively in love with Loretta before Sullivan took her away from him, but Loretta's feelings for him never seemed to have been very deep. They very likely developed into something more while her husband was becoming more and more mentally unstable.
The death of the husband is without a doubt in the interests of both the wife and the family doctor, but not before Sullivan goes completely over the edge. Loretta was in love with her husband and the doctor seemed to have resigned himself to that fact.
It is however made quite clear that there was always a certain kink in Sullivan's character. His aunt says so and he himself tells the story about his childhood friend.
I understand your suspicions, but they have to be based on something. In film noir/crime dramas/mysteries/suspense novels there is ALWAYS some kind of foreshadowing going on, some hinting that all is not as it seems. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in the entire film even hints at the possibility that Loretta and the doctor could be guilty.
What made you get suspicious of Loretta and the doc?
Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
While I certainly can't speak for "Charlot47," whenever I watch this movie I find myself wondering, just how lucky can a couple get? Maybe they're the rare case, or maybe their determination to deny what they've done is so great that they don't dare speak of it even to each other. Evil can easily be that deep, and what I haven't seen yet in the movie is any way to decide conclusively which case is true. All that's left is faith.
As to film noir, where is this handbook of film noir standards that so many seem to think exists? With the tension between the approved social mores on display in Cause for Alarm! and the depression-and-war-exhausted lives many were actually leading, there's a "noir" sensitivity that's pervasive in pop arts of this time.
________________________________
"The bonsai: the ultimate miniature."
--Will Hayward, Twin Peaks.
Well, the couple got lucky because otherwise there would be no movie.
I stand by what I said. In a mystery/crime drama there must be foreshadowing, some hint that not all is as it seems. Yes, evil can be deep, but nothing at all, not a look, not a hesitation, not an off-kilter note in her performance gives the audience the suspicion that Loretta may be guilty.
Besides, this movie had Loretta in her saint phase. No way would she have played a sly murderess at that point in her career. You'd have to go to pre-code for that.
"As to film noir, where is this handbook of film noir standards that so many seem to think exists?"
There isn't only one handbook, there are literally tons of them. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I have done my homework.
Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
[deleted]
I like that response :^) Venetian blinds are great shadow makers.
But there is that beautiful picket fence out front that the camera guys could've made such good use of if they'd known how to make some great shadows playing off that fence. THEN it might be noir.
Maybe, as last summer someone suggested during the TCM Summer of Darkness, this could be considered as "Film Gris." More appropriate. The dark, stark visual elements may not be present, but noirish themes are present. So it's film gris.
And the presence of Barry Sullivan seems to imply noir. He was in at least one great one,
"The Gangster." Probably quite a few more as well.
Barry Sullivan's film noir movies in chronological order from oldest to newest include "Suspense"(1946), "Framed", "Tension", "No Questions Asked" (1951), "The Unknown Man" (1951), "Jeopardy" with Barbra Stanwyck (one of my favorites), "Cry of the Hunted" (1953), "Loophole" (1954), "Playgirl" (1954), "Julie" with Doris Day (a very good film noir), and after that he made mostly television with the occasional western, drama or WW II film in-between.
shareIt's a bogus catch-all "genre" that film critics came up with after the fact, to try to shoe-horn a bunch of movies of the 40s and 50s into a single category even though the producers and directors of said movies were not trying to create a cohesive genre.
share