MovieChat Forums > Clash by Night (1952) Discussion > How it could have been great

How it could have been great

posted 16 years ago by BillieDove
11 replies | jump to latest

This movie could have had the ingredients to be in the Streetcar Named Desire tradition, with a few modifications.

First, get Karl Malden to play the husband. Paul Douglas didn't really seem to grasp me as Karl would have. I know it's typecasting, but he really shined in those kind of roles, and I'm sure he would have given depth to the character, and changed him into someone we could really care about.

Second, remove all those silly metaphors from the script. The little bee is buzzing, buzz, buzz, buzz... What? I know we're not supposed to like that character anyway, but you don't have to make him look like a guy who completly lost his mind. There were way too much of those things, and every character seemed to act like it was perfectly normal to compare everyone to animals.

Third, show us more of the relations. We'd like to know why she wants to leave her husband for. She hates him, but is attracted to him, suddenly she loved him, and forgets all of his faults, and suddenly she hates him again...
I'd like to see more of the way those characters relate to eachother, if we're into a "character" drama.

Anyway. I still liked it, it was entertaining, but it could have been great.

I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.

[–] gbennett5 16 years ago

Douglas was a sensational actor, and perfectly essayed a plump, insecure
"teddy bear" like man. Malden would NOT have improved anything, for
heaven's sake.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5955) 4 months ago

In the DVD commentary Peter Bogdanovich states that Douglas was good in the role, but that it wasn't ideal casting. The actor was a little too sophisticated for the part he had to play here.

[–] Tedium1 15 years ago

I think it would have improved with a different finale, maybe when Stanwyck walks in Douglas strangling her lover, she could have gotten accidentally killed by Douglas...then, full of remorse and looking for redemption, the lover takes the blame so Douglas can raise his daughter...what you think?

Well, isn't it comforting to know that being miserable is still better than being an idiot?

[–] gbennett5 15 years ago

Yes, the ending doesn't really work, as Stanwyck's character never really
solved the main conflict: she did NOT love this man and would've simply
fallen into more affairs.

[–] hodie 15 years ago

Oh, I don't know. She'd narrowly escaped a disaster, and I think she was smart enough to realize that affairs would lead to happiness.
Her expression at the end was full of hope.She was luminous.
God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

[–] dr-kandimba-1 8 years ago

You know, gbennett5, you do NOT have to capitalize the word "not" every time.

[–] marhefka 10 years ago

Tedium1,

You've really got a flair for different endings. I think I like this ending better than your other ending - the one where Douglas kills Ryan and then is hunted down like an animal on his boat.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5955) 4 months ago

In the original play, on which this is based, someone does die, in the projection room scene.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

I think it´s better than Streetcar - in large part because, unlike Vivien Leigh, Stanwyck isn´t grating on the nerves.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] ossyguy 10 years ago

I'm just glad the baby didn't you know ....like the story at the start.
I think the Stanwick character all the way through was looking for a chance to not run away....romantic.

Old Bee Party V Swirled

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

less melodrama and overacting is a start

so many movies, so little time