MovieChat Forums > The Glass Wall (1953) Discussion > Gloria Grahame

Gloria Grahame

posted 14 years ago by Readerman
10 replies | jump to latest

Grahame looks really good in this. It's not much of a film otherwide, though the lead actor does a fine job. Grahame made this right after her Oscar winning role in The Bad and the Beautiful. It's a shame she got this one next. Even though it's mostly shot on location it seems to have relatively cheap production values. She deserved better. And though it appears in the four-film collection: Bad Girls of Film Noir, it's not a noir IMO. Worse, Gloria is certainly not a "bad" girl at all in the sense Noir would define one. I was expecting a femme fatale.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

An unrestructered remake of a Geoerge Beaner novella entitled "Not Here Then Either" now out of print.

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

[–] robin-moss2 13 years ago

I've never liked Gloria Grahame at all. I won't say more than that to avoid annoying her fans. I've just watched The Glass Wall and to my amazement and disbelief I thought Gloria Grahame was good and gave a likable performance. I can't believe it! Me liking Gloria Grahame. Whatever next?

[–] OhmsLaw 13 years ago

I watched "Sudden Fear" and wondered what was so special about her, she really wasn't that pretty and had a voice that could be annoying. Then I read about the scandal she was involved in concerning her then-husband's VERY young son and was appalled. Then I saw her in "In a Lonely Place" and was waiting for her to be real bad, like I was while watching this movie, and was surprised that she wasn't. She was actually pretty in the Bogart one.

There really are no "bad girls" in "The Glass Wall" except for that landlady. I would recommend the movie though, if only to see all those great New York street scenes from the early 1950s. Not to mention that wonderful part with the Hungarian family ("Ma! Why didn't you drown him when he was a baby?!").

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

robin-moss2 says > to my amazement and disbelief I thought Gloria Grahame was good and gave a likable performance. I can't believe it!

I feel the same way. I don't think I've seen a lot of Ms. Grahame's movies but I do remember her face. I couldn't name a single one of her movies but I think she's the one who's usually the moll of the bad guy or the criminal element herself. This time around she's actually mostly good. She apparently couldn't call out to the poor guy to keep her 'friend' from running; letting him get close to ending his life.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] monroea3 9 years ago

So you can't name "The Big Heat" or "In A Lonely Place"?!?!

Ugh...

[–] activista 9 years ago

Actually, it's a pretty good film, and well-made,too. I like the fact that it's not your typical film noir, but I think it still counts as a noir because it has the usual noir theme of a man (or woman) in a desperate race to try and clear his name, and being hunted down as a criminal even though he's innocent of any crime.

[–] guely55 8 years ago

This was a really powerfull, humane, well acted film. Too bad you are not able to see it beyond the "bad girl" "film noir" level and enjoy it for what it is.

[–] bodil-644-474356 8 years ago

Guely55 - Yes it was a good movie however I too felt somewhat disappointed by the fact this movie is officially released as a set titled "Bad Girls of Film Noir". As the OP said, it conjures up a set of movies involving evil femme fatales. None of the movies in the set came close to representing the boxset title. It was not as enjoyable for me because I picked the set off the shelf as I was in the mood for a femme fatale weekend. Not the movies fault, but the misleading title given to the boxset.

[–] guely55 8 years ago

Well, that's not the movies fault. I got it in a good spanish edition where it comes just a single stand-alone movie not a collection.

[–] bodil-644-474356 8 years ago

No, I agree it's not the movies fault but might explain why some see it in the wrong frame of mind. Reminds me of the movie Ouija that has 4.4 rating. Many reviewers felt it was worthy of a bit higher rating than 4.4. One of the reasons put forward was that the movie by itself was a 5-6 however because the movie was hyped so much before its release people were expecting a really good movie and when the movie didn't deliver people were harsher with their reviews hence the lower rating.