Two Script Complaints (Spoilers) - Pickup on South Street (1953) Discussion

[–] rogueforte 19 years ago

Agreed. Candy 'instantly' falling in love with Skip and willing to do anything to protect him immediately just isn't believable and really detracts from the overall movie.

I just watched the DVD and, personally, although it isn't really a 'bad' movie, I don't see what all the hoopla's about. Aside from the initial subway scene (which is really the only classic scene), the rest of the movie is just 'okay' (and definitely not worth getting the Criterion treatment). I can think of a lot of other film-noirs that deserve the Criterion restoration before this one.

Another thing that bothered me was the shack that Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) lived in with no electricity. I guess it was a plot device to explain the 'refrigerator' where he kept his beer (and loot) but then the problem becomes how did he keep himself clean with no bathroom? It's just too far of a stretch to be believable.

Still, Jean Peters has one of the better performances and appearances as a film-noir 'sleaze' given the arcane dialogue and script.

reply

[–] H_Kivel 19 years ago

In my opinion, Pickup on South Street (1953) is nearly flawless from the beginning of the film until the moment of the first kiss (between Jean Peters and Richard Widmark). After that kiss the quality of the film decreases; the plot becomes less gripping and absorbing, and my two script complaints arise.

Your observations about the shack don't bother me at all. First of all, Skip McCoy was a very clever guy who could make just about anything work. In other words, if he's ingenious enough to keep his beer cold without refrigeration then he's also ingenious enough to keep himself clean and find real or makeshift bathroom facilities in the immediate vicinity. Maybe he was sneaking into the bathroom in a nearby building or maybe he was just using a 5-gallon bucket and emptying it into the bay a comfortable distance from his shack.

As far as keeping himself clean, that would require a different, clean bucket with which to scoop water out of the bay. There you have it. You can make it work with two 5-gallon buckets, a bar of soap, and a roll of toilet paper! As I was saying, Skip McCoy was the kind of guy who could get his basic needs satisfied on the street--with or without that little shack.

Finally, Moe Williams (Thelma Ritter) made a comment to Capt. Tiger early in the film which suggested that Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) had either more than one hideout or has had a succession of hideouts. In any case, the shack was just a temporary hangout and he may have had a few others as well. (After all, he was accustomed to hiding from the police.)

While the film has a couple problems (post kiss), Skip McCoy hanging out in that shack is not one of them.

reply

[–] atomicstuffing 19 years ago

I might have to agree with those two compliants. I also feel that the movie doesn't quite live up the the reputation it's been getting. What it did do well, though, was shed light on the pickpocket, his life, and how he almost approaches it with the air of a proud artist. Movies never really dove that deep into a subject like that.

The romance stuff could've been more authentic. Also, I had just came off seeing The Asphalt Jungle for the first time, John Huston's crime masterpiece, and maybe I felt a certain sense of deflation when I saw this movie afterwards.

Not a bad film at all, and admirable in many ways, just not the best either.

reply

[–] richvirgo 18 years ago

As to keeping clean,NYC had Public Baths in the 50's.

reply

[–] jmix66 13 years ago

The YMCA had a number of branches in NYC at that time as well.
He may also have had a friend or even another woman that allowed him to use her facilities.
Finally, umm..people were a little less "concerned" w/ hygiene back then.
Showering every other day wasn't uncommon.
Kind of like some people do today.

Bad films are a crime against humanity.

reply

[–] mel2000 9 years ago

I was born the year this movie was made. Unless things changed very rapidly by the late 50's, I can't agree that people were less clean then. We had showers in our school for kids to use. Our beaches had public showers and changing rooms for each gender. Finally, there were more publicly accessible toilets back then.

reply

[–] film-29 19 years ago

Then you're lost. This movie was conceived as a fable. In spite of the whole microfilm thing (the MacGuffin) is absolutely impossible the movie still stands, and is believable.

"...he (the director) has to feel a visual emotion... visual
emotion! You should pinpoint an emotion and milk it, and not bore
anyone. That's the important thing..."

Sam Fuller on Pickup on South Street

I wanted to be the first kid on my block to get a confirmed kill.

reply

[–] RossLikesMovies 19 years ago

It all comes down to the fact that this is just a movie. I agree about the to sudden romance but its an entertaining little film which ends just before it becomes boring.

reply

[–] STCorcoran88 19 years ago

god... i just really love this movie... and i have nothing else to say. sorry.

reply

[–] jarevill 18 years ago

ah, thank you you bunch of pretentious asses.

first off the romance. it's meant to be a little implausible. moe points out how slick skip is and that she doesn’t get how women seem to fall for him. she eludes that she has at least at some point cared for him.

as far as skip turning his life around goes, well frankly you don’t know for sure that he does. but even if he does it's not out of the question. the only person who even remotely cared for him (moe) was gunned down protecting him. i don’t think its too far out there that that might change someone's opinion on being a thief. and sure he doesn’t know for a fact that's why she died but he would assume it was because she was mixed up with him. this also ties into the romance as well, because the last thing moe said to him was to basically get his life straight and hold on to candy, because for some reason she likes him. "stop usin' your hands and start usin' your head."

skip by the way only looks clean. you can't smell him. it's easy to keep yourself looking clean. but even so it's fairly easy to keep yourself clean using public facilities. anyone whose lived out of their car would know. granted he wouldn't be up to our standard of hygiene, but who in this film is. besides in an era where the quality of air conditioning was minimal, i'm betting you could get away with a little funkiness.

and by the way there are people who steal electricity in this country, so if your hang up is his fridge, well, you're an idiot. uh, he is a thief.

also if you think the only classic scene is the opening, then you need to see it again.

and for the record can we all agree to stop name dropping director's and filmic devices? And referring to plots as being “authentic.” we get it. we all know what a macguffin is and we've all heard of john huston and seen the asphalt jungle. and quite franking if you're dumbfounded by two of those three things then you don't have enough knowledge to post on a board complaining about a film. i don't go on physics message boards pointing out the flaws in string theory. that would be ignorant.

reply

[–] STCorcoran88 18 years ago

oh man. i think i'm in love.

you just said everything I wasnted to say to these *beep* and you said it better. you are the coolest.

reply

[–] backofthevan 16 years ago

Well now, if that's not a pretentious ass calling someone a pretentious ass I don't know what is!

Thanks for the irony, chucklehead!

reply

[–] jarevill 16 years ago

so is it pretentious to call the guy who called someone pretentious pretentious?

and no that isn't irony.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] evolman123 15 years ago

I don't think the anti-commy stuff was meant as a moral, it was obviously tacked on, but that's the way Hollywood worked back then... the really interesting fact about the film, politically, is that Fuller got away with having the main-character, Skip, act indifferent to politics, even American politics. His line "don't wave the flag at me" was very controversial back then. So, that aspect shows that the film itself wasn't meant to be anti-communist, because it also had a very rare bit of anti-Americanism in it.

Also, I think the happy ending works better than a dark ending, in this case, because the film is hyper-real, like a fable. Fuller capitalizes on the efficiency of great visual storytelling by just wrapping it up nice and neat. It is a little fake, but it works, because it's meant to be just a little too perfect. This film is one of the best examples of telling a story with the camera, fast and fearless. There should be more films like this today!

reply

[–] snopes3 16 years ago

if you are going to be such a virulent little prick. there was a healthy exchange of opinions and observations going on until your little tirade came along. please contain your desire to lash out at others to more suitable environs. thank you.

reply

[–] charcas67 18 years ago

Just about everything in the movie is implausible and unrealistic.

But who cares? Pickup is an excellent pulpish tale, told in pretty much (except for Moe's last scene) breathless fashion, full of sex, violence, and double crosses. It's not meant to be a realistic story, but an entertaining escape that makes a few points along the way if you care to be observant.

reply

[–] bekkidrotts 18 years ago

okay, keep in mind that this film was made in the fifties. characters always fell in love right away in the movies back then. they'd meet and right away they'd tell eachother i love you and let's get married, blah blah. so you can't hold that against this movie.
i also think that candy would have fallen for skip. her ex-boyfriend is forcing her to take microfilm to the commies, then he beats the crap out of her and then shoots her. so it is very likely that she would fall for a violent guy again.
and to whomever said that the opening scene is the only good one, what about when moe comes in to her room and sits on her bed, turns on the radio, starts to write in her little book, then notices the feet propped up on her bed? or when skip shines the flashlight in the intruder's eyes, then cold cocks her, then pours beer on her head, then kisses her?
you just have to appreciate this film if you like film noir. that's it.

reply

[–] rogueforte 18 years ago

You kids need to view a few other film noirs that don't have some of the glaring implausibilities that Pickup on South Street has.

Someone already mentioned The Asphalt Jungle. There's The Killers, Out of the Past, Double Indemnity, The Maltese Falcon to name but a few. The list goes on as to how many other, better, film noirs there are that are more believable than Pickup on South Street.

IOW, the higher the suspension of disbelief, the harder it is to accept (and appreciate) a movie. There are some aspects of Pickup on South Street that have a high suspension of disbelief, much higher than a lot of other, better film noirs.

I didn't buy the whole 'ice box in the river' thing, either. If his hideout was just one of many (which someone else seems to want to believe), then it seems like Chip was taking a big risk on the rope breaking or coming loose, particularly if he only used the bait shack infrequently, in which case he'd lose his entire stash. Frankly, it doesn't seem like something a 'smart' guy like Chip would take a chance on.

Other Richard Widmark movies that tread into this territory are The Street with No Name and Panic in the Streets. In fact, if it's a film noir with Richard Widmark and the word 'street' in the title, you can pretty much bet there's going to be some parts of the script that aren't quite believable.

If you can get by it, swell. But you need to consider broadening your repertoire of film noir movies.

reply

[–] sinnersaintenemas-1 18 years ago

What's so unbelievable about a girl falling for a guy who is a bit cruel to her? I've seen it happen in real life quite a few times and I am but 21 years of age. Pickup on South Street (along with On Dangerous Ground) is at the top of the noir list for me. The fact that it is different doesn't at all make it bad. The ending doesn't in any way, shape or form suggest they are leaving their criminal ways behind them. "You wanna bet?" Candy says, that is merely saying "good luck on getting the dirt on us", nothing there suggests a change of heart for either of them. The film also does not suggest that Skip and Candy are an overnight happy couple, just because they leave the building together. It's speculation, really. In my opinion, Pickup on South Street is not only a 4 star noir, it's a 4 star film.

reply

[–] rogueforte 18 years ago

As a movie, in general, it's two stars. As a film-noir, it's three. What distinguishes this movie from lesser film-noirs are that Jean Peters is well cast and the Lightning Louie supporting character.

Although his appearance is brief, Lightning Louie is great. It's classic the way he looks off-screen when he's talking to her and just continues eating the Chinese food using chopsticks and holding the bowl so close to his face. Then, he picks up Peters' money and sticks it in his pocket with the same chopsticks. On top of that, the guy who played Lightning Louie was a real pick-pocket and was a technical advisor on that aspect of the movie.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Disardor 17 years ago

Agree with bosox_n_03. Also, to rogueforte -- the character's name is SKIP, not "Chip."

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] evolman123 15 years ago

Yeah, not be rude, but you're really missing the mark if you think this is a two-star film. It's not perfect, and there are stronger film noirs (Huston worked with much larger budgets and prestige than Fuller), but Pickup is awesome in its fearless writing and pacing, and the camera direction and lightning are top-notch. Anyone who wants to know how to direct film should study Pickup on South Street. I think even John Huston would've agreed with that.

Also, the strongest aspects of this film are obviously Fuller's confident efficiency, and the performances of the three main actors, most notably Thelma Ritter, whose death scene is both tragic and beautiful. This is as close to a four-star film as you can get without actually being one.

reply

[–] richvirgo 18 years ago

Sam Fuller made Grade "B" films,regardless of their genre.It's unfair to compare him to the John Huston's of the time.

reply

[–] freudified_n_funkified 17 years ago

Here's the deal with the Skip/Candy romance. From the moment she's in his shack, it's not the romance people seem to perceive it as. It's not like they're immediately in love because they're making out. They're both playing each other -- Candy to get her purse back, Skip to figure out what it's worth. Fuller himself describes it as a "mercenary kiss" and goes on to say:

"Skip quickly figures out he can get a bundle for this precious microfilm, setting himself up for the rest of his life. And he isn't going to let Candy botch up that deal. No woman is worth that. He wants nothing to do with women. Home? Family? Love? Useless middle class pipe dreams to Skip. Candy irritates the hell out of him, interfering with his work. Everything changes when Candy gets beaten up trying to save Skip's life. Why would anyone risk her neck for him? It makes no sense in Skip's primitive world, where sacrifice is laughable. Nevertheless, the seeds of love have been planted."

That's what does it for Skip. Candy, on the other hand, clearly isn't the sharpest tack and has already proved her bad taste in men. So why is it a major flaw of the movie to have them legitimately hook up at the end? They ride off into the sunset, but there's no promise as to how far they get. The upbeat little coda does ring kind of falsely optimistic, and the chances of either one of them turning their lives around and living happily ever after are completely zilch. It works on a more subversive level because if we really know these characters, we know their sunny optimism is just another impossible pipe dream waiting to crumble out from under them. Either of them or both of them will wind up as gutted and destitute as Moe, or dead or locked up before they get a chance. Fuller allows them their victory, but of all filmmakers Fuller knows that most victories, personal or grander, are short lived.

That's what I take from PICKUP anyway - one of the sharpest, most exuberant and entertaining of film noirs and one of Fuller's crowning accomplishments. In most regards I think that Fuller, who is definitely an acquired taste, towers of contemporaries like John Huston, whose best work was mere adolescent male adventure fantasy. And while Fuller's creative sensibilities seem to be just that, his heart and his insight gave genuine weight to even his most didactic or ham fisted yarns. That and they're just so much more fun to watch.

reply

[–] Andrew_S_Hatton 17 years ago

<<Here's the deal with the Skip/Candy romance. From the moment she's in his shack, it's not the romance people seem to perceive it as. It's not like they're immediately in love because they're making out>>

I agree with this assessment of this very powerful film of people users and outsiders who will always end up losing.

It fitted my day exactly I had been watching a trite British B Movie type drama with a ridiculous plot all over acted because I was having a bad day and could not organise my self to do anything worthwhile. I fell asleep and did not see the end of the first film or beginning of Pick up but I saw these people all striving not to be put down and on the make whether they were Commie, FBI or pickpocket all living lives of despairing smallness and meanness. In amongst it the two "stars" realised they had a care for each other in the moment and that care grew until they supported rather than used each other. They went off into the sunset with a firm gait that they dared to hope would not collapse around the first corner. Something about the indomitable human spirit,for some of the time, with the reminder that many end up completely broken like Moe who virtually wished her own death because her life was so miserable with isolation and rejection.

A wonderful film with all those sharp lines, and to think it was filmed in under three weeks all those years ago with such rudimentary equipment and yet so powerful, effective and believable, in a metaphorical way is truly amazing.

I am sure it will come round again soon on the UK's Film Four (most things get repeated endlessly.) When I see it on I shall be wide awake and concentrating from the opening credits to the last. Thanks to IBH27 for succinctly explaining the absolute creditability of the romance that was portrayed.

As someone who spent nearly 30 years working in the English Criminal Justice system it was all very believable and a sad insight on the under belly of life in our fancy "civilised" new millenium.

reply

[–] on3gin 17 years ago

Doesn't anyone think it is also a very funny movie? The period dialogue; the underworld jargon; Moe's notebook with the going rates for different types of hoodlums; the idea that being a "Red" is the worst crime of all, equivalent to being a "louse"; the detective's earnestness in asking Candy, "Don't you want to help us fight communism, miss?" Candy's coy description of her past, "I've kissed a lot of guys." And Joey not missing the heavy pistol in his inside jacket pocket until he reaches for it? I've watched this one four times in the past three years and laugh just as hard each time.

reply

[–] thewholebrevitything 17 years ago

Regarding quickly falling in love. From the plot summary on this website -

"She attempts to seduce McCoy to recover the film."

This message will soon be deleted by an administrator

reply

[–] surfink 11 years ago

Just to put my two cents in, I think you (freudified_n_funkified) totally nailed it, and I think 85% of the posters here completely missed the point of the "kissing" scene. Without basically repeating everything you said, it was completely obvious to me while watching the scene that they were both "playing" each other, in modern parlance, and it had nothing to do with love.

And all the self-proclaimed cineastes on here picking apart the "believability" of the movie are missing everything that makes this a great film. If it's cheap verisimilitude you want, there are hundreds of boring, "realistic" movies (an oxymoron if there ever was one) for you out there. This is Art. 10 out of 10 stars.

reply

[–] SanSanSan 11 years ago

10 out of 10 stars.

Amen!

Don't know about love at first sight, but there was enough chemistry between them for a biotech startup. It's quite clear they find each other damn sexy. I love it that Candy loses her head so completely so fast. Hot little bonbon.

reply

[–] backofthevan 16 years ago

I was really disappointed in this film after hearing it called a film noir classic for so many years.

The points about the implausibility of it are well-founded. I don't care what genre the film is, it has to have some believability if I'm going to get emotionally involved in it. I know it was made in the '50s when every leading lady's hair, makeup and clothing were perfect at all times, regardless of their being punched in the face, thrown around on a dock, etc. Her white dress was immaculate no matter what happened to her, as was her trowled on lipstick. She's punched in the head with nary a bruise?

The whole romance thing was ludicrous, unless she's got a death wish. C'mon girls, dontcha all immediately fall for a pig who slugs you in the face? I know, I know... 1950s again, like that's any excuse.

I agree with what is said about Skip living in that shack, using that box in the water to store his stash. As if. At one point he says he has no electricity but at the end when Joey comes in looking for him, the light's on. Huh???

When Candy says "you wanna bet?" at the end to Tiger, she very definitely IS suggesting Skip has changed his ways. She's denying that Tiger will be able to pick Skip up on anything because he's going to be a law-abiding citizen from now on, cured by the love of a good/bad woman, I guess.

I tried to suspend disbelief and appreciate it for what it was, so I give it a 6/10. Being film noir is no excuse for a mediocre movie. There are many, many better films in this genre that truly do deserve to be called classics.

Thelma Ritter, best thing by far about this film.

reply

[–] jpseacadets 16 years ago

Rogueforte - - the best Richard Widmark film noir? Try NIGHT AND THE CITY.

- - SoundTrak

reply

[–] minnieg86 16 years ago

I feel that this film was made to be improbable. It isn't so much about the kiss and their relationship, it's about the bigger picture. Good vs. Bad, the anti-hero, so on and so forth. I think if you get too hung up on the nuances of the film you'll never truly appreciate it. I for one love this movie, and think the characters of Moe and Skip are great.

reply

[–] advice31765 15 years ago

I agree. This is a fantastic film noir. It's not a documentary.

reply

[–] mel2000 9 years ago

At one point he says he has no electricity but at the end when Joey comes in looking for him, the light's on. Huh???

Skip had a gas lamp in his room. You can see him light it after he knocks out Candy when he found her searching his shack.

reply

[–] spud-boy 9 years ago

Another great Widmark film noir is Night and the City, co-starring Gene Tierney and directed by Jules Dassin.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] texastreasure517 15 years ago

This is one of my favorite noirs, and also a favorite Widmark film. I like the hopeful ending; I wouldn't call it "happy" as not everyone gets out unscathed. The characters are eventually quite likable and you want them to catch a break.

Just remember that in many 20th century films, the word "love" is a euphemism for "sex". Candy does want the film back, but she also wouldn't mind jumping his bones in the process.

Just substitute "commie" for "terrorist" and the "microfilm" for a "microchip" and it's not too far a leap to today.

reply

[–] sightless 15 years ago

"The first is the sudden romance of Candy towards Skip McCoy. Upon visiting the shack of the two-bit criminal pickpocket who had stolen from her purse only hours before and who is physically violent with her--she suddenly falls in love with him? I didn't buy it. "

Why should she not fall in love with him? She obviously realizes that just because he is a pickpocket does not mean he is a bad guy. She seems to have troubled background so it is probable that she has some emotional problems, so it is not surprising that she might fall in love with some random stranger.

reply

[–] AliciaHuberman59 14 years ago

They were two of a kind and it was hormone-fueled, period.

I agree about the shack, and also want to know how Jean Peters' white, or at least light-colored) dress stayed perfectly clean and lovely after having worn it, and gotten practically beat up by Skip wearing it, for at least two days!

reply