Monday, October 20, 2014

El Cid (1961)

A Spanish-Italian-US co-production, El Cid is both very much in the tradition of grand Hollywood epics and also points to a newer style of epic. While the Hollywood epics of the 50s were (mostly) done in the studio El Cid makes very extensive use indeed of location shooting. In fact there are very very few process shots, and I can’t recall seeing a single obvious matte painting. Everything here looks real because for the most part it is real. In spirit however it’s in line with the heroic 50s Hollywood approach to epics (which is in my view no bad thing).

Director Anthony Mann had not done an epic prior to this but he had done some much-admired westerns and that experience proved to be extremely useful. There’s a great feel for the landscape an there are quite a few scenes that would not be out of place in a western. And they work extremely well in the context of the picture.

Rodrigo de Vivar, known as El Cid, is Spain’s national hero. The situation in Spain in the 11th century was exceptionally complex with a variety of Christian and Moorish kingdoms fighting among themselves and also facing the threat from the North African Almoravid empire. The movie, like most epics, plays fast and loose with history but what the story may lack in historical accuracy it makes up for in entertainment value.

The movie version of Rodrigo de Vivar (Charlton Heston) is a minor nobleman who rises to the heights of power. He frees a number of Moorish emirs after a battle and as a result finds himself accused of treason. This is awkward enough but it will lead him into greater difficulties with his bride-to-be Jimena (played by Sophia Loren), her father, and the king. To regain his honour means facing almost certain death but Rodrigo has a destiny and it proves to be inescapable. He then finds himself caught in the middle of a nasty little dynastic squabble as the old king’s two sons Sancho and Alfonso and daughter Urraca carve up the kingdom. Finally he must save Spain from the invading hordes of the fanatical Almoravid king Ben Yussuf (Herbert Lom). This involves him in yet more difficulties with Alfonso, a king who seems incapable of behaving like a king but to who he has sworn his fealty.

Rodrigo does not do any of this as a result of his own ambitions, or his own desires. He keeps finding himself in situations where his honour will only allow him to do one thing, and that one thing always has the effect of bringing him a step nearer to his destiny. He will eventually have a crown for the taking but again his honour intervenes. He has a destiny but that is not always a comfortable thing to live with.

The title character has to be a larger-than-life hero with a definite mythic quality and no-one could do that sot of thing better than Charlton Heston. However the character has to be someone we can empathise with even when his motivations are foreign and unfamiliar to us, as they often are given that he is very a medieval hero and a man of his time. Heston does a pretty good job in this respect, managing to convey the idea that this is a man who does not think the way we think but at the same time making him quite sympathetic. Heston was never given to excessive emoting but he does enough to bring the character to life. And he has the stature and the charisma to make convincing hero. Heston has been seriously underrated as an actor. He had a particular style that wasn’t suited to every part or to every movie but in the right part he simply had no equal.

Sophia Loren has an equally challenging task. Jimena is a woman to whom honour is every bit as important as it is to Rodrigo and what she yearns to do as a woman often conflicts with what her honour forces her to do. Sophia Loren would probably not have been most people’s first choice for such a demanding rôle but she carries it off rather well. She never lets us forget that Jimena is a proud Spanish noblewoman but she also never lets us forget that she is a woman.

John Fraser has mostly worked in television and he also has a tough acting assignment as the weak, treacherous and cowardly Alfonso who slowly and painfully learns what it means to be a king. Geneviève Page is splendid as the dangerous and duplicitous Princess Urraca. Herbert Lom overacts outrageously and delightfully as Ben Yussuf and gives his character some real menace as well.

As an Australian I cannot neglect to mention Frank Thring’s deliciously over-ripe performance as the treacherous and villainous Al Kadir.

Anthony Mann’s considerable reputation as a director rests mainly on his early film noir work and on his classic 1950s westerns with James Stewart. The two epics he made late in his career are not generally quite so well regarded. This may well be quite unjust since El Cid demonstrates a rather consummate mastery of the historical epic genre. He handles the spectacle side of things confidently while some of the more intimate scenes are even more impressive. His compositions are inventive and accomplished and rather painterly while he and cinematographer Robert Krasker make skillful use of colour not just for magnificence but for emotional impact. The production design by Veniero Colasanti and John Moore adds further lustre. 

It’s worth pointing out that not only do the action scenes look great, they are never there purely to provide spectacle. Every action scene advances the plot and advances the trajectory of the development of the characters involved. 

There are so many memorable scenes in this movie but there are several that really stand out. There’s the scene with the two women rivals looking out through slatted windows, almost a film noir scene. There’s the cinematically gorgeous scene of the horsemen riding along the beach at dusk carrying torches. There’s the wonderful moment with the traitor meeting King Sancho, with the wind howling outside, and directly following that the scene of murder outside the walls. In that last scene, as so often in this film, Mann and Kranker make superb use of deep focus photography. Mann’s compositions are not only meticulous in the horizontal frame but in depth as well, a very unusual and effective feature for this type of film in 1961. Also worth mentioning is the scene with the shaft of sunlight coming through the cupola when Rodrigo and Jimena meet early in the movie.

The audio commentary by William Bronston (the son of the film’s producer) and academic Neal Rosendorf is marred by a desperate and excruciating attempt to apologise for the fact that a movie that is already very politically correct wasn’t even more politically correct. It’s frankly embarrassing to listen to. Once they get back to talking about the movie itself things pick up and they do have some worthwhile information to impart. One interesting anecdote from Rosendorf concerns an interview he did with Charlton Heston in the 1990s. Heston showed him the sword he’d used in the movie, and it was a real sword and it was very very heavy. In fact this movie is virtually unique in that everything is real. If armour was supposed to be made of metal and leather then the costumes were made of metal and leather. The attention to detail and to capturing the sense of reality was obsessive but it pays off.

Another intriguing point made in the commentary track is that Anthony Mann was very enthusiastic about the idea of making epics. You can’t make a truly satisfactory movie in any genre unless you have a respect for the genre and that’s one of the reasons this movie works - Mann did have that respect for the epic genre.

While modern audiences will be inclined to see the movie in terms of the clash of cultures between Moslem and Christian Spain Bronston and Rosendorf suggest that it can also be viewed as a Cold War parable and that Rodrigo’s struggle against the Moors can be seen as representing General Franco’s successful struggle to save Spain from the Communists during the Civil War. 

Of course the movie can also be read as a story about the nature of heroes and the challenge of living with honour.

This is not the kind of movie that should ever be seen on television in butchered pan-and-scan prints. It probably really needs to be seen at a cinema but Anchor Bay’s Blu-Ray presentation is the next best thing. And it really is superb. It’s not just the spectacle that is important in this movie. Just as important is the use of colour, at times very bright colour, at other times very subdued. This Blu-Ray presents the movie in all its glory and the transfer is just about flawless. Anchor Bay have also included a host of extras on a second disc. Considering the very reasonable price this two-disc set is great value.

El Cid, a huge box-office hit in its day, is a complex multi-layered film and a visually stunning epic. Very highly recommended.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The Captive City (1952)

The Captive City is an unassuming but efficient crime B-movie directed by the always reliable Robert Wise.

This film belongs to a type that became very popular in the 50s - exposés of organised crime in small-town settings, with the message that the tentacles of mobsterism can reach into even the most seemingly idyllic small town. 

Jim Austin (John Forsythe) is the publisher and editor of the Kennington Journal. There’s really not a lot of opportunity for doing hard news stories in a sleepy and peaceful town of 36,000 souls like Kennington. When a big story falls into his lap he doesn’t recognise it for what it is. A down-at-heel private investigator comes to him with a story of corruption and gangsterism but Jim Austin just can’t believe that such things could happen in his town. When the private investigator is murdered Jim realises how naïve he’d been. 

Jim Austin is not by nature the sort of guy who would ever set out to be a crusader but his basic decency won’t allow him to let the story go, and in his own quiet way he can be remarkably stubborn.

The movie uses a few classic film noir techniques, like flash-backs and voiceover narration. In fact almost the entire film is a single flash-back as Jim Austin dictates his story into a tape-recorder, believing he may be murdered at any time.

The problem in Kennington is gambling. The city authorities have taken a soft approach to gambling, the assumption being that small-scale gambling is pretty harmless. The trouble is that gambling attracts racketeers and the book-making racket in Kennington is now in the hands of big-time mobsters from out of town.

Jim Austin’s problem is that he just can’t convince anyone that this represents a serious menace. Even the honest folk in Kennington would prefer him to let sleeping dogs lie. They have persuaded themselves that crime will never impact on them personally. The more Jim Austin digs the more evidence he finds but it’s not enough to convict anyone in a court of law and he faces steadily mounting opposition. He has to find real evidence, and then he has to find a way to stay alive long enough to do something with that evidence.

John Forsythe’s low-key acting style suits the material rather well. Jim Austin really is a very ordinary guy. He’s no storybook hero and he’s certainly no two-fisted gun-toting action hero, and Forsythe wisely doesn’t try to be hard-boiled. His very ordinariness makes us empathise with him. The other players are competent although the lack of a memorable villain may be seen as a drawback.

If there’s a weakness in this movie it’s paradoxically the flipside of its biggest strength. The whole point of the movie is that gangsterism can be lurking behind an innocent façade of white picket fences and well-manicured lawns, but the concentration on the peaceful surface of Kennington means that the menace remains somewhat muted. On the other hand it does mean that the violence, which is employed sparingly, has an impact when it does occur.

Robert Wise was never a particularly ostentatious director which can mean that his considerable technical skills are sometimes overlooked. He knew his stuff and in this movie he had the services of ace cinematographer Lee Garmes. Wise and Garmes make great use of compositions in depth, with the camera getting in really tight on the hero while the real action is happening in the background. This has the advantage of emphasising the fact that Austin is man who has always been rather detached from the seamy side of life.

Having been an editor (and a very good one) Wise knows how to pace a movie and he has no difficulty keeping the audience’s interest focused. His forays into film noir were not extensive but they were very impressive with The Set-Up being particularly noteworthy. 

Wise also knows how to build tension, and how to do it subtly. Jim Austin finds himself shadowed by dark cars. They’re not doing anything overtly threatening, just hanging back but making sure he sees them. Maybe they’re not even following him, but they could be and he becomes more and more convinced that they are.

The movie’s claims to noir status are not especially strong although the theme of hidden corruption does lend a somewhat noir aspect to the movie.

The Captive City has been released in the MGM Limited Edition series. The transfer is quite satisfactory. There are no extras.

The Captive City is a fairly routine story but Robert Wise’s craftsman ship shines through and makes it just a little more than a run-of-the-mill crime B-picture. Recommended.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Murder with Pictures (1936)

Murder with Pictures is a 1936 murder mystery which (as was customary in Hollywood at that time) mixes the mystery with a dash of comedy.

It was based on a story by George Harmon Coxe. In the 1930s Coxe had written a series of crime stories for the pulp magazine Black Mask featuring news photographer Flashgun Casey who spends as much time solving crimes as taking photos. Coxe also wrote a series of novels featuring Kent Murdock, essentially a smoother slightly more up-market and slightly toned-down version of Flashgun Casey. Murder with Pictures was the first of the Kent Murdock books and Paramount’s film version quickly followed. Coxe co-wrote the screenplay with Sidney Salkow.

Nate Girard (Onslow Stevens) is a shady businessman who has made a lot of money from oil and he’s also a mobster. He’s just been acquitted on a murder charge. His businessman partner, a shyster lawyer named Redfield, got him off but no-one really believes he was innocent. Kent Murdock (Lew Ayres) finds himself involved when a girl named Meg Archer (Gail Patrick) persuades him to hide her in his hotel room. Meg is the number one suspect in a new murder, that of Redfield. It just so happens that Murdock’s assistant Doane spanned a picture that showed the actual murder and Mudock, who has convinced himself that Meg is innocent, believes that picture will clear her. The trouble is that everyone wants to get hold of that picture.

The plot complications accumulate at a frenetic pace. Everyone seems to be trying to double-cross everyone else and those who want that picture are wiling to kill it to get hold of it. Murdock has to try to keep Meg out of the hands of the police while also keeping her, and himself, alive.

Murdock has other problems. Under the influence of a few too many highballs he had proposed marriage to bubble-dancer Hester Boone (Joyce Compton) and now she is trying  to fleece him.

Nate Girard and Redfield had cheated Meg Archer and her father out of their lucrative oil business so Meg has a motive for murder and while Murdock still thinks she’s innocent (possibly because he’s fallen for he) there are times when he has his doubts.

The plot is not always easy to follow but the movie’s brisk pacing keeps things entertaining  even when things get pretty confused.

Lew Ayres is a typically fast-talking newspaper man. He plays Murdock just a little too much for laughs for my tastes but he’s reasonably likeable and not entirely unconvincing. Gail Patrick is an engaging and fairly feisty heroine. Joyce Compton provides some fairly amusing comic relief. The supporting cast comprises solid B-movie players. 

Director Charles Barton directed. He did a lot of B-movies and he does a workmanlike job and keeps things moving along. There’s enough action to keep things interesting.

This is a movie that has fallen into the public domain. The Mill Creek DVD I watched was not too bad by that company admittedly very low standards. Picture quality is quite acceptable but there are a few sound issues which is unfortunate because the complex plot becomes harder to follow when you find yourself missing some of the dialogue.

Murder with Pictures is a fairly solid mystery in the 1930s B-movie style. The idea of the crucial piece of evidence being a photographic plate which everyone is trying to steal is quite clever (and was very much a George Harmon Coxe trademark). Recommended.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Madigan (1968)

Don Siegel’s 1968 cop thriller Madigan has most of the strengths one associates with the director but it’s also an intriguingly schizophrenic film.

It was based on a 1962 book called The Commissioner, which as its title suggests dealt mainly with a police commissioner. For the movie the decision was made to add a new character, Detective Daniel Madigan, and to shift the focus to this new character.

Commissioner Anthony X. Russell (Henry Fonda) is very much a do-it-by-the-book sort of cop, scrupulously honest to an almost pathological degree and a great believer in the idea that police officers have to maintain the highest possible standards of ethics. 

Detective Daniel Madigan (Richard Widmark) is a very different sort of cop. Madigan doesn’t even know there is a book to go by and even if he did know he wouldn’t read it. He’s a street cop. Everything he knows about being a cop he’s learnt on the streets. Madigan has rather flexible ethics. He’s quite happy to accept freebies and in fact can see no problem if people want to do favours for cops. That’s the sort of behaviour that Commissioner Russell instinctively mistrusts - he sees it as dangerously close to corruption. Madigan doesn’t see it that way. He knows where to draw the line. He would never actually act corruptly but he can’t see any reason why a cop needs to be obsessive about such things.

Commissioner Russell used to be Madigan’s captain back in the days when Madigan was a rookie detective. There has always been tension between the two men, based on their wildly different attitudes and personalities.

Chief Inspector Charles Kane (James Whitmore) is Russell’s oldest and closest friend, but Kane has become involved in some dealings that could be interpreted as unethical.

Detective Rocco Bonaro (Harry Guardino) is Madigan’s partner.

The structure of the movie is rather interesting. There is a central plot but it’s not very important. Mostly the movie simply takes a look at a few days in the lives of four very different New York cops, following them though both professional and personal crises. These crises are really just everyday life to a policeman. The interest comes from seeing how four very different men approach the job and how they try to juggle the life of a cop with some sort of personal life.

All four men are, despite their radical differences in temperament and style, good cops. They represent different ideas of what it means to be a good cop and the differences between their ideas lead to inevitable clashes.

As for the main plot, it concerns a hoodlum named Barney Benesch (Steve Ihnat). Benesch is a dangerously unstable and violent individual and the problems start when Madigan and Bonaro try to pick him up and he escapes from custody in circumstances which are rather embarrassing to the two harassed detectives. They thought it was a fairly routine matter but it transpires that Benesch is wanted for murder. It’s made fairly clear to the two detectives that if they hope to continue their careers in the NYPD they had better find Barney Benesch, and find him quickly.

Madigan is married but his marriage is not running all that smoothly. Julie Madigan (Inger Stevens) is fed up being a cop’s wife. She wants a real husband, not a guy who is married to the job. Commissioner Russell has his own domestic problems caused by his affair with a married woman.

Given the film’s structure the performances are crucial, and all the leading players deliver the goods. Fonda has the most thankless part, Russell being a very distant sort of man who has repressed his emotions almost completely. Fonda plays the part very effectively but Russell’s cold-fish personality means that he is almost inevitably overshadowed by Widmark and Whitmore who play much more larger-than-life characters.

Whitmore was a fine reliable character actor and makes Chief Inspector Kane colourful while just managing to avoid making him a loveable Irish cop stereotype.

Widmark has the most demanding rôle, Madigan being a naturally abrasive character. The challenge was to keep the abrasiveness whilst also making him sympathetic. Widmark succeeds pretty well in doing this. Madigan is a guy trying his best. He wants to be a good cop and he’d also like to be a good husband. He just hasn’t figured out how to do both at the same time.

What makes this an odd film is that by the standards of 1968 it’s both very modern and very old-fashioned. It’s modern in its emphasis on the men behind the badges and in its very loose narrative structure. But it looks very old-fashioned. Visually it could have been made ten or even twenty years earlier. Seeing this movie you would never know that the 60s had ever happened. You would never know that rock’n’roll had ever happened, or that the previous year had been the Summer of Love or that Woodstock was just around the corner. The detectives still wear hats and could have stepped right out of a 1940s crime movie. Even though it’s in colour everything is grey and very 1940s film noir. 

It’s fascinating to compare this movie with Dirty Harry, which Siegel made just three years later. They look like they were made decades apart. This is especially interesting because the two movies have definite thematic affinities, both dealing with cops close to the edge.

Siegel had done quite a bit of television work and Madigan, despite being shot in Cinemascope and despite the location shooting in New York, has something of the enclosed look of a TV cop show. Dirty Harry on the other hand has a much more cinematic feel.

Madigan is a tough but intelligent cop movie from a director who did that sort of thing particularly well. Highly recommended.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

S.O.S. Iceberg (1933)

S.O.S. Iceberg (S.O.S. Eisberg) is a 1933 German adventure movie starring the notorious Leni Riefenstahl. The movie was a joint production with Universal and two versions were made, one in German and one in English. The English version was not just a dubbed version - many scenes were entirely reshot.

The 1930s saw the rise of an odd and peculiarly German movie genre, the mountain films (or bergfilme). These were adventure movies, usually with a hint of romance, in alpine settings. The emphasis was often more on the splendours of nature than on the actual story. The Germans had developed an obsession with nature in the early 20th century and these movies were immensely popular. Arnold Fanck was responsible for the most popular of these movies. S.O.S. Eisberg, written and directed by Fanck, is essentially a mountain film but with the Arctic taking the place of the mountains.

Leni Riefenstahl had made her reputation as an actress in these mountain films, and had gone on to direct one herself, The Blue LightThat movie had established Riefenstahl as a visual stylist of genius, a talent that came to its full flowering in her celebrated if controversial documentary films The Triumph of the Will and Olympia (the official movie of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games).

S.O.S. Eisberg is a story of survival and of an extraordinary rescue effort. The famed polar explorer Dr Lorenz had gone missing on an expedition into the interior of Greenland. A search was mounted but with no result and it was assumed that the explorer had perished. A year later a new expedition sets out, their objective being to find Dr Lorenz’s diaries. They discover, much to their surprise, that Dr Lorenz is still alive. Unfortunately by this time the rescue party is stranded as well, trapped on drifting ice floes which are slowly being carried out to sea. They have however managed to transmit a radio message and now fresh rescue efforts are mounted to save the survivors of the two expeditions.

Dr Lorenz’s wife Hella (Leni Riefenstahl) happens to be a pilot. She sets off in an aircraft and eventually locates the survivors but cracks up her plane in a difficult landing. Now she will need to be rescued as well. And she will not be the last would-be rescuer to find herself in this position. The fact that so many of the rescue attempts come to grief seems to be more than just a plot device to add excitement (although obviously it succeeds in doing this as well). The mountain films were very much concerned with contrasting mankind’s precarious but courageous attempts to survive in difficult an dangerous country with the awesome power of nature, so the failed rescue attempts serve the purpose of emphasising nature’s ability to mock human strivings.

This is not a conventional adventure film in which nature simply provides the backdrops - nature is at the centre of the film and it often becomes more of an ode to the grandeur of nature than a straightforward narrative film.

There’s really not very much to the plot but that doesn’t matter. The whole point of these movies was to feature spectacular cinematography and magnificent locations. S.O.S. Eisberg looks just as impressive today as it did in 1933, perhaps even more so when you consider the number of incredibly dangerous stunts it includes, all done for real. Arnold Fanck expected his actors to do their own stunts and Leni Riefenstahl suffered injuries in all the movies she did for him.

Riefenstahl was a capable actress and she has a very definite presence. One very clever move by the producers was the casting of Ernst Udet as the expedition’s aviator who later undertakes yet another aerial rescue mission. Udet was the second highest-scoring German fighter ace of the First World War and became a famous stunt pilot in the 1920s, so he knew a thing or two about flying. He doesn’t get to do much acting but he has a great deal of charm and charisma and it’s a pity his rôle wasn’t beefed up a little. Udet, like Riefenstahl, would become a controversial figure. He became a Nazi and was one of the architects of Goering’s Luftwaffe.

Kino’s DVD includes both the German (with sub-titles) and American versions. They obviously have not been fully restored but fortunately the German version is in pretty good shape, allowing the viewer to appreciate some truly magnificent photography.

S.O.S. Eisberg delivers its share of excitement and the superb visuals are more than enough to compensate for the thin plot. A movie of immense historical interest, and entertaining as well. Recommended.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Scarlet Street (1945)

Although Fritz Lang’s Scarlet Street has long been recognised as one of the key movies in the American film noir cycle it had the misfortune for many years to be seen only in very poor quality DVD releases. That problem has now been largely solved by Kino’s Blu-Ray release. It is now possible to see the film as it should be seen and to judge it accordingly.

Scarlet Street had an interesting history. It’s a remake of a 1931 Jean Renoir film which retains most of the plot elements of the earlier film but with some very important changes in both tone and in the nature of the relationship between the characters.

Scarlet Street is in some ways a logical follow-up to Lang’s 1944 hit The Woman in the Window. That movie also starred Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett and Dan Duryea and had relaunched Bennett’s career after a hiatus due to motherhood. The success of The Woman in the Window had convinced Joan Bennett that her best hope for maintaining her career as a major star was to continue working with Lang. She felt that Lang was the director who could get the best performances out of her, and that was an entirely accurate judgment on her part. She persuaded her husband, producer Walter Wanger, that it would be an extremely good idea to join Lang in setting up an independent production company. The company would have three huge assets - Bennett’s star quality, Lang’s reputation as a director and Wanger’s established relationship with Universal which would take care of the distribution angle. Diana Productions would have a brief and turbulent history.

While Diana Productions eventually met an unhappy fate in the short term Scarlet Street fulfilled the high expectations everyone involved had for it. It was well received by the critics and it was a box-office hit.

The story comprises two intersecting romantic triangles, although perhaps romantic is the wrong word for such spectacularly perverse relationships.

Chris Cross (Edward G. Robinson) is a meek cashier whose one genuine satisfaction in life is his painting. He was unwise enough to allow loneliness to tempt him into a disastrous marriage with the shrewish Adele (Rosalind Ivan). He is the sort of man who just lets life happen to him, rather like a train wreck. His attempts to take control of his own destiny will lead him to make some disastrous mistakes that will make his life a whole lot worse. Taking control is a good idea but it helps if you have some judgment. While some people see Lang’s characters as victims of fate Chris is entirely a victim of his own poor decisions and lack of judgment. Wishful thinking is not a good plan. It’s an especially bad plan when you’re dealing with someone like Kitty March (Joan Bennett).

Chris’s paintings are very much in the style of naïve art. He has had no art training and has never mastered the technique of perspective (just as he has never mastered the technique of perspective in his own life). One of the reasons this movie works so well is that his paintings (which were done for the movie by an artist friend of Lang’s) are so very convincing. They really do look like the work of an untrained amateur, they really do look like the paintings that a man like Chris would paint, and they really do look like the kinds of paintings that trendy art critics would hail as the product of an untrained genius.

Dudley Nichols had written the screenplay for Lang’s 1941 hit Man Hunt and was anxious to work with him again. Nichols provided Lang with exactly what he needed for Scarlet Street, a strong script which allowed free rein for Lang’s visual imagination.

Lang would adapt fairly well to the changing tastes and the demands for more location shooting in the 50s but he was really at his best shooting in a studio where he could have absolute control. In this case everything comes together perfectly - Alexander Golitzen’s art direction, the sets, the costumes, the acting, Lang’s visual brilliance, all complement one another. Kitty’s studio apartment makes a perfect contrast with the sordidness of Chris’s apartment.

Edward G. Robinson and Joan Bennett had already proved themselves to be a very successful and dynamic pairing in The Woman in the Window. They’re even better in Scarlet Street. As terrific as Robinson is he is perhaps overshadowed by Bennett’s extraordinary (and career-best) performance. Dan Duryea does what Dan Duryea always does, and does it with style.

Kino’s Blu-Ray is the best this movie has ever looked. A company with greater resources might have provided a better transfer but this one is a huge improvement over the generally horrible previous DVD releases. On his stimulating an informative audio commentary David Kalat does make a very good point about the ending, a point Lotte Eisner made in her excellent book on the director. Chris’s fate has more to do with the fact that he has failed to win Kitty from Johnny, rather than with actual guilt for his (Chris’s) crimes.

Be warned though - his audio commentary includes major spoilers for three other Lang movies - The Woman in the Window, Fury and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If you haven’t  yet seen those movies you might want to think about skipping the commentary from around to the 65-minute mark to around the 80-minute mark. The spoilers are absolutely crucial and will pretty much wreck your enjoyment of those three movies. I understand that he could not make certain important points in his arguments without revealing those spoilers but it’s still something to bear in mind.

Scarlet Street is not only the best of Lang’s American films, it’s the best film of his career. Yes, even better than M. Very highly recommended.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Arson Inc. (1949)

Arson Inc. is a 1949 Lippert Pictures release included in the first of VCI’s Forgotten Noir Collector’s Sets. Of course it isn’t film noir but it is a decent crime B-picture.

Film-makers at this time were trying to add some variety to their crime movies by focusing on investigative agencies other than the police. This trend produced several movies about Treasury Department agents and even a thriller about a post office investigator (Appointment with Danger). As its title would suggest Arson Inc. deals with the work of Fire Department investigators.

Joe Martin (Robert Lowery) is a fireman who is offered the chance to join the Los Angeles Fire Department’s arson squad. A recent warehouse fire had raised suspicions of foul play and those suspicions cost an investigator his life. The name of an insurance underwriter named Fender seems to keep cropping up whenever there’s a suspicious fire. Joe Martin’s job is to find out a little more about Mr Fender’s activities.

Joe strikes up a friendship with Pete Purdy (Edward Brophy), a genial middle-aged man who works for Fender. Pete is a friendly sort of guy who tells Joe he always wanted to be a fireman. He failed the physical but now he takes a keen amateur interest in fires and fire-fighting. That’s the sort of information that can be guaranteed to attract the attention of a Fire Department investigator.

In order to give Joe a chance to get close to Fender the Fire Department arranges to have Joe fired. If Fender is running an arson racket then a disgruntled former fireman is just the sort of guy he’d be looking for to join his organisation. It doesn’t take too long for Joe to penetrate the organisation.

In his spare time Joe is developing a romance with Jane Jennings (Anne Gwynne), a school teacher who was doing some baby-sitting for one of Fender’s clients.

Fender is planning another warehouse fire insurance scam and Joe and Pete are to do the dirty work. That’s fine by Pete - anything that involves lighting fires is fine by Pete.

The 63-minute running time means that Maurice Tombragel’s screenplay has to be tightly focused. There’s no time for unnecessary sub-plots and Tombragel keeps things simple. Director William Berke had plenty of experience making B-movies and he keeps the focus tight.

Robert Lowery makes a very satisfactory hero. He’s likeable and he avoids tough guy posturing. He’s a fireman not a cop and the rough stuff is not in his line. So, with surprising realism, he is not portrayed as an action hero type.

Jane really doesn’t play much part in the plot other than to provide a love interest for the hero but Anne Gwynne does that quite successfully and she’s engaging enough.

The supporting players are capable by B-movie standards with Edward Brophy being particularly good as Purdy, the fire-bug who gets very excited whenever he sees a naked flame (lighting a cigarette takes him a long time since he has to stop to admire the flame of the match).

This movie is typical of the productions of Lippert Pictures. There is very little time wasted on comic relief and that’s a major bonus. Their movies were unambitious but efficient B-features.

Since it deals with arson the movie provides a reasonably exciting ending with a fire.

VCI have provided a good serviceable transfer (as they have for all the movies in this set). They have even thrown in a few extras.

Arson Inc. is a solid little crime thriller. It’s a B-movie through and through but it’s entertaining. Recommended.