The Maltese Falcon: The Soundtrack for a Coma



I cannot be too sure, but I am fairly certain this movie put me in some type of suspended coma. Even with the three coffees’ I had consumed prior to watching the movie, I could not stay awake. My arm looked like a pincushion after from all the times I almost physically removed flesh from my body in order to focus. For the sake of this journal, I will focus my extreme dislike for this movie to two things: acting and plot.

I can see why this movie is noir. After watching “Double Indemnity” and “The Killers”, the typical traits of what constitutes noir become quite apparent. You have the emotional brick wall for a lead man, a distractingly pretty femme fatal and a murder mystery/crime quest wrapped up in a neat little package. The settings were nice and dark, giving you a very good sense of the times they were in. I kept picturing smoke in the air for some reason and I am still not entirely sure why.

I will start with Sam Spade. He is a badass. There is a huge possibility he may be one of the manliest men in all of movie history. But was it just me who felt as if he should just whip it out and get it over with? T-O-O M-U-C-H M-A-C-H-I-S-M-O. If the point of the movie was to make a man so obnoxious, inconsiderate and misogynistic, then congratulations, mission accomplished. Seriously, was Sam Spade born angry at the world or was it more of an in progress thing? The writers were trying far too hard to make Sam appear as if nothing could affect him. Sam acted as if emotions were beneath him and to even show a trace of anything would be a crime so despicable, he might as well be killed for the shame. “I won’t play the sap for you” he famously quotes. By this point the audience is like, “Jeepers and here we were thinking you would have changed.”

Brigid is an idiot. If the director had painted a face on a balloon it would have acted better. She had little to no chemistry with Sam Spade and the utterly innocent act she was trying to pull off failed miserably. Cairo. I feel as if I could summarize everything I feel about Cairo by just saying his name. Cairo. I thought he was a little bit of a wuss in this movie, but after watching the clips from “M”, where he turns out to be a serial child killer, he instantly gained cool points.

As for plot, I did not like how Sam gets involved because of Archer’s death. Suddenly, his quest vanishes as Brigid saunters past and the hunt for the Maltese Falcon begins. The writers must have realized ¾ through that Archer’s murder was unresolved and were like, “Oh crap, let’s tie up that loose end”. Then there was a ‘missing sister’ and then there was a hunt for the Maltese Falcon and then and then and then. Too much packed into too little sadly.

Blah, awful. I almost wish it “was a fake”.





Double Indemnity: Doubly Wicked



If you were to ask me exactly what it was about “Double Indemnity” that I enjoyed, I would truly not know where to begin, yet it had a great deal to do with the dialogue, actors and plot. Everything in this movie was so brilliantly executed that I was quite literally on the edge of my seat, completely enthralled with what was happening. On several occasions I found myself actually wanting to help Walter escape, even thought I knew perfectly well that he was turning himself in. I felt like one of those kids who believed it they watched “Titanic” enough times, the boat would not sink and Leo would live.

To start, I'll just go straight to the dialogue. All the 'baby's" aside, the dialogue was brilliant. Even after sixty years, it is still witty and snappy and you believe it. The banter between characters was honestly enjoyable and I laughed at certain points, with the characters. Walter was smooth and confident and it showed perfectly in his delivery. Phyllis was brilliant as a calculating, complete psychopath.

While I was watching, Walter struck me as a character that I would love to hate. Yet, as the movie progressed, I just flat out fell in love with him. Even Phyllis had her moments of intense coolness. The part where Walter comments on how she “didn’t shed a tear or stumble once” proved just how cold she was. Aside the fact she killed the previous Mrs. Deitrichson, basically in front of Lola, and still married Lola’s dad shows she had skill.

Though, I will admit the plot really caught my attention. It is very much like “Strangers On A Train” and I absolutely loved that movie. The idea that two people could just meet by chance one day and suddenly bond over a cruel and intimate act like murder blows my mind. Moreover, I truly enjoyed their plotting and exponential decline into paranoia. For people at the time, it must have been horrifyingly accurate and possible for someone to murder another in the fashion Walter and Phyllis did. Yet, for someone to watch “Double Indemnity” in 2005, I found myself mentally thanking god there was no Gil Grisson in 1939. When Walter strangled Phyllis' husband in the car, I almost cried out "Watch the epithelials buddy!" It was almost like watching Chicago again, when Renee Zellweger changed her testimony three thousand times and no one really seemed to care.

Yet, it's in the gritty paranoia that makes this movie noir. You saw a character's fall from grace and you were almost praying he would somehow manage to pull himself together. Technically, Walter and Phyllis had gotten away with murder. They both, pardon the language, screwed themselves when they began doubting each other. Everything fell apart when Keyes became slightly suspicious and Walter's desperation became palpable. His fear was plastered all over the screen and your found yourself wondering just what was driving this innocent man, with a seemingly fantastic life, to commit first degree murder. Was it for Phyllis’ love? That notion is quickly dismissed as he pulls the trigger, ending her life. Was it for money? He had no claim to it in the first place. I do not know the answer and am quite frankly, slightly thankful for that.

Side note, I think it would have been way more beneficial (aka he would have won the Oscar) if Billy Wilder had just re-shot the scenes with Phyllis' super ugly wig. He should have just burned it, or even better, someone should have really just said 'No' at the beginning when he suggested it.





The Killers: Massacring Minds Everywhere Since 1946



I really did not like “The Killers”. The entire movie was too forced in my opinion. Within five minutes, Hemmingway’s short story had been put on screen. That left forever, I mean, an hour and a half of completely contrived, utterly boorish film left. This movie annoyed me. This is most probably because in my mind, this movie was supposed to be like “A History of Violence” and it really was not. Yet, no matter how much I tried to wrap my mind around the additional scenes (aka, the rest of the movie) I could not believe the plot. Whether it was the actors, the writing or the overly emphasized dramatic and artistic allusions, “The Killers” killed me.

For starters, the casting director should have been taken to a deserted alley and shot. Repeatedly. Not a single actor (well, maybe with the exception of Bright Boy number 1) was in character. It felt like a poorly thrown together band of misfits trying to get through one of the most unintelligible plot quite possibly ever written. On that note, the person who wrote the screenplay for the movie should change his name to hide the shame of being credited with this movie. What sane, sober man thinks naming characters Dum-Dum and Blinky is a good idea? Obviously he put tons of effort and meticulous planning and consideration into that one. Yet, the one part that made me cringe was when the maid claimed she could not remember why the Swede would sign over 10 000 dollars to her. Then, she remembers, “Oh yeah, I saved his life”. You think she would have remembered something like that.

If Hemmingway were not already an alcoholic, he would have turned into one after viewing this.

Watching the Swede talk was like watching Arnold read Shakespeare. Not. Happening. Ever. He reminded me of a more primitive version of the Hulk, minus the green skin, the purple pants, the strength and intelligence. That is not saying much in his favor. Who just sits back and lets themselves be shot thirty kagillion times? A moron is what I figure. His supposed horrendous crime was theft, emasculating (literally) a rent-a-cop and shooting out the tires on some cars. Oh yeah, he kissed another guy’s girlfriend. Watch out Ole Anderson, Judge Judy will give you the chair.

It is not even worth the writing space to chew out Miss Kitty Collins. But I will say: brilliant plan on shaking your dying husband’s bleeding body while demanding he tell the police you are innocent. It makes your story of ‘not guilty’ so much more believable.

Another aspect of the movie that made it so utterly contrived and campy was all the overly emphasized artistic touches; the mirrors, the angles, the music. Too bloody much. To be honest, I would have really not paid much attention to such details, but the reading in Film Noir Reader forced me to see them. I will give “The Killers” some praise though. The first few shots were really new and fresh. But it is like taking a cool idea and milking it for all it is worth. After a while I was almost seasick with the way the camera spun around. I am also pretty sure I now have a bad case of vertigo from all the ‘above’ shots.

The mirrors were what really got to me. This distorted mirror signifies the distortion of reality! Well, thank you Sherlock for pointing that out, I would be helpless if it were not for you. This mirror signifies the two-faced nature of humans. Yawn, moving on…

So, all in all, you should bury “The Killers” next year (semester?). By that time, “A History of Violence” will most probably be on DVD and you can show that instead. Hemmingway would have wanted it that way.





Out of the Past: Proof Everything Comes Back To Haunt You



I am still trying to figure out if I liked this film. Everything was set up perfectly and there were very, very few plot holes. The actors were fabulous and the writing was by far the best out of all the movies we have seen. Yet still, there was just something there that made this movie sketchy.

For once, I liked the femme fatale. Kathy was absolutely insane and so manipulative I find it hard to believe anyone could believe anything she says. She was different from Phyllis in the sense that she was not unhinged. She had her hand in every murder that occurred in the movie and even though I knew it, I just could not feel it. I figured she must have been set up; she was forced into doing it or in the case of Fisher, did it to save Jeff’s life. Then as Kathy and Jeff are leaving and she spots the police, she whips out her gun, calls him a double-crosser and shoots him in the gut. When she notices there is a shooter in the trees aiming for her, she takes the same gun that blew out Jeff’s stomach lining and fires haphazardly in hopes of saving her own life. I sat there, in shock over how wickedly cool the whole sequence was. It almost felt like a five year old being told Santa does not exist. You almost do not believe it, but then you see mom putting all the presents under the tree and you have no other straws to clutch too. The illusion is shattered.

Jeff was a genuine character that did not deserve the hand he was dealt. Sure, he was not perfect but he went through hell to figure out the whole truth. When he fell out of the car, I was expecting him to get up, praise the fact he secretly wore a bulletproof jacket and then would go off with Anne to build the house near the river. When he fell out of the car and stayed crumpled like a used napkin, I felt loss. My only thought was, “I pity the person that has to tell Anne about this”.

Go figure it would be the deaf mute kid.

Now that I mention it, was this kid pumped full of steroids before he went on the “fishing trip”. He pulled a guy that outweighed him by at least 80 pounds to his death by snagging a fishing line to his sleeve. The fact he showed no remorse or even blinked an eye while doing so makes me wonder if he was a serial killer in the making or just a really morbid child. Still, wow.

Why this film is noir is obvious now. Like all the other movies we have seen before it, it deals with a mystery (theft and or murder), a tangled plot, police or insurance men, money and an ending where everyone loses. The only thing that seems to make “Out of the Past” unique from all the other movies is the writing. It is brilliant. Some of the lines in there were just so witty and unbearably creative. “Coffee.” “Anything else?” “Cream.” “She can’t be all bad.” “She sure comes the closest.” GENIUS!

Yet like I said, there was just something unsetting about this movie. Hopefully I will be able to put my finger on it, since things like this usually drive me insane.





Batman Begins and Batman: What Was Once Lost Is Found Again



“Batman Begins” is quite possibly one of the greatest movies ever made, ever. Based off the graphic novels Batman: Year One by Frank Miller and Batman: The Long Halloween by Jeff Loeb, “Batman Begins” fights brilliantly to undo the visual holocaust that is the Joel Schumacher Batman’s. Christopher Nolan brings back the dark, dank, gritty and utter misery that belongs to Gotham City and the Dark Knight. With spot-on cinematography, writing (all hail David Goyer) and acting, “Batman Begins” is noir in its purest form.

Before Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, the greatest director to ever grace our planet, helmed the Batman movies; the ones that fans count as Batman anyway. He made Gotham dystrophic and it was beautiful. In noir, there’s a certain feeling of helplessness that accompanies each script. Afterward, you feel overwhelmingly happy that you did not live in such a chaotic, paranoid and quite frankly, scary time. That is Batman in a nutshell. Batman is the avenging vigilante who stalks the streets in a cape and cowl, rooting out crime. Here is a hero who is really a criminal in every sense of the law. Yet the law is on his side (enter the Bat signal). Gotham City has the rampant, unstoppable crime and is the most corrupt city in the entire DC universe (if you have read Crisis on Infinite Earth’s, you will truly understand just how horrifying that thought is). There are many, many gangs who contribute to the continual spreading of fear. There are the brutal slayings of the innocent and the mob wars that inflict harm to every citizen. Then there is the dialogue. Batman is distant and cold and it shows in the way he speaks. He is an utter pessimist, is very untrusting and is far too emotionally shut off from the rest of the world. All of this combined makes Batman a very noir character and this is channeled directly in “Batman Begins”.

Yet, the one problem with the original Batman’s was the fact you never quite understood why Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy, would feel the need to resort to dressing up like a bat and stalking the slums of the city he owned. With “Batman Begins”, you get just what the title promises: the beginning. The full story as presented by David S. Goyer. You saw the death of his parents the way it happened in the comics. You saw the world shatter around a little eight year old boy as all his security and love pooled around his ankles. You saw the sudden darkness emerge in a child and you saw it fester until it consumed his whole life.

As for acting you said it best when you stated Christian Bale played Bruce Wayne like he played Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. Bruce Wayne is homicidal and insane when you take a step back and take it all in. That is what makes Batman the most fascinating character to ever be drawn. There is only a thin line separating him from the likes of Joker and Killer Croc: he does not kill. One of the aspects that fans keep coming back for is the possibility that Batman might one day cross that line and taper off into the abyss of insanity. Bale seemed to understand that and he infused Batman with that darkness and slow boiling anger. Like Patrick, Bruce was always one step away from snapping. As for everyone else, Alfred was finally done right (he is a cocky British butler) and Lucius Fox was flawless. Cillian Murphey was genuinely creepy as Scarecrow, Gary Oldman kicked so much ass as James Gordon and Liam Neeson proved to me once again why he is one of the greatest actors alive (and Ra’s is a difficult character to tackle).

All in all, the whole package made this movie incredible. You know a movie is good when people are still geeking out over the ending.





From Hell: Jack Sparrow Fights Jack the Ripper



Very few people know that the 2001 release of “From Hell” was actually based on a graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore. The story takes place in 1888 London when Jack the Ripper’s reign clutched the hearts of England and still to this day, remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of all time. Johnny Depp plays Inspector Abberline, an opium addicted clairvoyant who has visions of Jack’s brutal attacks. He is a reluctant hero who wants to help, but genuinely feels his is powerless to do anything to stop Jack’s madness. Yet, all that changes when he falls for the ‘femme fatale’ of the movie, a prostitute name Mary Kelly played by Heather Graham.

The movie begins with a haunting quote from the Ripper himself: “One day men will look back and say I gave birth to the Twentieth Century.” Alan Moore, renown for his troubled, disturbing and gothic style of writing, takes a unique spin on the legend of London’s most nefarious murderer. In “From Hell”, Jack is really a deranged doctor who takes it upon himself to eliminate all the witnesses in a royal scandal. As it turns out Albert, the crown Prince of England slept with a hooker named Ann Crook and a child was born; a child that is technically the legitimate heir to the thrown of England. To prevent such a catastrophe, Ann’s closest friends end up paying the price.

Now, the reason this movie is noir is because it defies all the conventions of noir. Yet, like classical noir, it follows the basic template: murder, suspicion, chaos and people doomed right from the very start. What is distinctly different about this movie though, is the fact the femme fatale is not manipulating and dangerous. Mary does send Abberline down a destructive path, yet unlike Phyllis or Kathy or Kitty, she does so out of fear for her safety. Moreover, Abberline is not the typical hardboiled man that is found in typical noirs. Yet he does possess the determination and the skill of the detectives. He is cunning and intelligent and he solves the mystery perfectly. What is fascinating is in the end, it is not Mary who dies as a result of her own undoing, but Abberline who ends up dead as a result of his insatiable opium addiction.

As per usual, Alan Moore’s writing sets up a world that is historic, yet, at the same time, deeply haunting and genuinely disturbing. Moore always mixes just the right amounts of terror and history to make each of his writings distinctly inimitable however collectively dreadfully realistic. With “From Hell”, Moore manages to build on a classic tale of paranoia and mass murder, done only the way he can.