When I got to the dream scene, I was thinking, this is some movie, but when I got to the part with Lorre and the stray dog--what an adventuresome film, really doing so much.
It goes much farther with its skepticism of the hero and sympathy for the villain than I thought a Code-era film would, even if it reverts to a bizarre normative happiness at the very end. Film noir has that license, but it doesn't always utilize it as immediately and starkly. I'm amazed at the degree to which Stranger on the Third Floor was underestimated when it came out. Critics thought it was derivative and overdone. Bosley Crowther was particularly scathing:
Frankly, the only way to suggest the confusion and pretentiousness of this film is to state what it's all about. A young newspaper reporter presents some circumstantial evidence to a court which condemns a boy to death. Then the reporter begins to have doubts; his conscience talks to him. That night his next-door neighbor is murdered and he has a wild dream, all full of whirling spirals and hollow voices, that the deed is pinned on him. Sure enough, it is—on the basis of circumstantial evidence. And the poor fellow, by now a nervous wreck, is only saved because his best girl goes racing madly through the streets and digs up a maniac who confesses to both crimes.
Does that sound pretty? Well, believe us, nothing has been done by Mr. Ingster to lessen the shock.
I really hope he never got over film noir becoming the defining genre of the 1940's. What he describes is neither the weirdest plot nor the strangest visuals the decade had in store.
(Particular Sovay line that I liked that has nothing to do with the drama: a comb-over so unconvincing, his hair looks like it was doodled on)
Heh. Thank you!
When I got to the dream scene, I was thinking, this is some movie, but when I got to the part with Lorre and the stray dog--what an adventuresome film, really doing so much.
no subject
It goes much farther with its skepticism of the hero and sympathy for the villain than I thought a Code-era film would, even if it reverts to a bizarre normative happiness at the very end. Film noir has that license, but it doesn't always utilize it as immediately and starkly. I'm amazed at the degree to which Stranger on the Third Floor was underestimated when it came out. Critics thought it was derivative and overdone. Bosley Crowther was particularly scathing:
Frankly, the only way to suggest the confusion and pretentiousness of this film is to state what it's all about. A young newspaper reporter presents some circumstantial evidence to a court which condemns a boy to death. Then the reporter begins to have doubts; his conscience talks to him. That night his next-door neighbor is murdered and he has a wild dream, all full of whirling spirals and hollow voices, that the deed is pinned on him. Sure enough, it is—on the basis of circumstantial evidence. And the poor fellow, by now a nervous wreck, is only saved because his best girl goes racing madly through the streets and digs up a maniac who confesses to both crimes.
Does that sound pretty? Well, believe us, nothing has been done by Mr. Ingster to lessen the shock.
I really hope he never got over film noir becoming the defining genre of the 1940's. What he describes is neither the weirdest plot nor the strangest visuals the decade had in store.
(Particular Sovay line that I liked that has nothing to do with the drama: a comb-over so unconvincing, his hair looks like it was doodled on)
Heh. Thank you!
When I got to the dream scene, I was thinking, this is some movie, but when I got to the part with Lorre and the stray dog--what an adventuresome film, really doing so much.
You're welcome! I hope you get to see it.