Tonight "The Killers" were back again, only this time in the original 1946 version of the movie. The Criterion dvd set comes with both flicks, which are quite different in style and content. I forgot to mention in my recent review of the 1964 version that "The Killers" is based on a story by Ernest Hemingway. The original film is closer to being an actual Noir than the latter, and in fact you could call it one. It's darker and moodier than the remake, which is filmed in bright color, mostly in daylight, and which focuses much more on the romance between the Femme Fatale and the Fall Guy. The 1946 film is also more complex.
In the '64 version, there is no outside investigator or police agency looking into the murder of Johnny North. The only characters in the movie are the criminals, including North, and the ones doing the investigating are the hit men, Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager, who want the stolen money for themselves. In the original film, there is an insurance agent investigating the murder of Burt Lancaster's character, a boxer known as The Swede. He is the Fall Guy here, and when he turns up dead, the agency gets suspicious when the beneficiary on his life insurance policy is a hotel maid, who he only knew for five days. They send out an agent (Edmund O'Brien) to interview the woman, who spins out a story that will lead O'Brien to a bigger scheme, one that involves a high-stakes robbery just like in the remake.
As the insurance investigator, O'Brien has enough screen time to be considered the star of the movie, though Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner were billed above him. They in turn are onscreen far less than were their counterparts in the '64 film, John Cassavetes and Angie Dickinson. In their case, the story revolved around their tempestuous love affair. In the original film, though the love between Burt and Ava is important to the plot, it's given short shrift and is more of a sideshow. And the hitmen, William Conrad (playing a cold blooded sociopath) and Charles McGraw, are reduced to bit players, seen only at the beginning and end, whereas in the later film Marvin and Gulager appeared throughout the picture and were central to the story.
So there are a lot of differences in what aspects of the story are emphasized, and I think in the 1946 version, which was directed by Noir veteran Robert Siodmak, you have a more well-rounded story, as opposed to Don Siegel's remake, which - while also very well done - was more of an action flick focused on the robbery, with an emphasis also on the love affair. The 1946 film follows Burt Lancaster's career as a boxer in more detail than did the remake for John Cassavetes' character. It also delves into the life of the gang's mastermind in greater depth. Albert Dekker plays the Ronald Reagan part. We knew little to nothing about Reagan's history in the Siegel film, but in the original we learn quite a bit more about the background of Dekker, who is more of a main character here. The main difference is in the time devoted to the love story. As noted, it was the main theme of the remake. Angie Dickinson had major screen time in order to play John Cassavetes like a fiddle and ultimately leave him in the dust. Siegel twisted his entire plot around her deceptions. In the original, the plot is all about O'Brien's attempts to uncover the scheme. He plays the dogged Noir tough guy who can't be stopped or intimidated. He's in almost every scene (along with his police pal Sam Levene), so Ava Gardner takes a back seat. While her role is very important, especially in the second half of the film, she is nevertheless a secondary character. I must add an aside, however, to say that she is great as always, and now that we've seen her in several films of late, I have even more respect for her acting abilities than I did after "Mogambo". She is different in everything I've seen her in, and seems capable of playing all kinds of parts. Also, she is a natural onscreen. Her characters are like real people, entirely without artifice.
A young looking Burt Lancaster is excellent as the broken down boxer "Swede". He, too, is a little more natural here, and hasn't yet developed the Buhht Lahn-cahs-tah! style of speaking with jutting jaw and eyes cast to the middle distance.
You should definitely watch both versions of "The Killers", which you will be able to do with convenience if you rent or purchase the Criterion release. I'm gonna say I liked the 1946 film better, which is not a knock on the '64 remake in any way. That was excellent , too, so just consider it even higher praise for the original. Siodmak and his cameraman set an incredibly dark atmosphere with their chiaroscuro lighting and nighttime black & white photography. Please note that I'm not trying to be pretentious with "chiaroscuro", haha. I learned about it in Professor Tim's Cinematheque at CSUN, and it is a proper descriptive term, and most apt for the look of this film.
I give "The Killers" (1946) Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, my highest praise. It's one of the best Noirs out there. Edmund O'Brien exactly is the guy you want leading the investigation and you know he's not gonna let you down. /////
That's all for now. This morning the weather was quite beautiful, about 75 degrees and sunny, with no wind, so I was able to get Pearl outside for a nice wheelchair push around the neighborhood. The birds were chirping and new green leaves were already budding on some of the trees. It was like a preview of Spring. All of which means that my daytime walk is already taken care of, so I will now head to the Libe for more movies and then back to Pearl's. See you tonight at the usual time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment