Reviews Aug 03 2008 @ 06:00 am
REVIEW: Double Indemnity
Directed By: Billy Wilder
Written By: Billy Wilder & Raymond Chandler from a novella by James M. Cain
Starring: Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson
Running Time: 107 minutes
Not Rated
Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity takes us back to a time with which most of us aren’t familiar; a time when long conversations were recorded over a Dictaphone, and when stressed-out businessmen could go to drive-in bars and order a beer on a sticky summer evening. Lost in its dark atmosphere and snappy (yet organic) repartee, these strange little details of a culture gone by pass under our modern radar as we’re pulled in by this dark piece of 40s moviemaking. Not only is it quick on its feet and very entertaining, but Double Indemnity sparked an ideological shift for American film audiences: it introduced them to the dark, the uncertain, and the unthought-of fact that murder sometimes does smell like honeysuckle.
Paramount's title card for Wilder's film
It’s a dry evening in Los Angeles when a dark figure wearing a trench darkens the door of The Pacific All Life Insurance Company, proceeds up the elevator, and into his office. Behind the closed door, we’re introduced to Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) an insurance salesman finding himself caught in a web of murderous jealousy at the hands of a conniving femme fatale — a story we’re all too interested to hear as he confesses to his boss over the Dictaphone.
The whole affair started one day during one of Neff’s routine house calls. Hoping for a meeting with the master of the house, Neff crosses paths with Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck), the wife of his client, and is immediately wooed. But listen closely when she says, “Could I get an insurance policy for [my husband] without bothering him at all?” The murderous gears of her mind are whirring and Neff knows it.
Stanwyck's sultry first appearance
But he’s still taken with her even after it becomes clear she wants to murder her husband after purchasing accident insurance behind his back. Neff’s prurient passion gets the best of him as he goes along with Ms. Dietrichson’s every whim. Barbara Stanwyck’s role in Double Indemnity defines what would be the future of the femme fatale. She’s the ultimate schemer … the tried and true conniving hellcat who all kinds of men fall for against their better judgment. Many times we have to wonder when the sexual tension between her and Neff will erupt into something likely to make The Hays Office blush. For example:
The conniving couplePhyllis: Mr. Neff, why don’t you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He’ll be in then.
Walter Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren’t you?
Walter Neff: Yeah, I was, but I’m sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There’s a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Walter Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I’d say around ninety.
Walter Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Walter Neff: Suppose it doesn’t take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Walter Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband’s shoulder.
Walter Neff: That tears it.
Not only is this exchange quick, impeccably delivered, and loaded with innuendo, but it crackles with a wanton angst present all through Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler’s script. Chandler was no stranger to the crime genre and, along with Dashiell Hammett, honed what is now our perception of the private detective. For an author who very much worked a redemptive element into his storylines (see the last two paragraphs of his essay “The Simple Art of Murder” for proof), Double Indemnity seems like a strange shoe for Chandler to wear, but one that fits perfectly in this framework.
Fred MacMurray
In a different scenario, MacMurray’s Neff would seem like the quintessential straight man with his handsome (yet slightly wary) face and quick voice. But all through the narration and as the film progresses, his matter-of-fact way of speaking gives way to the tremulous anxiety boiling beneath the surface. Eventually he becomes just as calculating as the femme fatale when his libidinous intentions evolve into jealousy and rage after discovering he’s been played like a piano. Phyllis Dietrichson never really did have affection for him and has gone through every word she’s ever said to Neff in her head before saying it. The prospect of murdering her husband in order to collect his fortune certainly wasn’t a whim that came to mind on an afternoon when the air smelled of honeysuckle.
A deceptive publicity photo for Double Indemnity
Having been raised on squeaky clean 60s Disney “classics” like The Shaggy Dog and The Absent-Minded Professor, seeing Fred MacMurray as a lustful insurance salesman with murder on his mind was a bit unsettling at first. After viewing the finished cut of Double Indemnity, MacMurray joined Paramount and The Hays Office in trying to block the film from being distributed. It begs a question: was Double Indemnity tweaked in the editing room into a darker film than the script suggested? No wonder audiences were taken aback because even the publicity photos make Wilder’s film look like a happy comedy. Is it any wonder MacMurray’s career would move on to “safe” dramas and Disney comedies?
In 1944, introducing the perpetrator of a movie’s major crime during the first 5 minutes of a film was unheard of. Hearing him narrate the whole affair with a tone of voice almost ringing with pride probably came as an even bigger shock … but not for long.
After Double Indemnity, film noir would no longer be ruled by the cheerless gumshoe or the crime-fighting lone wolf of films like The Maltese Falcon, but by thugs, murderers, bad cops, and corrupt politicians. The same studios that produced those iconic, life-affirming musical comedies of the 30s would start turning out dark dramas like a snack factory, giving way to a climate of artists focusing their work on the depraved darkness of a corrupt society. Although dark periods of cinematic culture come and go in spurts, our current cinema owes an awful lot to Billy Wilder and his groundbreaking noir masterpiece.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 7:17 am 1. Cinexcellence said …
Great review for an amazing film. And yeah, I grew up with the Disney MacMurray as well.
I also liked him in The Apartment (also directed by Wilder) as well.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 7:54 am 2. Evan Derrick said …
Oh man I love that publicity photo. How deliciously misleading!
Watched this again last night and loved it even more. The tension and and impending doom that infuse every scene once the murder has been committed is palpable: trying to start the car near the tracks; Phyllis hiding behind the door as Keys stands in the hallway; the moment when the insurance guy says that something is afoot.
The Maltese Falcon and This Gun For Hire were both great films, even great noirs, but this one is definitely the first to completely embrace the noir sensibility.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 8:48 am 3. Sam Juliano said …
I agree Evan, and this transcends the noir genre to be in that rarified company of bonafide American masterpiece. It ranks with SUNSET BOULEVARD as Wilder’s greatest film (ACE IN THE HOLE pushes close)it is the one of the greatest films of the 1930’s, and would rank as one of the six or seven greatest American films of all-time. To me that translates to a five-star rating. Barbara Stanwyck’s performances ranks among the greatest female turns ever and as Phillip notes the at first “unsettling” appearance of MacMurray in this dark yarn raised eyebrows. He was excellent, but again as Phillip notes, he would move on to safe projects afterwards. Edwin G. Robinson is electrifying in his role here as well.
A wonderful and historically perceptive review, with a buffo opening paragraph, and I love the dialogue interchange chosen there.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 10:33 am 4. G said …
So what gets a 5? I’ve seen about 20 of these films, and I’d probably hand out 7 or 8 fives. Which is not to say that I’m an easy reviewer, but you’ve got the very best examples of the second greatest genre/movement/style ever produced in American film.
I guess I’m calling out Evan and Phillip here, or at least asking for clarification: What gets a 5? How many of these films would you give 5s to, if you were rating all of them?
I was surprised that Falcon didn’t get a 5, but I personally agree with that selection, and I certainly don’t think This Gun for Hire deserves a 5. But here we’ve got arguably the greatest film by arguably the greatest director of all time (I’m pretty sure you could make a good case for anyone in the top 20 or 30 on this list: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100directors.htm)
So I guess my question is: Phillip and Evan: Is the 5/5 some near unobtainable ideal for you (reserved for Citizen Kane and maybe The Searchers, if you’re in a good mood) or do you just not hold Falcon and Indemnity up where others do?
on Aug 03 2008 @ 10:48 am 5. Sam Juliano said …
I must agree with what you are saying here “G”. If DOUBLE INDEMNITY, which is one of the greatest half-dozen films in all of American and world cinema doesen’t get a five, practically nothing can get it. Similarly, as I stated in a previous post, THE MALTESE FALCON is a definite 5, and THIS GUN FOR HIRE can rightfully be given 5. Of the films remaining to be reviewed this month, there are no less than a half-dozen more that deserve a five, by ANY barometer of measurement, even the most stringent.
However, “G” these are the opinions and positions of the writers, and these writers are doing a magnificent job with these reviews. I am personally aghast to even take issue with anything here, as the entire concept of this series, and the passion of the Movie Zeel team in re-viewing these classics is actually contagious. Having said that, everyone does have a different standard of rating assessment.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 11:20 am 6. Phillip Johnston said …
This is one of the things I find really difficult about reviewing these classic films. So many people have been watching and loving these movies for years, that a young reviewer like myself is bound to ruffle some feathers by not deeming many of them as cinematic perfection.
I reviewed Double Indemnity after (surprisingly) watching it for the first time and its rare that I give a film 5-stars directly after an inaugural watch. So maybe its a fault on my part for never seeing Double Indemnity — I thought the film was a spectacular piece of work, but it didn’t give me that giddy feeling of cinematic fulfillment that many of the films I’ve given an automatic 5-star rating have.
I guess this gets into the realm of personal preference. Because we have different reviewers working on different films, the scale of what film gets what rating is probably going to be pretty unpredictable.
Evan (and other MZ folk), do you think we should draft a “creed” for out ratings system? It might be an interesting undertaking.
FYI, as I write this, I’m working on a review for Sunset Boulevard. For me, thats an undeniable 5-star film.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 11:34 am 7. Sam Juliano said …
Phillip, well said and fully validated.
Everyone will have a different system of measurement, and yes, it makes sense that years of regard for certain films puts them in an iconic patheon. My own five star films of the ones being done, and the ones that have been done would be THE MALTESE FALCON, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE THIRD MAN, OUT OF THE PAST, LAURA, SUNSET BOULEVARD, ACE IN THE HOLE, NOTORIOUS, RIFIFI, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, THE BIG HEAT, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and a few others hovering. But that’s MY ratings! They are not necessarily Phillip’s, Evan’s or Luke’s, not any other respondant.
That is an interesting idea Phillip with the creed, but I am not so sure how you would set that up here. Evan is the man.
What must be stressed however, with all the ratings bru-ha-ha is the indesputable fact that we all have been treated to three exceptional reviews so far here at Movie Zeel, reviews that measure up to some of the more distinguished one’s out there.
Congrats to Phillip on his stellar DOUBLE INDEMNITY appraisal today!
on Aug 03 2008 @ 11:46 am 8. Don Malcolm said …
This is a wonderful idea for a series, and many other noir aficionados will be viewing your efforts over the next month, so expect to hear from some more unfamiliar voices…
As for DI, one thing that rarely gets mentioned anywhere is just how terrific MacMurray’s voiceover is. This is one of the key narrative innovations that stem from noir, even if its usage was mostly confined to the 40s because it was too easily cheapened. (Bill Holden is just as good at it in SUNSET BLVD, by the way.) The contrast between MacMurray’s tone in his voiceovers and in the rest of the film is telling–the subtle tones of fatalistic, resigned regret are the leavening agents for the sordid, seamy squalor that we witness.
And in that second viewing, focus also on the relationship between Neff and Keyes (Edward G. Robinson). Many claim that the real “love story” in the film is really between the two men–not sexual, but something almost spiritual in its off-kilter father-son dynamic.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 11:52 am 9. Phillip Johnston said …
Don Malcolm — that’s an interesting point about Neff and Keyes. That last scene when Keyes lights Walter’s cigarette with one of the awesome strike-anywhere matches is just great. The look the two men give eachother is just priceless.
Welcome to MZ, by the way.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 1:00 pm 10. Evan Derrick said …
The issue of star ratings is problematic. They represent a gut check, a shoot-from-the-hip perspective that is almost pure subjectivity. This is further complicated when you have different people (and different prejudices) reviewing each film in question. As Sam noted, it’s difficult when everyone is going to have a different standard. The reviews themselves are what is most important (as also has been noted).
My ratings reflect my personal experience, and I attempt, as often as possible, to not allow extenuating opinions/reputation/hype affect me. The number of stars I pick represent a subjective snapshot of my experience with the film. As I mentioned in the comments on “The Maltese Falcon,” I didn’t give it a 5 because I felt some of the performances strayed towards caricature at times. I realize it is a certifiable classic and that hundreds of people before me, people with opinions and expertise far outweighing my own, have labeled it Masterpiece. But if I, as a film critic, allow the opinions of others to sway me, what good am I? That’s the first step towards becoming a parrot and a shill, squawking back what everyone else says.
So my star rating is by no means meant to be seen as the End Of Discussion, as if I have passed the ultimate judgment along and anyone in the past who has given the film 5 stars instead of the 4 1/2 I deemed it worthy of is wrong. Not at all. It is just a barometer of my subjective experience. If I watched it again in a year (as Phillip says, an inaugural viewing rarely rates 5 stars), that rating may change. But really, 4 1/2 stars doesn’t mean it isn’t a masterpiece. It just means my experience with the film, in comparison to my experiences with other films (the ones I gave 5 stars), was slightly lacking.
But, by all means, continue to challenge us on our ratings and reviews! I’ve really appreciated the debate and differing opinions expressed on “The Maltese Falcon” thread, because I obviously don’t have it all figured out.
And Don, thanks so much for dropping by. Hope you continue to add your thoughts and comments over the course of the month.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 1:47 pm 11. Alexander Coleman said …
Interestingly, I’ve watched Double Indemnity probably around twenty times or even more whereas I still need to see both The Shaggy Dog and The Absent-Minded Professor (they’re both sitting near my keyboard at this moment, thanks to Turner Classic Movies).
Chandler’s terrific “The Art of Murder” is a fine essay. This review rightly points out that Chandler usually had some kind of redemptive coda to his work.
One must wonder if the studio was attempting to exploit the pairing of MacMurray and Stanwyck from the 1940 Preston Sturges-written romantic comedy, Remember the Night, which was far away from the bleak tale of lust, murder and betrayal that Double Indemnity is.
A tremendous selection of dialogue.
I think Double Indemnity would represent the greater American noir wave of “the dupe,” something of a marriage between the more “traditional” crime dramas built around cynical, world-weary PIs like The Maltese Falcon and gangsters (Out of the Past would sublimely blend all of these into one dazzling creation). MacMurray proved effective in this role of “the dupe” not only in this rightly celebrated masterpiece but also in Pushover ten years later with the beguiling Kim Novak (who would famously go on to haunt James Stewart four years later).
Stanwyck and MacMurray are golden, and yet as others eloquently point out, Edward G. Robinson is nothing short of being indispensible in his role. It’s the kind of performance today that would be considered a “lock” to win Best Supporting Actor. What a tremendous actor he was.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 2:22 pm 12. G said …
He was Soylent Green!
on Aug 03 2008 @ 2:54 pm 13. Hedwig said …
To that praise of Edward G. Robinson, I can only nod in approbation. He’s simply amazing, and has such range: just compare his roles in Scarlet Street (in which he plays a rather pathetic loser with a romantic streak), The Stranger (where he’s always the smartest man in the room) and Key Largo (thug), to name just a few.
I LOVE Double Indemnity, and in fact, I love the whole “wife-and-lover conspire to murder husbabd” minigenre. Just think about it: The Postman Always Rings Twice, Elevator to the Gallows, even the early Antonioni fiction film Cronaco di Un Amore.
The exchange quoted is one of the sexiest things put on film (and oh! that anklet!), BECAUSE everything is implicit. And Fred McMurray might not have liked it himself, but he was great at playing assholes (the already mentioned part in The Apartment is also amazing).
on Aug 03 2008 @ 3:13 pm 14. Alexander Coleman said …
Robinson is indispensable, too, haha. He’s everything. And as Hedwig demonstrates, his versatility (Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet, anyone? a truly, unfailingly moving turn) is terribly underappreciated.
Hedwig, that’s a terrific reminder of Antonioni’s Cronaco di Un Amore. If you like The Postman Always Rings Twice, I recommend everyone take a look at Visconti’s earlier adaptation of the novel, Ossessione.
MacMurray did play wonderful cads and jerks in general, like in The Caine Mutiny.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 3:27 pm 15. Sam Juliano said …
I have seen DOUBLE INDEMITY over 50 times in my life, but I am also over twice Alexander’s age! LOL! OSSESSIONE is an interesting Visconti title (I own the Image DVD)and I likewise recommend it.
In any case, getting back to DOUBLE INDEMNITY, this is quintessential film noir, as Phillip basically posed in his review–characterized by the interacting traits of greed, lust, murder, betrayal, and a pervading, oppressive darkness in which evil’s “grasping” hand is free to entrap anyone who thinks from straying from the moral path.
As in all good film noirs, the hero realizes he deserves his sorry fate, while the woman acknowledges she’s no good. Ultimately, they were meant to go to hell together.
DOUBLE INDEMNITY lacks any humor whatsoever, but is full of ironies, including that which has a smug and secure insurance salesman fall into a spider woman’s web.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 3:51 pm 16. Alexander Coleman said …
I do find Robinson’s Barton Keyes quite humorous much of the time. In honor of the film I just watched the scene in which he brilliantly spouts off all of those ways of committing suicide is really hilarious. His unflappable, messy being is just a wonderment. “My little man…” (The aforementioned repartee between Neff and Dietrichson also makes me chuckle every time.)
I think Don Malcolm’s point about the ending is completely spot-on. Wilder had filmed a concluding sequence in which Neff walked down an ominous hall to be executed with a warden, chaplain, execution chamber guard but the ending as is says it all about Neff’s fate. The rest would be superfluous.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 4:19 pm 17. Sam Juliano said …
Just fast forwarded to that scene Alexander,I did admittedly get a mild chuckle, but I remain in disagreement with you about the amount of humor in the film. The film is dark, brooding, calculated and fatalistic and there really isn’t any comic relief.
No less an authority than the marvelous Danny Peary states flatly in his celebrated tome “Guide to the Film Fanatic” that DOUBLE INDEMNITY is “humorless.” And Peary admits in more comprehensive Cult Movies essay that he’s seen the film more times than he can even remember.
So, it all comes down to perception here, but yours of course Alexander, is as valid as anyone else’s.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 4:23 pm 18. G said …
I guess I’m weird…I find most of the dialogue hilarious. I find that entire sequence that Phillip quoted hilarious, and probably the funniest line in all of noir is the oft-referenced reflection that honeysuckle can, indeed, sometimes smell like murder.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 4:35 pm 19. Sam Juliano said …
As I said “G” it’s all perception. I am quite serious every time I watch it, and I don’t laugh at that honeysuckle line at all. Maybe it’s me, or maybe it’s an age thing too. I am a lot older than you, Alexander and Phillip. (a real lot!) LOL. But as I stated, Peary, who is a fabulous American film historian and buff, feels the same way.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 4:37 pm 20. Alexander Coleman said …
I think Billy Wilder’s films are predominantly leavened by a good, ironic sense of humor–which can admittedly be twisted in an incongruous, bizarre way (for instance, half the time I’m laughing at William Holden’s voice-over in Sunset Boulevard). His shifting between comedy and noir points to a (slight? considerable?) overlap, however. Interestingly, I think Wilder’s very next film, which went on to win Best Picture, The Lost Weekend, is truly his most humorless and earnest film.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 5:01 pm 21. Sam Juliano said …
I wonder if you can laugh now at ACE IN THE HOLE, and whether those incongruous and bizarre twists apply there. I agree that THE LOST WEEKEND is completely somber and humorless, and of course SUNSET BOULEVARD is a sardonic and ironic, but then again how many American films (apart of all the disposable contemporary fantasies) were narrated by a dead man? That touch may well have been Wilder’s specific piece de resistance, though, and it insures that devilish humor is rampant there. But I don’t see it in the 1944 film, which vies by the way with SUNSET BOULEVARD as Wilder’s masterpiece, and ranks with the likes of CITIZEN KANE, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, THE MALTESE FALCON, THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, REBECCA and CASABLANCA as the greatest American films of the 40’s.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 5:09 pm 22. Evan Derrick said …
Perhaps age does have some bearing on it, as my wife and I (we’re both under 30) found Double Indemnity quite humorous. It was primarily Keyes’ and Neff’s back-and-forth that did it. Alexander’s mention of the “deaths by suicide” monologue had us chuckling as well.
Ultimately, however, it’s not a funny film at all, but there are moments of comic relief. Perhaps after viewing it 50+ times (!), the inherent tragedy in the film becomes all encompassing, Sam.
I am with you, though, in that the “murder smells like honeysuckle” wasn’t a humorous line to me.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 5:14 pm 23. Sam Juliano said …
Great points there Evan!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Aug 03 2008 @ 7:01 pm 24. Cinexcellence said …
@Alexander and Sam:
I haven’t seen any of Visconti’s work yet, but after watching Scorsese’s “My Voyage to Italy”, I’ve been wanting to check him out.
Which of his films would you instantly recommend to someone who hasn’t seen any of his films yet?
on Aug 03 2008 @ 7:14 pm 25. Alexander Coleman said …
Well, Cinexcellence, Ossessione is a grand place to start with Visconti, since it was his first film. La Terra, or The Earth Trembles, is a key film from 1948, as it illustrates how he would break away from the “pure realism” that DeSica and Rossellini were concurrently attempting to capture in their work, and it’s a beautiful piece of filmmaking.
From there, if you want to see his highlights: Senso, Rocco and His Brothers, The Damned, The Leopard, Vaghe Stelle dell’Orsa/Sandra and Morte a Vinezia or, Death in Venice, based on Thomas Mann’s “Death in Venice.”
I would say that early on, Ace in the Hole has a good deal of humor. (Almost all provided by Kirk Douglas and his wisecracks–which do constitute remarkable character development as well. The whole affair can be interpreted as a freezing cold piece of coal black comedy. Naturally, however, as the marvelous film unfolds, it becomes more and more (and still more) tragic and dark.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 7:29 pm 26. films noir said …
No, Double Indemnity was not “tweaked in the editing room into a darker film than the script suggested”. Quite the reverse. In fact the studio bosses did intervene and removed a final execution sequence from the final cut. In his book on film noir, More Than Night, James Naremore explores the implications of this and how it weakens the film’s underlying social and political critique. Wilder and Chandler, like Hammett before them, were leftists who were no fans of how the American dream played out in the real world.
The cheesecake promotion of the movie was a deliberate studio marketing strategy.
As for humor, half-way through, the picture is nearly lost by the over-long and ludicrous scene in the office of Barton Keys’ boss, who is played so badly that the otherwise deft attempt at comic relief falls completely flat - I was reminded of Zeppo Marx…
on Aug 03 2008 @ 7:54 pm 27. Sam Juliano said …
Cinexcellence:
Alexander gave you very fine advice on moving ahead with Lucini Visconti, but there are two absolutely essential films that he left off:
Bellissima (1951)a marvelous and exceptional neo-realist film containing one of Anna Magnani’s greatest performances. It is now available in a gorgeous Region 2 Masters-of-Cinema DVD package.
L’Innocente (1976) One of the director’s greatest masterpieces and his final film; evocative in its period setting, sesual textures and riveting story and performances.
Both unforgettable.
For a flawed Visconti, that still is worthwhile in many of its components, is 1972’s LUDWIG
I agree essentially with what you say here about ACE IN THE HOLE, Alexander, but none of that holds up on a second viewing of course.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 8:01 pm 28. Alexander Coleman said …
Bellissima and L’Innocente are terrific Visconti films as well, you are right, Sam.
on Aug 03 2008 @ 10:47 pm 29. Phillip Johnston said …
Thanks for your input, films noir. Like I said above, a caveat of a young reviewer like myself taking a stab at these tried and true classics is that many more knowledgeable people will come with more input.
And who would thought that a review of a Billy Wilder film would turn into a discussion of Lucini Visconti! Bravo!
on Aug 04 2008 @ 12:13 am 30. Sam Juliano said …
Indeed Phillip, indeed!!! LOL!!! Kudos again on your excellent treatment.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 12:18 am 31. Sam Juliano said …
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again:
Alexander Coleman is a gentleman and a scholar!
on Aug 04 2008 @ 7:58 am 32. Evan Derrick said …
I just want to say that between this thread and the Maltese Falcon one, you guys have generated some amazing discussion. G, films noir, Alexander, and Sam especially - I’m wowed and intimidated by the knowledge and experience all of you are bringing to these wonderful films.
I can only imagine it will get more interesting from here on out! Thanks again for (already) making film noir month a success.
on Nov 05 2008 @ 11:49 pm 33. Raphael said …
a good theme, and you can read more