Reviews Aug 04 2008 @ 07:00 am
REVIEW: Laura
Directed By: Otto Preminger
Written By: Jerry Cady, Jay Dratler, Samuel Hoffenstein, Ring Lardner, Jr., and Elizabeth Reinhardt; from the book and play by Vera Caspary
Starring: Gene Tierney, Dana Andrews, Vincent Price
Running Time: 90 minutes
Not Rated
Laura is a mystery of the finest sort—one where every line, every motion, and every shadow both answers questions and uncovers new ones. At a brisk 90 minutes, it’s light on its feet, and yet there’s so much richness in its plot alone that it merits more than one viewing. Of course, this presents a problem for the reviewer: how much of the plot to reveal? There’s no doubt that many of the readers of film reviews come looking for a plot summary, but at the same time most mystery fans delight in guessing at what’s coming next. Laura is so intricately crafted as a mystery that to give away any part of the plot would be to “spoil” it to some extent.
Classic love triangle: a man, a dead woman, and her portrait
I guess the most reasonable thing to do would be to start recounting events, and let you stop reading whenever you want. The film opens with detective Mark McPherson (Dana Andrews) investigating the murder of Laura Hunt (Gene Tierney), a career girl who worked for an advertising agency and had more than her share of admirers, among them her fiancé Shelby Carpenter (Vincent Price) and her sugar daddy Waldo Lydecker (Clifton Webb). Everyone’s a suspect, of course, so McPherson is working around the clock, practically living in Laura’s apartment and poring over every clue he can find. A stunning portrait of Laura hangs over her fireplace and stares at him while he works; all the while, he’s becoming more and more taken with it. And then, one night, Laura walks in.
What’s brilliant about this film is simply how understated this sequence is. Director Otto Preminger employs no music or close-ups; the whole thing is done in a single, medium-length take—sort of matter-of-factly, where a lesser director would have tried to play up the shock value (in an attempt to squeeze a “Didn’t see that one coming!” out of his audience). Detective McPherson has simply dozed off in a chair by the fireplace; from behind him, we see a woman (who turns out to be Laura) open the door, walk in, and switch on the light. In this moment of illumination, the whole plot turns in on itself.
Laura is taken in for questioning.
This tension between light and dark is a major theme in Laura, which is appropriate, given that it was created in the early years of noir. It’s a film that’s somewhat unsure of itself—it’s trying to break free of the conventions of Hollywood and the stage, but at times it doesn’t seem to know how. Numerous scenes open with characters walking into dark, shadowy rooms, only to switch on the lights, and proceed as though it were still a 1930’s crime flick, rather than a shadowy noir.
Whether this is intentional or not (I would argue that it is), however, it works greatly to Laura’s benefit, as the script really just hints at the darkness inside the characters. Mark’s obsession over the painting of the dead Laura is more than a little disturbing, but the script doesn’t overtly concern itself with the implied darkness; on the other hand, Laura’s resurrection is not the miraculous occasion it would be in the hands of another director—it simply complicates things further and darkens the souls of all the men who love her.
This is all beneath the surface, though, and the roots of Laura in theater are apparent throughout the film. Preminger’s direction has definite cinematic moments—there are flashbacks, and there are occasionally impressive camera angles—but for the most part, it sticks close to the temporal and spatial immediacy of the play. This serves a pragmatic purpose for the mystery—allowing the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions about the facts—but it also greatly serves the film philosophically, in allowing the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions about the characters and their motivations.
An example of the intricate interplay of light and darkness. (I just said next to nothing, but it sounded smart!)
This is important, because the Production Code at the time specified that evil characters had to get their comeuppance—a requirement which implicitly requires the filmmakers to draw the line between good and evil (something that is rarely beneficial to the integrity of art). The filmmakers behind Laura managed to satisfy this requirement on the surface, while undermining it at the same time. For the most part, Laura herself is not the femme fatale that she initially appears to be, and in fact she’s arguably the only character that emerges from the events here relatively unsoiled. On the other hand, Detective McPherson saves the day in the end, but not until after revealing his seedier subconscious to us—to say nothing of Laura’s other, more sinister admirers. At first glance, Laura appears to be an innocent love story, but as the layers are explored, it’s not hard to find the nihilism that would dominate the movement a decade later.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 8:16 am 1. Cinexcellence said …
I stopped after the first paragraph.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 8:21 am 2. Luke Harrington said …
Thanks. That means a lot to me.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 8:35 am 3. Sam Juliano said …
Another excellent entry in Movie Zeel’s ongoing treatment of film noir, and kudos to Luke Harrington for an enlightening essay. I particularly like the suggestion that there is an ongoing “tension between light and dark” and that the genre eventually yielded to a distinct but undeniable strain of nihilism. Your recap of the events of the film is also noteworthy.
I don’t necessarily agree that the film is “usure of itself” as this is a meticulously made and deliberately wrought film that stands as a model in the socalled B moviemaking of its kind. Similarly is is fully deserving of a five-star rating as was DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE MALTESE FALSON, but we successfully navigated that position yesterday and all is cool.
Again, wonderful, passionate writing.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 9:22 am 4. Luke Harrington said …
I imagine that if we were to review these film at the time they were first released, they would almost all get five-star reviews. When you’re reviewing “classic” films, though, the natural tendency is to be a little more critical, for good or for ill. After all, the film is now being compared to the rest of Film Canon, rather than its comtemporaries. The job of the critic is no longer to simply say whether the film is “good” or “bad,” it’s to estimate its place in the pantheon (whether that is actually a worthwhile endeavor is another matter, of course, but it’s certainly what I tend towards when writing these reviews).
on Aug 04 2008 @ 10:22 am 5. Sam Juliano said …
Luke, while I agree with much of what you perceive here, I take a different approach. On a five-star system, even the most parsimonious bloggers like Craig Kennedy of LIC issue 3 or 4 five-star reviews every calendar year. The classic films of the noir series and 1930’s and 40’s cinema in general showcase the greatest American films ever made in the perceptions of all serious scholarly film critics and historians. If we can’t give supreme cinematic masterpieces like DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE MALTESE FALCON or several others here the top rating then we can’t rightfully give a film like MAN ON WIRE or WALL-E five nor any of the seven or eight a year that nearly all critics award. At a stingy rate of only five 5 star ratings a year through movie history we would have maybe 450 five-star ratings after 90 years of American film heritage. And again, that’s being stingy. THE MALTESE FALCON, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, OUT OF THE PAST and several others here including LAURA rank among the greatest films ever made in the USA, a fact that is recognized in Europe and all through the world by legions and legions of art lovers and film fans. You simply cannot find any publication anywhere that would lower the ratings of these indisputable and unanimous masterpieces neither in volumes or blog sites. Kael, Kauffmann, Agee, Sarris, Simon, MacDonald, Tyler, Bazin, Truffaut, Sadoul, Powell, Malcolm, and endless legions of today’s critics have all consistantly called these film’s top-flight cinematic masterpieces in an iconic framework. To me it would rival hearing Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony and saying “it doen’t quite measure up” or that Michaelangelo’s “The Last Supper” is an overated painting, or that Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” doesn’t quite deserve the highest rating, or that Joyce’s ULYSSES isn’t quite intellectually challenging enough. For me it is artistic blasphemy to write a review of a quintessential masterpiece of world cinema like DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE MALTESE FALCON and then to post a star rating on top that is less than the highest rating. What it does is it completely invalidates and undermines star ratings completely as the minute you try and issue a five-star rating for ANYTHING modern, it becomes more than problematic in a comparative sense.
What has happened here is tantamount to writing a review of CITIZEN KANE and then giving it less than five, or writing a review of POTEMKIN or THE GRAPES OF WRATH or THE RULES OF THE GAME and doing the same. The star rating can’t be taken seriously. And it’s not just old viewers, it’s the entire filmgoing community irrespective of age. It is an insult to the entire legacy of American cinema to downgrade it’s very greatest films. It’s simply unacceptable.
I know my wording here was strong and will be a lightning rod for retorts. I like Evan, Luke and Phillip a lot, and my posting here is to convey how I feel; I am aware that the Movie Zeel is taking a different approach and yesterday I issued full acceptance of their positions. But I need to fully air out my own position, which I stand by. I needed to give this my full attention, and I needed to likewise be specific.
To believe in any way however that summary ratings have in any way compromised these superlative reviews and this fantastic idea for a month-long Noir Festival, nor the superb writing accomplishments of the team is to offer an unacceptable disclaimer. The review is the thing here, not the rating. I posed this strong difference of opinion in the full spirit of worthwhile an denlightening debate and that the result will be a fruitful and lenghthy continued discourse on this and all other Film Noir review threads at Movie Zeel.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 10:53 am 6. Hedwig said …
I stopped reading fairly soon, too, but it’s on my “to watch - SOON” list now!
on Aug 04 2008 @ 11:58 am 7. christian said …
Good review. Of course I adore Preminger and this film really shows him at his best, his objective camera combined with risque themes and moments. The image of Clifton Web in that tub with his typewriter is pure Preminger…
As for Sam’s point about rating the films, I’ve never seen stars or thumbs up or smiley faces in movie reviews as an indicator of anything. It doesn’t tell me much nor does it make sense to me. I prefer in-depth reviews. Like these.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 12:51 pm 8. Sam Juliano said …
Christian: I agree in theory of what you are saying and I definitely feel that “the review’s the thing” here. If what you are saying about the ratings are completely meaningless, than why bother using ratings at all? Truthfully though, these masterpieces defy ratings completely. Everyone fully knows they are masterpieces and any effort to compromise that will always fall onto deaf ears.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 12:55 pm 9. Evan Derrick said …
Whew! My eyes are smoking, Sam!
Impassioned opinions are always welcome here, especially when they are delivered in such an even handed manner.
I think the issue is how we define ’star ratings.’ Your position, Sam, appears to be that a star rating is an indication of overall worth within the world of film at large. Films that have had an obvious effect on the history of cinema, its ‘giants,’ obviously deserve the absolute highest rating. The films you mentioned (Citizen Kane, Battleship Potempkin) are veritable classics. You cannot argue with them as masterpieces of cinema. You simply cannot. Time and the combined weight of film criticism and history has solidified these films. They are, regardless of what you might think of them, 5 star films. The ratings of other films are evaluated in light of these. For example, if one were to give WALL-E 5 stars, you are essentially saying that this film rivals Citizen Kane in terms of quality. 70 years from now it will still be remembered, just as Citizen Kane has been remembered for 70 years. The ratings system is, in effect, a curve.
Tell me if I’m wrong at any point there, Sam. I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
My definition of a star rating is different (I won’t speak for the others). I view it as a marker for my personal experience with the film. When I say such and such film is a 5 star film, I’m saying that it was a 5 star film to me personally. It actually might be a piece of crap, but I fell in love with it (see my review of The Mist, which I gave 5 stars to…hard to believe, isn’t it?). I also grade on a curve, but my curve is one of personal experience, not cinematic history. So my star ratings are an indication of personal experience and opinion, not meant to be an grand declaration of a film’s overall worth and quality to all people everywhere.
I gave Speed Racer 5 stars, but I only gave The Maltese Falcon 4.5 stars. Am I going to say that Speed Racer is a better film than The Maltese Falcon? Heck no! Of course it isn’t! Ask me that question again in 70 years! But I stumbled, dazed, awestruck, starcrossed, and giddy from the theater after Speed Racer. I enjoyed The Maltese Falcon very, very much, and greatly admired it’s artistry and skill. But I didn’t have the same kind of reaction to it. For me, Speed Racer gets 5 stars and Falcon gets 4.5, because that is an accurate reflection of my personal experience with both films.
To me, a 5 star rating says, “If you have similar tastes to me, you have to see this film. Immediately.” It does not say, “This film is one of the greatest cinematic accomplishments of all time. An instant classic.”
So, it really comes down to how one defines a star rating and what it’s purpose is. I still stand by my ratings, but I stand by them in light of my definition of how the ratings should work. If I were to adopt your definition, Sam, then Maltese Falcon would get 5 stars and Speed Racer would get, at most, 3.
Different strokes for different folks, eh?
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:10 pm 10. G said …
Evan, I was basically gonna write just that. Then I had to ditch my post, because you got it first. Durn.
But I certainly understand Sam’s case. They Shoot Pictures rates Laura is one of the best few hundred movies ever made. I would have probably given it 3 or 2.5 stars - I just didn’t care for it much. And I understand how it would be weird to look down this list of classic films on the right side of MovieZeal and see, say, DOA get 5 stars (which I would have given it) and then Laura get 2.5.
We’re just calling ‘em like we see ‘em. That’s what you have to do when you’re a reviewer. But in a big retrospective like this, I can understand Sam thinking all the reviewers are taking crazy pills, denying such universally admired films their rightful 5 stars.
I’m with you Evan (like I said, I was writing a near identical post), but I also understand how weird it must seem.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:16 pm 11. Evan Derrick said …
Ok, I agree with G there. It will look kind of nutso to go down the sidebar and see all the star ratings of classic films, especially since they’re going to reflect the diverse opinions of over 10 different people. Maybe someone will show up, go “The heck? They gave Maltese Falcon 4.5 stars and Mildred Pierce got 5?”, and then read on to because they’re curious.
Or outraged. Either one works.
The star ratings, if nothing else, are an effective lightning rod for discussion.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:16 pm 12. G said …
Also, I should mention that Phillip said something along the same lines yesterday.
When I’m reviewing, I’ll hand a 4 or 4.5 out pretty easily. But to get a 5, it’s got to get a sheer visceral reaction out of me, something beyond just being excellently made. I think that’s what you were saying, Evan, and Phillip said that Double Indemnity didn’t give him ” giddy feeling of cinematic fulfillment” that he likes if he’s going to give a 5.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:21 pm 13. Evan Derrick said …
Bingo, G. Spot on.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:40 pm 14. Sam Juliano said …
Evan:
That is most fair enough as long as you are consistent in your allocation of stars. To give SPEED RACER and THE MIST five stars is well within the independent, first-amendment framework of any rating system. In essence, this kind of thinking would allow anyone to rate a third-grader’s abstract art as superior to anything by Rembrandt. It is valid, and at the crux of objective thinking. But understand that to embrace this thinking (as you admirably have no qualms admitting at the outset) is to disavow any kind of time-tested scholarly discourse by intellectuals going back many decades. As as art form, film has progressed to the level that it no longer acceptable within the pantheon of critical thinking to make statements like “well, DOUBLE INDEMNITY was very good, but there was just something that didn’t hit me to allow to award it four stars.” The odds are that if DOUBLE INDEMNITY, one of the greatest of all American films in any genre, didn’t hit the bulls-eye, many many other masterworks won’t either. If DOUBLE INDMNITY isn’y five stars, well then this entire Movie Zeel Film Noir month will go without a five-star movie, and that is very very sad and grossly unfair. I suggest to you that film is more than impulsive, arbitrary art, and that judgements of it has been tweaked through years of re-visitation and study by scholars and film lovers. This can’t simply by undone by this kind of contemporary disclaimer.
Again, these are my own views, and while I will stick by them to the end, and fully believe them to be right, I fully belive your own views are just as validated within this discussion.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:49 pm 15. Alexander Coleman said …
Haha, the Wachowskis are third-graders. Heh.
Clifton Webb’s performance is a winner, though, and like Edward G. Robinson in Double Indemnity I wish he and his role had been given a little more description. (Three cheers for constructive criticism.) Nonetheless, nice review.
Christian: I love that shot. As you say, pure, unmitigated Preminger.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 1:52 pm 16. Luke Harrington said …
This will sound very preschool-PC, but everyone here is “right”. Sam is correct that a 70-odd-year-old consensus is clearly more meaningful than a single person’s reaction to the film upon viewing it once. At the same time, a movie review should (at least partially) reflect the reaction of its particular critic. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if my review merely says what critics have been saying for decades, there’s no reason for anyone to seek out *my* review. Sometimes this means questioning a film’s “classic” status a little bit (but it doesn’t have to, and it usually doesn’t).
…but now we’re all just arguing in circles, right?
on Aug 04 2008 @ 2:09 pm 17. G said …
No Luke, we weren’t until you showed up. Seriously though, as far as I’m concerned, your post can be the last word, and then we’re just arguing in circles if we take it beyond that. Sam’s right that the longstanding critical reception is more important than one of our takes, but we’re also right that, since we’re reviewing them, we’ll rate them as we see fit, as there’s no reason for anyone to come to MovieZeal otherwise.
I would say to Sam: don’t forget that the individual critic’s voice, 70 years later, does matter. Films come in and out of fashion all the time as people continue to re-evaluate. Remember, The Searchers wasn’t nominated for Academy Awards, was held up in the 70s as the greatest film ever made by the film school generation, had fallen down to #84 on the AFI list by the late 90s, and then jumped back up last year into the top 15.
I haven’t seen you guys do polls before, but have you considered a daily poll on each of these films? You could ask everybody to rate the film of the day on a scale of 1-5, and then we’ll see what happens. I think that’d be fascinating.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 4:19 pm 18. Mike Kelly said …
One of the great features of the world of film noir is its rewatchablility. There aren’t many films outside of noir that I can see over and over, but many of the titles in your film noir month I’ve seen double digit times - and Laura is one of the most rewatchable of the bunch. Preminger composes his shots and scenes masterfully.
By the way, I think you mixed up your characterizations of Waldo and Shelby: Waldo is the sugar-daddy and Shelby the fiance.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 4:27 pm 19. Luke Harrington said …
Oops…you’re right about that. The article has been fixed. Good catch. (This must be an off day for me.)
on Aug 04 2008 @ 6:25 pm 20. films noir said …
A great review Luke. I haven’t seen Laura for
on Aug 04 2008 @ 6:36 pm 21. films noir said …
Oops - pressed the wrong key. As I was saying…
A great review Luke. I haven’t seen Laura for some time, and while I won’t buy into the ratings debate, on the whole the film was only OK for me - an albeit sophisticated who-dun-it with a twist, but a bit flat.
Though it is worth seeing just to immerse yourself in the luminous beauty of a young Gene Tierney as Laura. There is another still (or frame - I am not sure) of her interrogation, where here face literally shimmers with an aching beauty - you can see it here at this track-back:
Film Noir Month at Movie Zeal
on Aug 04 2008 @ 9:13 pm 22. Miranda Wilding said …
Hedwig, I think you’re going to dig LAURA, girl.
I own it. It’s great.
Oh…
Nice review, Monsieur Harrington.