Reviews Aug 24 2008 @ 08:00 am

REVIEW: The Big Heat

By Alexander Coleman
United States, 1953
Directed By: Fritz Lang
Written By: Sydney Boehm (screenplay), William P. McGivern (Saturday Evening Post serial), William P. McGivern (novel)
Starring: Glenn Ford, Gloria Grahame, Jocelyn Brando, Alexander Scourby, Lee Marvin, Jeanette Nolan, Peter Whitney, Willis Bouchey, Robert Burton, Adam Williams, Howard Wendell
Running Time: 89 minutes
Not Rated
(out of 5 stars)

Settle in for another exhaustive look into one of noir’s finest examples. Alexander Coleman of Coleman’s Corner in Cinema has provided a meticulous, intelligent, and entertaining essay on one of Fritz Lang’s quintessential forays into the world of noir. Alexander, do you have, like, a day job or anything?

Why did the “rogue cop” sub-genre within the greater tapestry of film noir reach such a zenith in the 1950s? Two decades earlier Hollywood had tackled the rise and fall of the gangster, that most seductively lawless of creatures. In the 1940s, it was the private-eye and then the dupe who often figured most prominently in the finest noirs. Yet the 1950s, a decade of so many incongruous contradictions—a span of time that saw the ascendancy of the American middle class like never before, greater economic prosperity and the patina of unmatched satisfaction, marked by paranoia, distrust, quietly fermenting alienation and despair—saw Hollywood filmmakers essay the cop. With each decades-long step, the message became clearer: violent criminals were a kind of exotic animal, their inescapably brutal livelihoods making magnetically attractive stories; private-eyes like Sam Spade (The Maltese Falcon) and Philip Marlowe (The Big Sleep) navigated their way through the foggy ambiguity of everyday business, usually utilizing the police for their own ends, the relationship between private and public investigators mutually adversarial and beneficial, while everyday dupes like Walter Neff (Double Indemnity), Frank Chambers (The Postman Always Rings Twice) and Michael O’Hara (The Lady from Shanghai) found themselves caught in the lustful, heated trap of the gorgeously manipulative femme fatale, a dangerous being Spade, Marlowe and Jeff Markham (Out of the Past), to name three P.I.s, all encountered in the otherwise soul-draining ennui of their occupations. The 1950s, a decade arguably defined by the relationship between symbols of authority and the public in all of its complexities, found turpitude, angst and moral compromise in the shielded figure of the police officer.

Numerous film historians and critics have considered the entire experience of the House Un-American Activities Committee and the blacklisting of Hollywood filmmakers is what led to a number of screenwriters to look at the excesses of figures of authority. Many left-leaning screenwriters and directors believed the government’s actions were egregious, a blatant example of authority misusing its power. A policeman is a perfectly distilled representation of everything an artist can draw out of the sometimes abstract conception of personal sovereign empowerment.

Some of the cops detailed in these pictures became outright crooks with little self-doubt; others were tempted and resisted as resiliently as they believed possible; a significant portion were men beaten down by the horrors of their existence, succumbing to the demonic allure of routinely resorting to violence as a solution to their quandaries, most nakedly their own enveloping malaise. Some cops stayed straight but found the gruesome spectacle of the world they policed unforgiving. The Man Who Cheated Himself (1950), Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950), Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye (1950), The Racket (1951) (which was a remake of the 1928 silent film of the same name), The Prowler (1951), On Dangerous Ground (1952), Private Hell 36 (1954), Pushover (1954), Rogue Cop (1954), Shield for Murder (1954), The Big Combo (1955) and Touch of Evil (1958) are just some of the most famous examples of noirs that placed the spotlight on the dilemmas, temptations and lurid tales of perilous quests for justice, always most vitally inner searches. The “rogue cop” sub-genre found its apotheosis in Fritz Lang’s The Big Heat (1953).

One of the most important reasons why The Big Heat is such a landmark feature, whether it be defined as strictly noir, crime drama, “rogue cop” picture or one of Lang’s richest examinations of the correlation between criminality and political institutions, like his cerebral German masterpieces such as his Dr. Mabuse series and M, is that it approaches its subject matter and protagonist with subtlety and almost deadpan precision. Glenn Ford plays Detective Sergeant Dave Bannion, a strait-laced, singularly certain cop who spouts vitriol and seething hate for those who have poisoned the city he is charged with “serv[ing] and protect[ing],” so certain of his own superiority in the face of such cretinous adversaries that his glare suffices in communicating that belief. He’s a very happily married family man with a beautiful wife, Katie (Jocelyn Brando, sister of Marlon) and child, and by nearly every outward standard, his uprightness and bearing is so commendably inflexible as to represent almost the opposite of nearly all other “rogue cops.” Whereas those men were torn and conflicted, captured in the never-ending cycle of arrest and reprisal, suspect-beating and confession, Ford’s more garrulous cop openly verbalizes his sedulous application of his position within society—that of uniquely empowered guardian and street-trekking warrior—with unironic earnestness. His most cutting description of his underworld nemeses is the label of “thief.” For Bannion, these repulsive monsters have stolen the promise of his city. Enabled by corrupt politicians and city figures—including Police Commissioner Higgins (Howard Wendell), no less—these gangsters are Bannion’s natural foes. In stark contrast to the majority of cops portrayed by Hollywood at this time, Bannion as played by Ford, under Lang’s direction, is astonishingly ascetic. Within a sub-genre defined by its self-contradictions—most pointedly the visage of the rule-bending or -breaking law enforcement officer—most visibly alive in a decade boiling over with its myriad contradictions, Bannion is ultimately the subtlest and truest contradiction to be found.

Lee Marvin and Gloria Grahame.
Lee Marvin and Gloria Grahame.

A fictional American city named Kenport, riddled with widespread corruption, is the setting. Known for his economical narratives, Lang’s seminal noir is no different. The first shot of the film is indeed the first shot of the film: the camera looms over a .38 handgun resting on a desk. A man picks it up and shoots himself in the head, falling to the desk, his gun, in hand, pressed against an envelope addressed to the district attorney and a badge. He was a cop, a sergeant, named Tom Duncan. Lang cuts to a long shot from behind the dead man, a flight of stairs comes into view. A shadow emerges against the wall. It is Bertha Duncan (Jeanette Nolan), who immediately and blithely accepts her newfound life as a widow. She grabs the envelope, extracts the papers therein and reads. A moment later she calls up the most notorious hoodlum in the city, the fearsomely powerful Mike Lagana (Alexander Scourby). Lagana subsequently calls up his most trusted enforcer, the tempestuously volatile Vince Stone (Lee Marvin), getting instead Stone’s woman, Debby Marsh (Gloria Grahame). Scourby is solid as the cautious but frightening criminal mastermind who has the city, several of its major politicians, its police commissioner and quite a few cops in his pocket. The up-and-coming Marvin is fiercely, scarily intense, fabulously dressed, his exterior’s coolness concealing the sweaty, violent animal no more effectively than the most transparent veil. Grahame’s performance is just right. She plays a sassy flirt who isn’t truly slutty, but the viewer is convinced she is a woman who has fallen in with the wrong kind of fellow with enough regularity that her shrugging at Stone’s brutality about two-thirds into the film while talking up the lucrativeness and luxuriousness of the lifestyle makes perfect sense coming from her.

Cinematographer Charles Lang (no relation to Fritz Lang) lights the early scenes to underscore the dramatic urgency. Yet director Lang largely “naturalizes” and modifies the expressionism, both surprising coming from him and perfectly wise, efficaciously conveying the scabrousness with an almost insidious mastery. This is a drab, ugly world, and Lang’s compositions provide copious amounts of detail and information without calling needless attention to themselves. Lang, whose films were such sterling exercises in determinism, psychologically buttressing the motivations for the characters, strives here for something both simpler and more complicated than before. With The Big Heat, Lang made a crime thriller with a protagonist so sure of himself that the audience may be caught off guard when they eventually realize just how deadly his pursuit of justice has been. Monochromatic shots of Venetian blinds capturing the vacantly oval features of Ford’s face provide crucial pieces of information in visual shorthand, chronicling Bannion’s personal, borderline psychotic quest for justice. And Ford is nothing less than ideal as Bannion, a sweltering cauldron of rage, his epithets thrown in the faces of his enemies always lacerating and pungent. Words such as “thief” and “lice” never sounded as dirty as they do when they exit his lips. Today’s R-rated profanity is no match for it.

Bannion first questions the widow, Bertha, about her husband’s fatality, during which she acts as though she has been devastated. She contends that her husband Tom was in ill health, telling Bannion a tale about Tom suffering from a pain in his left side and refusing to see anyone about it, therefore explaining his suicidal impulse. Bannion is soon sought by a barfly named Lucy Chapman. She met Tom Duncan a year ago and became his mistress. Bannion is briefly taken aback when Lucy says that she and Tom would swim together at his summer residence, the existence of which would indicate that he was on the take. Lucy contradicts Bertha, claiming that Duncan was in good health and that he would not have killed himself. Moreover, Tom told Lucy he was successful in persuading Bertha to allow him a divorce. Bannion unwisely decides to go back to Bertha, informing her of the dramatic discrepancy be tween her and Lucy’s opinions of Tom’s health. He also questions the widow about the details concerning the purchase of the summer home. “Lucy may try to blackmail you,” Bannion remarks. Little does he realize that the blackmailer is Bertha, who has taken the envelope meant for the district attorney and is leveraging Lagana with it.

There are four independent women in The Big Heat but the character closest to being a femme fatale is the male protagonist, Bannion. Through one misjudgment after another, he blindly, unwittingly ensures the deaths of all four women. Unlike many femme fatales, who acknowledge their own culpability in the demises of unfortunate characters, Bannion is too busy to dwell on it, or his role in pushing these women into the pathway of deathly destruction. The first to perish is Lucy, bluntly accused by Bannion of being a probable shakedown artist, who in actuality was the only person telling him the truth about the dead cop. By immediately going back to Bertha, telling her of the stakes involved with Lucy’s statement, he fingers her, giving Bertha the opportunity to tell the mob who to rub out so the genuine details that led to Tom’s suicide remain closed off from the private. The next morning Bannion is approached by a cop who hands him the report of a woman’s murder, which took place outside of Bannion’s jurisdiction on a county road. Bannion confirms that it is Lucy, and speaks with the medical examiner. The examiner chillingly describes the probable fate of all unfortunates, generalizing and labeling Lucy as just another barfly in the wrong place, with the wrong people at the wrong time: “Trouble automatically catches up with girls like her. Looks like a sex crime to me… I’d say pretty definitely it was psychopathic. You saw those cigarette burns on her body.” Bannion’s burning rage is being fueled. “Yeah, I saw them. Every single one of them,” he snarls through gritted teeth, furiously extinguishing his own cigarette butt. Soon Lieutenant Ted Wilks (Willis Bouchey) attempts to cajole Bannion, ordering him to “stop pestering the widow,” trying to soften the blow of Lucy’s death. “When barflys get killed, it’s for any one of a dozen crummy reasons, you know that.” He reminds Bannion that the matter is one for the county authorities to trouble themselves with. A dissolve from this scene brings us into a close-up of a cocktail glass, held by the bartender of the establishment called The Retreat (on this disorienting scale, the glass could be a spaceship aloft in the sky). Bannion is pursuing the case. He questions the bartender, named Tierney (Peter Whitney). Again, Bannion is given the dispiriting explanation of Lucy’s fate, which was a result of her not experiencing the stable home life “good women” like Bertha Duncan have. “They come and go like flies,” Tierney says of the “dames” who frequent his establishment. “Outside my place, some of these babes keep some pretty shady company. It figures. They know nobody cares much about what happens to ‘em… They’re floaters, not much more than a suitcase full of nothin’ between them and the gutter.”

After his wife receives a disgusting, threatening phone call from one of Lagana’s henchmen, Bannion blows his top and decides to send Lagana a personal message at the mobster’s estate. Running into a police officer stationed outside, Lang makes his political point with tremendous impact. As the film is one overwhelming warning to Americans to not allow a fate similar to that of Germany in the 1930s to befall their nation, Lang becomes less shy about making the greater connection. The cop in uniform outside asks for identification from Bannion, and after learning that the man is a sergeant, says he didn’t recognize him. Bannion asks the cop how many police officers are guarding Lagana’s home. The cop tells him that there are ten cops for a twenty-four hour defense of the estate. Bannion, mutedly nauseated in his trench coat and hat, calculates the expense to the taxpayers, which is one hundred dollars a day. “Do you like this detail?” Bannion asks. “I do what I’m told,” the cop replies. “That’s what we’re all supposed to do, isn’t it?” Lang’s message is outstandingly clear: the vulnerability of becoming the “good German” is always pervasive—corruption and tyranny fit together seamlessly. It is ironically Bannion, by disobeying his superiors, who signifies the hope of a man working outside the parameters of the law.

That hope is a recurring one, and it is what gives this feature its sole silver lining. In my reviews of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I compared Christopher Nolan’s thematic interests to Lang’s. Conversely, The Big Heat approaches the primarily downbeat story in a way that must have helped to inspire Nolan’s vision of Batman Begins, which sees the rise of a vigilante confronting a city wallowing in abject corruption and hopelessness. However, as the film may be a precursor to Nolan’s work, so too is the character of Bannion such for Nolan’s take on Batman: a man afflicted with a deeply scarred psyche, possessed by the unquenchable need for justice.

That deeply scarred psyche is most horribly tortured by the murder of a loved one. Bannion confronts Lagana in his posh house; Lagana’s daughter is throwing a party. The bitterly abrasive meeting helps to elucidate Lang’s own thoughts on the ceaseless tug-of-war between society and criminality; however, this film expands upon one of Lang’s earlier fears, that of the minimized disorder of crime-fighting being necessary to dismantle the immoral order of criminals, whether they be underworld thugs or demagogic chancellors. Bannion represents the law but in a society of any significance that finds itself marinating in the vile cesspool of pandemic disregard for the law, he also personifies a certain disorder. Lagana, however, as criminal despot, must ensure insurgent threats to his power are quashed. After listening to Lagana loquaciously brag about his “immaculate,” pristine home, Bannion angrily denounces his home as a monument to sinfulness: “You know, you couldn’t plant enough flowers around here to kill the smell.” Bannion beats one of Lagana’s bodyguards in front of him at his home, expressing unmitigated revulsion at the mere reality of Lagana. When Lagana openly threatens him, Bannion counters: “What are you going to do, make another phone call?” The answer comes just a little later, when Bannion’s wife dies from the family’s car exploding in their driveway.

The bleak solemnity is piercingly forthright on Lang’s part. Bannion, sickened by the pitiful, bloodless condolences and whitewashing by Commissioner Higgins, openly challenges him, disdainfully accusing the commissioner and the lieutenant as being on Lagana’s payroll, which results in Bannion’s suspension. Bannion hands over his badge but holds on to his gun, which, as he says, “…doesn’t belong to the department.” Higgins is dumbstruck, cautioning Bannion against using his weapon. “I won’t use the gun, “Bannion vows, “not until I catch up with the people who murdered my wife.” Bannion’s home is empty now, and after taking one last look at it from the inside, particularly the kitchen, where he and his wife immeasurably enjoyed one another’s nightly company. Detective Gus Burke (Robert Burton) attempts to make Bannion see the folly in his vengefulness but Bannion refuses to listen. “No man’s an island, Dave. You can’t set yourself up against the world and get away with it.” Bannion coldly shuts the door, visually concluding his once sunny personal life on a note of despondent finality. There is no turning back.

Meanwhile, Lagana harshly scolds his underlings for murdering Bannion’s wife. Vince has made a terrible error in using a knucklehead named Larry Gordon (Adam Williams) to dispose of Lucy’s body after Vince sadistically murdered her and for lousing up the attempt on Bannion, slaying his wife instead. Here Lang once again illustrates the tumultuous power of the people—a fascination he had always held, and one that informed the breathtaking coda to Metropolis—by looking at it through the other side of the glass. (Glass panes are literally utilized by Lang to frame characters, such as Katie’s face through a kitchen cupboard’s glass door and a phone booth’s glass pane framing Bannion when h e gives an encore performance of questioning Tierney.) Whereas Bannion mourns the apparent incorrigibility of the people, seemingly forever behaving like “scared rabbits,” as Gus describes Bannion’s outlook, Lagana senses something markedly different. Supporting his cautiousness in dealing with Bannion directly after murdering his wife, Lagana tells Vince when they are alone, “Things are changing in this country, Vince. A man who can’t see that hasn’t got eyes. Never get the people steamed up. They start doing things.”

Bannion’s quest continues ten days after his wife’s murder. He has been working his way through a list of mechanics who might have installed the explosives that murdered his wife. At the glumly desolate Victory Auto Wrecking dump, Bannion asks the tight-lipped, fat Mr. Atkins (Dan Seymour) where a certain Raymond “Slim” Farrow, a mechanic who may have installed the explosives, is. Atkins is uncooperative, revealing only that “Slim” died three days earlier due to “a bad ticker.” Bannion eyes him with merciless contempt. “You wouldn’t stick your big fat neck out for anybody, would you?” As Bannion walks down the sidewalk, ostensibly defeated, an unlikely ray of hope appears. Selma Parker (Edith Evanson), an elderly, crippled secretary-clerk at Victory Auto Wrecking has overheard Bannion’s fruitless conversation with Atkins. One of the starkest pieces of mise-en-scene is the framing of Selma behind the harsh mesh-wire fence that imprisons her. Helpless and vulnerable she nevertheless represents precisely the danger Lagana verbalized to Vince.

After the vicious Vince burns another barfly’s hand at The Retreat, resulting in Bannion briefly manhandling him and telling him to “get out while you can still walk,” Debby, feeling as though Vince has left her high and dry, and impressed by Bannion’s tenacious bravery, decides to follow Bannion. The recent widower decides to let her come along to his drab hotel room. “I like this. Early nothing!” Debby exclaims. She is thoroughly conditioned now to expect the best in perfumes, dresses, coats, jewelry and manicures. As Vince explains, she shops six days a week and on the seventh she rests. In one of the film’s most emotionally naked scenes, Bannion pours ice water over Debby’s apparent advances while opportunistically pumping her for information about Lagana. She tries to explain herself to him, why she allows Vince to sometimes treat her poorly. “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.” When she tires of Bannion’s questions, he asks her why she came up to his hotel room to begin with. Behaving flirtatiously, propping herself on his bed and accentuating her sexiness with directness she replies, “Well, why don’t we call it research or something?” Bannion understands that it is her way of needling Vince, and when she accidentally reminds him of his courting his wife (“Didn’t you ever tell a girl pretty things? You know, she’s got hair like the west wind, eyes like limpid pools, skin like velvet…?”) he turns into a complete block of ice. Ford’s anguished reflection as she leaves his room at his request is overpowering, a portrait of a man consumed by bottomless heartache and pained fury.

Lang’s film is brimming with doubles. Psychologically probing the failings of society as part of his greater treatment of crime, punishment, evil, good, injustice and justice, the picture documents the hypocrisies with which those forgotten and forsaken must contend. The “barfly,” Lucy, cries out to Bannion, “The only difference between me and Bertha Duncan is that I work at being a ‘B girl,’ and she has a wedding ring and a marriage certificate.” In their first scene together, Bannion brags to his wife about them being able to eat steaks for dinner on his salary, something his fellow cops are amazed by. Katie jokingly instructs, “Tell them you married an heiress.” When Debby tries to explain herself to Bannion—why she stays with Vince—she caustically asks, “You think I was born an heiress?” Late in the picture when Debby confronts Bertha, she, like Lucy, sees the relationship between the women. “We’re sisters under the mink,” she pointedly remarks as Lang holds a long take on the two in their respective mink coats. The image of a gang of cutthroat gangsters and crooked-as-snakes politicians playing cards, already richly packed with multiple meanings, is given only more dimension when Lang lets the viewer be privy to a card game played by a group of war veterans summoned by Bannion’s brother-in-law to protect his child. Debby herself is in her own way a double, forever halfway disfigured after Vince jealously throws a pot of boiling coffee into her face, leaving her countenance divulging the positive and negative aspects of her character.

Bannion is one of the most fascinating characterizations in all of film noir. He is in many ways the Langian protagonist, and all that entails. Not only does he and the film that tells his story represent the apotheosis of the “rogue-cop,” but also lights the lamp for future incarnations of the vigilante/rogue/crooked cop like Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry (1971) or so many other takes such as L.A. Confidential and television’s The Shield. He’s finally a ruthless figure, his desire to take the city back from the “thieves” almost pathological in its constitution, and he is made wholly possessed by the need of retribution after his wife is murdered. His obsessions and fixations conspire to make him into a nasty, brutish beast. Yet he’s also lethally manipulative in a kind of storm-like manner that seems to be derived from severe tunnel vision. He ignores his own doubts about Bertha’s credibility and morality at the expense of Lucy’s life. He fails to think about the consequences of crashing Lagana’s daughter’s party, roughing up a bodyguard and directly taunting Lagana, practically daring the crime boss to act against him, after which his beloved wife is murdered. Debby comes to understand just how little this cop cares about her personally when he blindly asks her about Larry Gordon. Entrapping that man, he utilizes Selma to identify Larry, placing her in the way of possible harm, then immediately experiences the pleasurable cathartic satisfaction of beating Larry and nearly strangling him to death. Electing not to actually murder him personally, Bannion deliriously glows as he tells the “thief” that he’s going to “spread the word” that he talked. As if that were not enough, Bannion finally places the climactic decision of murdering Bertha—so that all of the information in the envelope is released—in the hands of Debby. Partly wishing that he had murdered Bertha himself, he’s told by Debby that if he did that there would be little difference between he and Vince. Bannion must preserve his moral superiority for his life to have any meaning left. She, however, is a lost woman, and she gladly takes up the virtual dare on Bannion’s part, leaving her a gun after planting the idea in her head. She finally catches up with Vince again and scalds his face with hot coffee. She is shot, fatally, by Vince. Bannion attacks Vince, and corners him. Despite the gangster’s pleas for him to shoot, Bannion decides he cannot commit murder himself. His badge must remain untarnished.

The final piece of psychological essaying is the most important in the film, and is why the ending must be discussed. Bannion looks down upon the dying Debby. Earlier he gave a “police description” of his dead wife when she asked; now, however, he opens up and tells Debby about his Katie. In the sharpest “doubling” of the film, Bannion suggests that Debby and Katie would have “gotten along just fine.” As Bannion describes his wife in greater detail than ever before, Debby smiles, saying that she likes her. His memories have found fluent voice, and for the first time since just before his wife’s death, his face brightens. It’s a twisted scene, however, one that feels like a cousin to Vertigo. The man has both had the life of his woman relived in much lower, baser form and the death, likewise relived. Moreover, it is a scene that can be accurately read in drastically different ways. Some may interpret it as Bannion’s most human and finest moment, finally able to let out his true feelings and memories. He grants Debby her dying wish, to hear about his wife, to wish for a life like that of his wife, perhaps in heaven. Debby takes on the avenging angel of the barfly. She has disproved the distasteful disregard voiced by the medical examiner, lieutenant and bartender. Lang’s picture speaks to similar societal concerns as his oldest work, and with Debby he was given the opportunity to allow the marginalized and meek, plebeian and powerless, corrupted and culpable, to have their day, their moment of redemption and honor.

The Big Heat is in some ways like the other “rogue cop” noirs, fundamentally political but Lang’s concerns always hit harder and more deeply, all at once. He brought a distinctly European existentialism with him to America, and in many ways this film is perhaps more about the European experience than the American experience. However, art, especially art the caliber of Lang’s, speaks to civilization entire. It is with startling frequency that the most maturely measured and profoundly uncomfortable art makes the greatest statements about life. Whether its effect is that of a healing analeptic or corrosive toxin is, like the conclusion to Bannion’s own story, to be decided. Lang doubtless viewed all of the complexities and dualisms with sober reasoning and increasing pessimism as he aged. As film noir writer and historian Eddie Muller has written, when asked about this picture’s blossoming popularity, Lang offered a rare statement of optimism: “…[I]n every human being is the desire that good shall conquer evil. Could it be that people see in [Bannion] a symbol of hope in these days of taxes, insecurity and the H-bomb?” Lang closes this picture with Bannion, triumphantly reinstated in the police department, asking that the coffee be kept hot for him as he goes out on another case. On the wall he speedily walks past are the words “Give Blood Now,” a description of the sacrifice that the people—and in this film the women most particularly—must pay in full, for the sake of “good” vanquishing “evil.” And, in The Big Heat, for the sake of “good” remaining “good.”

18 Responses to “The Big Heat”

  1. on Aug 24 2008 @ 8:29 am 1. Sam Juliano said …

    This is one of my absolute favorite film noirs, as I have told Mr. Coleman before. I entered a detailed response to his piece at “Coleman’s Corner of Cinema” commending him on a no-holds-barred examination of the film on a number of levels. I again laud him here for his magisterial piece.

  2. on Aug 24 2008 @ 1:00 pm 2. Allan Fish said …

    Couldn’t have put it better myself. There’s nothing more galling that recognising a greater talent than your own meagre efforts. Well done, Alexander. It’s Lang’s last masterpiece, and one of the definitive noirs of the fifties.

  3. on Aug 24 2008 @ 1:18 pm 3. Alexander Coleman said …

    Thank you very much, Sam and Allan very much. I’m humbled by your comments. As I told Sam, it was in seeing The Big Heat again for this piece and writing it that I completely fell in love with the film, which I had always greatly admired. Great thanks to Evan for the experience once again.

  4. on Aug 24 2008 @ 7:35 pm 4. films noir said …

    A bravura essay Alexander. The bar keeps getting higher! The best review I have read of one the great noirs.

    When I made an attempt to review The Big Heat last year - a pathetic effort against your work Alexander - I saw (if it makes any sense)a feminist critique. There are no femme fatales in this movie, only strong women, who do the dirty work required to bring a male-owned system of oppression and corruption to account.

    Debbie Marsh is an existential hero, as are the other major femmes, the murdered barfly and the clerk at the wrecker’s yard, who each take responsibility and act.

    As Jean Paul Sartre wrote:

    “I am responsible for everything… except for my very responsibility, for I am not the foundation of my being. Therefore everything takes place as if I were compelled to be responsible. I am abandoned in the world … in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant.” - Jean Paul Sartre, ‘Being and Nothingness’ (1943)

  5. on Aug 25 2008 @ 11:22 am 5. Eddie said …

    Congratulations on an excellent analysis of a terrific film — except I have one caveat: nowhere is there credit given to the writer, William P. McGivern. Having read his novel, upon which the film is based, it is obvious that he is the genesis of the themes being worked out here, especially the idea of the “rogue cop,” which was his specialty — he even titled another of his novels “Rogue Cop.” I wonder how McGivern, who wrote “The Big Heat,” “Shield for Murder,” “Rogue Cop,” and “Odds Against Tomorrow” would feel having Fritz Lang given ALL the credit for ideas that are clearly at the heart of McGivern’s life’s work. Trust me, EVERYTHING that is great about “The Big Heat” — right down to the pot of scalding coffee — is in McGivern’s novel. Lang did a splendid job of adapting someone else’s vision.

  6. on Aug 25 2008 @ 12:52 pm 6. Alexander Coleman said …

    Thank you, films noir and Eddie.

    Eddie, I thank you for pointing out the glaring oversight of my review in not giving McGivern much more credit for his wonderful story. Your caveat is exactly my greatest regret about my piece, as I intended to highlight McGivern’s contributions to noir, but never did.

    Eddie, if your latter initial is M., I have had the great pleasure of meeting you with my father at the San Francisco Castro Theatre two years in a row at Noir City. If that is the case, I would like to say that I’m staying in the shadows and enjoying your book. Thank you again.

  7. on Aug 25 2008 @ 6:05 pm 7. films noir said …

    Eddie raises an interesting issue. How often do film reviews also credit the writer - of the story and of the screenplay - or the cinematographer, or the art director, or the set designer, and so on? Very rarely.

    The director as auteur is the paradigm for modern film criticism and the contributions of others receive less attention. Is this fair?

    The director as well as carrying the creative burden is entrusted with delivering a quality product on budget and on time. A focus on the director is natural as a film’s failure or success rests on his or her creative talent and directorial skills.

    So there should be no apologies for focusing on the director or his oeuvre when discussing a film. This is not to deny that movie production is a collaborative effort, but it is the director who carries the singular responsibility of completing the picture.

    Unfortunately, it is not always possible for a film reviewer to be aware of the origins of the story - particularly when a movie was made 50 or 60 years ago.

    The rogue cop theme, for example, has been pervasive in crime novels for many decades and is hardly original, so unless one has actually read a novel or story, one can’t know the degree to which it informs the film, how good the story was, or how well it was written.

    I think Eddie was being a bit hard on Alexander, and to say that “Lang did a splendid job on adapting someone else’s vision” is also unfair to Lang. A film may be adapted from story, but it is a director’s ‘realisation’ that brings it to the screen.

  8. on Aug 25 2008 @ 6:16 pm 8. Alexander Coleman said …

    Your points, films noir, are quite valid and I agree that the director as auteur applies here, as I found The Big Heat very much a personal film from its director. Gradually, as I watched it again and wrote this review, the prism through which I looked at it was increasingly the components that felt very much a part of Lang and his thematic obsessions.

    films noir, I wanted to say in my earlier post, your writing about The Big Heat is excellent, and the quote from Sartre is entirely approrpiate, especially as it relates to Debby Marsh and her actions.

  9. on Aug 26 2008 @ 9:20 am 9. Rick Olson said …

    Alexander, a fine review. You hit on all the films salient points, and did so in an exhaustive and creative manner.

    Of course, as film noir says, the auteur theory is a paradigm for modern criticism, but it’s hardly THE paradigm. And the auteur theory gets roundly laughed at in certain circles, most notably by Hollywood pros, who know that Eddie is correct (even though writers are often treated like sh*t).

    Although he does do auteur-centered criticism, a place to go for some other kinds is Jim Emerson’s Scanners blog.

    That said, the auteur method of criticism certainly is a useful shorthand, although it often shortchanges very important collaborators.

  10. on Aug 26 2008 @ 10:54 am 10. Alexander Coleman said …

    You’re absolutely right, Rick. My review of The Big Heat is not as “balanced” in that regard as Out of the Past, where I analyzed just about all of the major contributors to its creation… This very much became the “auteurist” review of The Big Heat, as it was 1,000 words longer than my Out of the Past review while being more centrally focused on the director. Lang’s obsessions are so rigorously applied to the body of his films that in his cinema
    analysis often becomes almost excessively deterministic along with it.

    However, I do agree that McGivern’s work as the writer deserved a stronger emphasis on my part, as his is a rich history within the “rogue cop” sub-genre as Eddie rightly points out.

  11. on Aug 26 2008 @ 10:55 am 11. Alexander Coleman said …

    And thank you for the kind words, Rick.

  12. on Aug 26 2008 @ 11:00 am 12. Steve-O said …

    Alexander:

    This is an amazing review! I’m a big fan of The Big Heat. You may want to stop by Noir of the Week sometime and see our reviews. Eddie Muller did one on The Big Heat a while back: http://tinyurl.com/5serzz

  13. on Aug 26 2008 @ 11:08 am 13. Alexander Coleman said …

    Steve-O, thank you very much! I’ll be sure to stop by Noir of the Week–sounds like my kind of place, haha. Just clicked on your name and saw a review for Where the Sidewalk Ends, a terrific “rogue cop” noir as well. Thanks again.

  14. on Aug 26 2008 @ 6:05 pm 14. films noir said …

    Rick, I did not say ‘THE’ paradigm, I said ‘the’ paradigm and to be fair I quite clearly placed the statement in a wider context.

    I was (in retrospect) rather naively attempting to defend Alexander’s review against an arrogant pundit. It might be worthwhile going through the reviews on this site to see how many reviews following ‘the’ paradigm.

    If you bothered to read the reviews on my blog you will see I do go beyond the paradigm in almost every review, and I regularly post on writers, books, and cinematographers.

    And to forestall any cries of “self-promotion”, I actually endeavour to make a contribution here, and simply not make “bird calls” like others who drop some shit about a great review while making a pitch for their site before flying out.

    And don’t worry about me crashing your cosy little coterie of mutual-admiration, it’s not my style.

  15. on Aug 26 2008 @ 7:58 pm 15. films noir said …

    PS: Eddie Muller’s review of The Big Heat at NoirofTheWeek.com give zero credit to the writer, William P. McGivern.

    He says:

    “The film’s power is mainly due to the talents of two men: screenwriter Sydney Boehm, a former crime reporter responsible for more crackerjack noir scripts than anyone else, and Lang, whose work is almost synonymous with noir. His early German films, Metropolis and M, etched the first blueprints of Dark City: omnipotent external forces dictating the fate of innocent people, and uncontrollable internal urges leading to self-destruction.”

    I suggest Mr Muller check his files more often and hits the CAPSLOCK key less often.

  16. on Aug 29 2008 @ 3:31 am 16. Eddie said …

    Just to be clear, I was not in the least being critical of AC’s review of the film, I was merely adding something additional to the discussion by pointing out how rarely the writers or the original novels or stories are credited, and how often directors end up being credited for ideas that were someone else’s.

    As for “checking my files more often,” regarding my neglect of McGivern in the “Noir of the Week” review of “The Big Heat” — that excerpt was written 12 years ago, long before I’d actually read McGivern’s novels and realized that he was, in fact, the visionary behind not only “The Big Heat,” but thosee other noir films I mentioned.

    And be careful who you call an “arrogant pundit” — it could get them a job on CNN or Fox News.

  17. on Aug 29 2008 @ 3:51 am 17. Eddie said …

    Alexander,

    Thank you for the gracious comments. It’s much appreciated. Keep up the good work — and, like I’m trying to do, read the source material as much as possible. Writers deserve more credit. Hope to see you and father at the next Noir City festival.

  18. on Aug 29 2008 @ 3:52 am 18. films noir said …

    Sure Eddie, I will provide a reference any time…

    The Noir Of the Week review was posted 29 July 2007 with an updated intro by you. The issue is that at some point you were as unaware of McGivern’s contribution as Alexander was, and your feedback on that score could have been more elegant.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply