Comments on: Detour

By: Jett Loe

Jett Loe — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:13:12 +0000

Hey, for something shot in 6 days it’s a real accomplishment + maybe points the way forward for ‘low-budget’ ‘youtubey’ productions of today as a counter-point to the overblown dinosaurs like the Mummy.

+ How cool is it that ‘Ann Savage’ is a star in the new Guy Madden film ‘My Winnipeg’!

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:41:55 +0000

I’m with you man. I’ll admit the whole thing is a little ham-fisted, but given that, the cast does an excellent job maintaining the tone. Savage owns the screen every time she appears.

By: Jett Loe

Jett Loe — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:18:41 +0000

Saw it last night for the first time – what a picture! Low-rent, seedy and all the better for it.

And will have to disagree with a commentor above – Ann Savage, (if that is her real name), is ASTONISHING! What a performance!

In a world where the latest ‘Mummy’ film cost 175 million dollars a pic like Detour reinvigorates my love of movies.

By: The Film Talk » The Incredible Ann Savage

The Film Talk » The Incredible Ann Savage — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:12:42 +0000

[...] the famous low-rent film-noir ‘Detour’ last night. Was astonished by the performance of ‘Ann Savage’ as the hitchhiker with [...]

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:37:51 +0000

Fair enough, films noir, I can respect that.

By: films noir

films noir — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:54:59 +0000

Sam I accept what you say and respect all those contrary viewpoints. I saw the movie only last year and I was aware of all the hype, but my honest gut reaction was negative. Though I do concede that there are definitely noir elements, it just doesn’t stack-up as a film I admire.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:55:59 +0000

Films Noir, this film has built up a deserved reputation, NOT because the film can or can’t be taken seriously (after all that seems to be in large measure a typical film noir characteristic in many instances)but rather as always for its pacing, atmospherics and general overiding influence on the movement.
Film scholars and our finest film critics over decades are surely not all wrong.

By: films noir

films noir — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:58:49 +0000

I have seen Detour only once, and I shared Luke’s initial reaction. The whole affair is hard to take seriously. The story of a guy so dumb he blames fate for the consequences of his own foolishness. Though fun to watch is Anne Savage, as the street-wise dame, who incredulously falls for the sap. A camp oddity, but hardly serious noir, that that other over-rated B, Decoy (1944).

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:41:38 +0000

You make a good point. But then, I’ve always felt that any good horror flick has at least a little bit of comedy.

By: G

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:10:46 +0000

Rick, I’m with you: what terrible bad acting.

Luke: Frankenstein comes off as a bit of a comedy because Whale was a joker.

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:04:46 +0000

Thanks for the tip, AC. I’ll check it out.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:55:01 +0000

Luke, I think you should check out Jacques Tourneur's excellent 1957 noir, Nightfall. I truly believe the Coens utilized it as one of the chief templates for Fargo. (Though Tourneur's underrated gem of a film is an almost entirely serious affair.)

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:50:04 +0000

I briefly touch on that in my third paragraph. Shrug.

Watching Detour, it’s not hard to see where the Coens got the bulk of Fargo…some people come away thinking, “What a crushing tragedy,” and others walk away thinking “What a goofy comedy.” And it’s not really possible to say who’s right. In both films, the whole thing is ridiculous but it’s played completely straight.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:49:47 +0000

I was tempted to bring up the rotten acting, but as something of a bizarre benefit. Not quite like Ryan O’Neal in Barry Lyndon, though.

I can completely understand why the acting would turn people off, though. It’s quite bad indeed.

By: Rick Olson

Rick Olson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:37:31 +0000

I’m shocked that nobody mentioned the terrible acting. Was it designed to be funny? Ann Savage is savagely bad, and Neal gives wooden a whole new meaning, even by mannered 30s & 40s standards.

And G’s right — the second killing was a joke.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:08:41 +0000

Good review, Luke, I remember not liking this all that much way back when I first saw it (I believe I was twelve?), but since then it has continually grown on me. It’s an ugly film in more ways than one, but it has many charms. Some French critics who praised it found that second death G speaks of as a tremendous asset. It’s convoluted, freakish and absurd, which is precisely why it’s perfect.

Ulmer’s films are certainly worth a look. Beyond The Black Cat, I like his gothic noir with Hedy Lamarr and George Sanders The Strange Woman.

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:50:23 +0000

Well, strictly speaking, it doesn’t “follow” them — it invented them. James Whale’s Frankenstein almost plays like a comedy now for the same reason — every horror flick since has followed the conventions that it created.

By: Whitney

Whitney — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:42:38 +0000

Luke, I think it watches better the more familiar you are with noir, too. It becomes ridiculous in how many genre conventions it follows so perfectly. Ridiculous is a totally fabulous way.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:40:34 +0000

I admit I haven’t seen this, but in all my reading Detour consistently comes up as one of the early noir-defining films, more so than any of the films we’ve profiled so far (except for Double Indemnity). Its low budget, its grittiness, its super B-movie sensibility – these are some of the major characteristics that noir was built upon.

Excellent essay here, Luke.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:46:36 +0000

Ulmer’s reputation as a B director was forged with his direction of THE BLACK CAT, (which you note here in your review), a film that has increased in reputation through the years to the level of a minor classic. DETOUR, his second film to develop a “cult” reputation is now seen as a film of considerable skill, largely for the reasons you eloquently pose. I am not surprised at your initial reaction—DETOUR is a film that hits its mark on repeated viewings. I agree with the 4 and a half star rating, and I think you have served this minor classic well here, both in your recap and your treatment of the film’s cinematic underpinnings.

By: Cinexcellence

Cinexcellence — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:41:23 +0000

Ees a short one. I should be watching it soon.

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:36:17 +0000

I understand where you’re coming from. It really is a film that watches better if you know where it’s going…it gives you a chance to appreciate Ulmer’s meticulous craft. And the whole thing was shot in six (!) days.

By: G

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:19:21 +0000

I watched this for the first time yesterday, and my reaction was somewhere in between your two reactions. Not to give anything away: the film’s second death was one of the most absurd and contrived things I have ever seen. But I can also understand how, in the right moods, I could consider that part of its charms.

Anyway, I didn’t mind the nihilism or even the cheapness. And I love shot movies. But it still felt half-formed to me, like they had a few ideas, didn’t know where they were going, and didn’t really know how to pull off what they wanted to do. On the other hand, there were some very nice touches – I particularly liked when Al said things would be different between him and Vera if this were a story: a nice self-reflexive touch that makes it fit in with the works of Chandler and Hammett.