I can only imagine it will get more interesting from here on out! Thanks again for (already) making film noir month a success.

Alexander Coleman is a gentleman and a scholar!

And who would thought that a review of a Billy Wilder film would turn into a discussion of Lucini Visconti! Bravo!

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.

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…

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Welcome to MZ, by the way.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

I also liked him in The Apartment (also directed by Wilder) as well.