Because of the N-sound and the City, I sometimes confused “Night and the City” with “The Naked City” (1948), both by Dassin… but the latter is a rather mediocre movie, I think.

I am drawing a long bow here, but I think the ideological spectre of HUAC still hangs over the work of Dassin, and this may explain its ‘under the radar’ status.

In your next noir marathon, Thieve’s Highway should be on the short-list.

Some more background on Dassin and Night and the City:

1. After completing Thieves’ Highway, according to an article bySandra Berg in 2002(?):

“‘Everyone heard that subpoenas were being handed out,’ says actor-producer Norman Lloyd, remembering one fateful night in 1949. ‘Dassin lived on Bronson, and there was a knock on Jules’ front door. Julie answered to find Darryl Zanuck [head of 20th Century Fox], who said, “You better get out of town.” He gave him the assignment to direct Night and the City in London. It was unheard of to have a studio executive come in person like that and try to help.’

“Dassin has never forgotten that experience: ‘Zanuck said, “You’re going to England. Get a fucking script done, begin shooting, start with the most expensive scenes and they won’t fire you, because it’s probably going to be the last picture you’re ever going to make.” I liked Darryl Zanuck! While I was working on the script, Zanuck called me and said, “I want you to write in a part for Gene Tierney. She’s going through hell, and she’s a good kid. Save her.” So I wrote her a part. She was at the end of her career. This was a side to Zanuck that people didn’t know.’”

2. An excellent tribute to Dassin’s film-making and social activism has been posted by David Walsh of wsws.org: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/dass-a03.shtml

In retrospect, the oddly tacked on character is actually Hugh Marlowe as the next door neighbor Adam. He seems to appear and disappear whenever it’s convenient to the script and he’s never fully developed.

If I wrote the review again, I’d probably soften my comments on Tierney and add the Marlowe criticism, no matter how small it is.

Tiny quibbles aside, this is a terrific film. Is it just me or does this one kind of fly in under the radar? My introduction to Dassin was through Rififi and that led me to seek out his earlier American work which stands on its own.

I find Gene Tierney’s performance a strength: she bring moral focus to the milieu and let’s us see the sympathetic side of Harry, and she comes into her own in the final scenes. Her soft counterpoint is achingly elegant and transubstantiates Harry’s demise into the stuff of tragedy.

As she says to Harry near the end:

“Harry. Harry.
You could have
been anything.
Anything.
You had brains…
ambition.
You worked harder
than any 10 men.

But the wrong things.
Always the wrong things

Mr. Kennedy brings his famed rhetorical ammunition to this atmospheric and (as he contends) one of the “darkest and bleakest” noir features. Kennedy’s most extraordinary observance in my view is his stellar paragraph explaining how and why the city of London is a character in this film. It says so much and it contributes mightily to the thematic discourse.

Of course, at the outset, the assertion that Harry is neither a hero or an anti-hero is the full crux of the film’s conflict. And Kennedy’s follow-up query: “How does a film without a hero work” is considered in a most enlightening context.

The analysis of Richard Widmark’s performance is superb, as is even one on the famous Dickinsinian actor Francis L. Sullivan. Fascinating stuff.

Finally, I completely agree withe the 4 and a half star rating for this particular film. Kudos to you Mr. Kennedy!

And Craig is one of the best writers to grace the Movie Zeal site, without question. He’s top drawer.

The interesting thing about the movie for me is that Fabian clearly represents the worst side of Capitalism, but at the same time I think Dassin sympathizes with him as though Fabian is an example of what the system can force a man into.

Of course, you can argue no one forced Harry into anything and he’s just a creep…

I’m sure I’ve written this before once or twice, but the ending to this film is to me one of the most iconically true, devastatingly powerful codas in all of noir, so rich and crushing all at once that it can be used to define what noir is beneath everything else.

Dassin’s perspective on American greed, also seen in Thieves’ Highway, takes on a richer context here with the American huckster in London. Rififi was, coming from Dassin, partly a beautiful statement, however, that avarice knows no national boundary.

The key difference between Tom Reagan and Harry Fabian is one of motivation. I always saw Tom’s juggling act in the service of others, but for Harry it’s pure selfishness. He wants what he wants and doesn’t care the cost to anyone else.

Reagan is also ultimately more clever than Fabian, his weakness, the thing that always gets him in trouble, is that he actually has a certain moral code as twisted as it might be. Fabian…not so much.

I never saw the remake, which is weird because I love the cast and at that time had never seen the original.

The other similarity between these two films is their unflinching investigations of the seedy underbellies of London and (in Pickup) in New York. I love how you sum that up in your review. Dassin does a marvelous job of giving London an ugliness that makes it almost unrecognizable.

Evan, that’s an interesting comparison between Night and Miller’s Crossing.

I also think the similarities between Reagan and Fabian are only superficial, for pretty much the same reason. Even when you don’t realize how Reagan is playing everyone, he’s a calm and controlled fellow. Whereas Fabian’s a blatant huckster who seems to laugh, cry, or scream in every scene. That performance should have been over the top, but somehow Widmark pulls it off.

Anyone know why Gabriel Byrne’s career sucks so much when he’s such a good actor? More practically, is that psychiatrist show any good?

I don’t have much to add to this is a terrific review of one of my favourite noirs, but I’d like to recommend Gerald Kersh’s original novel. While the central narrative arc is much the same as in the film, there are a few key differences, and the story as a whole is fleshed out in interesting ways with some fascinating subplots and supporting characters. The book is also brilliant at evoking the sleazy atmosphere of 1930’s Soho, and it has just been republished in a classy new edition:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Night-City-Gerald-Kersh/dp/0955185130/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219248994&sr=8-4

I’ll be doing Rififi later in the month. Hope I do as well.

Second question: has anyone seen the ‘92 remake with Robert De Niro and Jessica Lange, directed by Irwin Winkler? Is it any good?