Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Monday, March 27, 2023

Film Noir #22

 


Noir: Chicago Confidential and Chinatown


CHICAGO CONFIDENTIAL (1957) --- Posters say “It Rips Through “Chi” Like a Hurricane,” but really it doesn’t, being cautious look at labor unions incorruptible except when outside racketeers muscle in. Corruption as everyday habit of brotherhoods was hands-off as in no such hint from a film industry very much close shopped by 1957. Whatever headlines from real life, there was no blaming union policy or leadership for any acts that might or should be prosecuted, leaving villainy to dog heavies (unbilled Jack Lambert) or long-in-tooth holdovers from the Capone era (Gavin Gordon as Mister Big). Compare Chicago Confidential with Scorsese’s The Irishman and hand yourself a laugh. Still this modest one is fun so long as expectation lays low, Chicago Confidential close as 1957 got to a B by once-definition. Brian Keith has his first starring role as State’s Attorney who is all-upright, and we could wonder how crime had any chance when civil authority is bleached so clean, especially where it’s Chicago we’re dealing with. Union head Dick Foran is object of a murder frame, subordinate Douglas Kennedy the bad apple who has wormed into Dick’s otherwise pristine labor group.



Where “waterfront derelict” Elisha Cook, Jr. is key witness for the prosecution, you’ve got to figure something fishy. It’s for Keith with help Beverly Garland to find new evidence that will spring Foran from the death house, key break courtesy “Ryder Sound Research,” real-life entity we see in old film credits, here rescuing wrongly accused by separating “alpha” and “beta” signals from recording of a human voice. Technology serves as restorer of lost hope as in Call Northside 777, White Heat among exhibits for tools presumed to be out of crime’s reach. With such resource at enforcement command, where’s worry for any innocent party? Hitchcock had sternly answered that question but a year before with The Wrong Man, his stance that chance alone might rescue the wrongly accused, accent on “chance” translating to hundred against one in favor of the rope.




CHINATOWN (1974) --- There was real life noir behind these cameras … Roman Polanski directing, and he can’t even enter the country anymore (warrants waiting), plus Robert Evans as producer, and what sleazy outcome awaited him (best not to read “final days” account). Evans and screenwriter Robert Towne tangled, along with J. Nicholson, on a sequel in 1990 that went sort of wrong, The Two Jakes, a magazine story detailing “very public collapse” of the project, this five years before the movie got released, but I’ll save The Two Jakes until it comes up among T's (when … in 2040?). For meantime, there is Chinatown, a picture much better to mine eyes than in 1974 being still young to grasp subtleties or understand truly what was going on. Seeing Chinatown at a drive-in first was bungle for which I should have had my moviegoing license revoked. Chinatown belongs to still and quiet of dark space, walls, ceiling, and a wide screen. It and Barry Lyndon work period spells better than anything I know from the seventies. If there is old-style noir as rendered thirty years late, this am it. Yet some are discomfited by Chinatown, lots because of tie-up explain re Noah Cross (John Huston), his daughter (Faye Dunaway), and “granddaughter.” It is shocking still, so imagine how it connected in 1974, but then Oedipus shocked them plenty too, and that was thousands of years ago. Billy Crystal hosted the Oscars one 90’s year and gagged up Chinatown’s showdown scene between Nicholson and Dunaway, him slapping and her crying She’s my sister, She’s my daughter. Billy’s joke fell flat because no one in the audience got the reference. He stood looking at blank faces and said, Rent the video. That’s how quickly they forget, even in Hollywood, especially in Hollywood. Chinatown was popular enough in 1974 to make it seem for a while as if pictures like this might come back, as in disciplined and classically structured. The screenplay by Robert Towne was “taught” by writing gurus for years to come … is it still?



The story of how Chinatown (barely) got made is another to illustrate the miracle of any great movie seeing light, especially in the seventies when lifestyle and habits were so appalling that it’s a wonder creators lived into the eighties, let alone to now (many of course did not). Reading Chinatown’s backstory and fate for participants is dark walk. Still, the picture speaks for them, and did, I think, redefine noir as that language would be spoke after. Good as it
was, Farewell My Lovely of a following year seems quaint by comparison, an old movie done new, but stuck still in mindset of old. Chinatown seized relevance by centering its story on evil doings that really happened, water as most valued resource and worth killing to get. There are books on this topic, and I bet they are scary too. Was Noah Cross right when he said given the right time or circumstance, people are capable of anything? And how many less old buildings are left in L.A. than in 1974? Seems I read they had problems locating authentic surviving spots when 1990 time came to do The Two Jakes. Reminds me of when we drove through Culver City looking for where Laurel and Hardy shot shorts, precious few recognizable places found. Vanished sites of Los Angeles is such bittersweet aspect of film noir, be it buildings and housing used for Chinatown, or long-gone Bunker Hill that enlivened features from after the war and into the sixties. Easy to lament loss of all this when you see what took its place. You Tube explains via melancholy tours uploaded there.

ANOTHER FORGET: Checking Greenbriar index site just now and discovered a column from 2015 about Chicago Confidential. Doesn't overlap much, so HERE it is for CC second helping.

13 Comments:

Blogger Mike Cline said...

I exhibited CHINATOWN at my theatre when new. I didn't care much for it. Over the years, I did a 180 and now think of it as a masterpiece.

8:11 AM  
Blogger Ken said...

Not a criticism. Because I'm sure you've gathered by now that I love reading your pieces. Always. More precisely this is something about me. Your ongoing Film Noir series has served as a reminder of how rigidly locked in I am to my own concept of what constitutes a noir:

Released in the 40's or 50's
Filmed in black & white, preferably to moody, atmospheric effect
Crime-related
Usually focused on someone who's in a mess because of a crime they committed, one that was wrongly attributed to them, one they witnessed or one to which they're somehow connected, maybe as a prime victim, often in more peripheral ways.
In some noirs the focus is more on those investigating the crime(s) than on the perpetrators
But there's usually an overriding sense that fate is the real hunter.
A femme fatale is usually welcome but some noirs manage well enough without them.

Anyway, that's the formula I'm comfortable with. So whenever you talk about post 50's "noirs" and color "noirs", I invariably enjoy the read but - at some point - inevitably find myself thinking that, while brandishing perfectly valid visitors' passes to Noirdom, these movies will never enjoy full citizenship.

5:50 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Good observations, Ken, and I can't disagree with any of them. Guess I just enjoy dropping in unexpected titles, noirs after singular, if peculiar, fashion --- peculiar being my taste at times. How else could I salute Sylvester Stallone or Ford Fairlane except under a phony noir umbrella?

8:26 PM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

For me, color was the once-impenetrable barrier to noir. But slowly and surely, I grew to accept CHINATOWN as the one (?) exception.

11:02 AM  
Blogger lmshah said...

SLIGHTLY SCARLET (1956) is another Technicolor noir:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049769/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

RICHARD M ROBERTS

4:11 PM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

Martin Scorsese called "Leave Her to Heaven" the only Technicolor noir.

7:24 PM  
Blogger Ken said...

There are numerous examples of color films that tick all the noir boxes - except for the fact that they're filmed in full - sometimes glorious color. Not just "Leave Her to Heaven" and "Slightly Scarlet". "Niagara", "A Kiss Before Dying" and "Desert Fury" all come to mind immediately. If you accept color as a legitimate noir element, then - for you - these are noirs. If - as in my case - color remains a sticking point, then they're fated to remain just vivid examples of what someone once called "noirzipans"

7:04 AM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

Wow!
Thank you, Kevin K. I can't believe it, but I've never seen LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN. I'm leery, however, of accepting all those others that Ken mentioned. I DO like the term "noirzipans," though.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

Have you seen all the news about artificial A.I. 'bots producing credible articles?

Well, they're true and I AM a robot.... Today Greenbriar, tomorrow the world!

10:30 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

"Film noir" is a categorization applied to already-existing films by film critics; I'm leery of the entire idea of "genre" in the arts, as I suspect that such categorization and classification has more to do with marketing than with some actual "shared substance" of the films/novels/plays/works/whatever that are being discussed.
Be that as it may, for me films are all about how they look; and so, to call some film a "film noir" there must be some exceptionally strong connection between the look and feel of the cinematography shown and the story being told; otherwise, it's just another crime story film, or police procedural film , or filmed morality play, or melodrama, or whatever the story may be about.
In other words, the classification of any film as being a "film noir" is all about the visual style with, or in, which the story is presented, and color can be a part of that style - but speaking for myself, being a "film noir" isn't and never has been simply about the nature of the story being told, with the elements of immorality, crime, isolation, entrapment, etc.,common to these stories - that's never been sufficient by itself and on its own to make any film a "film noir" in my estimation.
It's got to have a look and feel, a visual style, to be a proper "film noir" to my eyes - but it doesn't need to be limited to B&W cinematography.

6:55 PM  
Blogger Beowulf said...

"Genre is primarily a marketing construct" -- Beowulf's A.I.

10:10 AM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

Great movie, see it when you can. Actually a shocker of a drama.

4:59 PM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

Panache - that's the word I wanted.
A film noir must needs have visual panache.

8:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024