the blue dahlia

With my television and DVD collection packed for the move to St. Louis I am left with a small stack of film noir discs, a box of Saltines and a PC with a 15" screen... cool.

Up first in my noir marathon is The Blue Dahlia (1946). This noir of high repute features Alan Ladd as a war vet, Johnny Morrison. Veronica Lake is Joyce, the wife of Eddie Harwood, a shifty nightclub owner who is involved with Morrison's wife. When Morrison's wife is found murdered Morrison goes on the run with the help of Joyce Harwood and two of his war buddies, one of whom is highly unstable.

The script of The Blue Dahlia was written by the great pulp writer Raymond Chandler. Chandler is at the top of his game with characters full of paranoia, machismo and shady pasts. Unfortunately the studio rewrote the ending, relieving the picture of its potent conclusion and replacing it with an implausible cop-out. The ending felt more appropriate for a Thin Man movie, where the story is secondary to the rapport of the characters. It is a shame that the original ending wasn't shot and canned somewhere only to be rediscovered and restored as it would turn a good noir into a great noir. The original script might be worth a read.

On a side note: There is something totally infectious about Howard Da Silva as Eddie Harwood, in fact I think he steals the film. Its a shame he was blacklisted as he was on his way to becoming a prolific character actor. I'd love to see a TCM evening of his films.

quiz show

Quiz Show (1994) is well worth revisiting if you've ever been hooked on reality television. "Reality" being somewhat of a misnomer because only a simpleton would believe that reality TV isn't directed as much, if not more so, than your standard scripted fare. Thankfully most shows make transparent the unreality at hand - I think "Wifeswap" in particular does a great job of making blatant display of highly manipulative editing. It is subsequently downright hysterical. Shows like ABC's Extreme Home Makeover are actually far more shifty because they play all the emotional stuff straight, pretending that the crew crying on the bus are actually watching a video of a kid dying of cancer at the time.

At the dawn of television the illusion of reality was captivating. Instead of highly constructed films people were finally getting the raw, real deal - or not. The question of ethics in entertainment that Quiz Show raises are mostly valid... but does anyone care? It is only television after all, a fairly base medium. So why is it a big deal? For director Robert Redford it seems to be his love of movies that motivates the message. The idea that television, fraudulent quiz shows in particular, signaled a loss of innocence for American life as well as for the movie industry isn't all wrong, but one wonders if the blame isn't being misplaced. In a scam who is at fault? The scheister or the idiot who believes the scheister? If shit didn't get such high ratings, they would stop making shit. Orson Welles' F for Fake explores this same issue with a highly compelling argument for forgery in entertainment. Where Redford takes the moral high ground, Welles suggests that impish illusion is what gives vitality to entertainment and is ultimately what people really want.

But Redford doesn't just lambaste the producers of television, he also goes after the advertisers, suggesting that without the billions of dollars in advertising pressure that television could remain a far purer medium. The final suggestion that 'television will ruin us all' seems to be less about humanity and more about film making. For this reason Quiz Show remains far more potent than if it were really decrying a universal loss of innocence. Redford's prediction is largely correct as most films have become little more than long, raunchy television shows.

But entertainment ethics aside, Quiz Show is an excellent little drama. It isn't flashy or bloated or preachy. If more films were made with the economy and skill of Quiz Show it is possible that the floundering theatrical film industry might be worth reviving. Heck, just cast John Turturro in every film and I'll show up.

the americanization of emily

Somewhere lurking in turgid love scenes and crass overacting is the potential for a good film. The Americanization of Emily has all of the makings of a dark comedy, rife with sharp commentary on the darker political motivations of wartime. The acting is also promising as Melvyn Douglas and a drunk Keenan Wynn turn in great performances. But the success of a dark comedy does not lie in it's script, it's ideas or it's acting. It relies on it's tone. And if ever there was an exercise in a poor director ruining every element of a film, Americanization... is it.

Arthur Hiller, the film's "director" so consistently picks the wrong tone for each and every scene that it is painful to watch. Scenes that should be played straight have broad overreacting, sympathetic scenes are played with bizarre melodrama, darkly sinister scenes are played with slapstick. It is almost as if the studio told Hiller that he would be directing a dark comedy and the only word he heard was 'comedy.'

Word is that comedy genius Blake Edwards was originally slated to direct, but wanted to make a few changes to Paddy Chayefsky's script. The producers would hear none of it and got schmuck Hiller to do it instead. The sad thing is that the script does need some trimming. The monologues are so contrived and self-absorbed that they threaten to derail the situation-based potency of the story. But the real tragedy is that Edwards knew about understatement and tone and most likely would have turned this film into a true dark comedy.