The Killers (1946).

Review #2041: The Killers (1946).

Cast: 

Burt Lancaster (Pete Lund/Ole "Swede" Anderson), Ava Gardner (Kitty Collins), Edmond O'Brien (Jim Reardon), Albert Dekker ("Big Jim" Colfax), Sam Levene (Lt. Sam Lubinsky), Vince Barnett (Charleston), Virginia Christine (Lilly Harmon Lubinsky), Jack Lambert ("Dum-Dum" Clarke), Charles D. Brown (Packy Robinson), Donald MacBride (R.S. Kenyon), Charles McGraw (Al), William Conrad (Max), Phil Brown (Nick Adams), and Jeff Corey ("Blinky" Franklin) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula, #797 - People on Sunday, and #1826 - The Suspect)

Review: 

In 1927, Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Killers" was published in literary form. Set in his home state of Illinois, it details two hitmen entering a restaurant with an owner and a cook alongside a patron named Nick Adams, which Hemingway wrote from his own experiences. The two hitmen suddenly take Adams and the cook into the kitchen to tie them up while telling the owner that they were hired to kill a prizefighter expected to enter the place soon. Of course, when the guy doesn't show up, the hitmen leave while Nick is sent to a boarding house to warn the man about the job, but Nick is told to do nothing because it is futile for there to be attempts to save him from his fate. Hemingway later stated, "That story probably had more left out of it than anything I ever wrote. I left out all Chicago, which is hard to do in 2951 words." The entirety of that story is told in the first twenty minutes of the 1946 film adaptation (the killing depicted isn't in the actual story, of course). This was the fourth adaptation of a Hemingway story, following in the wake of A Farewell to Arms (1932), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), and To Have and Have Not (1944). The screenplay is credited to Anthony Veiller, although it was said in later years that Richard Brooks and John Huston contributed to the script in uncredited form. At the helm as director was Robert Siodmak, who had directed films in his native Germany and France before being driven to America by the rise of Nazism each time. He had done his fair share of genres, although most know his film noirs or B-movies that made him a "actor's director". This would work wonders for Burt Lancaster, who was making his film debut. He actually had an early interest in theatre productions and the circus from a young age, but injuries had him give up the circus. After serving in the U.S. Army in World War II, he took up acting and made an impression on Broadway in a flash. Mark Hellinger, who produced The Killers, happened to need another unknown to make up the cast after getting Ava Gardner from doing pretty much nothing at MGM (Wayne Morris and Sonny Tufts were the initial choices in mind for the role played by Lancaster). He got a tip about Lancaster (near the age of 33 when this film was released), who had signed a contract with Hal Wallis but hadn't made anything for release until Hellinger tested him and decided to sign him on. The film was an audience hit and received four Academy Award nominations that year (directing, editing, score, and screenplay), for which it received none. In 1964, a second adaptation of the story was done in film (after being thought of as too much for television) with Don Siegel as director that had Lee Marvin, Ronald Reagan, and Angie Dickinson as stars.

The premise sure is an interesting one to setup a noir, particularly one built for 103 minutes where one of the key characters is dead right then and there. But it is the journey in the way that things are shot or lit that matters when the scenarios matter most with femme fatales, double crosses, and the good ol' setup for a bag of dough. It isn't often you get a cast filled with so many dependable actors (future or at the moment), whether as stars or not. O'Brien is the one observing all of the pieces moving across the board that has the air of inevitability that he does well with, maneuvering through the tension with good timing. Lancaster is a lean block of excellence, one who generates screen presence in a near instant that delivers well among the flashback sequences told (aside from the one of his death, which he handles pretty well to begin with) in a malleable force of nature. He will only end up in one path, but it is the choices that are made there that make it interesting to see the level of challenge it takes for anyone to try and escape their big desire. It's clear to see how his face became one to reckon such desires in further films. Gardner makes a solid femme fatale, one who has the allure required to drive tension into the heart of anyone, a devastating display of dashing duplicity. The rest of the cast follow along in worthy interest for the subject at hand, whether that involves the heavy or the key part of the crisscross of who is fixing who. The robbery sequence itself is executed quite skillfully, done with resounding timing without wasting a moment. By the time the film has maneuvered its way through all of the twists and turns that come with "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”, the final result is a lean and mean noir that shows the potential of its stars in a solid effort from Siodmak and company. The fatalistic nature of the whole affair makes for a solid entertaining ride that merited the highest praise from Hemingway, who once called it "the only good picture ever made of a story of mine." That pretty much says it all right then and there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

On the Beach.

Review #1402: On the Beach.

Cast: 
Gregory Peck (Commander Dwight Towers), Ava Gardner (Moira Davidson), Fred Astaire (Julian Osborn), Anthony Perkins (Lieutenant Commander Peter Holmes), Donna Anderson (Mary Holmes), John Tate (Admiral Bridie), Harp McGuire (Lieutenant Sunderstrom), Lola Brooks (Lieutenant Hosgood), Ken Wayne (Lieutenant Benson), and Guy Doleman (Lieutenant Commander Farrel) Produced and Directed by Stanley Kramer (#139 - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and #228 - Inherit the Wind)

Review: 
"I take a very reluctant and conservative view on what a single film can do in affecting our lives. I don't make films to stir the world. I am not conscious of a responsibility to society or even to my own social consciousness when I make a film. My motivation can be as simple as saying, gee, this would make an exciting picture."

Message films, with the right execution, can strike a chord with an audience. Stanley Kramer was a director-producer who liked to specialize in these type of films throughout his career in film. Kramer had written columns for his university paper and graduated with a business degree from New York University, and it was his zest for writing that led to a internship with 20th Century Fox (as opposed to his initial ambition for law), which led to a variety of small jobs around the Hollywood studios for over a decade, such as set furniture mover, writer-researcher, and film cutter. His plan to make his own independent production company was delayed due to Pearl Harbor, and Kramer served underr the Signal Corps to make training films. After the end of the war, he formed a partnership alongside writer Herbie Baker, publicist George Glass and producer Carl Foreman to form Screen Plays Inc. They set out to make films with stories they wanted to do that had something of value to say as per their personal taste without needing to rely on stars. Their attempts at producing independent films met with a few notable films such as Champion (1949), The Men (1950), and High Noon (1952). In 1951, Columbia Pictures signed Kramer and the company to a deal that would give them their own production unit within the studio that gave them free rein and increased budgets. It did not last the contracted five years, and Kramer felt that this one of the most dangerous moves of his career. In a three year partnership, he would produce films such as The Wild One (1953) and The Caine Mutiny (1954) before deciding to enter the foray of directing and producing with Not as a Stranger (1955). This was his fourth work, released between noted films The Defiant Ones (1958) and Inherit the Wind (1960), and it simultaneously premiered on all seven continents one week before Christmas Eve. Despite fair reviews, it was not a big hit with audiences, although it has found appreciation in later years.

Can you imagine what the world would look like after a massive event that affected people's lives and led to long-term consequences? Authors have written apocalyptic and post apocalyptic fiction for as long as people have been around on this Earth, with the modern age being no different in inspiring further looks into what a world would look like with disaster from nuclear fallout, or from something like disease or the environment. Nevil Shute wrote one such work on the apocalypse, writing his work in 1957 while residing in Australia (he also worked as an aeronautical engineer and pilot before his death in 1960). The novel has been turned into a film twice, with the other adaptation being a TV film in 2000. Shute found dissatisfaction with this adaptation when it came to certain aspects of the novel, particularly the romance between Peck and Gardner's characters being more pronounced than in the book when it came to the former's fidelity to his dead wife (Peck agreed with this privately). It certainly must have been an interesting film to view for the time (where this decade had seen war in Korea and continuing Cold War tension) - a bleak movie through and through, where blame is not given to any one side of the unseen war. While one is spared visual decay of vanquished people or even the effects of radiation on the survivors, the film manages to do well enough in maintaining itself in grim composure that makes one think about their future that could have been or the future that could be for what was the future of 1964, complete with filming in Australia. Peck handles himself with resolve in a mellow voice that can handle impending doom and conflicting feelings with care. Two actors playing against the type they were usually known for in film are femme fatale Gardner and song-and-dance Astaire, and each follow Peck fine, making light romance and guilt come out with some effectiveness. Perkins and Anderson give off a bit of intimacy and anxiety decently enough, although they don't stick out as much as they could when it comes to such a dreary quiet time. It is the sights and what one can see and doesn't see within the Australia landscape and beyond (such as a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge with no one present) that drives the film for 134 minutes with adequacy. It comes off with an urgency that warns for the future without becoming too much of a lecture to stand on its own as a film of oblivion that resonates still after over six decades since release.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

And now, an announcement for the month of May, comprised of 30 films.