Intruder in the Dust.

Review #1969: Intruder in the Dust.

Cast: 

Juano Hernandez (Lucas Beauchamp), David Brian (John Gavin Stevens), Claude Jarman Jr (Chick Mallison), Porter Hall (Nub Gowrie), Elizabeth Patterson (Miss Eunice Habersham), Will Geer (Sheriff Hampton), Charles Kemper (Crawford Gowrie), David Clarke (Vinson Gowrie), Elzie Emanuel (Aleck), Lela Bliss (Mrs. Mallison), and Harry Hayden (Mr. Mallison) Directed by Clarence Brown (#423 - A Woman of Affairs, #433 - Angels in the Outfield, #484 - Plymouth Adventure, #1351 - The Rains Came) 

Review: 

The real reason that people care about the film in any way besides the usual crime movie elements is Juano Hernandez. He was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1896 (two years prior to the region being acquired by the United States). Before becoming an actor, he worked as a sailor, a circus entertainer, and a boxer. He entered vaudeville in the late 1920s, doing various shows in New York City that included a Broadway debut with Show Boat in 1927. He did work for radio on programs such as Cavalcade of America. Hernandez had gotten his start in film with who else but Oscar Micheaux with the 1932 film The Girl from Chicago, the first of three appearances in a Micheaux feature (there were a few uncredited appearances in films here and there as well, but Intruder in the Dust was his first starring role). Until his death in 1970 at the age of 74, Hernandez was a regular presence in film, such as The Breaking Point (1950) and Trial (1955), although this film has generally been the one that he is best recognized for, in part because of his standout performance that paved the way for more involving roles for black actors. The movie is an adaptation of the 1948 novel of the same name by William Faulkner (which like a variety of his works employed a stream of consciousness style of narration). Incidentally, in order to make money, Faulkner served as a screenwriter for various films from 1932 until the 1950s (which resulted in scripts such as the 1944 adaptation To Have and Have Not). Faulkner was only semi-involved with the production, but it was shot in Oxford, Mississippi (where he had lived most of his life); it should be noted that while most of the cast got to enjoy the hospitality of the University of Mississippi, Hernandez was housed separately at the residence of an undertaker. The choice of director was the one who pushed to do a film of the book in Clarence Brown, who had been raised in Tennessee, had known Faulkner for a time in the late 1930s when Brown was a key director for MGM. Of course, the film only got the greenlight when Dore Schary, fresh off being hired as vice president of production, backed doing it despite the objections of studio head Louis B. Meyer. Ben Maddow wrote the script for the film.

The movie was not a major hit at the time, perhaps because of its minimal promotion or being on the tail-end of "message movies" (imagine watching Pinky or Home of the Brave and then deciding to ditch Intruder in the Dust). But at least it had a fan in Faulkner, who said it was a "fine job." As an 87-minute feature, it works quite well in the art of creating a careful yarn that is part-whodunit and part-look into oneself. It isn't so much about finding the truth about who committed the crime as it is finding the truth in how one could get wrapped up in a possible lynching in the first place. It is a film that does not wrap itself in pretentions of being something that it is not, being a Southern tale with biting truth all the way through (which is why Brown, a craftsman of various successes, deserves credit for making sure the film was not done within a studio backlot), one that is firmly made in a time for one to experience themselves in levels of uncomfortableness (such as its use of the N-word, for example). Obstinate is probably the best way to describe the character played by Hernandez, which is to say he is firmly confident in each scene he commands the screen, which doesn't require copious amounts of dialogue to get the point across of how engaging he proves to be. He isn't just a symbol utilized for some sort of message of tolerance for the sake of it, as he is no servant to misplaced pride. It is funny too, because Brian and Jarman are actually pretty good too, acting in their own type of tolerance angle with Hernandez in nuance that makes it an uneasy coming-of-age film as well, where adult figures are not cut and dry in helping one find easy answers in the building blocks of life. Sure, books/films such as To Kill a Mockingbird ended up enduring more in the public consciousness when it came to children and the destruction of innocence and moral heroes over a decade after the release of the film (each involve an accuser's family being of ill repute). However, Intruder in the Dust and its portrayal of the struggle to understand an adult world that doesn't make much sense with its teen character in Jarman is not to be forgotten to go with Brian and his double-act of prejudices and principles. This goes for Patterson as well, quietly effective in elder sophistication without intrusions of unsubtlety. At any rate, this is a movie to watch for Hernandez and company as a whole, with his cool confidence providing the spark for a rivetingly uncomfortable crime movie that is more than meets than the eye in the parts that matter most. It endures after over seven decades because it shows us how much work one still has to do in the matter of understanding and pride, whether in a small town or beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song.

Scarlet Street.

Review #1365: Scarlet Street.

Cast:
Edward G. Robinson (Christopher Cross), Joan Bennett (Katherine March), Dan Duryea (Johnny Prince), Margaret Lindsay (Millie Ray), Rosalind Ivan (Adele Cross), Jess Barker (David Janeway), Charles Kemper (Patch-eye Higgins), Anita Sharp-Bolster (Mrs. Michaels), Samuel S. Hinds (Charles Pringle), and Vladimir Sokoloff (Pop LeJon) Directed by Fritz Lang (#333 - M and #500 - Metropolis)

Review: 
"Each picture has some sort of rhythm which only the director can give it. He has to be like the captain of a ship."

One can't forget about Fritz Lang when it comes to his diverse career of films, both in Germany and abroad. Born and raised in Vienna, Lang had a lengthy career, starting as a writer for film in 1916 before debuting as a director with Halbblut (1919). He met writer Thea von Harbou the following year, and they later married in 1922. They worked together in film for over a decade, which include films such as Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922), Metropolis (1927), M (1931, his first talking picture), and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933). However, the two divorced due to an affair by Lang that same year. He would soon leave Germany owing to the rise of the Nazis, going to France (where he made one film in Liliom) before going to America. He made his American debut with Fury (1936), with his last in the country being Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956) before he returned to Germany (after thinking about retiring due to tough conditions to make further Hollywood films and growing age), where he made three films between 1959 and 1960, with his last being The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse before his death in 1976 at the age of 85. He was noted for his Expressionism (more so for his German films) alongside his talent in doing numerous genres, particularly with film noir.

The film was adapted (written by Dudley Nichols) from the French novel La Chienne by Georges de La Fouchardiere, which had already been played on the stage and in film in 1931 under its title by Jean Renoir (who notably disliked this film). This was the second time that Lang utilized this trio of actors, as they had appeared together in The Woman in the Window a year earlier. Both films had Robinson play a lonely middle-aged man and Bennett and Duryea play a criminal duo, and they even had the same choreographer in Milton R. Krasner. Robinson for his part did not like his experiences with either film, finding this one to be monotonous to do, although Lang found it to be one of his favorites to do. To each his own, one suppose - both of course do tremendous jobs in making a capable noir tick well. It goes to show how one can make something that plays numerous hands of deception to the benefit of its audience through 109 minutes, a clever experience with some psychological depth to it. It shouldn't prove too surprising that local authorities in three cities for censor boards objected to the content of the film, calling it many things besides "obscene". After all, it isn't exactly a noir with a happy ending, nor is it one that requires so. Just the idea of a character getting away with a murder was in some minds enough to object to, beyond portraying some sort of sordid life or illicitness with love. In other words, one needs a bit of risk sometimes to make things work better than a conventional film would do, with the best noirs utilizing imagination to give the viewer something to look into without needing things spelled out for them. Robinson does well with making an ordinary presence come into focus that we can follow along with to a point as a meek man that doesn't seem cartoonish or underplayed. Bennett and Duryea make for a conniving duo, ones with some luring power alongside a rough nature with chemistry. One can follow the film along without too much trouble, wrapped with a few twists that keep the viewer wanting more without displeasing them with where it needs to get to with its daring ending, where one can certainly find a prison for themselves without needing a conviction to do so. Lang certainly made plenty of memorable films, and this is one that is good to highlight, particularly since it is readily available through the public domain for anyone to view for themselves, a worthwhile little gem for the decade.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.