xojemmaxo

Closing out NOIRVEMBER with a double feature! Both movies are not only based on the same story, but are from the same studio. I thought it'd be fun to do a comparison. :P


I Wake Up Screaming

A 1941 movie produced by 20th Century Fox and directed by H. Bruce Humberstone. It's based on the 1941 novel (of the same name) by Steve Fisher.

Frankie Christopher (played by Victor Mature) is a promoter/PR guy. One night, he's at a cafe with two male friends: a washed-up actor and a gossip columnist. All three are 😍😈🥴🤤 with Vicki (played by Carole Landis), their waitress.

While talking abt how beautiful Vicki is, Frankie starts to brag that he has the power to turn Vicki from a simple waitress and into a celebrity. The other guys are like PFFT, YOU WISH.

In any case, Frankie DOES manage to make Vicki v. popular, having her picture taken in society pages, etc. Along the way, he also meets Jill (played by THE Betty Grable), Vicki's sister. Jill and Frankie have a one-sided enmity (from Jill to Frankie.) She doesn't like how suave Frankie is, she doesn't trust them.

And then a murder occurs. . .

This is one of those movies that tends to pop up in Must-See Noirs lists. Funnily enough, I'd always thought I'd already watched it and had forgotten abt it. The ONLY reason why I watched it this time (which led me to realize that it was an actually brand new watching experience) is cuz I wanted to "refresh my (nonexistent) memory" before I watched Vicky.

IN ANY CASE, I was NOT READY for this movie. Oftentimes, when I'm watching a new-to-me noir, I'm having a good time. THIS MOVIE HAD ME ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT! Between the twists, turns, and general WTF-ery from some of the characters . . . OOOF!

I also loved the cinematography by Edward Crongjager was CHEF'S KISS.

Victor Mature was SOLID. He does know how to play a "cool" type of guy. As the movie progresses, he finds himself getting cornered and it's really neat to see Mature's Frankie react and figure out what to do when the rules of the game go against him.

And then, there's Laird Cregar as Ed Cornell, a detective whose single-minded pursuit of Frankie is quite O__o.

The film's pacing is great too. Everyone brings their A game. Plus you know it's gonna be a good time when Elisha Cook Jr. is part of the cast as Harry, the front desk guy at the apartment building Jill and Vicky live at.


Do I have any criticisms?

There are two.

Carol Landis as Vicki was mehhhhh. I didn't find her presence (which is supposed to be alluring AF) convincing at all.

The other thing is that this movie uses two songs so many times that it might drive you bonkers: "Street Scene" and "Over the Rainbow." To date, I don't think anyone knows why the producing team thought the latter song was a great fit for this movie cuz it wasn't!

At some point, I began to tune it out/ignore it cuz they legit play it a lot!


Do I recommend it?

Yeah, this movie has plot, acting, cinematography, pacing, etc. Although it does goes a bit off the rails during the last third AND I was kinda meh abt Landis PLUS the overusage of those two song, it's deffo worth watching. It tends to pop up on Mubi, TCM, plus the usual places.

I'm giving it a 3.7 out of 5


Queerness level:

Low.

Laird Cregar's version of Ed Cornell is not-quite-straight. There's nothing abt him that reads as straight. In addition, he's v. obsessed with Frankie. And whenever they interact, Cornell is sorta flirting with him. FWIW, Frankie always rebuffs him to which Cornell tends to reply with a "ah, you'll come around". Just lots of double entendre type of things.

Adding to that there's Larid Cregar himself. Now, I didn't know this until AFTER I watched the movie, but I did find out that he had a "complicated" sexuality (per his biographers.) He did have relationships with women, but he also had boyfriends.

When I watched this movie, I was kinda sure I was imagining things cuz Cornell gave me queer vibes. Go figure.


Le Trailer

Watch on YouTube

Vicky

A 1953 film from 20th Century Fox that was directed by Harry Horner. The script is based on the novel I Wake Up Screaming by Steve Fisher.

Since this movie pretty much follows the same plot as the 1941 film, I'm skipping over the summary.

This time around, we've got Jean Peters as Vicky, Jeanne Crain as her sister Jill, and Elliott Reed as Steve (instead of "Frankie") Christopher as the PR guy.

IMO, this movie has some good points when compared to the other film. The majority of the acting is good (there's one actor I was meh abt). Unlike I Wake Up Screaming, the soundtrack has variety.

Also, this version has a much more organic rhythm when it came to its plot. Frex, the way that Vicky and Steve meet felt a lot more natural. I wonder how much casting influenced their simpatico in this movie vs. the 1941 one. There are also a lot more scenes of Vicky and Jill where their sisterly dynamic is explored a ton this time around. It was v. clear how much they cared abt each other.

Jeanne Crain- - who I only know from A Letter to Three Wives and Leave Her to Heaven- - does really well in her role as Jill. She is, in some ways, the heart of the film.

One quirky note is that this movie has a mini reunion of male actors who have been in Marily Monroe movies. Elliot Reid (who played Steve Christopher here) was Jane Russell's love interest in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Meanwhile, Alexander D'arcy (who was Robin Ray in this movie) played one of Marilyn Monroe's suitors in How to Marry a Millionaire. He's the guy with the eyepatch (you'll know who I'm talking abt if you've watched the movie.)


Do I have any criticisms?

The tension (as far as finding out the murderer's identity) is way lower in this one. IMO, it has to do with two specific characters. Primarily Richard Boone as Det. Ed Cornell.

Whereas the Ed in the 1941 movie has a PRESENCE, someone who is tremendously good as a detective but also a Grade A WEIRDO, Boone's Ed never achieves the kind of brilliance and creepiness that's needed for that role. All that's shown is Boone's flat demeanor with random moments where he yells at ppl. He simply does not give out the same menacing vibes. *Hands* Because this is the first time I've ever seen that actor in anything, I can't tell if the fault lies on him OR on the direction he was given.

The other thing that made the movie lose momentum was when, right around the halfway point, the pacing just glides on. It's almost as if the plot didn't care abt building up any suspense.

Finally, in total opposition to how I felt during the last 20 mins of the 1941 film, the last 20 mins of Vicky went into full cheese, IDK.


Do I recommend it?

Not really? If you happen to catch a screening of it or find it somewhere, sure, maybe watch it. But it's not worth making any huge effort to experience it. OTOH, I don't regret watching it, BUT I liked having the chance to compare both films. I'm giving it a 2 out of 5.


Queerness level:

Nada.


Le Trailer

Watch on YouTube

Smooth as Silk

A 1946 film directed by Charles Barton and produced by Universal Pictures. This is a version of the 1935 film A Notorious Gentleman (which was also produced by Universal Pictures.)

Paula Marlowe (played by Virgina Grey) is a moderately famous theater actress. Her boyfriend is Mark Fenton (played by Kent Taylor), a v. successful lawyer. At the beginning of the movie, Mark has defended Don Elliott (played by Danny Morton), the nephew of an extremely powerful theater produced named Stephen Elliott (played by John Litel.) Mark and Stephen had had a deal: IF Mark was able to succeed in keeping Don out of jail, THEN Stephen would consider Paula for the main role in his upcoming production.

HOWEVAH, Stephen reneges in the deal. This then leads Paula to start planning . . .


This is one of those obscure noirs that I was ultimately charmed by it. The story is pretty complete and the cast is decent talent-wise.

I liked Virginia Grey. Her version of Paula is not quite likable but not a character meant to be hated either. Her motivations and choices made sense for the time.


Do I have any criticisms?

Despite the fact that, since it's only an hour and 14 minutes, so much of the story is compressed. Like, there are scenes that hint at weeks and months going by, but viewers won't get a sense of the passage of time.

I didn't like Jane Adams as Susan Marlowe (Paula's younger sister.) She was there to be the one person representing morality, I guess? But i never understood what actual role she was meant to fulfill.


Do I recommend it?

I do! It's a short movie, everything abt it is solid. Even though there wasn't anything abt it that I'd call spectacular or a must-see, I didn't find much fault with it. I'm giving it a 3 out of 5.


Queerness level:

*Tumbleweeds*

Fallen Angel

A 1945 movie from 20th Century Fox that was directed by Otto Preminger. It's based on the novel Fallen Angel by Marty Holland.

Eric Stanton (played by Dana Andrews) is a swindler on a losing streak. Unable to pay the rest of his bus ticket to San Francisco, he's dropped off at the small town of Walton, CA. He ends up in a cafe, mulling on what he's gonna do next. While there, he notices Stella (played by Linda Darnell), a beautiful waitress, and goes gaga for her.

After pulling a small con and despite being invited to continue the scam in another town, Eric decides to stay cuz he's THAT gone for Stella. After starting to date her, he realizes that he's gonna need a lot of dough.

AT THE SAME TIME, he meets Clara (played by Anne Revere) and June (played by Alice Faye), two sisters who are v. wealthy. A plan begins to form . . .


Everyone's acting is on the level. Linda Darnell was LUMINOUS. I loved her every second she was on the screen. The story is pretty interesting and the directing is fine.

Fun fact: this was a reunion of sorts between Otto Preminger and Dana Andrews as they'd both worked together in 1941's Laura.


Do I have any criticisms?

Oh, do I!

The first thing is that pacing is a little off. For a movie that's an hour and 37 mins, the first 25 or so minutes are tedious. There were a few moments when I got close to quit watching. Though, thankfully, the movie made a fascianting turn at the 30-min mark and I was IN.

Also I was unable to warm up to June. Alice Faye did as good of a job as she could with such a wishy-washy role.

Which is related to a BIG SPOILER

Eric and June eventually get married and it's a v. strange relationship. He does woo her in a v. specific way that's also playful. It contrasts nicely with how lustful and turbulent his relationship with Stella is. And yet, after Eric and June get married, he resents having to go thru with his plan. As a result he takes it out on June. He becomes distant and brusque with her both in private AND public.

All this time, June is going alone with the mistreatment. She doesn't push back in any way. As a matter of fact, the one (1) time she yells at him is to let him know that she's his ride or die and she doesn't care who knows it. Her one goal in life now that she's his wife is to stick with him no matter what and no matter whatever it takes to protect him.

AND SHE'S DOING THIS FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN BEING IN LOVE WITH HIM!

Watching her become a doormat was irritating, NGL. It's clear that she's got a gentle personality from the moment they meet, but seeing her go all out for this guy was O__o. Even worse is that her yelling at him abt how much she loves him is what makes HIM realize that maybe June is a good person to be married to?!

I'd like to think that, in June's interior world, she was flattered that Eric married her. It was also a little unclear as to how much June wanted to gain some kind of independence from her older sister (they do care for each other, btw), IDK.

FWIW, I really didn't like June and Eric together.

Adding to that, I was never sure WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER Eric was? Not a good guy, not a villain, not an antihero . . . and yet, as the credits roll, he's REDEEMED by a woman's love because said woman never gave up on him or something. Especially given how poorly he treated her after they got married. 🤢

And that's what got me to lower the ranking by two full points. *Hands*


Do I recommend it?

I do? With the caveat that you HAVE to sit thru a full 30 mins for the movie to really kick in. OTOH, I'm SO at odds with this movie, NGL. On paper, it had a lot going for it: Otto Preminger in the director's chair, good actors like Linda Darnell and Dana Andrews, etc and yet, things never quite gelled this time around!

OTOH, it's not a trash movie. To me it's a C-level noir in my heart of hearts. Per what I know, you can find it streaming somewhere. I'm giving it a 2 out of 5.


Queerness level:

A whole lotta nothin'