And Then This Happened... Hired!

One of my favorite moments from one of my favorite Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes actually doesn't come from the movie itself (Manos: The Hands of Fate) but from the short from Chevrolet that opens the experiment. It is called Hired! and it contains this image. Caption it!

And then this happened...

Click an ad before you go... don't displease grandpa here.

The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949)

Introduction

When I flipped through my 100 Mystery Classics box set and I saw Charles Laughton was in one, I was intrigued. I’ve enjoyed his work in the past, especially “Witness for the Prosecution” and “Les miserables”.

Was “The Man on the Eiffel Tower” a hidden gem of Laughton’s career, or is it something he’d rather not talk about?

Summary:

A rich American woman is killed in Paris and Inspector Jules Maigret (Charles Laughton) is on the case. He has plenty of suspects to pick from. Was it Joseph Heurtin (Burgess Meredith) the diminutive knife tinkerer? Was it Bill Kirby (Robert Hutton) the nephew with the most to gain? Or was it Kirby’s estranged wife Helen (Patricia Roc) or Kirby’s mistress. And then there’s the mysterious Johan Radek (Franchot Tone) a man who seems to keep turning up in relation to the crime. Maigret continues his investigation but begins to feel that the killer may be playing a dangerous game with him.

Good Points:

• A very good performance by Franchot Tone, and solid performances by the rest of the cast.
• The murderer is an interesting character.
• The setting of post war Paris is captured really well.

Bad Points:

• The overall plot seems to be lack a focal point – who is the protagonist?
• The movie takes a while to heat up.
• The murderer is revealed early on, which takes away some of the suspense.

Overall:

When the movie is over you’ll remember two things about it. The photography of post war Paris and the character of Johan Radek. The murder mystery itself is solved early on, but the game between the murderer and Inspector Maigret almost carries the rest of the film – almost. As a whole the movie never comes together. Too many points of view cloud the narrative too much and by the end of the film you wonder what the point really was.

Score (out of 5)

Visual Aspects: 4

Sound Aspects: 3

Acting: 4

Music: 3

Script: 3

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Final Grade: 3

In Depth Review

Color me shocked when I saw that Bergess Meredith not only appeared in the film but that he directed! I didn’t know that Meredith had ever stepped behind the camera, much less directing Charles Laughton. A quick look at IMDB reveals that originally the film was directed by Irving Allen, until Laughton threatened to walk off the set. Meredith stepped in and directed the film with Laughton directing scenes that Meredith was in. If that story is true it does explain some of the issues I have with the film, one that almost works, but misses the bar.

Visually there is one thing going for this movie, it was filmed in Paris in 1948 or 1949 – right after World War II ended, and you get the feel the city is still recovering from the recent past. In a way it reminded me of Akira Kurosawa’s films made right after the war – where everything has a raw feel to it. On top of an interesting travel log of Paris, you get some interesting shots all around and inside the Eiffel Tower. With the tower featured in the title you would hope to see it up close and personal. Well never fear, the climax of the film takes place on the famous landmark, and it is actually pretty effective. The rest of the camera work is pretty standard.

Sound effects and music are functional. Once again, 40’s style music ends up blaring a bit too much in places. I give the score a bit of a pass because it doesn’t’ drown out dialogue or anything. The sound effects are pretty standard as well.

I came for the performances by Laughton and Meredith but it was Tone who surprised me. He captures a bi-polar personality really well. One minute he is taunting the inspector and jeering that he has the upper hand. Next minute he’s afraid for his life, or in an even darker place where he doesn’t care if he lives or dies. Tone makes it convincing, even if he does go over the top in places; it seems fitting with the character. He brings an edge to the film, because you believe he is capable of anything at any time. At the same time he does get a bit grating with his holier than thou attitude. But a man like that would get on your nerves, so points for realism!

Laughton seems to be channeling a similar character to the one he used “Witness to the Prosecution” and “Les Miserables”. Not too surprising since both of those characters were guided by law and order, just like his Inspector Maigret is. There are times his stuffy but cunning personality does get a bit abrasive, but it works for the most part. The only downside is that the performance lacks the crackle I’d seen him use before. There are times where Laughton seems tired, and if the stories are true – maybe he was. I also wonder if his take on the character was what the film needed. I almost wish that the role had been a little lower key, more watchful and less blustery.

Meredith is also playing a variant on characters I’ve seen him play before. In this case he’s the sad sack loser who just can’t seem to do anything right. It’s a performance that reminded me of his most famous role from “The Twilight Zone” in “Time Enough at Last”. But by the end of the film, Heurtin has had enough and when he decides to take the law into his hands we get a sense of his desperation and anger.

The rest of the cast does a good job. They are either red herrings, or pieces of the puzzle and most of them perform just fine. I did enjoy the role of the professor who taught Radek and realized that he was unstable. He plays off well with Laughton in his scene.

Actual dialogue in the script isn’t too bad, but sometimes states the obvious or action that we just saw. A bit of trimming would have helped. As to story construction, I’m at a bit of a loss, because if there were directorial problems, I wonder if the script or the directors are to blame for one of the major faults of the film. I’ll mention the issue here, because I wonder if the novel this is based on worked the same way.

The construction of the film is as follows. We meet the nephew and understand he has money problems and a rich aunt. He receives a note telling him that there is a way to take care of the aunt. The aunt is killed and Heurtin is at the scene of the crime, but claims he’s innocent. We see Heurtin in prison and his escape. We then follow the inspector as he tries to catch Heurtin as well as the real killer. The real killer is found but there is no evidence. The rest of the movie has the real killer and the inspector trying to outwit each other. Heurtin is the smoking gun and he comes forward and points the finger at the killer. There’s a big chase. The killer is brought to justice.

This may have worked OK in the book, but for a film the movie switches perspective on us too rapidly. It starts with the nephew, but he is dropped pretty quickly and we settle with Heurtin for a while. Then we’re with the inspector until he meets Radek, and then it seems to switch between the two. This switching ends up changing the type of film we are watching. Is this a mystery? Not really because the killer is revealed about half way through the film. A thriller? Not really because the innocent man, Heurtin, disappears for about a third of the film. Maybe a character study of Radek? Perhaps but the Inspector gets a lot of screen time. Fine then it’s a character study of the inspector. Nope, he doesn’t’ show up till about a third of the way through the film.

Seriously the script is a mess. It really needed a central focus, pick a character to be the main one and follow them. My bet (and my suspicion that the book did this too) would be to use the Inspector as the focus. Start the film with him arriving at the scene of the crime and finding Heurtin. Then follow him as he pieces the crime together and confronts Radek. Then the cat and mouse game between him and Radek would have had a bit more bite. In a way this could have been like a 40’s version of “Seven”, with Laughton taking on the role that Morgan Freeman had and Tone playing John Doe. Instead the messy script never grounds the viewer.

One the directors should have caught that, and done their best to streamline the film, either in the editing room or while filming. But your main problem is that two of your actors are also directing. I wonder if neither wanted to lose some of his performance moments even if they didn’t serve the chosen storyline. Technically the film is directed well enough, but the fact that there is little to no impact to the viewer at the end makes me believe that the ball was dropped.

Still it’s not a horrible effort at all. You’ve got some good performances, an interesting character in Radek and some great scenery to look at (although the washed out dingy print I saw didn’t do it justice). It kept me interested for most of the running time. But by the end, I was getting a bit tired of the cat and mouse game. Tone’s performance was fitting, but it also made his character annoying with his gloating and sneering. You know that the Inspector is going to win, and you just wait for that hammer to fall.

I should also mention the very Hitchcockian chase up the national monument climax. Seriously folks, it looks like they were really climbing up the girders of the Eiffel Tower, and I can imagine it was fun to film. Some rear project ruins the effect at times, but for the most part, it looks genuine. It might even top the similar scene featuring Roger Moore and Grace Jones in “A View to a Kill” in 1985. In the end, “The Man on the Eiffel Tower” isn’t a bad little movie - a good bit of entertainment that could have been a little bit more with some more attention to the script.

Check out James Lileks take on the film here.

Inner Sanctum (1948)

Introduction:

Decided to give this movie a spin because actress Mary Beth Hughes has appeared in a couple Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes and she’s actually pretty good in both of them (I Accuse My Parents, and Last of the Wild Horses). But since this movie was part of the 100 Mystery Classics DVD pack, I kept my expectations low. The other reason I picked this was because I actually have a few “Inner Sanctum” radio shows from the 40’s. And so like movie goers in the 40’s I went in based on name recognition. But can the movie live up to the name?

Summary:

A woman meets a strange man on a train who seems worried about her for some reason. He tells her a story about a man named Harold (Charles Russell) who kills a woman at a train station and tosses her body on a train as it leaves. Unfortunately a young boy named Mike (Dale Belding) sees him at the station. Before Harold can do anything about this, the boy gets away. Harold finds himself trapped in the small town by torrential rains that flood the roads. He takes a room at a boarding house where he meets the lovely but clever Jean (Mary Beth Hughes). Turns out Mike and his mom live there too. Will Harold be able to get away before Mike reveals the murder, Jean gets wise to him, or will Harold have to take matters into his own hands?

Good Points:

• The framing story actually has a clever pay off.
• Mary Beth Hughes is solid in her part.
• Harold’s character is really dark.

Bad Points:

• Charles Russell doesn’t bring much to the part.
• I found the character of Mike to be annoying.
• The movie never generates thrills or mystery, and meanders on its way to the conclusion

Overall: There is actually an interesting story in here, but I think the name “Inner Sanctum” promised more thrills and even a touch of the supernatural. Instead, this is more of a film noir with characters you never really connect to. Harold isn’t a hero, but a dark and disturbed man – or is he. Even the movie cant’ seem to make up its mind. The pacing is too uneven to really enjoy, even if Mary Beth Hughes gives the role her all.

Score (out of 5)

Visual Aspects – 3

Sound Aspects – 3

Acting – 2

Music – 3

Script – 3

Direction – 2

Entertainment – 2

Final Grade: 2

Film Review

If you go into “Inner Sanctum” expecting more of noir film than a thriller, you might enjoy it a bit more than I did. There are a lot of little elements to enjoy, but there are a few glaring issues that just allow the whole thing to fire on all cylinders. Pretty close but no cigar.

Visually this movie is typical noir fare. Lots of shadows play around our characters, especially Harold. The best use of this happens early in the film, when Harold is attacked and kills the woman attacking him. You never get a good look at his face the entire time, and this is especially creepy when he realizes that Mike has seen him at the station and could identify him later. He comes up behind the kid with his face in shadow his hands reaching for Mike’s neck in stark light. A few other good moments in the woods during the climax are well filmed in noir fashion. Nothing really overwhelming, but well done for the movie.

The sound and music are typical for a 40’s film. The sound of the train station and the torrential rain add to the scenes they are used. The music is a bit over the top, but that was the style at the time. Nothing truly remarkable here.

The acting is a mixed bag. Charles Russell has a bit of a tricky part with Harold. The man is obviously a killer, we see him commit the act. However the incident is framed in such a way as to make it look like an accident. So Harold could be frightened and on the run, OK. But when he figures out that Mike can identify him, he attempts to kill the kid – a number of times. Would a desperate but innocent man do that? Maybe one who is a sociopath. It’s an interesting idea. Maybe Harold was just a murderer waiting to happen? In any case Russell never really shows us anything with depth to it. He’s all surface, one minute a killer who is crazed, another a wrong man in a bad spot, in another a bitter man with nothing to lose. It never gels and creates someone compelling enough to watch. It’s a shame because this role is the key to the story, with Russell not working the movie just never recovers.

Not that Mary Beth Hughes doesn’t try. Playing against the type I’ve seen her play (the nice girl in a bad spot, or the spunky cow girl), she’s the world-weary girl with a past. Hughes is pretty enough and uses her eyes to show us that she’s not a dumb blonde. Jean is the first character to figure out what Harold did, and Hughes allows us to see her put the pieces together and figure out how to use it her advantage. She seems to genuinely like Harold (in spite of Russell’s performance), but she also wants to get out of the little town. As I said Hughes does try, but it never quite works for me. Maybe because I’m so used to seeing her as the nice girl in “I Accuse My Parents” that to see her a bit more shady here doesn’t work. In the end I’ll say that her performance is fine, and the fault is more on my side of the coin.

The last performance I’ll mention in particular is Dale Belding as Mike. The character is written in a way that is almost convincing. The lines sound like they’d be perfect for a kid of 9 or 10. But Belding looks to be 13 or 14 and the lines just don’t ring true coming from him. It’s not just the lines, but the whole performance looks like it was supposed to be younger than Belding looks. Maybe Belding just looked older than he was, but the whole time I was annoyed that a kid that old was acting so young. This kept pulling me right out of the movie and since it’s a key role to the story, it also ends up affecting the rest of the film.

The supporting cast does a solid job playing an array of wacky character types. You get drunk old men, a eccentric old newspaper reporter, the protective mom and the wise old woman who runs the boarding house. Most of the roles are to inject a little humor into the darker movie. Some of it works OK, but my tolerance for 40’s style drunken old coot humor is pretty low. Those “comedic” moments fell flat for me.

There is also the two characters of the framing story (the woman on the train and mysterious storyteller). Both do their parts well and sell the twist ending. I thought that the storyteller did a good job of appearing to be slightly off, saying things in a way that just put you on your guard.

Speaking of the framing story in a way the construction of the movie reminds me of one of those hour long episodes of “The Twilight Zone”. It has an interesting premise but it feels padded just a bit too long. As I mentioned the script seems to have a bit of potential. The framing story and the twist are interesting enough. The main story works well if you can settle on how you feel about Harold. And that is the most difficult thing to determine. Was he supposed to be our hero? Was he supposed to be an anti-hero? It’s never defined clearly in the film. Maybe it was in the script, but I have a feeling that the reason the movie feels so odd in places is because it wasn’t defined clearly. Neither Russell or the director Lew Landers seems to have a clear idea.

In the end Landers was the one who had to edit the film, guide the performances and approve of the whole thing. I bet the movie was shot quickly and on a low budget. Fair enough. But at the same time a little bit of guidance for Russell and his approach to the part would have made this a classic B film instead of a forgotten one. But Landers does a good job creating his noir look and keeping the story together. As I mentioned a bit of trimming of the fat and a sharper idea of what kind of movie was being made would have help the pacing issues. The movie starts and stops a lot – mostly with the comic relief scenes stopping the plot. In addition, there is never a real threat, because we never know if we are supposed to be afraid of Harold or hoping he does get away.

Let’s just say I was happy the movie was a short one. I enjoyed certain aspects of it, and it was neat to see Mary Beth Hughes in a different role, but as a whole the movie was pretty dull. I could see what it wanted to be and how it was attempting it, but it just never came together. This is a movie that could be remade into a solid thriller, maybe made for TV, but still a solid one at that.

Check out James Lileks take on the film here.

100 Mystery Classics

Being a fan of movies means that I enjoy watching pretty much anything I can get my hands on. I love good movies, bad movies, new movies and old movies and any combination in between.

My wife knows this and enjoys watching old movies with me so she picked up the 100 Movie Pack of Mystery Classics from Mill Creek. This collection includes all kinds of forgotten flicks from 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. Now most of these films are probably forgotten for a reason, but you never know what kind of nuggets you may find in here.

So I’m going to attempt to review these movies as I watch them. Hopefully it will reveal something interesting to you, and maybe you’ll be curious enough to seek them out for yourself.

Oh and if this pack sounds familiar, it’s because the very funny and talented James Lileks has attempted the same thing here. I don’t think I’ll be as humerous James, but I’ll take the films a little more seriously. Or at least I’ll try.

Enjoy!

Review List

• The Death Kiss - 1932
• He Walked by Night - 1948
• Inner Sanctum - 1948
• The Man on the Eiffel Tower - 1949
• Murder At Midnight - 1931
• Murder with Pictures - 1936
• Mystery Liner - 1934
• Please Murder Me - 1956
• Strange Illusion - 1945
• Study in Scarlet - 1933