TV Movie - Double Indemnity (1973)

Well, you get what you pay for - and in 1973 this one was free on network TV.  What's wrong:

• Its 75 minutes so they could fit in all the commercials. The story gets cut down and compressed.
• Everything looks very ugly. The 70's were the age of ugly and good lord those haircuts, cars, and clothes are absolutely horrible.
• The actors are mediocre and have zero chemistry with each other. Richard Crenna, Samantha Eggar, and Lee J. Cobb aren't bad actors but they are NOT well cast.
• The flat TV color photography makes you yearn for the original's snappy B&W noir look.

Summary:  Double Indemnity? More like 20% Indemnity.  Watching the original and this remake just shows how little the story - by itself - can mean in the movies.  The way you tell it, and who's telling it, can be even more important.  

Unfaithfully Yours (1948)

 Coming from anyone else,  I would've hailed this as a comic masterpiece, but coming from Sturges, I was a little disappointed.  A black comedy about a Conductor who wrongly suspects his wife of infidelity, about Three-fourths of Unfaithfully Yours is as witty as anything Sturges did in Lady Eve or Palm Beach Story.  The cast is great, with lovely Barbara Lawrence, getting all the best lines.  But then there's the other fourth.  We get some dull filler,  some of the worst slapstick I've seen (Rex Harrison is terrible at it), and Rudy Valle is criminally under-used.    

Best lines:

Barbara: You see, some men just naturally make you think of Brut champagne. With others you think of prune juice.
August: Oh, ho!
Barbara: You have nothing to laugh at!

Funniest Sight-gag:   The picture from the "even a child can do it" recording machine instruction manual   

Best Scene:  Alfred's dressing-down of August for siccing a detective on Daphne,

Summary:  All-in-all a good comedy, but not up to the level of  Palm Beach Story or Lady eve.  Uncharacteristically for Sturges, the film has its dull spots, and I'm not sure if Harrison was the best choice* for a screwball comedy.  Its the one Sturges film that could lose 10 minutes**. Best seen on DVD where you can skip around Rating *** 1/2 

* =   Sturges wanted James Mason 

** = Incredibly, this is after  Zanuck cut 20 minutes from the Sturges final edit. 

Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944)

This was Preston Sturges' most successful comedy although not his best.  Its a hilarious movie, but there's a lot more slapstick and situational comedy than wit.  Its extremely well-cast and Hutton, Brackett, and Bill Demarest play their parts to perfection. You'll find it funnier if you know the 1940's obsession with multiple births and its sexual mores and restraints. The film skirts the Hayes Code, and did great box office, being Paramount's most popular film of 1944.

I'd rank it below, Sullivan's travels, Palm beach story, Lady Eve,  and Christmas in July.  And just above Great McGinty, Hail the Conquering Hero and Unfaithfully yours.  James Agee loved the film but weirdly accuses Sturges of having contempt for the audience and his characters. 

Funniest Line:  Hitler - "I demand a Recount".

2nd Funniest Line:  “Listen, Zipper-puss! Some day they’re just gonna find your hair ribbon and an axe someplace. Nothing else! The Mystery of Morgan’s Creek!”

Best Running Gag:  Demarest keeps trying to kick his daughter and falls on his behind

Best Scene:  Trudi attends a series of wild parties and hits her head on a Chandelier.  I would love to have been at that GI wingding  

Summary: This is lower-tier Preston Sturges comedy,  but that means its still better than 90% of everyone else.  I found it very enjoyable, and loved the small town characters and wartime setting. Its best if you have some knowledge of the 1940s and can get into the spirit of that era. Rating *** 1/2

Double Indemnity - Movie vs. Novel - Part 2

Just a follow-on to my previous post. Double Indemnity was written by James Cain - who also wrote "The Postman rings twice".  DI basically has the same story, just bottled differently. Instead of the fall guy being a handsome drifter, he's an insurance salesman.  The femme fatale is a housewife instead of a waitress, and the murdered husband is an Oil executive and not a Greek restaurant owner.  Cain's novel is only 115 pages and Cain leaves out everything extraneous to the crime story:  Characterization, atmosphere, motivation, and social commentary. There's no wit and no memorable lines.  

We start with Neff meeting Phyliss and end with their deaths.  Every character is described in one or two sentences.  We get the following descriptions:

• The husband is bulky, middle aged man with glasses.  
• Phyllis is small blonde who fills out a sweater.  
• Lola is pretty and young. 
• The President is young man in an expensive suit.
• Keyes is middle-aged and running to fat.

 Nothing physical is described in detail.  Phyllis' house is "Spanish Style" with "Red drapes". Neff has a fireplace and bungalow.   The Pacific Risk office gets no description.  And we only learn Neff's thoughts and feelings - and no one else.  The novel is an easy read.  It has some twists and turns that would've surprised me if I didn't already know the story. Caine writes in a concise manner with zero fat.  Its NOT great writing but it keeps you interested. 

Here are the main differences between the novel and movie:

1) Memorable Dialogue

People love the script for all the great hardboiled lines. Like:

Neff: Know why you couldn't figure this one, Keyes? I'll tell you. 'Cause the guy you were looking for was too close. Right across the desk from you.
Keyes: Closer than that, Walter.
Neff: I love you, too.

But none of that is in the novel.  

Its all from Chandler, or the great bulk of it.  Why do I say that? Because I've seen Blue Dahlia (written by Chandler) and read all his novels, and all the hardboiled dialogue in Double Indemnity sounds exactly like Chandler.  Certainly, it doesn't sound like Wilder, who never wrote hardboiled scripts.  There's not much dialogue in the novel, and its straight-forward, concise and to the point.  There's nothing wrong with it - its just not funny, witty, or memorable.  IOW, its not Chandler.

2)The Framing Device and Ending

Starting the movie with Neff being shot and narrating the story in flashbacks was a stroke of genius. It  allows Neff to get off a lot of great Chandler lines, and gives us the story and characters in the first five minutes.  The novel is straight chronological narrative.  The movie also has a much better ending.  Will Neff live? And if he survives his wound, will he die in the Gas Chamber? We don't know.  Its left open.  A great ending.  

By contrast, the novel's ending is absurd. 

Phyllis and Walter commit suicide by jumping off a Boat bound for Mexico.  The idea these cold-blooded killers would commit suicide is unbelievable. Even worse is the notion that Keyes would let them escape to Mexico to avoid "Bad Publicity".  Hello? Is the company going to get GOOD publicity when the police get ahold of Neff's confession? Are they going to get good publicity if they're caught in Mexico and brought to trial anyway? 

3) Phyllis and Walter made more likable

Of course, having likable actors like Stanwyck and MacMurray does the trick without changing a word of Cain's novel, but Chandler/wilder make other adjustments.  For example, in the movie (but not in the novel) the husband is described as a mean drunk who hits Phyllis and refuses to give her a divorce.  He's later shown  drinking and bad mannered, which gives support. And in the novel,  its Neff who suggests they kill the husband, and he does it without any prompting.  Finally, in the novel, Phyllis doesn't rebuff Neff's advances at first.  Instead, she has sex with him right away, and has sex several more times, before she declares her love and agrees with Neff to murder the husband. 

4) The Expanded Roles for Keyes and Phyllis 

In the book, Phyllis more or less disappears after the murder (which is at page 55).  This makes sense, since Neff and Phyllis don't want to be seen together until Phyllis gets the insurance money.  Their only contact occurs via telephone calls.  Cain focuses in on Lola in the 2nd half and Neff falls in love with her.  Wilder vastly reduces the Lola role, eliminates Neff falling in love, and adds meetings between Phyllis and Neff.  He also gives Phyllis/Neff the climatic scene where she's killed.

The same is true of Keyes and EG Robinson.

Almost all of Robinson's lines and the business with the cigar/matches were added by Chandler/wilder.  Almost all the banter/Friendship between Keyes and Neff is not in the novel. Wilder adds the following scenes for Robinson:  the ending, the job offer to Neff, the interrogation of the man from Medford,  the brow-beating of the truck driver, the visit to Neff's apartment, and the discussion outside the cigar stand. 

Double Indemnity (1944) Movie vs. Novel

 

Double Indemnity – The Film	The Novel  by James Cain
We see Walter Neff arrive at the Pacific Risk Insurance Company. Sitting down in his office chair, he takes off his coat, reveling a bloody chest wound, and starts dictating. “I killed a man for money and a woman. But I didn’t get the money and I didn’t get the woman…”	Not in the novel, which starts with Huff (aka Neff) arriving at Phyllis’ house to renew the Husband’s auto policy.  The flashback narrative allows the film to compress the novel’s plot into 100 minutes.
The narration continues. We flashback to Neff arriving at an expensive LA Home. He meets Phyllis (Barbara Stanwyck). They talk about auto insurance. Attracted - he hits on her. They engage in some witty by-play (“There’s a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff.”)  He leaves, but remembers the smell of honeysuckle as he drives away.	Similar. But in the book, Phyllis mentions accident insurance right off the bat. She gives Huff a “sidelong glance” then asks if could talk to her husband.  There is no memorable dialogue.
Neff goes back to the office and meets Keyes, the Claims investigator and his best friend at the office. Keyes brow-beats a Truck driver into admitting his claim is a phony. Afterwards, they engage in some banter about Keyes’ past loves.	Similar. Huff goes back to the office and Keyes “Beefs” to him about the Phony Truck claim.   We never meet the truck driver.  Wilder wanted to expand EG Robinson’s Role
Phyllis leaves a message for Neff to call on her again.  He arrives, and she brings up accident insurance. He gets upset, accuses her of wanting to kill her husband for insurance money, and leaves. Later that night, at his Apartment, Phyllis calls on him. She tells Neff she loves him and that her husband is a mean drunk who slaps her around.  They agree to murder the husband.	Different in the book.  Huff and Phyllis discuss accident insurance and have sex. Later that night, she shows up at his house. Huff accuses her wanting to kill her husband.  She walks out.  The following night, she shows up again. They have sex, she says she loves Neff, and he suggests they kill her husband for money.  She agrees. There is no suggestion the husband mistreats her.
Neff shows up at Phyllis’ House and gets the Husband to sign the accident policy without suspecting. He meets Lola, the step-daughter, and drives her to a secret meeting with her boyfriend Nino Zachetti.	The same. Except Huff has to be tricked into writing another check for a policy that includes accident insurance.  Huff meets the husband several times to accomplish this.
Neff goes back to the office, where Keyes offers him a Job. Neff declines. Time passes. Phyllis and Neff plan to kill the husband when he goes by Train to Palo Alto.	The Keyes-Neff meeting/job offer is not in the Novel.  Otherwise, the same.  Again, this added to expand EG Robinson’s role
Neff Hides in the back Seat and kills the Husband before they get to the train station. Neff boards the train disguised as the husband and then drops off the train at the designated spot. Phyllis and Neff then drag the corpse to the RR tracks and leave. But when they try to drive away, the car won’t start. After several tries, the car ignition finally works and they drive away.	Directly from the novel. Except, there is no problem starting the car.
Time passes. Neff and Keyes meet with the President. He doesn’t want to pay the claim and Phyllis is brought in.  The President says it was suicide and suggests they settle the claim for less than $50,000. Phyllis cries and storms out. Keyes details all the reasons it couldn’t be suicide and says they’ll have to pay through the nose.	Different in the novel. There’s no Phyllis – just the 3 men. The president suggests suicide to Neff and Keyes, who shoots it down. The dialogue about “a million cases of suicide and not one from jumping off a train going 15 MPH” is directly from the book. Keyes then says it was murder but has no proof. He suggests they deny her claim. But the President decides they’ll pay up.
Phyllis goes to Neff’s apartment, and is about to enter when Keyes shows up.  She ducks in a hallway and Keyes misses her. Keyes then tells Neff it was murder not suicide. The Husband was never on the train. After Keyes leaves, Neff and Phyllis agree to not see each other for a while.	In the book there is no Huff Apartment meeting with Phyllis or Keyes, just another office meeting with the 3 men.  Keyes says its murder & that the Husband was never on the train. He says the company will force Phyllis to sue, and meanwhile shadow her and identify the accomplice.
Lola shows up at Neff’s office. She suspects Phyllis of killing her father, and tells to story of Phyllis killing her mother. She wants to tell everything at the trial. Neff take her out in order to keep tabs on her.	As in the novel, but this occurs later.
Keyes invites Neff to the office to see the Man on the Train from Medford Oregon, Neff is petrified the man will recognize him – but he doesn’t. However,  the Medford man confirms the Husband was NOT the man on the train.  Keyes declares this proves Phyllis had someone kill the husband and he’ll “throw the claim right in their face” The two killers are stuck with each other. They’re both on a trolley-ride & the end of the line is the Cemetery	This is not in the novel. Instead, Neff reads a Keyes memo stating a witness will testify that the man on the train was not the Husband, The movie scene is much better: Suspenseful and full of Chandler-like Dialogue
Neff and Phyllis meet at a drugstore. She tells him not to get soft, Keyes has nothing and she will file the claim. This makes Neff decide to kill Phyllis, Time passes. He talks to Lola again. He learns Zachetti  is seeing Phyllis now.  Later, he talks to Keyes who tells him they’ve found the “other someone” who helped Phyllis. Neff goes to Keyes’ office and finds Zachetti is the “other someone”.  Neff calls Phyllis and says he’ll be at her house around 11 PM.	Different in the book. Phyllis calls Huff. He tells her to submit the claim but warns her Pacific Risk won’t pay.  Time passes. Lola comes to the office and tells Huff, she thinks Phyllis killed her father, and also her mother. Huff goes out with Lola and finds out that Sachetti is romancing Phyllis. Huff discovers he’s in love with Lola  More time passes. Phyllis files the claim and the company denies it.  She gets advice from Huff via the Telephone. Neff goes out with Lola, who declares she’ll tell all she knows in court. Huff decides he’s been played for a sucker and has to kill Phyllis and frame Sachetti.
Neff shows up at the House. All the lights are off. Neff tells Phyllis he’s getting off the trolley - he’s going to kill her.  Phyllis tells Neff she’s been making Zachetti jealous so he’ll kill Lola.  Phyllis then shoots Neff but can’t fire a 2nd shot.  She realizes she loves him. Neff takes the gun and kills her.  Later, Neff tells Zachetti to beat it before the cops come.	Not in the novel.  Instead, Huff plans to lure Phyllis to Griffith park, put her in Sachetti’s car, & push it over a cliff.  Arriving at the park around Midnight, Huff is shot in the back. Waking up in the Hospital, he finds Sachetti and Lola have been arrested for his shooting. Also, that Keyes wants to charge Sachetti with the Husband’s murder. To save Lola, Huff confesses.
We flash-forward to a wounded Neff finishing his dictation. Keyes is peering over his shoulder, he’s heard everything.  Neff asks for a 3 hour head start to get to Mexico, but Keyes says he’ll never make the elevator.  Neff walks out to the hallway and collapses.  Keyes calls for an ambulance and the police.  The two men exchange words of friendship.  But Neff is “all washed up”.  The END.	Not in the Novel. Here, Keyes convinces the police to set Lola and Sachetti free. Then, Keyes and Huff make a deal. In order to avoid bad publicity, Huff will provide a written confession. In exchange, Huff will be allowed to board a ship bound for Mexico.  Later, at sea, Huff meets Phyllis. They commit suicide by jumping off the ship into a pack of circling sharks.

Casino Royale (1967)

A big budget spoof of James Bond, full of beautiful expensive sets, beautiful expensive (one assumes) women, and a truck load of stars including: Peter Sellers, William Holden, John Huston, Woody Allen, David Nivens, Ursula Andrews, Barbara Bouchet, Orson Welles, Deborah Kerr, and Joanna Pettet.   The only things missing are wit, humor and a plot. Its just a string of self-contained stories and scenes that don't add up to a coherent story. Further, Casino Royale runs out of gas after 100 minutes.  It seems *much* longer than the 130 minute run time. 

Despite Bad Reviews - it was a massive hit in 1967.  

You can understand why. In an age of B&W TV's and serious Bond films,  this spectacular, big screen comedy-satire, with all that $$ up on the screen, must have hit the spot. Today, it has an IMDB rating of 5.1, and sadly that's about right.  We've lived through the self-spoofing Roger Moore films,  along with Austin Powers, and a million others, so Casino Royale's satire is weak tea.  And while the producers used a dozen writers, none of them came up with anything very funny.   I did smile and occasionally chuckle. That's it.

Comments on the Actors

Given the lack of a story, my focus was on the actors.  Here are my ratings:

Peter Sellers - Horrible.  He's technically the lead, and he was VERY popular in 1967.  However, he's colorless and boring. Sellers was only good when he played characters, almost impersonations. Here he's plays it straight and Sellers is very tiresome. 

Woody Allen -  Below Average. This is the young Woody Allen (he was only 32) playing his whiny, cowardly, New York Schimel character full throttle.   I like woody in many of his films, before he got too old, but not here. He's over-the-top, and his lines aren't very good. 

Orson Welles - Despite his great bulk, he's still facially handsome, and exudes bigness and power, as opposed of the gross fatness he would display in the early 1970s. The difference between age 50 and age 55, I assume. While not funny, he comes off well.

William Holden/John Huston - Good. Bit parts that they do professionally.

David Niven - Good. Getting along in years, he's the old pro and does well what he's asked to do.

The women - Good. I've lumped them all together, because they all look beautiful and play their parts as well as they can. Andrews is a little wooden, but nobody thought she was a great actress. Joanna Pettet comes off the best, since she's in the funniest scenes (SMERSH training center -Berlin).

Summary:  Unless you LOVE spy spoofs or one of the actors, I'd skip it.  It has NOT aged well.  Rating **

Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)

 Disappointing Sherlock Holmes movie directed by Billy Wilder.  Ponderous, too long, unfunny, and badly cast.  Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely may have been very good actors, but they are unremarkable as Holmes and Watson, and have little chemistry together.  Perhaps if the script had been better, they would've been more engaging**.  There are two ways to handle Dr. Watson.  You can show him, as the books do, as a brave capable man who simply isn't a genius like Holmes (Cf. Robert Duvall).  Or you can  make him a lovable bumbler (cf: Nigel Bruce).  Wilder does neither and turns Watson into an unfunny joke.  Leaving that aside, There's not much I liked about the movie. It does have some very good sets, I suppose they cost a pretty penny.  

Summary: Private Life of Sherlock Holmes shows how dependent Wilder was on Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau after Some Like it Hot.  Without those two,  singly or together, his movies sunk into mediocrity.  He probably should have retired after The Fortune Cookie.  Rating **

 ** =  The script is an original by Diamond and Wilder and they were definitely hit or miss. Wilder was always better at adopting someone else's work.  People forget that Irma La Douce,  One, two, three, and Some like it Hot, are all adaptations of European plays and films. 

The Other Side of the Wind (2018)

 Well, I'm glad I've seen it.  Congratulations to Netflix for making it possible. 

From reading a history of the film, Welles' wasn't trying to make a masterpiece, but an interesting, low-budget movie that would turn a modest profit and lead to bigger things.  So, I wasn't expecting another Citizen Kane or for OSOTW to knock my socks off.  And it didn't. but there are some brilliant scenes, some interesting scenes, and some not so brilliant scenes. Sadly, it just doesn't cohere as story. It feels, despite its 2 hour length,  like an unfinished film without dynamic characters or a plot. Like others have written, I suppose Welles' would've shot more scenes and/or edited the movie down to 90-100 minutes. 

As is, the film has no emotional Hook.  Was it to be a black comedy or satire? Maybe that would've become more clear, if Welles could've completed it.  As for the acting: Huston is good, but just plays John Huston. Everyone else is good in the parts they are given, but you can tell they aren't playing off each other and/or are improvising. 

Summary: I'm reminded of the Hollywood executive who cabled the studio "We've got 4 million dollars of film, and no movie". Here, we have a collection of scenes - some of them very good - but no real story or engaging characters.  Could Welles have done something with it? Probably. Recommended for anyone interested in Orson Welles Rating ***

Book Review - Orson Welles' Last Movie

This book is the story of the "The Other side of the Wind" released in 2018.  Originally started by Welles on a shoe-string budget in 1970, the shooting was completed by 1975, and needed nothing more than some editing and cutting, but Welles ran into roadblocks in finishing the film.  And legal disputes, after his death, tied the film up for almost 30 years.

The author tries to be fair to everyone concerned in this absurdly delayed film, including Welles,  the Iranian financiers, and Welles heirs. Unlike some other authors, and Welles himself, he makes it clear that the failure to complete the film prior to Welles' death in 1985, wasn't just due to "bad luck" or those "terrible Iranians",  but mostly due to Welles himself.  

By 1975, the shooting was complete, and over $1 million spent.  Quite reasonably, The Iranians wanted Welles to provide a budget and due date to complete the editing. And... Welles refused. Instead, Orson asked for even more money. Frustrated, the Iranians had a CPA firm audit the film's finances and found only 40% of the money spent could be traced to the film.  The remaining 60% had either been embezzled by a 3rd party or wasted by Welles.  This made them even more reluctant to give Welles additional money without a firm due date and a NTE Budget.

From then, till his death, Welles continued to play a strange game. He would ask 3rd parties for money  to complete the film.  And then just as he was about to receive enough $$, Welles would demand even MORE money, or skip requested meetings with investors, or refuse to sign a contract to finalize the deal.  As a result, the funding would fall through, and nothing was done.

You get the feeling, that Welles thought - by the late 1970s - he could simply outlast and outlive everyone else,  and complete the film on his own terms with 100% ownership.  But, of course, that didn't happen. He died un-expectantly in 1985. 

If, like me, you've read about Welles' previous films its "Deja Vu, all over again".  Welles had a life-long habit of starting films and then not completing them. Or finishing them late, and upsetting his backers. What was behind it?  Boredom at the Editing process? Realization that the films wouldn't be a masterpiece?  A desire to make the film perfect, and do an endless number of "corrections"? Who knows? 

Anyway, its a well-written, short book, about a fascinating time in a fascinating man's life.