by Allan Fish
(USA 1951 111m) DVD1
Aka. The Big Carnival
The Leo Minosa Rescue Fund
p/d Billy Wilder w/story Billy Wilder, Lesser Samuels, Walter Newman ph Charles Lang Jnr ed Arthur Schmidt, Doane Harrison m Hugo Friedhofer art Hal Pereira, Earl Hedrick
Kirk Douglas (Charles “Chuck” Tatum), Jan Sterling (Lorraine Minosa), Porter Hall (Jacob Q.Boot), Robert Arthur (Herbie Cook), Richard Benedict (Leo Minosa), Ray Teal (Sheriff Gus Kretzer), Frank Cady (Mr Federber), Lewis Martin (McCardle), John Berks (Papa Minosa), Frances Dominguez (Mama Minosa),
Considering that Billy Wilder is commonly and quite rightly regarded as one of Hollywood’s all-time great directors it is quite surprising that one of his masterpieces seems never to be acknowledged as such. By not being acknowledged I am not talking about how it is viewed in film guides and magazines, who invariably give it the highest marks, but in terms of when people come to discuss Wilder’s greatest film. You will get votes for Double Indemnity, for Some Like it Hot, for Sunset Boulevard, for The Apartment and even for The Lost Weekend, but you will very rarely – if indeed ever- see any votes for Ace in the Hole.
Of course this could be down to many people only knowing it under its alternative title, but I think in many ways it is suffering from the media backlash it received upon its release and which not only hampered its commercial chances irreparably but also its reputation. Did Wilder believe that after performing a cynical autopsy on Hollywood in Sunset Boulevard that all media was fair game? Was Wilder being naïve? Possibly. But if so it was the sort of naïveté from which greatness flows.
The story concerns cynical former hotshot big city reporter Chuck Tatum, who comes to a small mid west town, gets a job at a local rag to make ends meet but then sees his big chance for a return to a big city paper when a cave-in traps a man inside under a hill. He is told by all those in the know that getting him out will be easy, but Tatum coerces the corrupt local sheriff into getting the emergency crews to take a longer route to get their man, to give enough time for Tatum to whip up media frenzy. However, when complications ensue and the trapped man comes close to death, it becomes a race against time to get to him.
Such a story was always going to run into trouble as the printed media are happy to see other media forms such as Hollywood and the theatre (in Mankiewicz’s All About Eve) torn apart, but not their own. Hence the film was a failure, but in this humble reviewer’s opinion it is arguably Wilder’s greatest film because it is pure Wilder cynicism (the only director more cynical than Wilder was Clouzot), undiluted and still as fresh and potent today as it was then. Though the direction and script are splendidly sharp, it’s the performances that make the thing; Porter Hall and Ray Teal give telling support, but Kirk Douglas is simply sensational in what for me is his greatest role. His Chuck Tatum is charismatic in his repulsiveness, his catchphrases and quotes the stuff of legend. Forever trying to present an image of a hardboiled newspaperman in the Lee Tracy and Ned Sparks tradition, he’s actually a past-it loser in search of a last hurrah, feverishly gripping his big story like Richie McCaw refusing to let go of the ball in the ruck or maul. In the end, though, it all backfires on him as the trapped man succumbs, thus making him effectively guilty of manslaughter. There is no more fitting end in movie history than Douglas, stabbed with scissors by Jan Sterling, staggering to his boss and exclaiming “I’m a thousand dollar a day newspaperman, Mr Boot. You can have me for nothing“, at which he falls into the camera, dead. But we’ll leave the final words to Douglas himself, “the unfavourable reviews of this movie about an unscrupulous newspaper reporter were written by newspaper reporters. Critics love to criticise but don’t like being criticised. Also, Billy Wilder was saying to Mr and Mrs Average, “this is you, the people who stop and stare at accidents.”" Spot on!
Ace in the Hole is a savage critique not only of a corrupted but also corrupting modern mass media. Only the poor trapped man, his inconsolable parents, and the owner of the small town newspaper, have any true decency. Everyone else, is either corrupt or corruptible, if not downright stupid or plain evil – the trapped man’s floozy of a wife included, and Tatum’s naive young photographer is easily seduced by the reporter’s phony charisma. The corrupt sheriff who actively conspires with Tatum, even after he is told the poor trapped man is doomed, wants to use this turn of events to his political advantage.
The power of this film resonates today, when countries go to war on manufactured evidence and manipulative spin. Innocent lives are as expendable today as they always have been in the cause of political ambition and warped ideological agendas: a world where the spin doctor rules.
Brilliant statement there Tony, but your full review here at FilmsNoir.net is very much a vital read:
http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/ace-in-the-hole-1952-the-media-circus.html
Yes, it is – take mine as the hors d’ouevre – follow the link above to the main course. Kaleem has already provided the dessert…too rich for some, but fascinating nonetheless…
I saw it years ago and I think I’ve worked out why ‘Ace in the Hole’ has never achieved the acclaim of the Wilder’s three other greats dramas ‘Double Indemnity’, ‘The Lost Weekend’ and ‘Sunset Boulevard’ for me and audiences in general.
All four of these films feature a protagonist who went against the typical Hollywood lead character; they were cynical, rude, unsympathetic, smart, selfish go-getters – sometimes for money, a woman and a dream. Searching for the great big break and on the try making it. They had a flaw in their make-up that would bring them down – Walter Neff’s smart-aleck smarmy self-confidence, Don Birnam’s lack of life experience thawarting his ability to put something down on paper and Joe Gillis’ deception but latent sympathy for Swanson. They are Greek Tragedies awaiting to happen on Edward Hopper landscapes.
And the reason I think we FEEL something for them – heels though they may be – apart from them being played by Fred MacMurray, Ray Milland and William Holden, leadng men with a touch of charisma, likability and affability.
They are surrounded by a support structure, as we all are – of friends and family and collegues who to some extent shape out identities and perceptions of who we are and give meaning, especially in films.
Walter Neff has Barton Keyes, Lola Dietrichson to allow us to see his potential make his tragedy
palpable.
Don Birnam has his brother Wick, his girl Helen St James, Nat the barman who believe in him.
Joe Gillis has Betty Schaefer and to some extent Swanson has Strohiem’s Max von Mayerling.
Even in ‘The Aparment’ Lemmon has Shirley MacLaine, and his exasperated neighbours.
Which brings me to ‘Ace in the Hole’. It lacks that support structure. Porter Hall’s newspaper editor Boot is underdevloped and has nothing like the relationship Barton Keyes had with Walter Neff, Robert Arthur’s junior reporter Herbie Cook idolising Douglas, is insufficent and unmemorable. Which leaves the attractive wife, whose trampish behaviour (‘I don’t go to Church, praying bags my nylons’) makes Douglas an even more of a heel. Had she been played sympathically it might have been different. Only the victim is sympathetic and touching.
Their are no channels for sympathy, no avenues for carthesis. What this means is that audiences simply don’t care for him after two hours. And probably felt slightly sullied.
I think, for once Wilder got the plumbing wrong.
Maybe jettisoning Charlie Brackett didn’t help. Though, on ‘Double Indemnity’ that had no effect.
Though I’m a huge admirer of Kirk Douglas, and his performance is up to his usual high standards, as forceful as a slap in the face – but it’s pretty narrow in it’s range as written, which doesn’t help.
Yes, there were conservative papers in that most conservative of times who bridled against attacks against the bastions of the elite’s control, but it’s that lack of human feeling that killed it’s chances. And it’s the reason for which it has never found an audience. It’s great for critics, who can see the meanings and critique of a mob’s herd mentality. A thinker’s picture.
Nor do I remember Hugo Friedhofer score. It’s completely invisible. The cinematography by Charles B. Lang Jr. is good but not exception by his standards (The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, A Foreign Affair, Some Like It Hot, Charade, 1932′s A Farewell to Arms).
It lacks the visual/aural elan of Miklós Rózsa/Waxman/John F. Seitz collaborations or of later classics.
Even the superb visual flourishes that Wilder usually pretended to disdain but are in all his great works, beautifully spaced, are genrally missing. Except for the ending, when Douglas collapses into the low-angled camera.
Typically Wilder would soon be back to form.
Excellent comment, bobby, but I can’t really agree, it’s the complete lack of a soul or redemption that makes it so great. The happy ending spoiled TLW, and though it worked in TA, it didn’t ring true. AITH is pitch black. No, the main reason it hasn’t got the reputation is that it was unavailable for donkey’s years, only rarely on US TV, never on VHS or DVD. In the UK it played regularly on TV, hence I have known of its greatness for nearly 20 years, but if you can’t see it, youc an’t comment on it. DI and SB were just there, freely available and commented upon. It’s the same reason Lubitsch was feted fro Ninotchka, Shop Around the Corner and Heaven Can Wait in recent decades. Excellent film, but only commented upon because the true Lubitschs from 1927-34 weren’t available.
I’ve known alcoholics all my life. A promise by them isn’t worth a pot of piss. So, as Wilder once said to an interviewer – who’s to say he won’t go on another bender. By having a tinge of hope, it made Wilder’s film all the more human. Anyway, who is to say that he wouldn’t set tp the local chapter of Alcoholics Anon.
In a brilliant book called ‘Change or Die’ the author goes to explain that the three things that we think would change people’s behaviour, namely Facts, Fear and force never do in 90 to 95% of people – even if their life depends upon it. And then he cites the three things that do. The first is a spark of hope or inspiration……
The Apartment works because the whole aim of the movie is melt Shirely McLaine’s heart towards, she get what she always wanted (MacMurray) and it didn’t ring true, whilest Lemmon innate, genuine likability shorn through. The worm turns and give up the whole of his worldly ambitions for her. Often a female fantasy.
‘Ace in the Hole’ is simply not as emotionally (script) and directorially engaging.
And musically and visually, it lacks the spleandors of ’40s and late ’50s, early ’60s works.
I agree that it’s not being availble as a factor, but even if it had been shown as much as ‘The Wizard of Oz’ – I don’t think it would engage.
Wilder himself said that he fely that hhis audience expected a cocktail and they got vineagar. I’d say it was acid.
There are a group of critics that think that George Bailey should have commited suicide and anything else was a cop-out. I’m not in that camp, though I do think a feel should be true, but if director sets up that more than one resolution to the ending and the frame-work is there, it belongs. There are other films, such as ‘Red River’, ‘The Searchers’ which don’t carry on through the central threat and could be seen as wanting. Enternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ in that regard seems to have a studio imposed happy ending.
The original ending, regarded by Wilder as one of the two most powerful scenes he’s ever directed was too strong, caused an imbalance in the film and he redid it with a end far more lyrically poetic.
I am completely and utterly floored by the brilliance of Bobby J.s comments at this site. I am between classes now at school, and have just read this submission and the one under THE SEARCHERS. As soon as I am free at 12:45 P.M. today I will dive in. You sire, are the consumate scholar par excellence.
As is R.D. You people deserve a salary for this.
It’s great writing, Sam, it’s just that I see him as utterly wrong. Nothing wrong with acid, not every film needs to have emotional resonance, many of the great works don’t. Or perhaps you just need to be a cyn ic to see AITH as the flat out masterpiec e it is, and cynical only goes some way to describing my view of this stinking world. For cynics, it’s a masterpiece, for those wanting hope…watch schmaltz…leave us the reality…
I also am tremendously impressed with the quality and detail of Bobby J’s analysis and his comparison of “Ace” to Wilder’s masterpieces. I am already on record here as to my feelings about “Ace” (in my comments on “Sunset Blvd.”), so I won’t repeat myself. I thought one of the most interesting things Bobby said was that “Ace” is “great for critics [because]…it’s a thinker’s picture.” This is an issue I come up against constantly. Wilder beats the viewer over the head with his one obvious theme over and over, and the nature of that theme–the way it resonates with critics–and its unmistakability give writers a lot to grab on to and run with. But just because a picture is easy to write about doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good movie, just that it’s a good subject for writing. I think that may in part explain why “Ace” is to my mind so overrated by critics: they are sympathetic to its theme and find it makes a good topic for writing.
While I like movies with strong themes, I look for other elements too, like something to draw the viewer in emotionally and encourage a compelling interest in the characters (with both their strengths and flaws) and what happens to them. (That’s why I found Bobby’s reference to Greek tragedy so apposite.) I just don’t connect with “Ace” on that level at all. I don’t demand that characters be likable, just that they give me something to make me care about them. And I have nothing against cynicism. Almost all the movie sand literature I consider truly great are to some degree cynical. It’s just that I find the cynicism in “Ace” to be of the contrived and strictly intellectual variety; for cynicism to work for me, it has to grow out of the human elements of the story, not be imposed on it in such a didactic fashion as Wilder does here. This is an issue I am facing as I work on my top-25 of the 50′s list. The movies that end up on it are going to have a balance of intellectual appeal and dramatic/emotional appeal. The films that are largely “thinkers’ pictures” are the ones that aren’t going to make it from the short list to the final list.
To All Wonders in the Dark readers and commenters:
As a breather from this thrilling discourse, I urge you all to check out R. D. Finch’s absolutely magnificent treatment of Rene Clair (specifically his masterpieces LE MILLION and A NOUS A LIBERTE) at his The Movie Projector site.
I assure you, it’s ravishing stuff!!!
Here’s the link:
http://www.movieprojector.blogspot.com/
This was my #1 film in the 50′s poll, as everyone can read in the thread “Movies of the 50′s” As a follow-up to the quintessential Wilder film, ‘Sunset Boulevard’, ‘Ace’ works well as a companion piece. But the message is also more poignant and universal than in ‘Sunset’. ‘Ace’ is all about greed and hubris. This is fairly obvious but what strikes me the most is the incredible visual symbolism of such themes (the constant tightening of the hole in the cave throughout the film and the ‘headline’ in the closing shot of the film). For a script that was uncompleted before Wilder finished shooting, the story is well structured and thematically consistent.
Sam, thanks for the plug! When I look in the mirror now, I can barely see the traces of egg on my face left from that first comment about “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” I left.
R.D. That was nothing at all! Allan has been credited with stuff I’ve written and I’ve been credited with stuff he’s written! In fact two weeks ago I received credit for one of his countdown entries. It happens all the time here.
But, even when I go into high gear, Allan is ready to post everyday. He’s a touch act to follow!
I sec0nd R.D. comments..
Also, in my haste, the comment above should have read:
“The original ending, regarded by Wilder as one of the two most powerful scenes he’s ever directed was too strong, caused an imbalance in the film and he redid it with a end far more lyrically poetic.” referred to ‘Double Indemnity’
Allan is right: Bobby J and RD are totally wrong. They are waxing eloquent about their own personal expectations and reactions, not to the strength of AITH as a cinematic work.
Wilder’s cynicism is essentially still provocative and based firmly in reality. The sickening debacle of the weapons of mass destruction deception, the success of Fox News, and the behaviour of AIG executives, are clear contemporary testimony to Wilder’s un-blinkered outlook.
I can’t agree with most of Bobby J’s and RD’s analyses:
1. The protagonists in the four movies cited are typical noir protagonists and while each is in a unique and not directly comparable situation, they are like real people with their own contradictions and ambivalence. Tatum and Birnam are loser’s but their predicaments are totally different. Neff is suave, good at his job, settled in the comfortable middle-class, but alone. Gillis is failing at being a writer, but is given a chance to remake his life. Only Tatum and Gillis are tragic figures. Birnam has a chance for a new life, and Neff chose his fate “right to the end of the line”. Neff is not a smart-aleck, he has too great a self-awareness and a deep respect and developing affection for Keyes. Birnam is not inexperienced he is simply an alcoholic, and the cause of his addiction is by the way. Gillis does not deceive anyone. He is complicit with Norma in her delusions but not to the point of self-abnegation, and despite Norma’s wishes rightly refuses the role of loyal factotum adopted by Max. As an aside, Dennis Hopper’s streetscapes are statements of urban alienation and don’t necessarily fit these scenarios.
2. The defining commonality of these four men is their aloneness – their very lack of or rejection of supportive relationships. Only Birnam and Gillis
get a shot at redemption by turning to those who love them. Neff and Tatum have no-one.
3. The Apartment is one of Wilder’s weakest films and not at all comparable in theme to AITH and the others.
4. Tatum is fully drawn. He is brash but initially likable, understandably unhappy with his being marooned on small town paper, and itching for his
return to the big time. His tragedy is that his redemption is too late to save the poor trapped man. The editor Boot is an important but peripheral
character, and is sufficiently drawn for his dramatic purpose. The clutching trampish wife is the seed of Tatum’s tragedy: she brought out the
worst in him. A decent woman could have appealed to his higher self for a totally different outcome. But then again Tatum is indifferent to the
suffering parents, who are as sympathetic and touching as their trapped son. The young photographer is highly effective in reinforcing the shallowness of Tatum’s charisma.
5. The role of Tatum would be a major challenge for even the greatest actor, and Douglas is superb – period!
6. The original ending for DI was on the contrary far more lyrical and damning than the (studio-imposed?) truncation. James Naremore has discussed this in a penetrating essay, which I discuss in detail here: http://filmsnoir.net/films/double-indemnity-the-unseen-ending.html.
7. With respect RD’s statement:
“It’s just that I find the cynicism in “Ace” to be of the contrived and strictly intellectual variety; for cynicism to work for me, it has to grow out of the human elements of the story, not be imposed on it in such a didactic fashion as Wilder does here. This is an issue I am facing as I work on my top-25 of the 50′s list. The movies that end up on it are going to have a balance of intellectual! appeal and dramatic/emotional appeal. The films that are largely “thinkers’ pictures” are the ones that aren’t going to make it from the short list to the final list.”
is hokum. As I said earlier Wilder’s cynicism is palpably grounded in reality, and there is nothing contrived or intellectual about AITH, the whole
story and it’s tragic realisation grow out of human actions we can see played out daily in our own lives. As for “thinkers’ pictures”, if a film doesn’t
make you think, what is the point of talking about cinema as art, and of spending so many hours writing about it. Already too many films and writers on film lack real intellect, commitment, or passion.
Tony D’Ambra’s exhaustive piece here is absolutely stunning!!!!!
Whether you love ACE or have issues with it, few could present something this magisterial.
Kodod to you Tony!!! Simply fantastic.
I dislike shortchanging this stellar review and excellent discussion, but as I’ve been busily working both online and offline, have not slept in what feels like an eternity (since this past weekend) and am nearly at the point of exhaustion, all I will say is I understand and, indeed, agree with what Bobby J. is saying in how Ace in the Hole is markedly different from Wilder’s other masterpieces–components are stripped down and distilled to their barest quintessence–but I disagree that these changes in narrative structure and perspective harm the film. And Tony D’Ambra has passionately detailed where I’m coming from in this estimation. This is cynicism wedded to humanism, which is ultimately not far off in tone from Wilder’s other pictures. I’m always disgusted and appalled and moved by the characters here. It may be said that there is no Barton Keyes, or Wick Birnham or Helen St. James or Betty Schaefer, but Ace in the Holes does have Leo Minosa (Richard Benedict), who manages to function as a fully formed human despite his obvious limitations in the story’s peregrination. Not to mention the characters Tony brings up, like the young photographer and Leo’s highly sympathetic parents. And, I’d say, Wilder is letting us serve as Tatum’s conscience, God willing.
Also, this is nearly off-topic (though not at this point), but I also must agree with Tony in his analysis of the Walter Neff-Barton Keyes relationship in Double Indemnity. Keyes has a special place in Neff’s heart, a place Phyllis Dietrichson can never truly even begin to inhabit. Neff respects Keyes. Neff is all the more tragic a character because he himself feels cornered into the story’s pivotal murder, and is endlessly concerned that Keyes will catch up to his scheme with Phyllis. To borrow Tony’s phrase, he wallows in “self-awareness,” and keenly recognizes his own failings, almost to the point of foreseeing his downfall. (Which is admittedly reinforced with the voice-over narration from the perspective of a man practically resigned to his ignominous fate.)
Tony brings up some very good point worth answering, though some seem to a blinded misreading of my two or three posts.
1/ “Allan is right: Bobby J and RD are totally wrong” – No one is WRONG, these are subjective opinions by film lovers, that doesn’t make them wrong or right. The universe is not black or white, but runs on shades of grey. Two or a 100 opinions can vary and still be legitimate.
2/ “They are waxing eloquent about their own personal expectations and reactions, not to the strength of AITH as a cinematic work.” – Eloquence is a by-product. AITH has it’s virtues, but the original discussion was about why it’s never had the statue of the other works cited.
3/ “Wilder’s cynicism is essentially still provocative and based firmly in reality. The sickening debacle of the weapons of mass destruction deception, the success of Fox News, and the behaviour of AIG executives, are clear contemporary testimony to Wilder’s un-blinkered outlook.” – I’m far more “cynical” that you could possibly imagine – see my reaction to the review of ‘The Dark Knight’ on this site for more. I just call it realism. I would also add to the above, The Iran/Contra scandal, Watergate, the CIA assaination of Bobby Kennedy, JFK, Vietnam and many others. My responses to Allan’s excellent review of ‘The Searchers’would seem to bear this out. Also, films to see (all documentaries) – ‘The Corporation’, ‘Out-Foxed’, Adam Curtis’ ‘The Power of Nightmares’ and ‘The Trap’, ‘9/11 Demolitions’, ‘Loose Change’, ‘Taxi to the Darkside’, ect, ect.
4/ “I can’t agree with most of Bobby J’s and RD’s analyses” – we can agree to disagree.
5/ “Tatum and Birnam are loser’s” – Birnam’s the only winner as he is the only survivor.
6/ “Only Tatum and Gillis are tragic figures.” – If you are referring to my line about Greek Tragedies, that is about the protagonists having a flaw that brings them down – a key tenent of noir.
7/ “Neff is not a smart-aleck, he has too great a self-awareness and a deep respect and developing affection for Keyes.” – This line is full of holes. Neff thinks he can get away with murder and he thinks he’s smart enough to make it pay. And he is smart-alecky is his banter and attitudes.
8/ “Birnam is not inexperienced he is simply an alcoholic” – You may want to watch the film again. He clearly states that his drinking stemmed from his creeping anxiety to put something down on paper. By the end of the movie he really has experianced something meaty enough to put down on paper and it’s his experiences over the 48 hours or the lost weekend. The novel is to be called ‘The Bottle’, without this the film simply becomes a noir exercise of camera effects.
9/ “The cause of his addiction is by the way.” – See above.
10/ “and Gillis does not deceive anyone. He is complicit with Norma in her delusions” – You contradict yourself here, from one line to the next.
11/ You say in this line “As an aside, Dennis Hopper’s streetscapes are statements of urban alienation and don’t necessarily fit these scenarios.” Then you say “The defining commonality of these four men is their aloneness.” I think alienation and alone are one and the same. By the way, it’s Edward Hopper, but I’m sure this is just a typo and one that I nearly made.
12/ “their very lack of or rejection of supportive relationships. Only Birnam and Gillis
get a shot at redemption by turning to those who love them. Neff and Tatum have no-one.” – This is too much intellectualising. My arguement, my point was that there no emotional release because there was no one to latch onto outside the central character who could convey the tragedy.
13/ “The Apartment is one of Wilder’s weakest films and not at all comparable in theme to AITH and the others.” – We’ll have to disagree. In my opinion, it’s not only one of Wilder’s masterworks but one of cinemas. A flawless movie, both in intellectually, emotionally, physically.
14/ “Tatum is fully drawn.” – I agree, just too one note.
15/ “The editor Boot is an important but peripheral character, and is sufficiently drawn for his dramatic purpose.” – just a stick figure.
16/ “The original ending for DI was on the contrary far more lyrical and damning than the (studio-imposed?) truncation. James Naremore has discussed this in a penetrating essay, which I discuss in detail here: http://filmsnoir.net/films/double-indemnity-the-unseen-ending.html.”
- this is a major factual error. I read your original post on it and the James Naremore article was superb, so I owe thanks for bringing it to my attention. But I’m sure that I don’t recall him mentioning that the studio imposed the ending. When I love a movie, I have a healthy obsession that makes me want to know as much as I can about how it came about. The decision to film the new ending was all Wilder’s, 100%. The original ending, he felt – was too strong and created an imbalance and HE felt a gut level uncomfortableness with it after the preview. ‘Sunset’ had a similar recut of the prologue. The only film that was recut, that may not have benefited from it, or maybe it did (it’s impossible to tell ad all the cut footage was destroyed), is the 4 hour ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’ – the film from which, I don’t think he ever recovered his adventurism.
References: ‘On Sunset Boulevard’, ‘Conversations with Wilder’, ‘Billy Wilder, a Personal Biography’.
17/ “It’s just that I find the cynicism in “Ace” to be of the contrived and strictly intellectual variety; for cynicism to work for me, it has to grow out of the human elements of the story, not be imposed on it in such a didactic fashion as Wilder does here. This is an issue I am facing as I work on my top-25 of the 50’s list. The movies that end up on it are going to have a balance of intellectual! appeal and dramatic/emotional appeal. The films that are largely “thinkers’ pictures” are the ones that aren’t going to make it from the short list to the final list.”
is hokum. As I said earlier Wilder’s cynicism is palpably grounded in reality, and there is nothing contrived or intellectual about AITH, the whole story and it’s tragic realisation grow out of human actions we can see played out daily in our own lives.” – Tony, I don’t deny it’s real-life and it’s intellectual truthfulness, I deny it’s ability to make me emotionally care. I’m 100% with all the real-life political and social examples you cite, and I applaud Wilder taking those on. I just think that he got the plumbing wrong. Something that he himself admitted. I might drink a shot of absinthe, I won’t deny its toxicality, it real effects on me, but I would not go back to it, it wouldn’t love it. When Wilder started his collaborations with I.A. Diamond, one of the reasons he gave was “he knew how to fit the pipes.”
Even without Brackett and Diamond, Wilder did ‘Double Indemnity’. The film after AITH was ‘Starlag 17’ – a great entertainment, full of his usual cyncism (realism to me), far more effecting and a film William Holden didn’t want to do unless Wilder softened the his character. Wilder didn’t, Holden still did it.
18/ “As for “thinkers’ pictures”, if a film doesn’t make you think, what is the point of talking about cinema as art, and of spending so many hours writing about it. Already too many films and writers on film lack real intellect, commitment, or passion.” – I couldn’t agree with you more about so many of today’s geeks who only know images, haven’t experianced life, never picked up a book and aren’t interested in any of the arts. But great movies can hit more than just the intellectual and human beings have three brains that through evolution have grown on top of one another. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain). These are the in terms of the evolutionary development 1/physically, 2/emotional, and 3/intellectual. The older brains can always over-power the newer ones.
Great movies for me, at least, have got to involve all the three brains. That’s why I would go out in search of the makers and the films. When I first saw ‘I, Claudius’ – I had a healthy obsession to find out everything I could about the Roman Empire, my love of SF literature (and as intellectual a genre as you get but also with a swish, zesty emotional awakening due to it’s intellectual charge supplied by H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury, Henry Kuttner, A.E. Van Vogt, Philip K. Dick, Robert Sheckley, William Tenn, ect, ect) stems from ‘The Twilight Zone’, and ‘The Outer Limits’ and others of their ilk.
Movies can be both intellectual and emotionally charged, just to cite some; Vertigo, Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Midnight Cowboy, The Manchurian Candidate, It’s a Wonderful Life, Rashmoon, La Ronde, ect, ect. They hit the trio of intellect, the emotional side and are physically (visually, musically, art design, editing) overpowering. And sometimes, like ‘Psycho’ – they don’t have a nice character or redemption. Nor is it required, or was I calling for it.
Anyway, got to go, a ravishing Spring is blooming outside.
PS: here is my comments on Allan’s excellent review of ‘The Seventh Seal’ that further explian where I’m coming from…..
• “Monika’s a pleasant little diversion, Smiles engaging and pleasing but insubstantial & hardly on the level of ‘The Seventh Seal’.
A great film can hit a person in one of three ways in their brains; The Reptilian, the Mammolian, and the Neo-Cortex. Or to put it another way, the physical (Reptilian), the emotional (Mammolian) and the intellectual (Neo-Cortex).
In every day terms, the mind, body and soul.
The Seventh Seal is a film of immense beauty even in the midst of a savage scenario, it’s images and design evoke an innate gut-level attention and fascination.
Yet it also conveys an intellectual truthful exploration – a look at the very nature of what the meaning of life is, if there is a meaining of life, or are we just deluding ourselves of in the belief in a deity. A cosmic jest by humankind, an evolutionary quirk in our make-up to sate our fears and disappointments.
This question is so truthfully explored with such an unwavering gaze, that it fused in me an emotional, painful engagement with the knight’s plight. It does what great SF (not damned ’sci-fi’) literature does, it engages the intellect and fuses a conceptual breakthru. The world is different once some questions are asked.
I’d say that it had the three brains covered pretty much covered. Some of Bergman’s latter works match it for richeness and on the cerebral front but hardly any will exceed it – for ranks it on his highest pantheon.”
Bobby, you say you enjoying a ravishing spring day out there in the U.K.
Would you believe it is snowing here in the NYC area?!?
I will leave Tony, Allan, R.D. et all to continue this discourse.
As to your submission, it is simply unbelievable, as is this entire thread. Your work, Tony’s work, R.D.’s work, Alexander’s work, and Allan’s should be published in a volume on the film.
Needless to say Alexander’s brilliant submission above leaves me speechless.
Bobby, wow! What an unbelievably detailed defense of your ideas and refutation of the criticism of them. I know I couldn’t have done such a through or detailed job. I especially like your concept of the “three brains” and the notion that a truly great film must connect strongly with the viewer in each of these three ways. I don’t believe I could have put it so well (or so clearly) myself. To really draw me in, a movie must appeal to me strongly on the intellectual, narrative, and visual levels–exactly what you said and elaborated on so thoroughly. It’s a question of proportionality: for me the best movies have a perfect balance of these three.
And you also brought up one of my own hobby horses–the idea that, the factual aside, anyone is right or wrong in their response to a film. Each person is going to have an individual reaction to an individual film–that’s just the essentially subjective nature of watching movies and even of writing about them. It’s just too individual an experience for the concept of right or wrong to come into play. I also appreciated your defense of “The Apartment,” a movie I love and for me one of Wilder’s masterpieces. And thank you for pointing out the danger inherent in generalizing about the personality or beliefs of a film writer based on the response to one particular movie–that’s overgeneralization, taking one example and extending it into a blanket characterization of a writer’s beliefs and attitudes, a classic logical fallacy. I’m overwhelmed by what you wrote, and if we ever disagree about a movie (I suspect we might have about “The Seventh Seal”), I promise to agree to disagree!
R.D. If I may ask, what side of the critical spectrum do you fall on with THE SEVENTH SEAL?
Sam, when I wrote a comment about it I said (or intended to say) that although it is undeniably a masterpiece, it’s a film I admire more than I actually like. The level of intellectual abstraction is too high for me to connect completely with. The movie doesn’t fully draw me in on the emotional/narrative level; instead it tends to keep me at a distance. If you apply that comment I made about proportionality of the intellectual, the narrative/emotional, and the visual (based on bobby J’s concept of the “three brains,”), it seems to me that in “Seal” the emotional/narrative is out of balance with the intellectual and visual (or at least, that’s how I explain my own personal reaction to the movie). I know I’m getting pretty abstract here myself, but to me each film has an ideal balance of these elements (not necessarily always equal), but “Seal” strikes me as very strong in two of the three areas and deficient in the third. The Bergman movies I respond most strongly to (and there are many) don’t affect me this way. It has been said that Bergman is the most literary of the great directors–a statement I agree with and to me not a disparagement of his canon–and I think that the trap in that literary approach is over-intellectualization at the expense of other crucial filmic elements. I see this happening in “Seal.” The first two movies I ever saw by Bergman were “The Silence” and “Winter Light.” I didn’t like them at all for the very reason that I have reservations about “Seal,” but to me their over-reliance on theme (they must be “thinkers’ movies”) is even more pronounced than in “Seal,” and they don’t even have that great visual sense to compensate. Did that make sense? And I hope I haven’t opened another can of worms!
1. Bobby J and RD you are still wrong – again I am being deliberately mischievous – sorry but posturing to me is like a red rag to a bull – in a china-shop. Sorry the universe I believe is indeed black and white, yin and yang, masculine-feminine…
2. Eloquent? Did I say that? My apologies. Stature is accorded by a consensus. The critical consensus is that AITH is a great film and perhaps Wilder’s finest.
3. I don’t quite like the word ‘cynicism as this is a conservative throwaway that seeks to devalue social criticism. AITH is unflinching social criticism and saying it is imposed is contrived, while saying it is realistic, is nonsense,
5. Birnam a winner? I don’t think so. He is at the end of the movie as likely to go back to the bottle as he is to stay on the wagon.
6. We all have flaws and prisons are full of men with flaws, but few are tragic or captives of a noir destiny. In the noir universe the underlying motif is “the but the grace of God go I”. We are each of us on the precipice of the abyss. And if it is not some random event that dooms the noir protagonist, it is a bad decision usually fuelled by pretty mundane vices. Birnam and Neff chose their fate in full awareness of the possible consequences.
7. I can’t see the holes for the words… How does Neff thinking he can get away with murder make him a ‘smart-aleck’. He is driven by greed and lust, and he knows the risks and he says as much to Phyllis more than once. His banter is all about sexual jousting.
8/9. I still don’t get it, the reason Birnam is alcoholic is there but it is peripheral. The Lost Weekend, is just that a journey into a bender and what is does to a man. The movie is all about Birnam, and the camera is used expressively to track his descent. Birnam may write a book and still go back on the bottle. The whole conceit that he has found material for the great redemptive novel is a nod to the production code.
10. Not true. If Gillis deceives Norma, then so does Max. To be complicit in Norma’s delusions is an act of love not deception. Gillis is desperate when he enters his Faustian-pact with Norma, and his actions are all too human. His first attempt at freedom is thwarted by his ‘love’ for Norma, and his capitulation is not totally abject. His second and final renunciation is as noble and self-less as it is tragic.
11. Sorry my error, yes Edward Hopper. Perhaps I drew too fine and unsustainable distinction here.
12. “This is too much intellectualising….” How so? The fact that neither Neff nor Tatum had a supportive relationship is central to their fates and perfectly in accord with the dramatic imperatives of each film. Neff could hardly find true support from his victim’s daughter.
13. Ok, but The Apartment is a bore and extremely over-rated.
14. I know Boot was tall and thin, but ” just a stick figure”?
16. The DI ending. I said ‘studio-imposed?’ – note the question mark. Also, note what Naremore says about the marketing of the movie. If Wilder pulled the extended ending it was quite possibly due to an unacknowledged influence.
“Although the released version of his famous thriller remains an iconoclastic satire that challenges the censors, it is a lighter entertainment than the original and a much easier product for Hollywood to market. (According to the Paramount press book, photographs of Barbara Stanwyck in her wig and tight sweater were circulated to American soldiers overseas, and Edward G. Robinson’s performance enabled the studio to obtain a tie-in from the Cigar Institute of America.) No matter how much we admire the film that was exhibited in 1944, the form of cinema that the French described as noir is probably better exemplified by another Double Indemnity, which we have yet to see. ”
17. What you are saying is you don’t care about the guy who died believing Tatum was on the level, or the pain of the distraught parents, or the tragedy of a man who had decency but lost it on the way but does find a kind of redemption – too late.
18. Wikipedia? Give me break. Koestler’s Ghost in the Machine many years ago put paid to this rudimentary hick science. Recent research has shown that damage to the emotional centre of the old brain make it impossible for a person to make decisions. Old brain, new brain, they work in concert, just like the left and right hemispheres.
Hey Tony, nice to hear from you.
Some good questions…
1/ “Bobby J and RD you are still wrong” – No, we just have different opinions due to a lifetimes experience and we articulate why which is all a person can do. No “posturing” at all involved.
Critical consensus can be very dangerous….I prefer to think along the lines of “I count myself an individual. I hate all cults, fads and circles.” I’m willing to say that the Emperor has no clothes on. You crack up laughing, no doubt, if I were to tell you of other pet peeves. But they will have to wait till the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s listing.
2/ “Sorry the universe I believe is indeed black and white, yin and yang, masculine-feminine…” – This is indeed a curious statement!!! You are talking in polarities, the far side of the spectrum. But most of the spectrum isn’t at the polarities.
Black and White – Black is the absence of colour, white is a combination of all the colours, in between is a spectrum of hues.
Yin and Yang – is according to Chinese philosophy also has elements of the other in it, and in say something like Kung Fu, Yin would be soft like Akido punching into air, Yang hard like Karate crushing bone against bone, but Wing Chun Kung Fu (my style) is a mixture of soft and hard, flowing from one spectrum to another.
Masculine-Feminine – is determined by chemicals testerone and estrogen, men and women have some of each. Some women can be very masculine, some men very feminine (and I’m not just talking about shopping for shoes).
3/ “Eloquent?” – is a way of expressing with style and incisiveness, it has nothing to do with “consensus”. Consensus can be erronously manfactured or minupulated (WMD).
4/ “The critical consensus is that AITH is a great film and perhaps Wilder’s finest.” – Again, an assertion and one that would normally be just that. Except that here is can be measured if you want to go by consensus. There are polls… The AFI 1998 one, the more authoritive Sight and Sounds and even
1998 AFI Top 100….
Number 12: Sunset Boulevard
Number 14: Some Like It Hot
38: Double Indemnity
98: The Apartment
I’ll leave the Sight and Sound polls because they replicate the AFI, but they are by the critics and film-makers.
Let’s go to something further…”As voted by 1,825 critics, filmmakers, reviewers, scholars and other likely film types:
22: Some Like It Hot
29: Sunset Blvd
55: Double Indemnity
94: The Apartment
Ace in the Hole does appear, at 580.
5/ “AITH is unflinching social criticism and saying it is imposed is contrived, while saying it is realistic, is nonsense,” – I have to say that is was “imposed” in a “sociologically pushy way” – Pauline Keal. I agree about the hijacking of words by the conservative right.
5. Birnam a winner? I don’t think so. He is at the end of the movie as likely to go back to the bottle as he is to stay on the wagon. – You are actually making my point in reference to Allan’s statement that the ending was a cop-out. See my original post. He is neither a “winner” or a “loser”. I don’t like to label people. Like the father that calls his kid stupid and the kid goes on to become a highly intelligent university professor but unable to eradicate the imprisoning internalised label.
Nor is Birnam the loser that you called him. I’ve known alcoholics all my life: they pay their bills, their mortgages, have had their children go to university for the first time in the history of the family, can be charming and are more likely to be like the father in ‘A Tree Grows in Brooklyn’, with an astonishing turn-out for their funerals. ‘The Lost Weekend’ was dramatising only 48 hours, so it’s more intense.
7. “I can’t see the holes for the words… How does Neff thinking he can get away with murder make him a ’smart-aleck’.” – - He thought he was smart enough to rig the system from the inside out, without his conscience kicking in.
8/9. “I still don’t get it, the reason Birnam is alcoholic is there but it is peripheral. The Lost Weekend, is just that a journey into a bender and what is does to a man. The movie is all about Birnam, and the camera is used expressively to track his descent. Birnam may write a book and still go back on the bottle. The whole conceit that he has found material for the great redemptive novel is a nod to the production code.” – I agree, originally in the novel its because of his homosexuality. But Wilder cleverly revised it and having observed the drinking habits of Raymond Chandler – and it works. It’s psychology goes far deeper than that. Even if he goes back to the bottle. The spark for any type of recovery is an awakening moment, a sliver of hope. For more on the psychology of change, I can recommend the book, ‘Cahnge or Die, highly enough.
10. I agree with you on Gillis motivations. My point is that all Wilder’s protagonists are deceivers and self-deceivers.
12. “This is too much intellectualising….” How so? The fact that neither Neff nor Tatum had a supportive relationship is central to their fates and perfectly in accord with the dramatic imperatives of each film. Neff could hardly find true support from his victim’s daughter.” – Tony you make an excellent, fantastic point here. But my point was that Neff is so likeable and Wilder makes the husband not too sympathetic (with an off-screen murder, production code or not) – that his brilliantly realised relationship with Keyes conveys the tragedy and with Lola awakens the guilt. Without them, it wouldn’t have the tragic power it does.
13.” I know Boot was tall and thin, but ” just a stick figure”? “ – lol
16. “The DI ending. I said ’studio-imposed?’ – note the question mark. Also, note what Naremore says about the marketing of the movie. If Wilder pulled the extended ending it was quite possibly due to an unacknowledged influence.” – I’ve read up everything I could about this film from virtually all the participants. The decision was completely Wilder’s. I query Naremore’s use of a word like “satire”.
His comment, “No matter how much we admire the film that was exhibited in 1944, the form of cinema that the French described as noir is probably better exemplified by another Double Indemnity, which we have yet to see.” – From all accounts the original, though powerful would have been more like versions of ‘An American Tragedy’ and ‘A Place in the Sun.’ Too heavy at the end.
This is a great review of the script by Christopher Wehner: “The movie follows the script almost verbatim. Bits of dialogue were changed, a few omissions. But the script Billy Wilder wrote is the one he shot. He knew what he wanted, and didn’t need to invent much while filming. Everything on the screen is in the script. There are a few interesting side notes. For example, Neff and Keyes relationship, through out the entire movie (3-4 times) Neff is constantly lighting Keyes’ cigars for him. Only one is actually in the script, the rest were added on the set. Then it’s obvious as to why, here at the last scene as Neff is apparently dying, Keyes lights his cigarette for him. A subtly that is missing in a lot of today’s films.
The ending was perfect. But apparently Wilder wasn’t completely convinced as he had two other alternative endings on paper. It goes to show that when something looks good on paper it might not always translate to the screen. But this ending proved effective and appropriate. The bad guy dies in the end, he has to.
The other ending “Sequence D” is less subtle and has Neff saying he loves Keyes, who doesn’t respond, and then Neff gives a short melodramatic goodbye speech to Keyes. Over the top and Wilder was intelligent enough to see it.
Now the other ending choice, “Sequence E,” which Wiler actually did film. It was an expensive shoot, and is several pages long. It is also quite interesting actually. It has Neff on death row at San Quentin where he is put in the gas chamber and executed. There is a nice moment between Neff and Keyes where they make eye contact just before. But once again, it isn’t needed. The ending as it remained served the story well.
When the director is also the screenwriter, or in this case the co-writer, there are usually very few changes between the final draft of the script and movie. The writer/director’s vision for the film is always the script. When we move away from the author-auteur’s of this kind is when we find muddling directors ruining scripts. Themes get lost, the subtly of great and beautiful screenplays disappears. Remember the ancient Chinese proverb, “no director has ever made a good movie from a bad script,” regardless of what movie critics say.”
17. “What you are saying is you don’t care about the guy who died believing Tatum was on the level, or the pain of the distraught parents, or the tragedy of a man who had decency but lost it on the way but does find a kind of redemption – too late.” _ had no problem with them, but I didn’t feel for Tatum, the way I felt for Neff, Keyes, Birnam, Gillis, Norma Desmond. I didn’t get the hairs on the back of my neck standing up, that electrifying emotional shuddering frission.
18. “Wikipedia? Give me break. Koestler’s Ghost in the Machine many years ago put paid to this rudimentary hick science. Recent research has shown that damage to the emotional centre of the old brain make it impossible for a person to make decisions. Old brain, new brain, they work in concert, just like the left and right hemispheres.” – First of all, if you going to come out accusing something of being a ‘hick science’ your going to have to do better than sound like George Bush’s secretary of science….lol.
Three brains do sometimes work in concert, and sometimes at cross purposes. And the emotional triggers will usually over-take the intellectual. The ‘fight or flight’ response resides in the primitive ‘Repiltian’ brain. Calling something a ‘hick science’ does a massive disservice to the process of science, which builds or supercedes previous theories. There is no contradiction with your above statements and Dr. Paul McLane’s model of the 3 Brains. As for the left and right hemispheres, yes they communicate but during REM sleep. Which, if disrupted will lead to anxiety disorders or in severe cases Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Which is treatable.
I will try and get back to this comment, Bobby, but it would take nearly as long to read as it would to watch AITH again, which almost makes me want to put the old Wilder classic on again. I’m sure there’s some great points in there, Bobby, but my meagre brain is making me cry out like D.P.Gumby “MY BRAIN HURTS!”
Thanks Bobby for engaging with me and being such a good sport. I was being a bit cheeky and you took it all in you stride – well done. All you rejoinders are fair and well-argued, and I think we can leave it at that – until the next time
I think we can leave it at
I agree that Bobby J. has again raised the bar at the site.
The time he has invested here to impart his magisterial knowledge of cinema is simply unbelievable.
I tip my cap to you Sir, but you deserve far more than that. And as to what Allan says, I say there far more than a few good points in there!
I wanted to let every know that is within driving distance to Chicago about an upcoming noir-fest at the end of July. Here’s the information:
http://www.musicboxtheatre.com/collections/noir-city-chicago/
some real classics and very hard to find gems in there. So yes, I thought posting in my favorite noir of all time’s thread would work just fine.
Wow Jamie!!! Thanks for posting that here.
I gather from comments you made elesewhere that you are a very big noir fan, no?
Tony, particularly will be gratified to hear this, and he would have posted this himself at his filmsnoir.net site.
Ned Sparks is born a British subject. He was born before the 1947 law in Canada.
I for one see Chuck as someone who has a heart. It’s submerged for most of the film. However Wilder foreshadows a lot of things and carefully expresses instinctual moments of Chuck, which reveals, at times of him being ‘lost’. He sure is cynical. His actions are ruthless but there’s a bit of humanity in him even if it may not seem so. This itself reflects the brilliance of Wilder and Douglas.
Ace in the Hole follows (Joseph) Campbell’s The Hero Journey’s steps to a great extent. Chuck has a want, a goal. He has a call to adventure and literally gets into the cave and crosses the threshold. Eventually he shall have to deal with his shadow. Only in this case, he doesn’t come back with a positive reward. One may argue that he does – learns about what life’s suppose to teach him.
Some points on how they show Chuck’s humane side in contrast to most of his actions till the end:
- His relationship with the rookie reporter, who looks up to him, isn’t totally one-sided. He unconsciously is his mentor but also fair. When given a chance – he tells the rookie to not work for him. Also, him directing the kid to the chair also shows his humanity
- When he realizes the man may not survive, his amorality turns around; he is genuinely angry at the wife. Sure he used her but when the crisis reaches the peak, he wants her to be kind to her nice hubby
- Interestingly, when the wife comes to thank him and Chuck wants her to play the weeping wife, it’s Chuck’s expressions that shows – he is not amused. Why? That’s also a part of his inherent nature. In fact, she is there in admiration of Chuck, willing to sleep with him. But what does Chuck do? Slap her!
- The big one, and this is where the screenwriters and Wilder as director and Douglas as actor walk the delicate path of showcasing his ‘heart’. In the very first instance when he meets Leo, what’s Chuck’s instinct? To save the man. Though when he reaches back to the kid, he becomes his ‘normal’ self
As the situations get more complicated with Leo not doing well, Chuck is tested. And there’s a moment in the middle of the film, when Leo calls him his best friend. You have to observe Chuck’s expression – guilt is written on his face. This is where the writers start to push it in. But does he change instantly? Nope. Wilder knows better and instead of giving us a contrived change, he carefully arcs Chuck’s character.
There’s also his interactions with Leo’s dad over the film. A kind man, who is honored and grateful to Chuck for his attempt to save his son’s life. This is an interesting strategy – in one way, it shows how ruthless Chuck is, but slowly this builds a sort of pressure on him, arcing him subtly and slowly, highlighting – trust / faith in a con-man has the potential to change him.
What happens when he returns sensing that Leo isn’t doing good and meets the dad? He lies and…see how he feels guilty. Now he takes it forward – by boozing. In comes his conscience keeper, his boss, who counters him. Boss is upright and Chuck is low, out of control. Chuck’s life has started to go out of control – he has started to discover or sense his shadow. And complications will only get worse, when he shall have to choose – to get another rocking piece of news or save the man.
This all is built up brilliantly by writers and the director. This all is built up brilliantly by writers and the director. Consider again the expression of Chuck immediately post his celebratory gesture when the mother comes and lights the candle. Our man’s not happy within. There’s some sort of sanity residing in him.
For all the ills he has done, he now has to pay a price to correct what he can and do what he must – try saving the man. Sure his ‘mode’ lets him lie (make him seem honest) to the Sherif that he can’t have a dead-man for the story. But…the man’s changed. Again they don’t bring it out up front, on the nose kinds.
Again, brilliant stuff. Wilder piles on the agony. So much so that Chuck tans the Sherif in anger and when the contractor comes in and informs Chuck that now the short-solution can’t work, this is when the floor is wiped below him. Wilder from total brightness brings in a shadow to cover half his face and then…he turns around and hits the printer with his towel. The machine goes on and on…printing
Chuck now gives one last desperate shot inside the cave. Angry, trying to save the man on his own. Almost crying. Shouting at Leo to make him breathe. This is the final frontier for Chuck to not commit the biggest crime. And then goes off to fulfill the dying man’s wish.
Eventually Chuck is willing to get stabbed and instead of seeking help, all he wants is for Leo to meet the Father. It’s not Leo who is being read the sermon, it’s more of Chuck. What does Leo say – Bless me father, for I have sinner. Who is the camera pointed to and what are the expressions? It’s Chuck. Feeling the same. And he shall not be forgiven.
Lastly, the theme of the film needs to be addressed. For all the cynicism being expressed by Wilder against the media and people, he shows the way – Tell the Truth.
Chuck makes all the effort – wounded more so in his soul – and reaches the height to proclaim to the world about Leo’s death. He is still not ready to let out completely and goes to the media to speak who refuse to listen.
Eventually, he dies in the very office, where he read the words, Tell the Truth. On the verge of telling the truth to everyone, he doesn’t get that chance. How ironic is that. And…this is where Wilder is expressing the premise: lying doesn’t pay. One’s soul will for ever be in the dark if you don’t go with the truth.
(Sorry folks for the long past! I am into screenwriting. Watched this flick just yesterday and I can’t help admiring it and how topical it is. Most it just fascinated me how the character arc works with a great depiction of a world that’s lost it. )
Although I am unable to engage with right now my friend, I deeply appreciate this this utterly painstaking and brilliant response here to Allan’s great review on this American classic. Hopefully some others will chime in. Thanks so much for adding to the literature here.