Director: Fritz Lang
Producer: Walter Wanger and Fritz Lang
Screenwriter: Dudley Nichols
Cinematographer: Milton R. Krasner
Music: Hans J. Salter and Ernie Burnett
Studio: Universal Pictures 1945
Main Acting: Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, and Dan Duryea
Let’s get right down to the black heart of this film and begin at the end. Chris (Edward G. Robinson) has lost everything. Having murdered his mistress and framed her pimp boyfriend, he stands by as Johnny (Dan Duryea) gets the electric chair and is dispatched permanently. At first he thinks he could live with himself, but as the man on the train says, “Mr. Cross, nobody gets away with murder. The problem just moves in here (pointing to his heart) where you go on punishing yourself.” In the brutal 5-to-10 minute finale, Edward G. Robinson’s character not only goes through the emotional ringer but is also shown the cruelest hand of fate. As a suicide attempt fails, he must live with his overwhelming guilt and be humiliated further by seeing the paintings he created for Kitty (Joan Bennett) become important works of art with expensive price tags. Oh Come All Ye Faithful plays in an almost-mock amusement as the man’s fortune is destroyed in a most horrific fashion. There is no happy ending, just crushing resignation.
A year after film noir’s most awful cop-out ending in The Woman In The Window (which Fritz Lang actually defended), he came back with Scarlet Street. Sharing many similarities including the cast and identical cinematographer, he instead refuses to let his character go unscathed in this latter film. There is no nightmare scenario where Professor Richard Wanley can wake up and continue with his normal life. No surprise twist ending that lets the audience off the hook and able to breathe a sign of relief. In both, Edward G. Robinson plays lonely men who are unsatisfied in their respective marriages. The thrill is gone and he’s trying to get some of it back. Yet The Woman In The Window‘s Wanley is in a better domestic situation. His wife actually loves him and his kids do as well. His need for an extramarital affair seems to be motivated by greedy lust and personal gratification. In Scarlet Street, Chris Cross is in the opposite situation. He is trapped in a asexual union with a woman that despises him. He does not have the friends or the confidence that Wanley exhibits. His act reeks more of desperation and a need to be loved and understood. He’s the more sympathetic character, yet it is he who suffers the indignation and slow decline into guilt-driven madness. The indiscriminate hand of fate paints a terrifying tale in Scarlet Street. Destiny does not show mercy to the people that may need it more. Terrible things happen even to those more rewarding of compassion and generosity. A theme Lang explores throughout his filmography, most famously with a child molester that can’t help control his murderous impulses and is doomed to die by criminals that instead break the law for selfish personal reasons in M.
I first saw Scarlet Street many years ago and was struck by how much it improved on The Woman In The Window. Not just because of the flawed ending in Window, but also due to the more electric performance by Joan Bennett. Her role as Kitty is incredibly powerful with her constant sly looks of disgust towards Cross. The unflattering scene as she lays in her apartment with garbage all around her is also telling of her flawed character. She’s a woman of questionable morals who even feels love towards a man who beats her and treats her badly. As she tells her friend Milly on the phone, “If you were in love you would understand.” Poor Chris never stood a chance. His goose had been cooked long before the picture fades to black. On the contrary, Bennett’s part as Alice Reed, besides not being real, is not even a femme fatale. It doesn’t translate with the same force or power. It actually makes The Woman In The Window feel inert and less dramatically engaging. She’s a good girl looking to assist Wanley instead of destroying him. With Scarlet Street, you know Chris Cross is in a den of snakes and it leads to an edge of your seat tension not palpable in the former picture.
Lang’s worldview is much more cynical and realistic than most of the fluff Hollywood was producing in those days. He knew the misery that people could inflict on each other just by looking at his own native country’s descent into temporary madness. He was also unwilling to gloss over the inescapable reality that death and anguish can befall anyone regardless of character or inherent goodness. Life and happiness comes at us like a roulette wheel. Some of us bet black and hit. Others put everything on red and see our fortunes disappear in an instant, never to be retrieved. It may not be pretty or particularly inviting to our psyche but it is the plain truth. Life is a gamble without an arbitrator to validate one’s worth over another’s. Scarlet Street is a dark film. The bleakest noir ever created in the classic era. It’s becomes more horrifying knowing that Lang’s gloomy outlook may be based on certain undeniable truths.
Yes, I am also of the belief that it’s about as dark a noir as exists. Bennett is terrific and there’s a hard-boiled cynicism at work. When one thinks of film noir, ‘Scarlett Street’ is one of the first films envisioned.
Such an improvement on The Woman In The Window, I sometimes consider that film obsolete. Scarlet Street sure embodies most people’s idea of film noir. Lang is the cynic master breaking everyone’s heart…
I’m not a great admirer of this film, but it certainly deserves placement here. As Frank says above, “When one thinks of film noir, ‘Scarlett Street’ is one of the first films envisioned.” It’s also because THE BIG HEAT is one of my favorite films. You are correct though, Bennett’s contemptuous sneer is sublime throughout. I actually think it comes from Lang and is meant as a clue how we all should see, and treat Chris. He’s a ‘salaud’, in the Sartre term, he relaxed his dreams and goals for an easy job and steady (loveless) courtship. The world is extra harsh for those…
I’ve never understood two things about this film: one, how are we supposed to view him as a ‘great’ artist when so much of what we see on screen is so amateurish?, and two, at the end Chris is so depressed, why not attempt suicide more then just once?
The bad artwork is one of two flaws in the film (the other being the dead husband appearing out of nowhere to help the plot along) but I honestly like the painting I posted. It is not great artwork, but it has a morbid look that feels like Kitty’s apparition/soul is trapped within it’s frame. It gives off a (probably unintended) macabre feeling when staring at it. A kind of Dorian Grey manifestation of Chris Cross’ guilt over the murder/ execution. Otherwise the paintings are laughable and one wonders why Lang approved of such shoddy examples to grace his picture.
As for Cross trying to kill himself again, I get the impression that Lang doesn’t want him to get off so easy too soon. He wanders around like a ghost trapped in purgatory. Roaming around consumed by guilt. You could argue that Lang leaves us with the impression that another attempt at his life will ensue at some point. What is more horrific though than Cross surviving…
yeah, as I said that I did have to stare at that. The painting of her is pretty good, almost washing the thought of the snake on the commuter train out of my mind…
That snake painting is dreadful. Some sort of Sophia Coppola nepotism was involved. What serious artist would create something so woeful.
“Lang’s worldview is much more cynical and realistic than most of the fluff Hollywood was producing in those days. He knew the misery that people could inflict on each other just by looking at his own native country’s descent into temporary madness. He was also unwilling to gloss over the inescapable reality that death and anguish can befall anyone regardless of character or inherent goodness. Life and happiness comes at us like a roulette wheel.”
This is a superb point Maurizio, and this in indeed as you (and Frank) claim is one of the bleaskest of all noirs. Jean Renoir’s LA CHIENNE is a greater film than this famous American re-make, but in it’s own right it’s a hard film to shake for a number of reasons you well elaborate on here. It’s reputation is well-earned, and I do like both teamings of the three(Lang, Bennett, Robinson) , here and in WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. I recently saw this film yet again at teh Lang Festival, and appropriately enough it was offered up as a double-feature with WOMAN IN THE WINDOW.
One of your best reviews here!
Damn Sam you caught me. I completely forgot to mention La Chienne by Renoir. Bad oversight on my part and I thank you for bringing it up. I will acknowledge your compliment since (other than the Renoir omission) I am reasonably happy with the way this piece turned out lol.
Hi! Maurizio Roca…
What a very detailed and very interesting review Of a film that I would easily place on my list Of top ten fatalistic film noir
“Maurizio Roca said,”A year after film noir’s most awful cop-out ending in The Woman In The Window (which Fritz Lang actually defended), he came back with Scarlet Street. Sharing many similarities including the cast and identical cinematographer, he instead refuses to let his character go unscathed in this latter film.”
Oh! yes, Maurizio, in the following book…The Big Book Of Noir Edited by ED Gorman, Lee Server, and Martin H. Greenberg. Director Fritz Lang, defend his reason for changing the film ending and explains why he changed the ending to the 1945 film…Woman in the Window.
I must admit that after reading his explanation in this book I agree with director Fritz Lang’s explanation and reason for the upbeat ending…Because it made more sense as oppose to the other ending that would have led to Edward G.Robinson, killing two people and himself for really no reason other than a fear factor.
DeeDee 😉 🙂
I guess he could explain away why he changed the ending of The Woman In The Window and give slightly satisfactory reasons. Like Horror films, I never like when copout endings are used to explain away everything supernatural (or criminal in this case) we have watched. It is such a lazy plot device. The Cabinet Of Dr Caligari would of been even better if the madness of the asylum director were upheld like intended. Making everything the ranting of a madman simply robs the film of thematic depth (which Lang had a hand in). The Woman In The Window can never justify the horrible ending in my eyes. I do like the film, but next to Scarlet Street it is simply minor league material…
Maurizio Roca said,”The Woman In The Window can never justify the horrible ending in my eyes. I do like the film, but next to Scarlet Street it is simply minor league material…
Hi! Maurizio…
I understand what you, are saying, but the alternative ending is the reason that I like this film too…Because it would have been the same “rehash” film as far as I’am concern Of the 1945 film Scarlet Street… (with the same lead characters with different names…)
…However, I agree with you wholeheartedly, when it comes to the latter film being
far superiorvery fatalistic in every sense Of the word.By the way, Congratulation to the two winners Of the For the Love Of Film (noir) Blogathon contest too!
DeeDee 😉 🙂
“The bleakest noir ever created in the classic era. It’s becomes more horrifying knowing that Lang’s gloomy outlook may be based on certain undeniable truths.”
I wonder what Noirs others would consider the ‘bleakest’. To me it’s quite a log jam at the top, THE GANGSTER, THE WRONG MAN (great dark Hitchcock, a film Rosenbaum called ‘one of the darkest to ever come out of Hollywood’), ACE IN THE HOLE, and finally, the bleak, bleak THE SOUND OF FURY. I even think Gloria Graham’s monologue as she dies in THE BIG HEAT is bleaker in Lang’s canon. I am glad Maurizio has stuck his neck out there with a singular choice with his vote.
I definitely agree that the ending of this improves on the terrible cop-out of ‘The Woman in the Window’. In a way it is the exact opposite – in this his whole life turns into a nightmare with no waking up.
I’m a bit saddened, though, that people don’t like the paintings, which I think are very striking (and I like the snake in the window) – they are by artist John Decker, who led a tortured life as one of the ‘Bundy Street Boys’ and is rumoured to have forged a Rembrandt. I wrote a posting about him at my blog a little while ago illustrated by some more of his paintings:
http://movieclassics.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/scarlet-street-1945-and-artist-john-decker/
There is also a link from my blog to a painting by him of John Barrymore as Hamlet, which is my favourite by him!
Sorry for knocking John Decker Judy. I do like the painting I added at the bottom of this post. It has some fascinating aura that leaves me all creeped out when looking at it. I still remain firm though in my belief that the rest of the artwork looks rather poor. I couldn’t sat what my overall opinion on his larger body of work is, since I am unfamiliar with his paintings outside of Scarlet Street.
Glad you like the Kitty March painting, anyway, Maurizio. I’ve just found an article about the film by an art historian, John Walker, which says Lang wanted the paintings deliberately made to look amateurish – the article says the Kitty March painting shows the way forward to pop art.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17340710/Scarlet-Street-Film-Reviewwps
Interesting quote about this in his footnotes:
“Patrick McGilligan has commented that Lang’s overseeing of Decker’s work was like a Chinese puzzle: ‘a would-be painter instructing a paid, real-life professional in the creation of amateurish paintings – all for a fiction about another would-be painter.’ ”
Apparently Decker did 15 paintings for the film altogether and 12 of them were exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1946. I don’t know whether he did the painting in ‘The Woman in the Window’ too.
PS, I should have said the writer of this article doesn’t like the paintings much either, except for the Kitty March one – so I seem to be the only one who likes the snake at the station! Also I hadn’t noticed the paintings looking amateurish, but then I’m no expert.
I forgot to say he mentions a deleted scene:
“One scene deleted by the filmmakers showed Cross up a telegraph pole exulting
when a drop in voltage signals the electrocution of Johnny.”
I don’t suppose this scene still exists, but sounds interesting.
Great stuff Judy. You and Dee Dee both have uncovered evidence that Lang wanted the artwork to look unprofessional. I might now need to reconsider the idea that this area of the movie is a flaw. Regardless, I never really made such a minor point sway my love for Scarlet Street. I take issue more with the appearance of the dead husband to infuse the plot with forward momentum. Even that though does not change my opinion on the overall power of Lang’s work.
Thanks, Maurizio. I suppose I think that Decker was trying to do striking paintings with a strong emotional content to them even if he made his technique rather rawer than it would otherwise have been to get the amateur feel.
I take your point on the dead husband being rather convenient for the plot, but also agree with you that it doesn’t take away from the power of Lang’s film!
I meant to add that I also think Dan Duryea is great in both this and ‘The Woman in the Window’ – so wonderfully sleazy.
Yeah Duryea is great as always.
Lang’s Scarlet Street is unremitting in its pessimism, and a dark mood and pervading doom are devastating in their intensity. Like the Swede in Siodmak’s Criss-Cross, Chris is not so much dealt a raw deal by fate but by his own naivety and irrational need to believe that Kitty loves him.
In his book DRIVEN TO DARKNESS: Jewish Émigré Directors and the Rise of Film Noir (Rutgers University Press, 2009 ) academic Vincent Brook argues that the development of film noir in Hollywood was largely driven by emigre Jewish directors; and that the the noir motifs of the femme-fatale and the weak and ambivalent noir protagonist, have their origins in Jewish folklore, the historical oppression of Jews, and the German expressionist theater of the early 20th century. Brook argues his case by reference to the films of Lang, Siodmak, Wilder, Preminger, Ulmer, Curtis Bernhardt, Ophuls, John Brahm, Anatole Litvak, and Fred Zinnemann. I found particularly interesting the chapters on Lang. Brook presents the novel view that Lang in his films noir is escaping his Jewishness and perhaps seeking expiation for something he may have done in Germany before he fled the country. Lang’s recollections of his life in Germany and his reasons for leaving, have been found to be unreliable, and this has been of interest to scholars. Lang’s first wife died by his own hand. He claimed to have accidently shot her. There is a lingering suspicion in some quarters that Lang actually murdered her. Brook hypothesises this presumption of guilt and sees real parallels in a number of Lang’s noirs, particularly in Scarlet Street, where the weak artistic male protagonist is driven by lust and jealousy to kill the femme-fatale who has betrayed him. By the end of the movie, the killer is so consumed by guilt that he lives a deranged homeless existence in a noir city, so hopelessly dark, that it truly shattered the closed romantic realism of Hollywood for good. Brook’s analysis has a particular cogency in the case of Scarlet Street. The film was Lang’s first independent Hollywood feature and he “was allowed the luxury of working for three months on the script with Dudley Nichols” (Andrew Spicer, ‘Film Noir’, 2002, p123).
Fascinating theories on Lang Tony. The pessimism is relentless and unsettling. I remember lending this film to a friend who hated “old” movies and thought all of them are dated and corny. He was shocked by the relentless despair that Fritz throws out onto the screen. He still wasn’t able to enjoy a movie that was in B/W, but he at least acknowledged the intensity.
Brook’s novel assumptions are interesting and I want to seek out that book. I did read a Lang biography that presented the idea that the director killed his first wife. Since we will never know for sure, I choose to believe that he would never partake in such a terrible act. Watching many of his movies though I wouldn’t be surprised if did take her life. He was not exactly a warm and fuzzy kind of guy.
I’ve remained silent so far on these threads, basically hovering and drinking in the reviews as a way to educate myself further on this genre that has elluded me for sometime (I’m not saying I don’t like it, I just gravitate to other genres a little easier).
Well, for all my silence and self education, I can stay silent no more…
The capsule review that Maurizio has written (above) is one of his finest. It covers, effortlessly, just about every point and detail of this particlar film in about the same way as the film unfolded for me. SCARLET STREET is one of those time worn classics that has every cliche of good noir threaded though it but goes a few steps further. The atmosphere is dripping wet with despair and revenge, the dialoque is hard and hypnotic and the performances are big, depressed and all together shifty and malevolant.
I think what ultimately drew me to this film in the first place, many years ago on bad bootleg (looking scratchy and worn, actually the perfect way to see this film) was the hook of seeing Edward G. Robinson go all out in a performance that takes a seemingly nice guy through the ringer till he has nothing to hold on to, morality-wise. With that hook I was, and still am, in awe of this film. SCARLET STREET harbors all the elements (and then some) of what i believe great noir is all about. The slick black and white cinematography is just the tip of the iceberg here and everything, from the music to the costuming to the tight direction to Robinson’s great central performance, all just do it for me.
Noir, to me, is that one genre that gets taken advantage of more than others in that it’s door is open for poor imitations. However, when done right (as with this film, movies like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, CAPE FEAR, OUT OF THE PAST), its the one genre that leaves an indelible stamp on the definition of pure cinema. It’s the genre that I believe defines what cinema does best, and that is to tax the every emotion we have.
The other reason I decided to jump into this thread was Maurizio’s review. Quick, precise, to the point and totally gushing over the film he’s writing about, you can feel the love he has for this film pouring out of his pen as he applies it to paper. He has captured the essence of SCARLET STREET and what it is about “NOIR” that gets his blood pumping…
Looking at this count I have noticed the absence of certain films. As I am sure that Maurizio is getting close to most of them I know I will be glued to this roster of movies till we get to the conclusive number “1” position.
My bet is the top slot will be taken by Carol Reed’s immortal THE THIRD MAN starring Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli and the great, great Orson Welles.
I am very happy to see you chime in Dennis. You need to go raid Sam’s video library and watch as many noirs as possible lol. I’m sure he probably has every one of these films laying around somewhere. I would think you are someone that is tailor made for loving film noir. Kubrick’s early work (all his B/W movies) were either film noir or took from that genre in a stylistic sense. The cynical and pessimistic view of humanity is also somewhat similar. If Kubrick would of been born 10-15 years earlier he probably would of made many more noirs throughout his career.
I love that you made a prediction on the top spot. I swear that I still have no idea what will finish at number one. Right now 5 movies can take it. These kinds of definitive lists are really hard to put in any order. I want to forever be proud of my selections. I will admit that I regret not including two films that should of made my countdown. The Locket and Crime Wave belong in the top 50…. both will not show up to my eternal annoyance. Oh Well no one is perfect. Second guessing becomes a serious crutch at times when doing these genre rundowns. I appreciate the compliment and I hope all your favorites get covered.
“You need to go raid Sam’s video library and watch as many noirs as possible lol. I’m sure he probably has every one of these films laying around somewhere.”
I”m sure SAM does have them all LAYING around somewhere. He’s probably got a few laying on the sofa, a few more on the window sill, a few more on the floor under the fooze-ball table and a few more still under the washing machine and dryer.
Honestly, with Sam’s organizing skills, I wouldn’t be surprized at all to see a few of them in the refrigerator next to the peanut-butter jar.
…..My bet is the top slot will be taken by Carol Reed’s immortal THE THIRD MAN starring Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli and the great, great Orson Welles……
My bet is Out of the Past.
Peter I finally decided on my number one. I like these predictions. I hope more people make them….
IN A LONELY PLACE
or THE KILLERS, or actually since you’re a Kubrick fan I expect THE KILLING to place high. A film that gets incredibly too much praise.
No cheating Jamie… just pick one lol.
Some peanut butter and gilda sandwich.
Jamie said, “I’ve never understood two things about this film: one, how are we supposed to view him as a ‘great’ artist when so much of what we see on screen is so amateurish?…”
Hi! Jamie…
Jamie, Unfortunately, I’am not familiar with the artist John Becker, but he was probably “re-inventing” himself or his artwork…Considering the fact, that some Of his paintings are realist (or rather he painted in the style referred to as Realism at some point in his career…I’am not sure if he continued to paint in that “vein” (Realism) or did he eventually, start to paint in what appears to be an Expressionist style?!? 🙄 ) and in that sense he reminds me Of artist Pablo Picasso, who Of course “re-invented” himself constantly…
…For instance, as a young artist, his (Picasso’s) paintings were easily placed in the category Of realist paintings, but as he matured an it’s obvious he started experimenting with different mediums and styles his artwork both “morphed” and he “re-invented” himself constantly, his paintings ran the gamut from Realism to Classicism and Surrealism, Cubism, and finally, ending with Wartime Experiences.
Artist Pablo Piccaso’s Artwork From 1895 Until 1973
On a personal note…Being an artist, (I’am a natural artist, which means I was born with a “brush in my hand…” even though I have some classical training.) I have re-invented my artwork too…starting out as a realist, and classical painter, but now my artwork fall into the category Of Abstract Expressionism…
…(Similar to artist O”Keeffe and Rothko’s painting style…although both artists rejected this label, and Rothko, even resisted classification as an “abstract painter.” However, both Mark Rothko and Georgia O’Keeffe…were realist painters at one point in their careers too…with the latter once proclaiming that she wasn’t going to paint dead rabbits in copper pots forever.
(Even though her painting of a dead rabbit in a copper pot is very realistic and beautiful too…) In other words, she planned on re-inventing and challenging herself artistically, as much as possible. I have a feeling that is what Mr. Becker, was doing too! )
Therefore, I think this is what makes artist John Becker, a great artist…as far as I’am concern…because his realist work is beautiful, but at a certain period in his life (just like artist Pablo Picasso) he decided to “re-invent” his artwork…and his style.
[Postscript: I plan to follow-up on this comment with Maurizio Roca’s comment about artist John Becker…shortly!
Cont…
I certainly understand that artist constantly evolve, but this doesn’t say anything about my point on the actual quality of said paintings. Yes, Picasso constantly ‘reinvented himself’ but he’s rather brilliant in every ‘reinvention’ he attempted.
On the topic of realism or not this also doesn’t affect my initial point on quality. Or as poet translator Gass has said, “it doesn’t matter where art comes from, what matters is if it’s good or not”.
“The Leger-esque paintings in this film, which are supposed to be the work of Edward G. Robinson’s character (frustrated amateur artist Chris Cross)…”
According to Dr Macro…”Later at home, as Adele’s nagging continues, Chris steals some of the security bonds left by her deceased first husband. Johnny helps Kitty select a lavish studio and demands she ask Chris for $1,000 more. When Chris unexpectedly visits the studio and finds Johnny with Kitty, she introduces him as a friend’s boyfriend, but Chris’s suspicions are aroused. Nevertheless, he brings several paintings to the studio and begins painting a portrait of Kitty.
Later, Chris hesitates to provide Kitty with more money, but when she threatens to ask Johnny, Chris assures her he will get it for her and, in desperation, begins stealing at work. Johnny, certain Chris is a famous artist, takes some of his paintings to a street vendor, who assesses them as amateurish, but offers to try and sell them.
The next day, the vendor brings art critic Arthur Janeway to see Johnny, who tells him that Kitty did the paintings. Janeway declares the works highly original and when Kitty repeats some of Chris’s phrases about art, the critic is impressed enough to offer to place the paintings with a prominent art dealer. Although Kitty is nervous, Johnny readily agrees.
Sometime later, Adele spots the paintings with Kitty’s signature in a dealer’s window and accuses Chris of copying Kitty’s work. Chris confronts Kitty about the paintings and she tearfully admits she had to sell them for money. Chris is pleased the paintings are selling and relieved to continue working in anonymity…”
After I read these two comments I though… Hmmm…Maybe Director Fritz Lang, wanted the paintings to look amateurish, for the reason(s) stated above…Now, the question is…Did artist John Decker, paint these painting this way (amateurish) on purpose 🙄 Or did he also paint in that “Expressionist” style in his personal life too? If so, then my comment to Jamie, is like the ending Of Lang’s film “Woman in the Window” it’s only a dream…if the artist painted those paintings in that fashion or manner on purpose.
Maurizio Roca said, “The bad artwork is one of two flaws in the film (the other being the dead husband appearing out of nowhere to help the plot along) but I honestly like the painting I posted. It is not great artwork, but it has a morbid look that feels like Kitty’s apparition/soul is trapped within its frame. It gives off a (probably unintended) macabre feeling when staring at it. A kind of Dorian Grey manifestation of Chris Cross’ guilt over the murder/ execution…
Maurizio said, “Otherwise the paintings are laughable and one wonders why Lang approved of such shoddy examples to grace his picture.”
On a personal note…I don’t think that the paintings are laughable…Because Of the all the reasons that you, stated above in describing the paintings. Maybe he (Edward G.Robinson’s character Chris Cross) was putting his inner anguish or angst on canvas…because Of the turmoil that was occurring in his home life.)
Lang doesn’t want him to get off so easy too soon. He wanders around like a ghost trapped in purgatory. Roaming around consumed by guilt…You could argue that Lang leaves us with the impression that another attempt at his life will ensue at some point. What is more horrific though than Cross surviving…”
Right you are…Maurizio, according to the book that I quoted earlier…Fritz Lang said,” The studio worried about that, but I pointed out that Robinson is punished more by living with his guilt than he would have by going to jail At the end Of the film he is a man driven by the “Furies,” at his wits end…”
He also mentioned that Scarlet Street is one Of his favorite films.
Cont…
Very good points and tidbits of information you bring up here Dee Dee. Cross living is clearly the more dreary outcome for the character. Death would be a welcome release. I will concede that perhaps Lang wanted the paintings to look bad and amateurish. In my opinion he did a great job then lol.
“…However, I agree with you wholeheartedly, when it comes to the latter film being very fatalistic in every sense Of the word.”
If you, scroll back up the page you will notice that I inserted a strike-out line through the words “far superior…”
Because I truly don’t like to compare the 1945 film “Scarlet Street” to the 1944 film “Woman in the Window” because they are two completely different films.
To be completely, honest with you, I like both films the same…One film is more fatalistic “Scarlet Street” and the other film is more psychological “Woman in the Window.”
The same director, the same cast Of main characters, with one film being released the following year “Nineteenth Forty-Five,” but two very different films…period.
DeeDee 😉 🙂
I thought that The Woman In The Window came out in 1944? Regardless, I don’t begrudge you for liking both. I just think at this point that one film far outstrips the other.
@ Jamie…All I can say is I’am so sorry, because it appears as if director Fritz Lang, wanted the paintings to look amateurish. Therefore, I think it’s a moot point now…with this information “thrown” into the mix…However, with that being said…I’am also Of the mindset that one person view of a painting as a “terrible painting” is another person “masterpiece.”
For instance, artist Georgia O’Keeffe, upon observing artist Jackson Pollack’s artwork at an exhibition said, What the?!?…Well, she didn’t actually use those words, but she didn’t like his paintings.
Personally, I like artist Jackson Pollack’s art work very much and disagree with artist Georgia O’Keeffe, opinion about “The Pollack’s artwork. I was also enrolled in an art course and there was one art student who disliked both Picasso’s Cubism period and artist Georgia O’Keeffe’s artwork.
So, the question that begs to be answered is Who is right? Who is wrong?…I think that the answer is neither…Because I think that it’s a matter Of taste and most definitely, our own opinion(s) about artist Jackson Pollack, Picasso, O’Keeffe and Becker’s artwork that is if he painted the work intentionally.
By the way, I’am not sure if you read my comment to Maurizio, about my response to your questioning Of the paintings…here:
“After I read these two comments I though… Hmmm…Maybe Director Fritz Lang, wanted the paintings to look amateurish, for the reason(s) stated above…Now, the question is…Did artist John Decker, paint these painting this way (amateurish) on purpose Or did he also paint in that “Expressionist” style in his personal life too? If so, then my long comment to Jamie, is like the ending Of Lang’s film “Woman in the Window” it’s only a dream…if the artist painted those paintings in that fashion or manner on purpose…”
@ Maurizio Roca…Right you, are…I have corrected my mistake in my comment about the year that the latter film was released.
DeeDee 😉 🙂
I understand that it’s mostly opinion but I don’t think painting (or any art form) deserves that little thought. Thinking like this can lead parents to say things like “my kid paints as well as Robert Rauschenburg’ because I think so, and my opinion is all that matters”. This is both incorrect and a conversational dead-end, which who wants those on the topic of art? The truth is is that there most certainly are objective ways to determine whether are is ‘good’ or ‘not’, then where opinions come into it is where we rank them personally or how much they affect us. (Then I can say something like Rothko is a brilliant painter, but he doesn’t do anything for me)
Painting is actually probably the ‘easiest’ form of art to judge on these grounds as it’s quite a bit about craft, technique, composition, and color theory.
There are objective measures that can be made, then how certain things are weighted to that person determines how brilliant they deem that art or artist to be. For example, O’Keefe didn’t like Pollack’s work, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t think he was talented or worthwhile, or even ‘not an amateur’. I wasn’t knocking the paintings in the film on personal grounds or taste, I was saying the technique was poor, and not there. If this is the films point (that Chris is an ‘amateur’) then OK, but then again we’re back to my original point: how are we to suspend belief that a few ‘famous’ respected art critic characters in the film deem the work brilliant? It isn’t even brilliantly amateur in a visceral way a la Basquiat.
I’m really glad to hear that you like the Decker paintings too, Dee Dee – I think they are very haunting, and yes, that includes the snake one. John Decker was a German exile, like Lang (his original name was Leopold von der Decken), and I think a lot of his paintings did have an expressionist quality to them. Very interested to hear that you do abstract expressionist paintings yourself – I’d love to see some of your work if you’d like to give a link! I’ve just found another article which lists all the paintings featured in ‘Scarlet Street’ and talks about how “There is a progression to the paintings in the film that supply a key to the emotional arc of the narrative of the film.”
Here is the link
http://www0.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1018333/content_283973488260
You need to scroll down quite a long way to get to the discussion of the paintings – shame the piece doesn’t include images of them all!
All is well. Toiling in the spam nether world…
Thank you, Maurizio!
I’ve tried to post a comment a couple of times in this thread, in response to Dee Dee, which hasn’t turned up – not sure if it has just disappeared, or if it has gone in the spam filter because it has a link in it. If anyone has a chance to check, I’d appreciate it.:)
Hi! Judy…
Oh! yes, I don’t think that director Fritz Lang, would have went through all that detailed work (with artist John Decker)…just for the sake Of having the paintings have no [dark] message hidden within them…after reading the article that you linked a couple Of comments kind Of proved my point such as these comments by the author Of the article:
“John Decker created the series of expressionist paintings for the film and there is possibly an entire Master’s Thesis that could generate a fellowship years worth of funding just analyzing and investigating the canvases and there own story line within the structure of the film. As frames within the frame of the movie screen, the paintings have a power of their own.
There is a progression to the paintings in the film that supply a key to the emotional arc of the narrative of the film.
The first canvass we see is a stark white flower against a black background; an emotionally driven expressionist vision of reality. It is a newly created painting in the film and important because it introduces us to Chris’s talent and his particular knack for expression- the picture of the flower is a symbolic expression for Chris’s love for Kitty.
The second painting we see is an enormous snake curling its way up a support beam on the El train. This seems like a clear expression of the night Chris met Kitty as she was fending off Johnny’s attack. Nick, the pawnshop owner says it well to Johnny, referring to a serpent in one of Chris’ paintings: “That snake is strictly from the Bronx”.
[The painting that you like with the snake…represented actor Dan Duryea’s character…hmmm]
The third painting is a classical, renaissance-style study of a woman’s head tilted back, seemingly making her throat open for perhaps a kiss, or maybe a knife blade. The canvas is less expressionist as the other paintings, and the question rises as to who modeled for the picture, or did Chris copy it from his own idealized vision of beauty and grace?
The fourth picture we see is a cityscape reminiscent of Giorgio DiChirico, or Edward Hopper, without perspective. When Chris and Johnny talk about the picture Chris admits he couldn’t master perspective, the ironic subtext being that Chris is blind to the motives of those around him…”
Judy said,”I’d love to see some of your work if you’d like to give a link!”
Judy, Oh! no, I’am unable to supply a link, but most importantly, my artwork isn’t in the public “eye” yet, with yet being the operative word.
Judy,
Thank-you, so much for the comment…
DeeDee 😉 🙂
So let me get this straight – Woman in the Window won’t be appearing on the list? 🙂
I’m with DeeDee, I enjoyed both films a great deal. I don’t know why people always insist on comparing the two (though it’s inevitable).
I do think Scarlet Street is probably the superior work, though. Much darker indeed.
The Big Heat is still tops for me from Lang from this American noir era, though.
With regards to the on-going list – any thoughts on posting all the great screen shots together as part of the “finale”? So many great images!
The Woman In The Window will miss out David. It was definitely the second film noir I ever watched where I was aware I was viewing a noir (Murder My Sweet is the first). I have fond memories of sitting in film class as my Professor (who was an expert on the subject) unveiled his noir selection for the semester and screened this 1944 Lang. I liked it back then, but am less impressed these days.
Hi! D.H. Schleicher…
D.H.Schleicher said, “I’m with DeeDee, I enjoyed both films a great deal. I don’t know why people always insist on comparing the two (though it’s inevitable)…”
Because Of the reasons that I stated earlier…a different, but yet similar plot, the use Of the same main cast members, (Robinson, Bennett and Duryea) the same director, (Lang) etc, etc, etc…Therefore, in the end it’s inevitable that both films will always be compared…Unfortunately.
[Postscript: After reading this article no wonder people compare both films…]
The Stuff You Gotta Watch
DeeDee 🙂
I guess he could explain away why he changed the ending of The Woman In The Window and give slightly satisfactory reasons…”
Maurizio Roca, after reading this article epinions I discovered that it was more than Fritz Lang’s decision to change the ending, but the strict Production Code that was enacted at that time was an important factor too!
DeeDee 😉
Sorry Dee Dee, no excuse can suffice in explaining the lame ending…
Hi! Jamie…
I have been “dizzy”…Woah!… thinking Of a response(s) to your question(s) and comment(s) for nearly, two days now…However, with that being said, I will try to address your questions/inquiries to the best Of my abilities…
Jamie said, “I understand that it’s mostly opinion but I don’t think painting (or any art form) deserves that little thought…”
My No# 1. Response …I agree with your opinion here…I think known artist(s) and their painting(s) especially, need to be discussed in great details whenever their artwork is in the public eye.
Since artist(s) placed his/her painting(s) in the public “eye” I think their artwork is an open “target” to be analyzed and scrutinized by the viewing public.
…”Thinking like this can lead parents to say things like “my kid paints as well as Robert Rauschenburg’ because I think so, and my opinion is all that matters”.
My No# 2. Response …Well, I’am not so sure about this comment…Because my response to any and all parents would be that nice…please continue to encourage your child (or children) in the arts. I don’t mean to be or sound rude, but I wouldn’t care what a parent(s) think about their child(or children’s) paintings.
So said, you…Well, my nephew can paint better than Rothko, and have mastered mixing colours very well…Who cares? It sounds to me as if the parents are “bragging…” more so than voicing there opinion(s) about their child painting(s).
…”This is both incorrect and a conversational dead-end, which who wants those on the topic of art?…
Please See: My No# 1. Response
…”The truth is is that there most certainly are objective ways to determine whether art is ‘good’ or ‘not’, than where opinions come into it is where we rank them personally or how much they affect us. (Then I can say something like Rothko is a brilliant painter, but he doesn’t do anything for me)
Hmmm…That sounds like your opinion to me…
Jamie, I really don’t know how you, are going to escape opinion(s)…They are important…because that is what a person “feels”…It’s personal, but most importantly, it yours.
For instance, If I said, artist Mark Rothko’s painting(s) are brilliant!…What is this? I’am stating it as a fact, (and if I state anything as a fact, I better have “proof” to back-up my fact, too!)…
…When in reality I should have said, “I think (or I feel) that artist Mark Rothko, paintings are brilliant!…(It’s personal…It’s mine!) I don’t know how you, are going to “”escape” opinions when it comes to art, films, music, food, politics, religion, etc, etc, etc… 🙄
[If you, don’t believe me let someone (or anyone) try to “stifle” your right to free speech…Especially, your opinion to agree or disagree…]
…”Painting is actually probably the ‘easiest’ form of art to judge on these grounds as it’s quite a bit about craft, technique, composition, and color theory.”
My No#4. Response I agree with you wholeheartedly, here…being an artist those are the first art elements that you learn in art classes.
(Along with…Line, Value, Form, Texture, and Perspective…Which I will reference later in this comment too!)
…”There are objective measures that can be made, then how certain things are weighted to that person determines how brilliant they deem that art or artist to be. For example, O’Keefe didn’t like Pollack’s work, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t think he was talented or worthwhile, or even ‘not an amateur’…”
Hmmm…I’am not sure about that…especially, after viewing the documentary entitled Georgia O’Keeffe…(By the way, this was her first and last interview) and it was hosted by the late actor Paul Newman’s wife actress Joanne Woodward…)
I was under the impression that she (O”Keeffe) didn’t like Pollack’s artwork and didn’t think that he was talented…period.
If you, ever watch this documentary maybe your opinion will be different from what I perceived from her body language, facial expression, and most definitely, her opinion about his artwork. I was under the impression that she didn’t think he was talented nor did she think that his artwork was worthwhile.
…”I wasn’t knocking the paintings in the film on personal grounds or taste, I was saying the technique was poor, and not there. If this is the films point (that Chris is an ‘amateur’) then OK, …
Jamie, I didn’t think that you were knocking the paintings, but was pointing out the “execution” Of the artwork…lack Of, .Line, Value, Form, Texture, and Perspective…This I truly understand…See My Response to No#4…
…”but then again we’re back to my original point: how are we to suspend belief that a few ‘famous’ respected art critic characters in the film deem the work brilliant? It isn’t even brilliantly amateur in a visceral way a la Basquiat.
Easily, On the one hand, a classically trained (or maybe a self-taught artist this being the lesser known artist John Decker,) painted the paintings. On the other hand, if an amateur (or non-artist) painted the paintings I then would have found it difficult to suspend belief after the “famous” respected art critic in Lang’s 1945 film “Scarlet Street” deemed actor Edward G. Robinson’s character Chris Cross’ painting(s) brilliant too.
In other words, even though artist John Decker, painted the painting with (some) Of the art elements missing…we the viewers know that he was either a classically trained (or maybe a self-taught artist…) that he painted the painting without those art elements intentionally.
Let say, a more famous artist or artist(s) such as: Salvador Dali, Picasso, O’Keeffe, Rothko, Van Gogh, Renoir, Monet, Manet, or Degas painted the paintings for Lang’s film would you, have the same opinion or would you have been Of the mindset…Well, they (the more well-known artist (s) just did that on purpose.
Because we know in “reality” when they put brush to canvas all Of the (art) elements, will be (or rather would have been) securely in place once they painted a picture that was sold or displayed to the public.
On a personal note…I think that you, are placing way too much emphasis on the paintings…Instead Of, the reason(s) the paintings were used in the film:
“John Decker created the series of expressionist paintings for the film and there is possibly an entire Master’s Thesis that could generate a fellowship years worth of funding just analyzing and investigating the canvases and there own story line within the structure of the film. As frames within the frame of the movie screen, the paintings have a power of their own.”
Oops! This is just my “opinion” (Giggling)
DeeDee 😕
Maurizio Roca said,”Sorry Dee Dee, no excuse can suffice in explaining the lame ending…”
Hi! Maurizio Roca…
LOL!!!! I understand and believe me you, are not the “lone” voice in the “wind” neither…Because I know several fellow film noir aficionados and novice(s) who share your opinion about Lang’s 1944 film Woman in the Window ending too…
DeeDee 😉
Just pretend the ending is all a bad dream.
In a story about the Decker paintings in the NYTimes from 1945 (“Still Life By Decker” September 23, 1945) they’re described as “primitives.” Decker was a good choice for Lang to get the style he wanted as Decker was noted for his ability to forge paintings in the style of many other artists, for fun and sometimes (shady) profit. Most of the other Decker paintings I’ve seen pictures of don’t look like the ones in “Scarlet Street.”
BTW-the painting of Joan Bennett in “The Woman in the Window” was done by Paul Clemens. Clemens was married to Eleanor Parker from 1954 to 1965 and did a number of portraits of society types, often with their children.
Very interesting – I’d been wondering if this one was a Decker too, so interested to hear who actually did it. Also interested in your comments about Decker and the forging – I’ve read the story of how he might have forged a Rembrandt, though the museum concerned believes the work in question is genuine.
Does E. G. Robinson drown himself at the end of Scarlet Street? I’ve been looking a very long time to find out in which picture he does that. Help!!!!!
Diane
No. The picture ends with Robinson wandering around aimlessly and coming in contact with an art gallery selling his work for boatloads of money. The absolutely black irony of Scarlet Street’s ending is quite powerful, but sans forced asphyxiation from H2o.
Re Scarlet Street: Kitty lays around her apartment is incorrect; she lies around the joint. And to have forgotten the Renoir movie on which Scarlet Street is based was an oversight on par with Kitty’s failure to pick up the garbage.
Scarlet Street (1945) Free Movie Online in HD