Director: Abraham Polonsky
Producer: Bob Roberts
Screenwriter: Ira Wolfert and Abraham Polonsky
Cinematographer: George Barnes
Music: David Raksin
Studio: Enterprise and MGM 1948
Main Acting: John Garfield and Thomas Gomez
There is much more to Force Of Evil than what appears on the surface. As I once wrote on another blog:
“The scene where John Garfield (playing lawyer Joe Morse) descends into an allegorical hell to discover his brother’s body on the rocks was very powerful. It is clearly an attack on capitalism and greed. Polonsky shows how corruption can spread and hurt multiple people like a disease. The innocent victims are Leo’s employees, who are linked and compared to regular American workers being cast aside and exploited. He is being very subversive by comparing capitalism to gambling or the numbers racket. The director shows his contempt for America’s financial system by linking it to a shadowy illegal operation. In some ways, this film is like a harbinger to our current economic crisis where greed has dire consequences for society and the general population.”
While I could go on and on about the social message fused within the script and throughout this late 40s film noir, I find myself uninterested in discussing this aspect of the picture. My primary love and enjoyment of film noir has little to do with politics or social causes and more with investigating the struggle of the individual to battle personal demons and existential feelings. My favorite noirs are mostly about protagonists fighting the inevitable cruel hand of fate or trying to overcome bad choices they have foisted upon themselves. Force Of Evil is primarily concerned with economic realities and institutional injustices, but I primarily watch it (these days at least) for the way that Joe Morse fits in with the typical noir anti-hero. He is generally a good guy who lets materialism guide his actions until certain tragedies befall him.
Joe Morse is a hotshot lawyer who has fallen in with a powerful gangster, Tucker (played by Roy Roberts). Together, they conspire to consolidate all the numbers rackets being operated in New York City. By rigging the numerical combination that will hit on July 4th (the popular 776), they can then swoop in and overtake the smaller businesses that will be decimated by the overwhelming loss of capital this miracle outcome will produce. The only hitch for Joe is that his brother happens to run one of these small-time operations and regardless of his desire for upward mobility, he still feels a sense of love and loyalty toward his sibling. Leo Morse (played wonderfully by Thomas Gomez) helped get Joe through school and sacrificed for the betterment of his brother. Joe, like most noir protagonists, is conflicted between achieving a level of success and wondering what his actions will eventually cost him. Force Of Evil is adamant about showing realism and truth. No bad luck prevents Joe from achieving his desired happiness. The narrative circumstances that afflict him are purely based on his personal choices. We sympathize with Garfield’s character because even if he is a selfish crook who is willing to cheat the masses, there is still a distinct goodness in him to help the one person he cares about. The chance for redemption is always a possibility.
Garfield’s Joe Morse must eventually pay for his transgressions. The biblical-infused Force Of Evil makes sure of that. The penalty is one that is somewhat different than most inhabitants of the genre face. Near the end of the picture, New York becomes an empty shell for Morse. The financial district is displayed as a hallow ghost town where little life moves within it. By the 75th-minute mark, we all journey with our suffering guide as he recounts, “I was feeling very bad there. Because I went down there. I just kept going down and down. It was like going down to the bottom of the world.” Where he is going reflects the epitomized conclusion of his greedy actions. The corpse of his brother has been thrown away on the rocks. Throughout the film, Joe Morse tried to accomplish two things…and neither was achieved.
Polonsky was blacklisted after this movie and only directed two more features, Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here and Romance Of A Horse Thief, both which were made in the early 70s after his moviemaking ban was rescinded. A real tragedy for film noir fans as the artist would of most likely continued making quality pictures in the genre. The destruction of his career means we will never really know how great of a director he might have been. I always equate him with Charles Laughton who also only directed one film noir (Laughton’s scarcity in filmmaking was more due to financial and box office disappointment) and we can never know what kind of filmography these two talented men would have forged. Still, we should at least be grateful that Abraham Polonsky was able to make at least one absolute masterpiece. That film is called Force Of Evil and maybe that is more than enough.
I would also like to point out the incredible contributions of David Raskin and George Barnes. The cinematography throughout Force Of Evil is peppered with breathtaking location photography and tight claustrophobic scenes of entrapment. The music by Raskin conveys the mood perfectly and really hits a high point in the end when it gives a hint of hopefulness amidst images of bleakness.
In order to find out additional information just follow this link to:
In order to donate just follow this link to:
This is one of the greatest of noirs and a masterpiece of the American cinema. This is a topical contect here and as you mention in your post-script the film contains one of David Raskin’s most memorable scores. This may well be the darkest, seediest and most claustrophobic film in all of noir, and it’s one of it’s most cynical, a no-holds barred assault on the capitalist system, intimating as it does that characters are part of their environment, and that capitalism breeds decadence. Garfield plays his most “affluent” role here, and Barnes (who won an Oscar for REBECCA) turns in some stunning work here, again as you contend yourself in the summation.
When I saw the film under consideration here I expected one of your best essays. You did not disappoint Maurizio.
I love the manner you employ here to translate this in contemporary terms too.
Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same Sam. I wonder what Polonsky would of thought of our country after this latest crisis. He probably would of made a narrative Inside Job and dodge neo con slings and arrows instead of communist haters…
I agree this is a very great film, as corrosive as any other. It’s too bad that the bookends about the blacklisting often overshadows the artistry. But I agree with Sam that Mr. Roca has outdone himself today.
The blacklisting destroyed a promising career. Polonsky clearly would of directed other great noirs. I have no doubt about this.
“While I could go on and on about the social message fused within the script and throughout this late 40s film noir, I find myself uninterested in discussing this aspect of the picture. My primary love and enjoyment of film noir has little to do with politics or social causes and more with investigating the struggle of the individual to battle personal demons and existential feelings. My favorite noirs are mostly about protagonists fighting the inevitable cruel hand of fate or trying to overcome bad choices they have foisted upon themselves. Force Of Evil is primarily concerned with economic realities and institutional injustices, but I primarily watch it (these days at least) for the way that Joe Morse fits in with the typical noir anti-hero. He is generally a good guy who lets materialism guide his actions until certain tragedies befall him.”
This is a nice passage, one I just don’t necessarily agree with. It’s impossible to deal with this film and separate the economic messages and the characters eventual outcomes. Their fates as you call it, are directly linked to financial enterprises, forever impossible to avoid. It’s a sobering fact about how small humans are, as Paul Weller said of the reality of existence: “a pound (or dollar to Americans) or a fist it’s as clear as this”. Yes, we are weak and succumb, but it’s also because it’s virtually un-scalable. As Joe says partway through the film (a line that contains the entire truth of the picture) “I wasn’t strong enough to resist corruption, but I was strong enough to fight for a piece of it.”
Strange I just watched this this past weekend (it was my second viewing in about a weeks time) and like you I looked for kernels of brilliance elsewhere (other then the anti-capitalistic message). I found some, but then thinking further I was again led back through the money trail. I think all the love stuff I was especially moved by, particularly the scene in the beginning where Joe and Doris talk in the back of a taxi. It’s beautifully shot in a romantic soft focus, they discuss hopes, dreams and possible futures, futures she particularly knows they can’t have as long as he’s tied up in the numbers racket. It’s heartbreaking, and eventually every scene they have together advances these points further and becomes the center (and heart) of the film… it’s through her (ala Bresson’s PICKPOCKET) that he can finally find transcendence and forgiveness at the films close. A damn shame she isn’t mentioned at all in this review.
Oh and I forgot to mention, the shoot out scene is pretty unbelievable delivered. Just a masterclass of film direction, staging and cutting.
I mean the one in the bar (between the brother and the numbers guy), not the one with the Senator and Joe… though that one is pretty brilliantly done too.
I knew exactly what you were talking about. That shoot out scene is incredible. You can feel the effect it had on Scorsese’s filmmaking. It has a modern directness to it.
yep, Scorsese is clearly thinking about it in TAXI DRIVER, there is even a shot staring down the barrel of the gun that he also uses in that film.
You can separate the film from the message because I know plenty of people that view it that way. I personally love the film for both the message and the story, but have lately watched it more with the mindset of it being a straight noir without the larger social context. It can be done, and it proves that Polonsky, besides many other things was a talented and entertaining filmmaker.
I know people that view TRANSFORMERS as a great film doesn’t mean their opinion is correct, let alone valid.
I can’t speak for others on why and how they view certain films. I know that Force Of Evil can be enjoyed without thinking about the larger social message after multiple viewings. This of course is after I fully ingested it the way Polonsky probably wanted me to watch it the first two or three times. I just have to be honest and point out that many people do gloss over the political aspects and enjoy it as straight noir from the beginning. I try not to judge anyone based on how they choose to view a piece of art. We all look at noir through different filters anyway.
OK, I can take out the social message(s) of the film. But in doing so you lose: the conflict between brothers, the downfall of both brothers (including one’s eventual death), the reluctance of the woman to start the romance (a reluctance that lasts the entire film), the subplot about the numbers man calling in and being jailed, (then eventually shot), the walk down Wall Street loses all importance as a pointed location (not to mention his office itself being located on Wall Street), the importance of having elected officials involved, the subplot of the small characters who have to continue doing this to survive, etc. In short you now have a film that’s about 5 minutes long with absolutely no narrative or emotional thrust.
It’s also not a film we’re talking about 70 years later or so.
The real question becomes, why does one watch a film like this and try so hard to NOT see the economic/social themes (or casually miss/avoid them)? It seems to me the only type of person that would do this is someone with a raging hard on for capitalism ala Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh… OR someone that doesn’t understand the economic realities of the planet (we ARE still talking about adults now right!?).
Like I said people choose to view art through their own personal filters that I am not privy too. While I am not the biggest fan of deregulated capitalism I don’t assume that everyone who still believes in that particular system is a Beck/Limbaugh fanatic. The majority of the country is actually very centrist and I believe these people probably still view capitalism as a great form of government if regulated correctly. I would assume that if you took a poll of Americans and how they felt about their beloved system of government being compared with the numbers racket, they would disapprove. Me personally, a little socialism may not be the worst thing we could try. Deregulated capitalism is a cancer eating away at our morale in my opinion.
Back to the movie…I think your first paragraph is an exaggeration. From someone who has seen Force Of Evil about half a dozen times, your take is very Limbaughesque extreme in saying the movie only stands on the strength of its social message. It sure can be viewed without politics attached and still convey the tragedy of a dead brother and future atonement successfully. Is watching Force Of Evil this way an attempt to enjoy it with blinders on?? Absolutely!!! For me, I purposely put the blinders on to approach it from a more personal angle. The beauty is that my ignorance is not bliss and I know deep down what Force Of Evil is about and sympathize.
Right, I’m not telling anyone how to view art, you misrepresent what I’m saying. What I’m saying is you’re arguing/claiming that people can look at say Elsworth Kelly’s ‘The Meschers’ (1951) and not see red and blue. Or claim they see orange.
The social thrust is what the film is about, and everything else that happens hinges on that.
As for people being politically centrist, this is a fact I have little use for. The last 48 months in this country specifically should tell anyone that fence-sitters are about as implicit as right-wing loons.
Its not that they don’t see red or blue, they just see it without attaching a political significance to it. My point is many people gloss over the strong social message from Force Of Evil and love the movie anyway. I don’t make any judgments on why they do this. I have done this as well lately after enjoying it from a more traditional Polonsky viewpoint.
I guess our main difference is that I can accept someone watching Force Of Evil in such a manner, while you find it inexcusable. I can understand your position and respect it.
I’m not saying anything about personal ethics (that comment was for real life politics), I’m saying avoiding them here is avoiding 95% of the film.
At that point just watch a screwball comedy or well made rom-com from the era. It’s like me loving a heavy metal album but avoiding or saying it isn’t about the heavy guitars. At that point shouldn’t I just listen to a dance record? Or something else. Or eating a banana split because I’m in the mood to eat a banana, just eat a banana avoid the whip creme, ice cream, hot fudge, etc.
I hope I’m clearer.
Maybe someone hates guitars but loves double bass drums…
I think people can love film noir and Force Of Evil and not care about the politics. To them the acting and story is taken literally and the politics becomes the disposable whip cream.
I completely agree here Maurizio. This film works on a number of levels.
Maurizio, those are the fence sitters. Everything is political, even when it’s not political it is.
to strip this film of it’s politics also does two things:
removes its uniqueness and makes it like every other great film from it’s era.
and, probably most offensive, trivializes Polonsky’s blacklisting. Polonsky felt the political/social message was worth gambling his career on (a gamble we can say he unfortunately lost), and you want to look elsewhere for beauty in the film.
Oh well. Agree to disagree.
I saw the beauty in what Polonsky was trying to say. What this review is getting at, is that I now look at the picture from a different angle. I don’t discount my earlier political assessment, just that I find a more personal connection to Force Of Evil at this point. I’m less a fence sitter and more a fence abandoner.
and yet your essay speaks entirely about the politics/social issues…
I’ve been told countless times in this thread by Sam and you that you can like this film for other reasons or approach it from a different angle and I’m yet to see an angle take that approach. Saying you can ‘appreciate the acting’ is true, but what you appreciate is the naturalistic performance; how accurate it is. How accurate it is in conveying the seriousness and immediacy of the plot (i.e. back to the social issues).
Really, I’m the only one to speak explicitly about something else, the staging and cutting in the shoot out scene. It appears I’m not the ‘all or nothing’ person I’m painted as.
But, as I said earlier it’s no big deal. What we do agree on and we agree 100% on is that this is a stone-cold American masterpiece.
I don’t need to mention other stuff because I’m dealing with the heart of the film reflected through a personal viewpoint. I’m taking the core essence of Force Of Evil and divorcing the social message to find beauty in a different sort of way. The political meaning is never absent just not focused upon.
The focus is on Joe Morse as a typical tragic noir character who’s greed leads to bad choices that leaves his brother dead. I’m interested in him as a protagonist who has some good in him but lets external factors lead to his downfall. He tries so hard to get rich and save his brother throughout the movie, but ends up with a dead sibling and most likely some serious jail time. To me that is noir, the beauty of the genre. I love the political aspects of Force Of Evil, but lately I have chosen to minimize that area when viewing the film. The fact that redemption is also an option for Morse adds to the uniqueness even more.
Watching this from the distance of nearly 65 years makes the blacklist seem even more tragic and stupid, if only because I can imagine modern audiences watching Force of Evil and taking from it no “anti-capitalist” critique whatsoever. And I have my doubts about the audience of 1948. Most people respond to stories like this on a purely personal level, and I suppose they did so strongly in this case. I like the story and the performances and the direction, but as I’ve said elsewhere, this is the film, rather than any of those procedurals, where the narration bugs me. It just comes across as too literary in a faux-naive way, with all those “theres” in the descent voiceover. But maybe it just rubs me the wrong way; I feel the same way listening to Terence Malick movies sometimes. I’d still recommend Force of Evil to anyone.
The narration does not bother me at all and I’m a huge Malick fan as well. I do agree with your opinion about liking this film on just a personal level, which is how I approach it at this point. The anti-capitalist sentiment does not need to be shared for viewers to love Force Of Evil. The message is important and well conveyed so it works from multiple angles.
In light of the rest of the discussion, I should make clear that I don’t think anyone will mistake Force of Evil for an endorsement of the capitalist system. I simply think we’ve reached a point of complacent cynicism at which we accept that people will screw one another over the way Polonsky shows, but cannot imagine an alternative. This film probably seemed more dangerous to the blacklisters when it appeared because they still assumed that many Americans were quite capable of imagining alternatives. Nowadays (and this applies to the Godfather films, too) an equation of capitalism with organized crime is not assumed to be advocacy for socialism except by the most fanatic reactionaries. Whether Polonsky intended Force of Evil to be a political film or not, it’s less of one today because the culture has changed — for better and for worse.
Those were less cynical times indeed Samuel. I see what you mean by blacklisters being more worried due to possible alternatives. The movie is surly less dangerous to modern audiences as mass change seems less likely with our complacent society.
I had to watch this film several times before soaking in all the complexities related to what was going on while it was being made. It belongs among the greatest noirs, so I commend you for saying so in these fascinating terms. Sorry I’ve been away from the boards the past two weeks. But I’ve look on your previous post in the series.
Welcome back Peter and thanks for the compliment.
Like Coppola, in THE GODFATHER, Polansky dared to compare organized crime and Corporate America. It was just business. The combination of real New York locations and fantastic cinematography add to the bleak atmosphere. It is a brilliant film and as you rightly point out, we lost a potential masterful filmmaker. A great piece Maurizio!
Yes The Godfather is a nice comparison John. Crime family and Corporate America similarities was a theme. At this point in our country, seeing how things are turning out with our economy and the role of big business, I could see the mob getting upset with being lumped in with crooked bankers and the like lol.
Here’s a very interesting piece on the film to embellish the discussion:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2005/cteq/force_of_evil/
Hi! Maurizio Roca…
Unfortunately, I have only watched this film only once…Therefore, this film is most definitely, on my films to re-watch list…your review is very well-written and straight to the point.
Thanks, for sharing!
DeeDee
A second view wouldn’t be a bad thing Dee Dee. Force Of Evil almost demands it. A very nuanced layered film…
A fascinating review and discussion. I’ve only seen this film once as yet and clearly need to watch it again – I remember being impressed by by Garfield’s performance in particular and by the cinematography and effective use of voiceover. I like John’s comparison with The Godfather and am now wondering whether the comparisons between business and organised crime are also there implicitly in scenes in some earlier gangster films.
John Garfield’s best performance in my book Judy. Some people have problems with the voiceover, but I also find it effective. Gangster equated to shady business seems like a very logical connection for filmmakers to stress.