by Judy Geater
If there’s one murder mystery where nobody cares whodunit, it has to be The Thin Man. Why waste time puzzling over clues when you could be enjoying William Powell and Myrna Loy, and their portrayal of glamorous detectives Nick and Nora Charles? The scenes everybody remembers from this sparkling pre-Code comedy-drama are all about Nick and Nora – and, of course, their wire-haired terrier, Asta.
For the uninitiated, the film centres on supposedly retired private detective Nick Charles, who has given up the day job to concentrate on enjoying life with his rich wife. Or so he thinks – but, inevitably, when the couple leave their San Francisco home and visit his native New York to stay in a grand hotel suite there over Christmas, the festivities get mixed up with solving one last crime. Which will lead to plenty more “last crimes” in a series of sequels. There is a fine supporting cast, including Maureen O’Sullivan as a lovelorn young girl and Nat Pendleton as a comic detective, and the murder mystery is well done in itself, leading up to a scene round the dinner table where Nick brings all the suspects together before revealing the killer. However, it isn’t what anybody remembers the film for. Few people even remember that the phrase “The Thin Man” is actually supposed to refer to a character involved in the murder mystery, a complicated tangle about an eccentric scientist suspected of killing his ex-lover, and not to William Powell.
Nick and Nora’s whole relationship is conjured up in their first scene together (not the opening of the film, as the mystery has already started). Nick is drinking lazily in a bar, demonstrating how to shake the perfect Martini, when Nora bursts in, dragged by Asta the dog on his lead, scattering packages from her Christmas shopping trip and landing up on the floor. He introduces her: “Oh, it’s all right, Joe. It’s all right. It’s my dog. And, uh, my wife. ” Nora retorts: “Well, you might have mentioned me first on the billing. ” Their dry humour and enjoyment of one another’s quirks are all there in that moment. This scene also hints at the couple’s chalk-and-cheese quality – her rich background, his streetwise knowledge of the sleazier side of life. The Thin Man is regarded as one of the first screwball comedies, and you can imagine Nick and Nora as one of the unlikely couples thrown together by events in a film like Capra’s great It Happened One Night, released the same year. The private eye and the heiress. However, where most romantic comedies up to this point had ended with the wedding, The Thin Man begins with the couple comfortably married – and no need for any unlikely comic misunderstandings, either. This couple understand each other perfectly.
The film is adapted from Dashiel Hammett’s hardboiled mystery novel – he is said to have based the central couple on his own on-off relationship with Lillian Hellman. However, the book and film have very different flavours. Hammett’s book was actually his last novel and there is a bitter flavour at times to his taut prose, especially in the final pages where his world-weary Nick explains that solving a case doesn’t really solve anything: “Murder doesn’t round out anybody’s life except the murdered’s and sometimes the murderer’s.” “That may be,” Nora said, “but it’s all pretty unsatisfactory.”
Some of the seamier aspects of the novel’s plot are ironed out/skated over in the film, and, above all, Nick and Nora’s relationship is made steadier and sweeter. In the book, there are suggestions that Nick has a complicated sexual past and indeed it might even be impinging on the present (Nora jokes about him going off with a redhead at a party the previous night). In the film there is no glimpse of this – despite and above all the dry humour at one another’s expense, their marriage is rock-solid. Much of this is down to director WS “Woody” Van Dyke, who took the decision to concentrate on the Nick/Nora relationship rather than the mystery plot, and brought in husband-and-wife writers Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich to do so, instructing them to add in more comic scenes for the couple. They drew on their own married life to do so. (Van Dyke had already worked with the same writers on the previous year’s Penthouse, also starring Myrna Loy, which is a similar blend of detective story and comedy-romance and definitely worth a look for fans of The Thin Man films.)
Van Dyke was also the one who decided to cast William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora – he had worked with the two on Manhattan Melodrama earlier in the year and had noticed that they had a great chemistry together and enjoyed a witty banter with one another in between takes. However, MGM bosses were not keen on this casting, and eventually only agreed to free Loy up for the part if the film was made in double-quick time (according to TCM’s article on the movie, in the end it is said to have taken between 12 and 18 days) so that she could go on to her next role. Fortunately, Van Dyke was known as “One-take” – pretty much the opposite of Wyler with all his famous retakes – and was able to complete the film within that tight framework. It’s said he felt actors often had greater freshness on the first take and on occasion he even printed a rehearsal if he felt the actor had got it right. Watching The Thin Man, you would never know that it was made at such speed. It’s all very stylish, with gorgeous black-and-white cinematography by James Wong Howe and art direction by Cedric Gibbons, and creates a world that you can easily dream of living in, leaning at the bar in one of those speakeasies and shaking up a cocktail.
Which brings me on to the drinking. In Hammett’s novel, Nick drinks in the style of other hardboiled detectives like Hammett’s own Sam Spade, and, however wittily the drinking bouts are portrayed, he is clearly an alcoholic, knocking back whisky for breakfast. Nick – and Nora too – also drink with abandon in the film, but you never feel there is a real problem; the free-flowing booze is all part of their seductive lifestyle and, coming soon after the repeal of Prohibition, one of the things which makes them modern and daring. What’s more, it helps to stop them being too perfect – a couple who knock back the Martinis like that can hardly fall into the trap of smugness. As they are staying in a hotel and it is Christmas, there is no need really to worry about hangovers, addiction and everyday life; the couple and the audience can just enjoy it all.
The movie was released during the Great Depression, so there was a danger that people with no money could be turned off by this rich couple with their hotel suite and Nora’s fur coat – but their dry humour, often at their own expense, guarded against this reaction and meant most people would end up loving rather than envying them. OK, maybe a bit of both. One thing which many people did envy them was the dog, adorable wire-haired terrier Asta – who adds to the couple’s appeal without giving them all the trappings of domesticity that go with children. (A child did come along in a later film, and slowed them down, but not yet.) The same pet went on to star in other films like The Awful Truth and Bringing Up Baby, and the terriers became highly popular pets in real life. The classic final scene, with Nick and Nora on a long-distance train and Asta hiding his eyes on the top bunk, was so popular that it was reprised in the trailer for the second film, After the Thin Man, which started just where the first one left off. It was plain that the viewing public couldn’t get enough of Nick and Nora, and a whole series of films was born – as well as the seeds being sown for many more film and TV detective couples in the future.
How The Thin Manmade the Top 100:
Ed Howard No. 15
Brandie Ashe No. 18
John Greco No. 31
Pat Perry No. 34
Mauricio Roca No. 44
Dennis Polifroni No. 56
The movie was released during the Great Depression, so there was a danger that people with no money could be turned off by this rich couple with their hotel suite and Nora’s fur coat – but their dry humour, often at their own expense, guarded against this reaction and meant most people would end up loving rather than envying them. OK, maybe a bit of both.
Judy you have again penned a delightful, engaging and informative essay on a film and series that has become part of the culture. Yes, it’s wildly revered by audiences, and as you note here it was classy escapism for Depression era audiences. The cjhemistry between Powell and Loy, the supporting players, the terrier Asta, a number of unforgettable set pieces, and the cracklin dialogue have all consorted to make this an enduring auidence favorite. Your breezy writing style and authoritative delivery consort to make this a truly great review for this countown
Thank you very much, Sam, very much appreciated. I do agree with you that it is a combination of all those elements which have made the film endure as a favourite, together with its sequels. Your description of ‘classy escapism’ is just right. Powell and Loy certainly did have great chemistry – I also love ‘Libeled Lady’ which they made together, and hope to catch up with all their films together eventually. Thanks again!
Judy, nice wonderful piece here. I never thought to include this film in my list, but it is a funny film the more times you visit it (upon first watch I was so immersed in working out the whodunnit alongside them [and it is somewhat inconsequential as you wonderfully note], much of the laughs sort of bounced right off). They seem oddly matched to me at sight and still do, but within 2 minutes on screen you believe they are a perfect match and that they’ll see a 50th Anniversary one day down the road. Unless, of course their livers don’t puff out, which brings me to my next point:
Glad you mention the prevalence of boozing between the couple, it’s always been one of my favorite elements in the film (and the Series overall). Though I’ve grown to largely despise the prospect of advanced coupling up between adults, I’ve always thought that perhaps if someone showed me this film, and let me know that marriage could theoretically be getting sloshed with Myrna Loy at all hours of the day, everyday, I might have seen my formative years produce quite a different version of myself. Ah Myrna, you had me at ‘shitfaced’….
Jamie, I didn’t vote for a comedy list as my knowledge of the genre is so patchy, but I do agree this is a film which grows on you with repeated viewings – as you suggest, once you know the whodunit you can then concentrate on enjoying the humour. (I don’t think I managed to follow the clues even first time round, but I’m terrible at following mysteries, although I like to try.) I think the boozing helps to give the couple their irreverence and air of irresponsibility – they might be married, but it stops them seeming as if they have settled down. Thanks very much for your kind comments and I like your parting shot!
Judy, you touched on all the things that make this film so enjoyable and that have kept its pleasures alive over the years. I saw it myself just a couple of weeks ago for the first time in a number of years and enjoyed it just as much as ever. Still, with all the delightful things about the film to like, it’s William Powell and Myrna Loy and the way they seem to BE Nick and Nora Charles that above all else makes this a classic. Their unforced rapport on screen makes it easy to see why many moviegoers of the time thought they were married in real life. The way their characters related to each other became a model for screen portrayals of modern marriages.
As with some other films in the countdown, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to consider this primarily a comedy, even though it is quite comic for a mystery film. I’ve read a little Dashiel Hammett, so I can believe that the tone of the movie is quite different from that of the novel. I also just watched “Penthouse” again and second your recommendation of it. It and “Love Me Tonight” have my two favorite early (i.e., pre-”Thin Man”) Myrna Loy performances.
R.D., I definitely agree that Powell and Loy’s naturalness together makes the film and they do seem to be Nick and Nora, as you say – I can understand why people thought they were really married. I’d mainly been thinking about how they showed the way forward for other detective couples, but, now that you say it, I can see that they became a model for other portrayals of modern marriages too.
As I said in my answer to Jamie, I didn’t vote in this countdown so didn’t have to think about which films fitted the genre, but I am not sure if I would have included this as it could also fall under the heading of mystery – but it’s a great film either way. Glad to hear that you also like ‘Penthouse’ – Loy has a great rapport with Warner Baxter in that. I’d like to see more of Myrna Loy’s pre-Codes – another good one is ‘Topaze’ with John Barrymore, but sadly that isn’t on DVD as yet. Thank you very much for your comment.
Judy, you’ve given us exactly what a film essay should be — a clearly written, informative and well-framed piece that provides insight and background info that many people, including myself, may not know. I was particularly interested in the comparisons with the novel and the tidbits about the shoot, not to mention attention to the context in which the film was produced.
Your piece leaves no doubt why this film is a classic, and your writing illustrates why it merits its place in cinema history. Thanks!
Pierre, thank you so much for that, I do appreciate it. I read the novel just before re-watching the film and was quite surprised by how different the tone was, although the novel is great too – Hammett had such a wonderful prose style.
Just thought I’d post a link to the trailer for ‘The Thin Man’ – a great little mini-film which has Powell playing his previous detective character, Philo Vance, chatting to Nick Charles. A shame trailers don’t tend to be as good as this nowadays!
Judy -
Wonderful post! You capture the appeal of Loy and Powell as Nick and Nora to perfection.
I re-watched this and a few other William Powell films when I was readying my ballot for the countdown,and came away with an entirely renewed appreciation of his comic gifts. His Nick Charles is urbane and shady at the same moment – one of my favorite moments in THE THIN MAN is of him shooting the ornaments off the tree on a boozy Christmas morning. It’s astonishing, but he makes it seem like a fun, daring thing to do, and Loy’s nonplussed reaction only amplifies the fun.
“Urbane and shady” – that’s it in a nutshell! I have just recently seen one of Powell’s pre-Codes, ‘Street of Chance’, where he plays a professional gambler, and your description pretty much sums up his character in that too – he obviously brought a lot of his own screen personality to the role. I do agree that the scene where he shoots the decorations is amazing, and made all the funnier by Loy’s deadpan expression as she watches. Thanks very much for your kind comment, Pat!
Great review, Judy!
The context, including the literary source, is engaging. And you capture so well the delivery of Powell and Loy’s insouciance—as you say, the fascinating heart of this comedy. Their life—including the alcohol intake—-may be sheer fantasy. But it’s a dream we’d all like to try out, and that makes for repeated viewings.
Thanks so much, Jim! I enjoyed comparing the film with the novel. I do agree that the couple’s glamorous lifestyle as presented in the film is fantasy, but all the more seductive for that.
This was a wonderful read, Judy, and reminds me that I need to sit down and watch this one again, because it’s been too long! I seriously love this movie, and thank the good Lord that Van Dyke was prescient enough to realize the gem he had in the combination of Powell and Loy. The repartee between the two is just unbelievably funny (Nora: “I read where you were shot five times in the tabloids.” Nick: “It’s not true. He didn’t come anywhere near my tabloids.”), and the genuine warmth and chemistry between the two actors is what ultimately makes this film as memorable as it is. Most of the sequels don’t really work altogether well (particularly after Nick, Jr. arrives), but it’s still charming to revisit the characters in the later films, too. Count me among those who hopes the proposed Rob Marshall remake (with Johnny Depp as Nick) never comes to pass!
Brandie, I don’t think that remake will see the light of day, as it has reportedly been put on hold because Depp is too busy – I’m not holding my breath to see it either. It probably would be possible to do a darker version of the novel, but I can’t really see the point! Thanks very much for the kind comment and I’m sure you will enjoy revisiting the movie. Definitely agree that the combination of Powell and Loy, and their repartee, makes the film.
Judy, The Thin Man is a film I wouldn’t have considered for my list because I probably compartmentalize too much and think of it as a “mystery” first — but it’s a pretty funny movie. Van Dyke definitely saw Loy as a project, an actress stuck as a vamp/bitch whom he could rehabilitate with the right parts, including the misfire of The Prizefighter and the Lady from ’33, where she’s a niteclub singer turned long-suffering wifey for Max Baer Sr. Thin Man is the payoff that vindicated Van Dyke. But I don’t think Depression audiences ever resented the antics of the zany rich, or else screwball comedy would never have gotten off the ground. My hunch has been that screwball results from Code Enforcement post-1934 and a discouragement of films featuring aggressive social climbers and gold diggers who offended polite society and, more importantly, self-appointed moral leaders. The zaniness of the wealthy threatens no one, at least in the movies, and probably offended no one, but I wonder, after Jamie’s review of La Grande Bouffe, whether there’s a wee element of redemptive self-destruction in the epic alcoholism of the idle rich in this picture. I don’t think anyone watching actually expects the Charleses to destroy themselves with drink, but there’s probably a point to screwball’s focus on the more-or-less idle rich who are usually spending rather than (perhaps more offensively) accumulating wealth. In any event, The Thin Man is probably more important in the history of American film comedy than anyone’s ranking of it in this poll might suggest.
Love it. Only the rich are defined as’ zany’ by their alcoholism. The rest of us hoi polloi are just contemptible drunks.
Why would the poor be offended? They’ve been conditioned for virtually the entire history of moneyed exchange to ‘know their role’, so certainly a film that comes relatively late to the proceedings (in human historical terms) showing the rich having a blast and getting drunk at breakfast isn’t going to rock the boat.
These kinds of films do show what happens in a film world where studios control all the output (you think the entertainment industry being controlled by the Big 6 now is narrow) and a ‘counter’ (i.e. indies and underground) hasn’t been yet born (do very much to the technologies relative ‘newness’).
I don’t necessarily disagree but I think people would be more likely offended by a comedy that appeared to vindicate a bourgeois ethic of wealth accumulation than one where the wealthy are simply living large, which is a fantasy anyone can have. That is, I can envision a film made as a celebration of the rich offending the non-rich despite all the not-inconsiderable conditioning, to the extent that audiences infer a reproach to everyone who hasn’t gotten rich yet. There’s probably a reason why so few screwball comedies are about the actual making of money.
Actually, SAM, I agree with you…
“But I don’t think Depression audiences ever resented the antics of the zany rich, or else screwball comedy would never have gotten off the ground. My hunch has been that screwball results from Code Enforcement post-1934 and a discouragement of films featuring aggressive social climbers and gold diggers who offended polite society and, more importantly, self-appointed moral leaders. The zaniness of the wealthy threatens no one, at least in the movies, and probably offended no one.”
I recall Woody Allen’s RADIO DAYS when I read your, above passage. In that loving chronicle of Allens life during the Depression, radio shows and movies were seen as ways of breaking away from the horrors of the time. No, I think the antics of the lush, neuvo-riche was something that inspired the dreams of the opressed from the period. THE THIN MAN, like many of the films from the pre-code era (adventure films like KING KONG or over-the-top musicals) were seen as escapes, living day-dreams that transported those that suffered the unemployment lines and simple dinners from their pale existense of the time. These films were meant as entertaining diversions when so much that was going on around them was everything less than happy.
Yes I agree with you here, though perhaps I split when I think that’s why many of these films should be derided to outright loathed.
Interesting points Dennis. I guess I wonder then how we should view them today? I don’t need these films as escapes from unemployment lines. I just find that they’re great films. I think they are wonderfully entertaining, but I don’t need to escape per se. I think the era in which they were made perhaps had a different objective in terms of selling a product to the audience. We need to think about marketing. Fact is, they are well made….I’m thinking of Screwball comedies, the musicals of the era etc. The product needed to sell tickets and when people have little money left over, it better deliver if they’re spending their only money on going to see this film. I’m not disagreeing, but asking more questions and probing.
@ Jamie – You go ahead and loathe them. The rest of us idiots will enjoy them without you.
To me, the screwball comedies emerged as a way for the mass audience to not feel so bad about their own lives. By making the antics of the rich seem silly, Hollywood filmmakers reinforced the notion that being poor wasn’t so bad after all since the upper classes, though living in the lap of luxury, had superficial values and lives not so meaningful as the “backbone” class.
Ah bien sur M. Laplume. As your dear Queen said: “let them eat cake”.
Samuel, thanks for the interesting background information on Loy and also for your thoughts on the period here. It hadn’t struck me that the social climbers and gold diggers tend to vanish after the code comes in, but, thinking about it, yes. I do think there are quite a few films of the screwball period where the idle rich’s spendthrift antics are clearly to be seen as offensive, such as the start of ‘My Man Godfrey’ and the drunken rich girl trying to collect a hobo for a treasure hunt… but I do take your point that to see the accumulation of their wealth could be still more offensive. Another thought on this film in particular – in the mystery plot, Mimi and her circle are rich characters who it is all right to despise while enjoying Nick and Nora. A lot to think about here, thanks again.
Good point, Judy, but Godfrey is bound to be different by virtue of its choice of protagonist. And screwball films often invite us to choose our favorites from amongst the rich, usually by picking spontaneity or zaniness over straitlaced conformity or joyless greed. Which rich people audiences like probably tells us something.
Wonderful assessment, and I’d call ‘The Thin Man’ a comedy I think. Hell, Loy makes a farcical entrance by falling flat on her face (and she’s not even soused — yet).
PS. Say it ain’t so! Is Hollywood really considering a remake to be directed by Rob (‘Chicago’) Marshall?
I’m sorry…
I know that the current trend is to take older films and remold them to todays sensibilities. However, the absence of Powell and Loy in a remake of these pictures is a recipe for disaster. Neither Johnny Depp, Pierce Brosnan or the “coolest-of-the-cool”, Jack Nicholson, could float and make even remotely interesting a retread of these films or step into the shoes of Nick Charles .
The pin-point of the THE THIN MAN pictures was the chemistry between Powell and Loy and no screen couple, either professional or real, could ever match or remind us of the magic those greats brought, originally, to the screen.
Many thanks, Mark – yes, Loy’s entrance certainly is farcical. According to my googling, it sounds as if that remake has been put on hold and may well never happen… we’ll see!
Yes, I am a big fan of these films. The crossing of light mystery with upper-class, high-brow comedy really catches the viewer.
The direction and plotting are terrific. However it’s the production design, costuming, dialogue and, most of all, the performances that really send this one into the stratosphere. The combination of Powell and Loy, shooting one liners back and forth like professional tennis players, saw their chemistry together go more than a a long way in selling what could have been just another Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto detective thriller. It’s precisely the volleying, the aloof nature of Nick and Nora as they banter back and forth that floats this (and I dare say, to a lesser extent, the sequels) film way above the water line. The two thespians move about their work in these pictures as if they were wearing second skins and the familiarity between them comes off as if they have been married for 100 years and know every next move each will take.
The drinking, in my estimation, is a major plus for this film. It adds the detail that the real focus of their lives, their target for each day, is to get done, complete and put behind them any of the extremities that make up solving a mystery so they can make it to their goal of the day: Happy Hour and a jigger of dry martini’s.
Though I don’t hold the sequels up with the same kind of esteem that I have for this, the original film, I do recall a joke in one of them that sees Nick strolling through Central Park with Nick Jr. and Asta. They decide to stop and rest on a bench on the other side of the park, very far away from the penthouse of the plush hotel they reside in. Nick is checking out the racing forms of the paper as Nick Jr. (all of about 4 years old) questions “Daddy” about “sure things” and Asta looks on almost as if he was interested in placing a bet on a thorough-bred as well. Nora, walking out onto the terrace of the Penthouse with a jigger of their favorite libation, mutters under her breath that it’s time to call her family back to the apartment, shakes the container filled with Gin and Vermouth and Ice, only to have Nick on the other side of the park sit straight up in attention: “Yup, time to go. Your mother is calling us!”
It’s little, over the top, sweet concoctions like that that make me look at THE THIN MAN films as a series of movies I have a deep fondness for. These cannot be “re-made” , or “lovingly homaged” as much of what they represent and portray would be looked at from the wrong point of view today and be labaled with all sorts of new, social meaning (alcohlism, bad parenting, wealth entitlement).
THE THIN MAN (and its sequels) are just dartling little confections, true entertainments, that are neither meant to be thought about too seriously or picked apart by scholars.
As for William Powell…
The true glue of these films. Powell, it’s unfortunate, is never truly remembered for being one of the great stars and actors of the period. Along with this series of films and marvelous turns in pictures like MY MAN GODFREY and THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, Powell exuded a natural kind of complete likeability and an upper class suave that guys like Cary Grant and, later, Sean Connery would use to their total advantage. Powell was totally watchable, a master of the sharp line, completely comfortable in any role he took and understated in his pomposity that you’d have to be dead not to love him or follow him on any journey he took you on (and it continued all the way up to the times of his last films-the doctor in John Ford’s MR. ROBERTS, particularly). He was one of the early talking eras first great stars and one of the greatest stars ever to emmerge from the Hollywood system. I could watch him in anything. He’s the anchor of these films and the perfect guide for Loy, also insanely brilliant and funny, his match in every move and word he speaks.
I adore Wiliam Powell.
Great comment, Dennis, really a review in itself – I love your description of Powell and Loy “shooting one liners back and forth like professional tennis players”. I also think you have a good point about the drinking and the way it gives their lives a focus apart from the mystery. Totally agree on Powell’s greatness – since watching a few of his films recently, I’ve been wondering why it is that he doesn’t tend to be spoken of as among the greatest stars of this period. And he and Loy make a fantastic team.
I can’t really see how it would be possible to remake the film unless, as I said in my answer to Brandie, you went back to the book and just adapted that while trying to ignore the previous film – but even then I think the film-makers would be on a hiding to nothing. Sounds like it probably won’t happen anyway, though, which is just as well.
Judy,
I had no idea that was the same dog that also appeared in Bringing Up Baby and The Awful Truth, but now that you mention it….
I consider this film quite breezy, and light, and fun….however I do see it more as a hybrid film. It definitely has stretches very focused on the mystery, and some comic relief sprinkled throughout. I didn’t consider it for my list because I didn’t think it spent enough time on the comedy, but although I don’t see the voting listed here, I’m sure many DID vote for it. Nice job here and I enjoyed reading about Loy and Powell.
Jon, I hadn’t realised it was the same dog either (his real name was Skippy) until someone pointed it out to me in a discussion a while back. (Apparently he wasn’t very friendly to Myrna Loy and bit her on one occasion!) I agree with you that it is a mixture between comedy and drama and am not sure if I would have voted for it if I had taken part in the vote – but I do think it is a great film, of whatever genre. Thanks very much.
Totally understandable I’d have taken a bite to Myrna Loy to had I been able to. Though, in my defense, the intent would have been different than the dogs.
None of the hard-boiled writers of the 20s and 30s had boozers as heroes or anti-heroes. Sure they were tough and not teetotal, but they never used booze as a prop. I tend to think the drinking in this movie is used solely to add froth. Like Mad Men uses hard-drinking as a machismo motif about a bunch of suits who really have not an original thought in their perfect heads.
Classic Hollywood always glamorized the rich and the dizziness was a palliative to aid its digestion by a conditioned public. Jamie has it right.
I should save this for later, but a cheeky bugger at Criterion added an extra on the My Man Godfrey DVD, that blows the smugness of the mushy do-good philanthropy ending into the river: http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/cinematic-cities-a-day-at-the-office-in-depression-new-york-hollywood-not.html.
After rewatching this tonight, I must say that James Wong Howe is pretty integral to sustaining interest. The comic antics are fun and add the spritz to a pretty weak story, and both leads are delightful, but it is the darkly lit scenes set-up by Howe that impress cinematically. It is of course hard to delineate where the DPs contribution starts and ends, though I would venture to say that with a less talented DP I doubt there would have been the same elegant fluid camera work and darkly expressionist counterpoint that sustains the narrative.
Tony, definitely agree that James Wong Howe does great work here. I’ve just been looking him up on the imdb and was impressed to see that his career stretched from silents in 1923 right through to ‘Funny Lady’ in 1975.
Nice photo I stumbled upon featuring a very young James Wong Howe with Myrna Loy, W.S. Van Dyke, and William Powell during filming of The Thin Man 1934…click on the image to zoom.
That is a great photo and he does look very young – hard to believe he had already been a cinematographer for 11 years, and in the movie business longer than that. Thanks, Tony.
I do agree with Judy that the murder mystery plays second fiddle to the chemistry of the leads. This was a film that took more than one viewing to warm up to. Wonderful review!
Thank you, Peter. I definitely agree this is a film worth repeated viewings.
‘Dinner at Eight’, a depression-era film the rich-haters in all their schadenfreude can get behind. A shipping magnate, his silly wife’s swank dinner party, a washed-up matinee idol/stumbling drunk and assorted hangers-on all circling the drain.
I like that one. John Barrymore as John Barrymore, it’s quite eerie.
A terrific essay Judy that has inspired a very interesting thread, making for an insightful read from start to finish. Had I attempted to formulate a list of my favourite comedies, THE THIN MAN would have been overlooked which would have caused me to kick myself when I saw it on another list. I certainly think it is comedic enough to fit in this poll, whereas I am not sure I could list it among my favourite mysteries.
I seem to recall that my viewing of this was long before the Internet, when I happened upon its listing in a television guide which rated it highly. I suspect I was not expecting to enjoy it as much as I did and was captivated by Powell and Loy, both so perfect together. If ever a prime example of screen chemistry is needed, this is the place to look. It is very easy to believe people were convinced the actors were married in reality.
I really need to see this one again.
David, thank you very much – I am still not sure whether I see it as more of a comedy or a mystery, but I do find the comic moments are the ones that stick in my mind the most. I can also see why people thought Powell and Loy were really married – they are so natural and easy together. And it is always worth another viewing!
Judy,
A very good and very interesting review of one of my favourite comedies. Made in two weeks? That’s impressive! You’re quite right that Nick and Nora understand each other perfectly and their chemistry is among the most natural/convincing I have seen on film.
When it comes to the concentration on the relationship (rather than the mystery itself) that you mention here, this reminds me of Moonlighting, a series which was in many ways a throwback to the 30s and 40s.
Thanks.
Stephen, it’s interesting you should mention ‘Moonlighting’ – there is a featurette about Myrna Loy on the ‘bonus disc’ in the region 2 box set of the Thin Man movies, and it is presented by Cybill Shepherd, presumably because of ‘Moonlighting’ being seen as a successor to the movies. I never saw the series at the time and I have a feeling it wasn’t available on DVD until relatively recently, but I have been thinking it’s a show I should really catch up with after all these years. Many thanks for your comment!
That’s an apt comparison — Like The Thin Man, the best thing Moonlighting had going for it was the chemistry between Shepherd and Willis. For onscreen appeal, Loy & Powell rank right up there with Hepburn/Tracy, Bogart/Bacall, Day/Hudson, Pickford/Fairbanks, and Arnaz/Ball.