Happy Birthday: James Myers Thompson (September 27, 1906 – April 7, 1977) was an American novelist and screenwriter, known for his hardboiled crime fiction.

Thompson wrote more than thirty novels, the majority of which were original paperback publications, published from the late-1940s through mid-1950s. Despite some positive critical notice—notably by Anthony Boucher in The New York Times—he was little-recognized in his lifetime. Only after death did Thompson's literary stature grow. In the late 1980s, several of his novels were re-published in the Black Lizard series of re-discovered crime fiction.

His best-regarded works include The Killer Inside Me, Savage Night, A Hell of a Woman and Pop. 1280. In these works, Thompson turned the derided crime genre into literature and art, featuring unreliable narrators, odd structure, and the quasi-surrealistic inner narratives of the last thoughts of his dying or dead characters. A number of Thompson's books were adapted as popular films, including The Getaway and The Grifters.

The writer Ronald Verlin Cassill has suggested that of all crime fiction, Thompson's was the rawest and most harrowing; that neither Dashiell Hammett nor Raymond Chandler nor Horace McCoy ever "wrote a book within miles of Thompson". Similarly, in the introduction to Now and on Earth, Stephen King says he most admires Thompson's work because "The guy was over the top. The guy was absolutely over the top. Big Jim didn't know the meaning of the word stop. There are three brave 'lets' inherent in the foregoing: He let himself see everything, he let himself write it down, then he let himself publish it."

Thompson was called a "Dimestore Dostoevsky" by writer Geoffrey O'Brien. Film director Stephen Frears, who directed an adaptation of Thompson's The Grifters in 1990, also identified elements of Greek tragedy in his themes.

Just Finished Reading: Hardboiled America – Lurid Paperbacks and the Masters of Noir by Geoffrey O’Brien (FP: 1981/1997) [175pp] 

I was a fan of hardboiled detective fiction long before I read my first book of the genre. I had grown up watching the classic Noir films of the 40’s and 50’s care of my father's love of them. Strangely I actually started reading the novels in my 20’s after I stumbled upon Cyberpunk and the works of William Gibson, specifically the ‘Sprawl Trilogy’ starting off with Neuromancer. The blurb on the back of the book labelled Gibson as the Sci-Fi answer to Raymond Chadler so I felt compelled to check him out. I’m actually amazed at not doing so previously. Films such as The Big Sleep have remained in my Top List for the last 40+ years so it came as no great surprise that I immediately fell in love with the books too. Naturally after Chandler I moved on to James M Cain, Dashiell Hammett and others. Although checking through the hardboiled checklist at the back of this book I see that there are many novels and many authors awaiting to be sampled. 

Regular readers of this Blog will no doubt be aware of my love of pulp fiction covers. One of the delights in this slim volume is the authors attention given to the artists who produced this seemingly endless supply of the iconic artwork as well as numerous examples sprinkled throughout its pages – unfortunately only in black & white but you can’t have everything. Generally, as with the music I enjoy, I know very little indeed about the producers of the fiction I enjoy so much. I’ve never really been interested in the personal lives of authors or musicians (or artists etc..) and would rather enjoy the books, records or movies I like without know anything about them. Part of that is I’m not that interested in other people's lives and I don’t think that knowing if an author is a dog or cat person or how many times they’ve been divorced would enhance my reading pleasure, and to be honest some authors/artists are just not very nice people and I’d just rather not know. That said, I did find some of the authors insights into my favourite noir authors rather illuminating – especially as to what they thought of each other! Raymond Chandler was especially outspoken. 

Overall, this was a highly entertaining and informative read. I do love my Noir in all its forms and this book has inspired me to dive back into the genre. The checklist in the back, running from 1929 to 1960 will certainly help focus my attention and I might even slip in a few books about the phenomena too. Definitely recommended for all Noir fans. 

Just Finished Reading: L. A. Noir – The Struggle for the Soul of America’s Most Seductive City by John Buntin (FP: 2014) [343pp] 

Los Angeles was growing – FAST. On the back of it something else was growing too, just as fast if not faster – Crime. What wasn’t growing, much to the frustration of the Police Commissioner and much to the delight of certain elements, was the size of the Los Angeles Police Department. Compared to places like New York the ratio of police to citizen was starting to look pitiful. But what made it worse was the budget – something else not growing nearly as fast as required. Not only was the LAPD understaffed it was underpaid with new officers earning less than refuse collectors. It came as no surprise that a significant number of the LAPD was ‘on the take’ and not just the guys on the street. Something needed to be done and someone with the power and the balls to do it needed appointing to the role. That man was William H Parker. Seen by some as a self-obsessed bully and by others as the city’s saviour he was determined to root out corruption and clamp down on the growing crime epidemic sweeping the city. Opposing him was the city’s underground, Organised Crime and the politicians in City Hall. The fight for the soul of the City of Angels was about to begin. 

Like most everyone else, I’ve grown up with images of LA from movies and cop shows (some of which are mentioned in this often-fascinating book) but knew little if anything about the reality of the situation. No more! Unsurprisingly, quite a few of what I’d picked up from Noir cinema and shows like Dragnet actually had a reasonably firm basis in reality – most especially when they focused on corruption, police violence and racism and, probably most importantly, political interference. I know it shouldn’t have confused me as much as it did, but I found myself constantly shaking my head over the poor funding the police department received – no matter the real or perceived demands – as well as the demands from the commercial sector that ‘too much policing’ was ‘bad for business’, by which they normally meant gambling of course. With the in-roads made by Organised Crime the amount of money sloshing around – especially in City Hall – was astounding and, no doubt, contributed to the Police Departments underfunding and the slow-walking of modernisation efforts. Again, it was surprising just how long proper training – in Police College rather than ‘on the job’ - took to bed in properly as well as obvious improvements such as radios in patrol cars.  

Although not exactly an ‘eye-opener’ this was an interesting and often fascinating look at the inside of the LAPD in its formative years from the 1930’s and into the early 1990’s. I was certainly much more aware of some of the later events talked about here, but I still recognised a scattering of names from the 1940’s and 50’s too. Apparently made into the TV Series ‘Mob City’ (which I don’t think I’ve ever heard of) this is a recommended read for anyone interested in US Organised Crime or the City of Angels herself. More to come on both subjects.        

Just Finished Reading: Double Indemnity by James M Cain (FP: 1936) [136pp] 

Walter Huff (played by Fred McMurray and, for some reason called Walter Neff, in the 1944 movie adaptation) had an idea for the perfect crime. He was an expert after all, being in the insurance business. He’d seen it all, all the mistakes people made when filing a false claim, all of the ways their attempted deception could’ve been smarter and more lucrative.  Then in walked Phyllis Nirdlinger (played by Barbara Stanwyck and again renamed, for some reason, Phyllis Dietrichson) with a request for accident insurance for her husband. The catch, which Walter saw immediately, was that she didn’t want her husband to know about the policy – so as not to ‘worry’ him. On confrontation Phyllis brakes down and admits that she intends to kill her husband because of the way he treats her. To her amazement Walter doesn’t turn her in, instead he starts to tutor her on the best way, the foolproof way, to get what she wants. Even better Walter tells her about a part of the policy that most people never get to see in action: Whatever the final claim is can be doubled if, and only if, the accident happens on a train. It would seem that Mr Nirdlinger is going on a trip – one way only. 

The Classic noir movie version is one of my favourite films, so I was looking forward to reading this slim volume. Whilst it does match up pretty well with the film, I did find the variations from that plot to be quite interesting. Apart from the odd name changes, the first part of the book fits very well with the movie screenplay almost scene for scene. One thing the novel – despite it being super slim – does is give several of the people, most especially Phyllis and her stepdaughter's boyfriend a far deeper background story which explains their actions much better than the movie. The other major difference was the ending. I’m guessing that the movie codes of the time (1944) just couldn’t accommodate the book ending and needed a more brutal and final finish. It was weird though, especially after most of the plot matching so well with the film, when the ending goes completely off-track, and you begin to wonder where and how it will all end.  

Overall, this was a pretty good noir novel and is worth reading, especially if you’re a fan of the movie or the genre. It’s a classic for a reason and was an enjoyable quick read. Recommended for all crime fans.  

Just Finished Reading: Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith (FP: 1950) [262pp] 

Talking to strangers can by positively therapeutic, cathartic even. You meet, swap problems, commiserate and move on – never to see each other again. At least that’s what Guy Haines thought to begin with. Bruno was entertaining, for a while, on a long journey but Guy almost instantly thought that something was ‘off’ about him. Then he mentioned murder – only in passing, only in jest, but still – murder. The idea was a crazy one even if it had its own kind of logic. The police solved most murders because they were committed by people the victim knew – often intimately. After all, you only really got mad enough to kill someone who you knew, right? But here was the genius part, what if two people, strangers, swapped murders? They would be no connection between victim and murderer for the police to focus on. They’d be lost, floundering looking for links that didn’t exist. It was brilliant, infallible, unsolvable. Of so Bruno thought, so he said. Guy said nothing at this point, part horrified, part fascinated by this strange man. Then it happened a few weeks later – Guy's soon to be ex-wife, who was holding up his divorce, was killed - murdered. Did Bruno go through with their crazy idea, did he take a casual conversation seriously? Did Bruno now expect Guy to commit his murder for him? Guy was at a loss for what to do. Should he go to the police? What then? Scandal? Ruination? Jail? Maybe it was a random killing and nothing at all to do with Bruno? Then the letter arrived: “Your Turn”.... 

I must admit it's an interesting idea – agreeing to do a stranger's murder to avoid the inevitable links between victim and killer. After all, that’s how serial killers avoid capture for so long. But this core idea was telegraphed almost immediately – even if I hadn’t already seen the 1951 movie adaptation at least once. After that, and the murder itself (which was rather well done) there was little left but the psychological effects of guilt and fear on both Bruno and Guy. The main problem I had with the whole thing was that none of the characters held much interest to me. I certainly didn’t like any of them although I did feel some sympathy for Guy’s finance Anne who, I thought, was generally hard done by. Bruno was a borderline sociopath and spoilt little rich kid with mother issues (and then some!) whilst Guy was both weak and self-absorbed. I honestly struggled to maintain any interest in whether either of the main male characters lived or died. I actually think it might have been a more interesting novel if it had been written from the PoV of the detective who investigated the second murder – that of Bruno’s father – rather than split between Guy and Bruno. Of course, 1950’s literature of all types (and not just crime fiction) was enthralled by the ‘new’ psychology of Freud so threw around his ideas and ‘theories’ like cheap confetti and we end up with books like this – lite on actually crime and detection and oh so heavy on the psychological effects of the crime on the criminals themselves. Unfortunately, in this case at least it really wasn’t my ‘thing’. Reasonable overall. More trains arriving soon...

Just Finished Reading: Film Noir – A Very Short Introduction by James Naremore (FP: 2019)

Of course it was the French who started it all. Well, at least they named it. With the end of WW2 American movies flooded into once occupied Europe wowing audiences across the continent. The French, always eager to true something new, something stylish, something ‘Avant guard’ lapped up the dark brooding crime films they began calling Film Noir. As with many of these movements the now classic examples of the genre were not so classified at the time they were being made. Only much later, when the Noir style was recognised for what it was, were films seen as ‘Noir-ish’ from their inception.

But even though a Noir film could be recognised and called so the definitions of what exactly made up the genre where fluid – especially at the edges. Most film critics agreed on much of the core cannon of films but there was much disagreement regarding films that had some elements of Noir but not others. Sometimes it was as simple as asking if a Noir film should necessarily be in Black and White? The golden age of Noir, according to received wisdom, ended with the advent of colour. Then there were the genre crossovers or boundary films. Could you have a Noir Western? Are films like Bladerunner a Noir film or is it a homage or pastiche of Noir sensibilities grafted onto a Sci-Fi motif. Unfortunately these and many other similar questions cannot be definitely laid to rest.

Noir itself was an outgrowth of multiple paths: there was the hardboiled detective novels of the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s the authors of which gravitated to Hollywood to boost their limited incomes and who gave the movies they worked on (not necessarily an adaptation of their own work) a certain cache, then there was the flight of directors and cinematographers fleeing from Nazi Germany and bringing with them the Avant-guard and Surrealist film making techniques that made the products so intriguing to watch in post-war French movie houses.

Of course the Noir sensibility didn’t end with the beginning of colour nor with the advances in lighting techniques (especially outside the studio and at night). Noir is, first and foremost, a way of seeing the world – both from inside the characters head and from outside via the audience. Noir is certainly a style but it is more than that. It is an attitude, a philosophical stand, a mind-set. That is why, decades after the sheen of the golden age has faded, Noir films are still being made and are still being discussed in critical circles. Just like the Night and the City (to say nothing of the eternal Femme Fatal) Noir will always be with us.

This was a delightful little book aimed directly at one of my all-time favourite things – Film Noir. I’m not entirely sure why I like this movie genre so much but I most definitely do. Even bad Noir (and Noir has more than its fair share of bad examples) has flashes of dark brilliance. The best of the genre continues to blow me away after multiple viewings. It either says much about the human condition or much about how I see the world. Whatever the truth of it Noir is probably my second movie love – with only SF holding it away from the top slot. Of course the rare combination of the two just sends me….. Long live Noir. Definitely recommended for all Noir fans, both casual and dedicated.     

Just Finished Reading: The Desperate Hours by Joseph Hayes (FP: 1954)

Glenn Griffin (played by Humphrey Bogart in the 1955 movie adaptation) is out of prison and out for revenge against the cop that put him there and broke his jaw in the process. Along with his kid brother and the psychotic convict Robish they’re on their way to Indianapolis to lay low somewhere while they wait for money and the opportunity to strike back at the police. But where to hide in a city that knows Griffin all too well, where the FBI know all of his contacts and many of his hideouts. Where would be the very last place for them to look? Where – the suburbs, the very centre of respectability where they would never suspect them to blend in or pass unnoticed. Unless of course they hid almost in plain sight. In a respectable home surrounded by a respectable family and respectable neighbours not too close but not too far away. A respectable home like that of Dan Hilliard (played by Fredric March), his wife, teenage daughter and young son. A family too afraid of what might happen to the others if any of them tried to raise the alarm or fight back. It would all be over in 48 hours, the money would arrive, pay offs would be made and a permanent escape planned. But 48 hours can feel like an eternity when the wrong move, the wrong word or the wrong look can provoke a violent response from any of the three desperate men who have taken up residence in your home…. And when they leave, who will they take with them and who will live to tell the police what happened?

This is yet another book that’s been sitting on my shelves for years. I had a vague recollection of the original movie – since been remade in the 1990’s – so wasn’t 100% sure what the book would be like. You’ll know that I have a ‘thing’ for Noir movies and the books that inspired them so I fully expected to be on firm ground and I was. The story certainly deserves the label of classic promptly displayed on the cover of my version. The plot was a simple but very effective one – essentially a ‘home invasion’ to provide a temporary hideout for felons on the run – and the tension throughout the novel is very ably handled ebbing and flowing with each test of the boundaries and inevitable misunderstandings and power shifts both within the Hilliard family and within the gang itself. In some ways I guess that it’s a little naïve given how used we’ve become to random violence and sudden death but fact that it was written in a much simpler age gives the story an added nostalgic poignancy which was quite sweet (without being sentimental). It was interesting to ‘see’ the inner workings of the father’s mind as he worked out the odds of various actions and even more interesting – given the time – that almost everyone involved with the exception of the bad guys was ex-military with the war only ending 9 years before of course! Nicely tense without being too claustrophobic and a breeze to read. Recommended.        

Just Finished Reading: Get Carter by Ted Lewis (FP: 1970)

Jack Carter (played supremely by Michael Caine in the 1971 movie adaptation) has finally found his niche – as a top enforcer for a London crime family. Now he has almost everything he wanted: money, women and stability. So he is less than pleased with the prospect of travelling to his home town in the North of England to attend his younger brother’s funeral. But a mixture of family fealty, guilt and curiosity drives him to attend. Almost from the start Jack senses that something isn’t right with the story everyone seems all too eager to relate to him. Frank’s death was an accident caused by driving drunk. But Jack knows his brother better than that and is certain that he’d never drive drunk even with the best reason in the world. Nor would he have deliberately put himself as risk, in other words commit suicide, no matter the provocation. So why are so many people, powerful crime lords in the North, willing to spend time, effort, money and blood to convince Jack otherwise? Determined to find out what really happened Jack put’s his local knowledge and very special skill set to the test asking very awkward questions and generally being a pain in the arse about things. Little by little Jack is convinced that his brother’s death was neither an accident nor suicide. Only two questions remain – who killed Frank and why? Did he see something he shouldn’t have or did he threaten the wrong people with going to the police? Before the long weekend is over Jack will have his answers to those questions – no matter who he has to intimidate, no matter who he has to threaten and no matter who he has to kill.

I instantly bought this the second I saw it just lying there in my local bookshop. To be honest I had no real idea that one of my favourite movies of all time originated in a classic British Noir novel. But, as is often the case, book and film are rather different beasts. The overall story is the same, family bereavement, funeral, and investigation by hard man, death and destruction, resolution (of a kind). Just about everything else is different apart from the names of the major players. The main action takes place in Doncaster rather than Newcastle (in the movie) and therefore feels far more claustrophobic. Several main players who die spectacularly in the movie surprisingly survive in the book (at least I was surprised by their survival). The thing that raised my eyebrow more than anything else was that the book was far more hard core than the movie. The violence in the book was far more visceral and just plain nasty, there was far more swearing in the book and far more sex too. Doncaster in the book unlike Newcastle (mostly) in the movie was a town in terminal decline, a place almost trapped between its heavy industrial past and its lack of any kind of future. The only really moral character is dead – Frank Carter. Everyone else is either morally neutral or deeply immoral on several levels. Everyone from the police, politicians and the criminals (of which there are many) are singularly corrupt and will practically do anything to anyone to get their own way or to protect their interests. Jack Carter is hardly a hero to admire and freely admits his corruption going back to his childhood – the regular flashbacks are something else absent from the film version. Actually knowing Jack’s and Frank’s relationship (and environment) growing up in Doncaster helped explain the majority of Jack’s actions portrayed in the film - without the benefit of any kind of personal history being shown there. Driven largely by guilt and the fear that his niece (who might possibly even be his illegitimate daughter) has become involved in an industry he views with thinly veiled contempt produces someone who is impossible to ignored but far from easy to admire or even like. I watched the movie not long after finishing the book and managed to see it with a new set of better informed eyes which made the whole experience an interesting one. A recommended read if only to compare the two versions of a story in two different media.

My Favourite Movies: Double Indemnity (1944)

Anyone who knows me, or has been reading this Blog long enough, knows that I’m a huge fan of Crime Noir in both its book and film form. So I’ve been taking the opportunity over the Christmas/New Year break to catch up with some of my favourites.

I’ve probably seen Double Indemnity at least 10 times and probably closer to 20. It is, as it says on the back of my DVD copy, quintessentially film noir. For those who have missed out on this gem of a movie it stars Fred MacMurray as Insurance salesman Walter Neff who falls for lonely housewife Phyllis Dietrichson played by Barbara Stanwyck and plans to kill her abusive husband for the insurance money on his accident policy. Now Neff being an expert in the field devises a plan which he’s sure will pass scrutiny and net the couple a cool $100,000 once the type of accident – falling from a train – is factored in (doubling the pay-out hence the insurance clause and film title). It seems like a perfect plan – and it is – but they didn’t reckon with the companies stubborn reluctance to hand over the money (could they have got away with $50,000 I wonder?) and the deductive power of insurance investigator Barton Keyes played by Edward G Robinson. As it all starts to fall apart, the stress levels build and accusations fly in all directions panic sets in and both Neff and his (very) femme fatal decide that the only way to survive is to eliminate the other before they crack under the pressure.

It’s difficult to see who this could fail to please Noir fans. It has great acting by some of the best actors of the period, it’s directed by Billy Wilder who was involved in Sunset Boulevard (written by), The Seven Year Itch (screenplay), Some Like it Hot (screenplay) and The Apartment (written by), assisted by Raymond Chandler (say no more) from an original book by James M Cain. With a pedigree like that you’d be pretty confident you’ll be in for a treat – and so you are! It’s well paced, full of intrigue, Stanwyck in particular is great as the apparently helpless housewife who captivates MacMurray to such an extent that he doesn’t know which way is up – all with everyone keeping their clothes on. Then there’s the voice over/narration which, like a few more of my favourite noir films, starts at the end with a confession which leads into an extended flashback.

Oh, and researching it I discovered a few mistakes that made me chuckle. The movie was released in 1944 but was supposedly based in 1938 for unexplained reasons. This led to a few anachronisms that people who obviously have way too much time on their hands spotted: Although set in 1938, Walter Neff makes reference to the "The Philadelphia Story", which did not debut on Broadway until 1939, and on film until 1940. Plus: The movie is set in 1938, but at Stanwyck's house the radio is playing "Tangerine" which wasn't written until 1942. Both of which got a laugh when I read about them. The very sharp eyed amongst you will also spot that although the character Walter Neff is unmarried he wears a wedding ring throughout the movie. Apparently this was his real wedding ring which was only spotted in post-production. None of which detracts or distracts from one of the best Noir films ever made. If you haven’t seen this, or haven’t seen it for a while why don’t you treat yourself?

Just Finished Reading: The Philosophy of Neo-Noir edited by Mark T Conard (FP: 2007)

This was another one of those books whose title (and cover featuring Sean Young as the replicant Rachel from Bladerunner) made it irresistible to me. As my readership already know I am a huge fan of Film Noir and its modern successor Neo-Noir so I was really looking forward to reading about the philosophical underpinnings of the whole thing. I was however slightly disappointed with the whole thing – though only slightly and only until I adjusted my preconceptions a bit. For although the word Philosophy was prominently displayed on the front cover and even mentioned several times in the various articles between its covers the main thrust of the book was very much from the film studies genre rather from any philosophical point of view. Of course, by and large, this was no bad thing and I must admit that I did learn a thing or two about Neo-Noir in general and the movies discussed in particular it’s just that I would’ve liked a bit more philosophy and a bit less discussion of the cinematic arts (to say nothing of one particular section that I found almost unreadable as it was chock full of film jargon and, to be frank, so far up its own arse as never to see daylight again.)

Anyway….. After a general explanation of what exactly Neo-Noir was – basically Noir type movies made after the classic Noir films – a selection of authors dived into various movies to discuss the ins and outs of each one logically starting with Bladerunner (1982) as it appeared on the cover. This was probably the most philosophical of all the articles concentrating on the idea of humanity, free choice and authenticity in the Sartre sense. Then we had several interesting articles on Point Blank (1967) and Memento (2000) discussing personal identity (without memories who are we really?) and the nature of reality (how can we be sure that any of our experiences are actually real?). After that it got a bit less philosophical with a discussion of The Onion Field (1979) and the idea of guilt vs justice, A Simple Plan (1998) and the idea of moral corruption, Hard Eight (1996) and atonement, Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994) and Kill Bill 1 & 2 (2003, 2004) and the idea of redemption. After that I felt that we moved fully away from any philosophic bent and moved straight onto film criticism (with a slight tinge of philosophy to shoe-horn the articles between the pages of a philosophical publication) as various authors discussed Chinatown (1974), Blood Simple (1984), Fargo (1996), The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001), The Big Lebowski (1998) and finally – and bizarrely to my mind – the 1980’s TV series Miami Vice.

Now I didn’t exactly dislike this book. Once I got over the mild disappointment of it not being as philosophical as I had hoped and expected it was reasonably interesting. I certainly learnt quite a bit about various aspects of Neo-Noir that I would probably never have considered prior to reading this book. It probably would have helped if I’d have seen more of the films being discussed (I think I managed about 50% to be honest) so maybe the feeling that it could have been a better more engaging book stems from my apparent ignorance of the modern genre. It’s certainly possible. So although I won’t be giving this a blanket recommendation I’ll leave it to other Noir fans to decide if this is a good book or not.   

My Favourite Movies: Get Carter

Jack Carter (played with astonishing belief by Michael Caine) is a man on a mission. He's returning to his roots in the north of England to find out what happened to his brother who died under mysterious circumstances. Of course Jack is no ordinary citizen - he's a hard man, an enforcer for a top London mob so he has connections and the will to get things done. Within hours of arriving in Newcastle he's already ruffling feathers and has been offered very generous terms to return back home. It seems as if Jack is the only person who doesn't know how his brother died and quickly starts to realize that most people he meets are either indifferent or actively hostile to his quest. When he finally stumbles on the reason for his brothers death Carter begins to take his revenge on anyone associated with the murder and anyone who stood idly by who could have prevented it, and Jack is not a man who can be easily stopped before everyone pays the price no matter the cost.

Caine is great in this movie. He plays the hard man extremely well showing little emotion - except possibly anger - and certainly no fear as he takes on the combined forces of several northern gangs who want to stop him digging up things that they had hoped to stay buried. He's relentless and unforgiving as he uncovers the dark and dirty underbelly of 1970's Newcastle as it drags itself up from its industrial roots exemplified by the old Victorian back-to-back housing and tenement blocks to its modernist future of the multi-story car park and soulless windswept tower blocks. It is very much an excellent example of British Neo-Noir complete with the classic homecoming theme, seedy bars and nightclubs, the hopelessness of the downtrodden working class, the corrupting influence of drugs and illicit sex and the casual violence seen as part of 'doing business'. Hardly a police car is seen except rushing towards another death that Caine leaves in his wake. Justice, what little there is of it, normally comes from the bullet rather than the law court. It is all rather dark and unforgiving especially as it was made in 1971 before the hopes of the 60's had collapsed into the cynicism and political unrest of the 70's and 80's. There is no hope here and that's what makes it so devilishly Noir.

I've probably seen this at least 5-6 times so far (and probably more like 10 times thinking about it) and I still enjoy it a great deal. If you're a Noir fan, and I know some of my readers are, you should certainly check this out.       

My Favourite Movies: Bound

I can’t remember why exactly I picked up this DVD of this 1996 Film Noir. It certainly wasn’t because it was directed and written by the Wacowski brothers who went on to make The Matrix as it was only years later that I learnt of the connection. I suspect that I picked it up because of the two female leads – Gina Gershon who plays Corky a recent ex-con and Jennifer Tilly who plays Violet a gangsters ‘moll’. The fact that I knew these characters became lovers added a certain allure no doubt but I found, much to my enhanced pleasure, that this movie was much more than simply lesbian soft porn (I can see my Blog hit counter react positively to that particular phrase!).

Anyway, I mentioned that Bound is Film Noir which it most definitely is. The story basically goes like this: Violet (Tilly) is tired of being Caesar’s girlfriend and wants out. But you don’t just leave a man like Caesar (played superbly by Joe Pantoliano). After all he’s a gangster who’s more that a little crazy with connections to ‘the business’ as the Mafia like to be called apparently. But an opportunity presents itself when a local accountant is caught skimming money off the top – to the tune of $2 million. When Caesar has to literally launder the proceeds Corky and Violet – who are now lovers – hatch a plan to take the money and force Caesar to run for his life. The plan sounds perfect until Caesar decides to stay and fight rather than skip town.

Like all good Noir movies this has a seemingly simple plot, a straight forward theft and a meticulous plan that goes wrong due to unforeseen events and quickly spirals out of control followed by gun play and death. But what made this movie stand out from the crowd – indeed head and shoulders above the crowd – was the solid acting all round (even when playing arguably stereotypical gangsters it was done well), the intricate yet entirely plausible plot, the cinematography (typically I enjoyed the way this movie was filmed as much as the content of the film itself), the claustrophobic feel to the whole thing (with lots of close ups and clever filming in fairly roomy apartments) and even the atmospheric music which was nicely understated. Inevitably I did have a few issues with one scene in particular – although the scene was nicely tense and was used to great effect, not least of which was to move the plot forward, it blatantly ignored the sense of smell which would have ruined the whole thing (you’ll understand if/when you see the film).

But apart from the usual minor quibbles (I’m difficult to please and know it) this is a great work of Noir that would mark the Wacowski brothers as directors/writers of note even if they had never created the seminal Matrix Trilogy. If you haven’t seen this and love movies (especially crime movies) you’re missing out on a great treat. But be warned, there are several decidedly erotic sex scenes early one, several heavy duty bits of violence (including torture) and practically constant swearing from several of the main players. Definitely not one for the sensitive or easily offended – luckily I am neither.  

My Favourite Movies: Blood Simple

I clearly remember watching this movie on video in the mid-1980’s. At the time I was probably not alone in being completely ignorant of the Coen brothers who wrote and directed this dark and disturbing film Noir outing, after all it was their first movie! Looking back with 20-20 hindsight it’s clear that not only did the brothers have talent but that their quirky film making would take them far – including to the Oscars more than once.

Blood Simple (1984) has a deceptively simple plot. Marty (played by Dan Hedaya) is convinced that his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) is having an affair so hires a private detective (M. Emmet Walsh) to find him evidence for a potential divorce. When the evidence is found Marty asks if the detective will kill his wife and her lover Ray (John Getz). For $10,000 the answer is yes. But the detective has no intention of actually killing the illicit couple. He has a much better idea. Providing spurious evidence of their deaths he collects his money and then shoots Marty with his wife’s stolen gun. Thinking he has committed the perfect crime he pockets the money and leaves with a smile on his face. Only later does he realise that one of his fake pictures is missing and he can’t find his lighter. But when he returns to the scene of the crime he discovers that the body has gone and that someone has cleaned up after his killing. It’s then that things become far less simple than he had expected.

Looking back from the giddy heights of 2012 it is easy to see Blood Simple as a crude 80’s Noir knock-off trying to be more than its simple storyline would suggest. In many ways that is a fair assessment. It is indeed a rather crude film. But what elevates it about the norm and makes it, in my mind, a minor classic of its type is the sparse dialogue and the often outstanding cinematography. As my regulars will know I am a sucker for a well framed image. This movie offers plenty examples of that seemingly easy but in reality difficult art of presenting the audience with images that stick in your mind long after the film finishes. Two certainly spring to mind: where Ray is standing behind Marty as he slowly crawls away from the car, illuminated only by its headlights on a dark road, carrying the shovel he brought along to bury the body. The other is where Abby, hiding in her bathroom after driving a knife into the detective’s hand pinning him to a window ledge, watches as he fires his gun repeated through the wall in the hope of killing her.

One of the things I like doing is visiting the old movies of a favourite director to see things in his/her earlier films that show up, often heavily modified, in later offerings. If you too are interested in such things watch this movie and then watch Fargo made some 12 years later. Apart from the fact that both movies starred Frances McDormand you should see the techniques used in Blood Simple much perfected in Fargo. Oh, and don’t be put off by its seeming lack of pace. This movie is definitely worth the effort of sitting and watching the story unfold (and unravel) in front of you!   

Just Finished Reading: Unless the Threat of Death is Behind Them – Hard-Boiled Fiction and Film Noir by John T Irwin

As some of you will already know I’m a big fan of Noir both in movies and in literature, so it was nice to find a book that examined both. In this largely well written and often fascinating book the author (who is a professor of Humanities at Johns Hopkins University) compares a handful of early written works and then discusses them in relation to each other and to the movies they spawned.

As you might be able to tell one of the books/movies discussed (illustrated and quoted on the front page) is the brilliant Maltese Falcon penned by Dashell Hammett. This, along with Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep, James Cain’s Double Indemnity, W R Burnett’s High Sierra and Cornell Woolrich’s Night Has a Thousand Eyes makes for a rich and detailed investigation of the history, cultural placement and raw power of Noir fiction as it burst onto the scene in the 1930’s 40’s and 50’s. I do think that some of the analysis would have gone over my head if I hadn’t read Hammett, Chandler or Cain or hadn’t seen any of the movies. So maybe some prep-work is needed to get the full use out of this text. But I suppose if you’re going to be reading this you’d be a fan already and have at least seen some of the movies listed!

Probably the thing I found most interesting in this book was the discussion of how the movie version of The Big Sleep varied from the book. This revolved around Humphey Bogart who was, at that time, getting a divorce from his then wife whilst having an affair with his co-star Lauren Bacall. To play this down and to make the film more marketable by playing up the romance between the two leads some heavy editing of the script took place – to such an extent that parts of the film clearly make little or no sense.

The main thrust of the author’s thesis regarding the Noir genre was the idea of the detective/protagonist as an independent contractor who saw everything other than his independence to be of secondary importance – which leads to the rejection of both bribes and brides. A case in point is the Sam Spade rejection of his ‘girlfriends’ idea that they cover up his partners murder because they’re in love. Spade, played by Bogart on top form, gives her up to the police – not only for his business partners murder but also because if he gave into her suggestion she would have something to hold over him for the rest of his life.

Just about the only thing I didn’t like about this book – and through which I more than happily skimmed – was a Freudian analysis of Cornell Woolrich. I mean FREUD? Please don’t make me laugh! If this had been at the beginning of the book or if the author has persisted in his ‘interpretations of the Noir author’s motives using this outdated and frankly ridiculous methodology I would have quite happily have consigned it to the unreadable pile. Fortunately he only used it in this one instance (why I wondered).

Anyway, apart from that particular wobble, this was a very interesting and often insightful study of some of the classic Noir stories that I, for one, know and love. If you’re a Noir fan (and I know that some of my regulars are) I think you’ll enjoy this – even with the Freud bit (shakes head).   

Just Finished Reading: The Dark Side of the Screen – Film Noir by Foster Hirsch

Continuing my interest in Film Noir this coffee table book was a real treat. Full of detailed analysis and copious amounts of large black and white movie stills this was a great insight to one of, in my opinion, defining genres of modern cinema. Although only lasting around 10 years – depending on who you read – Film Noir produced some of the best – again in my opinion – movies of the post-war period. Not only that Noir filtered into the mainstream and influenced many, if not all, subsequent movies especially but not exclusively in the crime film genre.

Hirsch’s book delves into the history of Noir from its cinematic origins in German Expressionism of the 1930’s and its literary origins in the pulp writers of the 30’s and 1940’s. The book highlights the thematic character of Noir giving entire chapters to the locations (the city at night), the distortion of reality (often featured by the distorting mirror), the skills and attributes of both Noir actors and directors as well as the distinctive Noir narrative structure. Despite have a lot of ground to cover the author packs a great deal of detail, and not a little passion for his subject, into just over 200 large format pages. Hirsch never looses his focus and always manages to get across the often labyrinthine plots and deeper meanings of the great Noir movies. Easy to read and beautifully illustrated this could turn you into a Noir fan if you’re not one already. Reading this over successive weekends I did feel a hankering to pop on a classic DVD and fall into a world of dangerous dames and violent men. Highly recommended for anyone with more than a passing interest in cinema.