Summer of Darkness on Turner Classic Movies

[JasonPratt]

Rooks,

The Silents have an already-great and steadily increasing presence on DVD, and even to some extent on Blu. Kino is the main source for the silents, but not the only one; and I've run across some interesting print-on-demand offerings along the way.

I'm not gonna lie: their pacing and, well, almost everything else are usually painful by modern standards; which is why I stuck with genre entries I thought I could tolerate better. But I found it interesting to watch the directed evolution (so to speak) of modern film-making. It also gave me an appreciation for how not-very-far some of the early classic sound films are from the silents (I'm thinking specifically of the Universal horror suite). The noir genre owes a TON to how the silents worked, too, although usually noir is more interesting (and I say that as someone who doesn't usually care for 'realistic crime' stories.)

Still, it's instructive to watch totally new things which we take utterly for granted being done in film history right there. As an offhand example, there's an epic 14 hour silent film series from France (in 1914 just before the War) called Fantomas, about a police inspector trying to bring down a Parisian supercriminal -- a series that inspired a ton of things afterward, not least being the noirs -- and by modern standards it's a freaking grind.  :P But it helps to listen to the commentary track at least once, where I learned how shocking a particular scene was for audiences in its day. A woman is trying to hide from the villains in a spare room, and so goes in and shuts the door behind her, and is listening at the door for a moment, then backs away with relief, and turns around --

-- and the camera follows in a pan left, and there's a dead body on the floor.

That blew people's minds.

Before then, no one had panned a camera. People had become totally, subconsciously accustomed to the idea that while other things might be happening off frame (like villains looking for a damsel for example), whatever was shown on camera was all that the director wanted you to see. Real-space off frame just didn't conceptually exist. Someone might walk on from off-stage, so to speak, but even that wasn't the same thing. It was like suddenly, casually inventing real 3D film effects by having someone throw a dead body at the audience. Only conceptually more unsettling than that. The audience could no longer feel assured that they knew from moment to moment what to expect from a scene. It was probably the single most important advance in the art of drama since whenever thousands of years ago a director (or the equivalent thereof) had the idea for characters to walk onto the stage while the scene was still going.

Also in that serial (I'm not exaggerating much about it being 14 hours): the first scene ever shot on a moving train in real-time.

[JasonPratt]

Re: why color film was more available in Europe?

Because the Europeans had invented it. Specifically the French. Back in the late 1800s.

I don't just mean color photography, I mean color moving film. It was practically invented as fast, or faster, than b/w. But Pathê and the other studios closely guarded the secret of doing so. (One result being that there is surviving color French photography and film from World War 1. You can see a lot of it in the documentary, The First World War. The recent American History Channel doc Apocalypse: World War One or whatever it was called, used colorization mostly, but also a ton of film footage from the years before the war.)

But it was too expensive to make entertainment films with; Meliere (or however he spelled his name) made several dozen hours of color films while experimenting with special effects and other completely new filmmaking techniques over the years, but not many lasting more than a few minutes at a time. (You can find those collections archived on DVD by the way.) So practically all silent films use color gels with b/w "silver" film instead, some of which still survive or can be reconstructed from notes and added back in post. The prelude to the original Ben Hur is highly unusual in that the Nativity scenes are true full color, but even those few minutes were painted onto the cells by hand in post-production, not shot with color film (if I recall correctly) -- and the other scenes, during the prelude and afterward, are typical cell shading. Because it was less expensive to hire people to do that, than to shoot with color film (and risk blowing that money away on a single failed take or bad lighting.)

Naturally, color film became less expensive to produce as time went on, but to get around the French monopoly on its production North American film critics lobbied for the superior artistic merit of b/w. The reason that seems insane is because producers and directors were still executing gel coloring in post on a regular basis, which naturally undercut the whole argument about the artistic purity of b/w! Anyway, it set back color film production for about a decade, and was also the first time the North American market managed to dictate the style of world film production.

[RooksBailey]

Rooks,

The Silents have an already-great and steadily increasing presence on DVD, and even to some extent on Blu. Kino is the main source for the silents, but not the only one; and I've run across some interesting print-on-demand offerings along the way.

That seems to be the story with films noir, too.  A lot of the DVDs are either print-on-demand or part of classic collections released by the big studios. More can be found scattered around various rental and public domain streamers. 

I'm not gonna lie: their pacing and, well, almost everything else are usually painful by modern standards; which is why I stuck with genre entries I thought I could tolerate better. But I found it interesting to watch the directed evolution (so to speak) of modern film-making. It also gave me an appreciation for how not-very-far some of the early classic sound films are from the silents (I'm thinking specifically of the Universal horror suite). The noir genre owes a TON to how the silents worked, too, although usually noir is more interesting (and I say that as someone who doesn't usually care for 'realistic crime' stories.)

Definitely!  Fritz Lang and his German Expressionism colleagues cut their teeth in silent films before coming to America and moving into the budding noir scene of the early 40s.  Likewise, a number of early horror directors brought their skills to noir, too (such as the director of Cat People - I forget his name and I am too tired to google it  :) ).  I think noir blossomed because you had this melting pot of diverse styles and influences. 

Still, it's instructive to watch totally new things which we take utterly for granted being done in film history right there. As an offhand example, there's an epic 14 hour silent film series from France (in 1914 just before the War) called Fantomas, about a police inspector trying to bring down a Parisian supercriminal -- a series that inspired a ton of things afterward, not least being the noirs -- and by modern standards it's a freaking grind. 

That sounds like a great idea for a series!  Too bad it is a grind to watch.  Seems ripe for a remake. 

:P But it helps to listen to the commentary track at least once, where I learned how shocking a particular scene was for audiences in its day. A woman is trying to hide from the villains in a spare room, and so goes in and shuts the door behind her, and is listening at the door for a moment, then backs away with relief, and turns around --

-- and the camera follows in a pan left, and there's a dead body on the floor.

That blew people's minds.

LOL!  I remember the prof in my old cinema course telling us how the first time a train was filmed racing towards a camera a lot of people freaked out in the theater and left in a panic.  Personally, I find that hard to believe but I suppose it is possible.   

Before then, no one had panned a camera. People had become totally, subconsciously accustomed to the idea that while other things might be happening off frame (like villains looking for a damsel for example), whatever was shown on camera was all that the director wanted you to see. Real-space off frame just didn't conceptually exist. Someone might walk on from off-stage, so to speak, but even that wasn't the same thing. It was like suddenly, casually inventing real 3D film effects by having someone throw a dead body at the audience. Only conceptually more unsettling than that. The audience could no longer feel assured that they knew from moment to moment what to expect from a scene. It was probably the single most important advance in the art of drama since whenever thousands of years ago a director (or the equivalent thereof) had the idea for characters to walk onto the stage while the scene was still going.

That is really interesting! 

Also in that serial (I'm not exaggerating much about it being 14 hours): the first scene ever shot on a moving train in real-time.

I imagine it would be interesting to watch that and then compare it to the French noir, The Human Beast (fantastic film!).  That had a lot of scenes filmed on real trains, too.  IIRC even by the time of that film, shooting on actual trains was still something of a novelty as most directors preferred the safety and convenience of a sound stage. 

Re: why color film was more available in Europe?

Because the Europeans had invented it. Specifically the French. Back in the late 1800s.

I don't just mean color photography, I mean color moving film. It was practically invented as fast, or faster, than b/w. But Pathê and the other studios closely guarded the secret of doing so. (One result being that there is surviving color French photography and film from World War 1. You can see a lot of it in the documentary, The First World War. The recent American History Channel doc Apocalypse: World War One or whatever it was called, used colorization mostly, but also a ton of film footage from the years before the war.)

Wasn't aware of that!  I never even suspected color film from WWI existed!

But it was too expensive to make entertainment films with; Meliere (or however he spelled his name) made several dozen hours of color films while experimenting with special effects and other completely new filmmaking techniques over the years, but not many lasting more than a few minutes at a time. (You can find those collections archived on DVD by the way.) So practically all silent films use color gels with b/w "silver" film instead, some of which still survive or can be reconstructed from notes and added back in post. The prelude to the original Ben Hur is highly unusual in that the Nativity scenes are true full color, but even those few minutes were painted onto the cells by hand in post-production, not shot with color film (if I recall correctly) -- and the other scenes, during the prelude and afterward, are typical cell shading. Because it was less expensive to hire people to do that, than to shoot with color film (and risk blowing that money away on a single failed take or bad lighting.)

Naturally, color film became less expensive to produce as time went on, but to get around the French monopoly on its production North American film critics lobbied for the superior artistic merit of b/w. The reason that seems insane is because producers and directors were still executing gel coloring in post on a regular basis, which naturally undercut the whole argument about the artistic purity of b/w! Anyway, it set back color film production for about a decade, and was also the first time the North American market managed to dictate the style of world film production.

I am not clear on what this means.  Executing gel coloring in post production?  You mean adding color by hand after the film was shot? 

I still think the argument that B&W is more artistic has merits.  As I wrote earlier, the contrast between light and shadow is much sharper with B&W;  color  seems to permit more of a gradient between the two.  That scene I posted above from Act of Violence would never look as nightmarish if it was shot in color, IMO.  B&W works to trap the viewer into an alternate reality, while color mimics the real world too closely.  I suspect that noir never would have truly been "noir" if color was more readily available.

[JasonPratt]

Re: Fantomas, I was checking last night, only 5-1/2 hours not 14. But it feels like 14.  >:D

Re: remaking Fantomas: it was indeed remade a few times, or rather the character was ported forward into new period-appropriate adventures, including an unfortunately rather cheap-looking series of James Bondian films in the 60s, as if Blofeld was supposed to be the star of the series and James Bond wasn't all that important despite being the nominal hero. ;) Fantomas wore a silver mask in that series. There have been some comic book adaptations over the years, too.

Re: pre-technicolor film, I was misremembering the details, but I'll give a quick summary here for anyone who doesn't want to go poking around my Library of Silence thread. (I know you've read it already. :) )

Melies only shot an hour or two of color film total, or that's all that survives -- maybe not even an hour's worth -- but it wasn't color film per se, it was painted on afterward. His associate Choma who often worked with him, though, was the first to invent that process, and it does go back into the late 1890s.

I can't recall offhand if it was Choma who invented Pathécolor, but prior to actual color film processes (i.e. Technicolor) someone at Pathé invented the best method of colorization, where instead of hundreds of women painting film cells by hand, hundreds of women cut stencils by hand for each cell of a film. Then a black and white print would be washed through a coloring process six times, married each time to six different parallel reels of stencils, matching where one of six colors should be sprayed onto the b/w print for each cell (with combinations possible obviously). It was still grossly expensive compared to doing nothing at all, or compared to using monocolor gels for various scenes (the widely preferred method, including at Pathé), but the first copy made thus could be produced not much slower than painting each cell by hand, with much better results, and then afterward color versions of a film could be quickly mass produced. This stencil process seems to be responsible for the color French films from WW1.

One of the more interesting stepping stones to 2-strip Technicolor was a sort of color optical illusion made by a special camera that shot each frame through a rotating alternating red and green filter, polarizing the b/w negative. Then when the film was developed and projected, it was sent back through a matching red/green rotating gel set. This was the most inexpensive and easy process developed that I read about, but didn't actually produce color film only an illusion of a color experience, so to speak.

It led directly to Technicolor being invented in 1915, however. At first people just experimented with it, but by the mid 20s a few actual feature films were being made, the first two being romantic travelogues of exotic lands. The third one, which is by far the most famous and often regarded (due to its fame) as the first color feature film, was Fairbanks' The Black Pirate -- which was also a romantic travelogue film but with pirates, swordfights, and Douglas Fairbanks. ;)


Re: Cat People == Val Lewtin? Something like that. Too lazy/busy this morning to check.

[RooksBailey]

Thanks for the expanded explanation on pre-technicolor film!  Today I watched the DVD of Double Indemnity - great movie!  As they usually do with these classic movies, the DVD came with a documentary explaining the importance of the film.  On of the experts who were consulted was Owen Roizman, the cinematographer of The Exorcist.  He made a comment concerning the B&W of the noir era that struck a chord with me:

"With black and white, the control over a range of contrasts of whites and blacks to tell a story is, to me, a true art form, a truer art form than working with color."

I agree with this.  Again, not to say that color cannot be artistic as well, but I definitely think the old critics were on to something when they supported the delay of introducing color to the American cinema.  Sure, I have no doubt that cost was a big factor, but I think concern over the artistry of a B&W noir film was a legitimate one.  Anyway, just found that an interesting sentiment coming from a modern, accomplished cinematographer. 

Other news: 

Yeah, I've been watching a lot of noir recently. Really, almost exclusively. Consider it a reaction to the awful state of contemporary cinema. I think you could see this reaction building over the last few years as I started to write about lots of alternative media, from anime to web-based shows. Simply, I was being forced to find an exit from the trash that is being dumped into the theaters by the Hollywood corporations these days. It really is a sad state of affairs, something even Dustin Hoffman recently pointed out when he quipped “...I think that it’s the worst that film has ever been – in the 50 years that I’ve been doing it, it’s the worst."

I think that is why I feel really good about making a donation to the Film Noir Foundation yesterday. The FNF is run by Eddie Muller, the host of TCM's Summer of Darkness. He created this organization as "an educational resource regarding the cultural, historical, and artistic significance of film noir as an original American cinematic movement," with its purpose being "to find and preserve films in danger of being lost or irreparably damaged, and to ensure that high quality prints of these classic films remain in circulation for theatrical exhibition to future generations."

Frankly, I am amazed I actually did fork over a bit of cash for this cause as while I have always enjoyed certain genres (such as sci-fi, for example), I have never considered myself a "cinephile" or a film activist, and certainly not a film noir aficionado! But after diving deeply into the genre over the past six weeks, I have come to the same conclusion as a lot of other fans: film noir was the apotheosis of American cinema. It is just undeniable as far as I am concerned.

Of course, it is always nice to get a little something for a donation.   With the FNF, a mere $20 donation gets you a year's subscription (four issues) of their in-house e-mag, NOIR CITY. Now, lots of orgs give you a free subscription to their in-house publication, but most are merely glorified newsletters. I really didn't expect anything different here. But when I got my first issue yesterday, I was shocked to see that it was a 98-page, full color, highly polished magazine! I mean, as a print edition this thing would be right at home on a newsstand. It is gorgeous and packed with great articles covering everything from the requisite latest FNF news, to reviews of new noir on stage and screen, making-of articles on classic movies, well-illustrated articles on the artistry of noir, and more (even a noir-inspired cocktail recipe section). It is a wonderful "bene" that probably would be better priced at a higher donation level, frankly.

Muller has every right to be proud of his magazine (something he has made quite clear in the past).

Anyway, just wanted to share. If you would like to register a protest vote against the slop in the cinema today, take that money that you would have spent on two overpriced tickets and give it to the FNF instead:  http://www.filmnoirfoundation.org

Now I just need to get to one of their film festivals. Based on what I have read, they seem to be some raucous events.   ^-^

I can now add another film to my (virtual collection): The Lady from Shanghai.  I am not a big fan of Orson Welles. Yes, he was a very capable, very visionary filmmaker, but I also think he often let his technical prowess get ahead of his storytelling abilities. Well, I have to say his 'The Lady from Shanghai' is the first Welles' film where I believe both his technical abilities and his storytelling abilities were in perfect harmony. This is a fantastic noir that I highly recommend. It is a very dark tale that touches on themes of insanity, murder, suicide, and nuclear war. The ending trial dives right into the deep end of a world gone mad, something seemingly out of Camus' The Stranger. Welles brings his talents to the forefront here with wonderful cinematography such as the following scene where Hayworth and her crooked lawyer husband face off in a fun house (something later films will copy endlessly):



What a great juxtaposed scene!

The chess player in me also loved this very artistic scene:



I love how the shadows seem to be bleeding onto the chessboard. Metaphor. 

The Lady from Shanghai is one of those films that has so much going on that you need to watch it more than once to catch all the fantastic artistry, as well as great plot points and dialogue. Now, keep in mind that I am NOT saying it is better than Terminator: Genisys, but it is still a good movie.  >:D   Movie here:

"It is a bright, guilty world."

One complaint: Orson Welles should have been tried for crimes against humanity for cutting and dying Rita Hayworth's hair!  >:(

[RooksBailey]

So just what is film noir?  Answering that question isn't always that easy, which is why I am taking a "light" eight week course on film noir.   :)  Having said that, the following "infographic"did a startlingly effective job on boiling the elements of noir down to their essentials.  While I think the list of films they used is too restrictive, I understand their need to keep things manageable (original website here:  http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/infographic-what-makes-film-noir):





Sometimes even the stars didn't realize they were doing noir!  ;D

[Emeraldlis]

Second noir Friday is here!  Woot!   

The classic Detour now showing:

Rest of the day's schedule:

1:45 PM DETOUR (1945)
3:00 PM MILDRED PIERCE (1945)
5:00 PM DEADLINE AT DAWN (1946)
6:30 PM JOHNNY ANGEL (1946)
8:00 PM THE GANGSTER (1947)
9:45 PM GUN CRAZY (1950)
11:30 PM TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY (1951)
1:15 AM NIGHTMARE ALLEY (1947)
3:30 AM NIGHT MOVES (1975)

And the fans have spoken:



The film Rebecca with Lawrence Olivier is one of my all time favourites . He's or was an amazing actor , I like how the suspense is built up all the way through the film .  And his dead wife's presence is felt all the way through the film , even though she's dead , amazing piece of work :) I think that film was based on the book by daphne du Maurier , I could be wrong , but that author also gave us the three musketeers , soooo say no more , awesome writer !!

[RooksBailey]

The film Rebecca with Lawrence Olivier is one of my all time favourites . He's or was an amazing actor , I like how the suspense is built up all the way through the film .  And his dead wife's presence is felt all the way through the film , even though she's dead , amazing piece of work :) I think that film was based on the book by daphne du Maurier , I could be wrong , but that author also gave us the three musketeers , soooo say no more , awesome writer !!

I have yet to catch this noir.  Based on what you wrote, it sounds excellent!  Fortunately, I see you can watch it on Youtube:

Gonna watch it ASAP!

PS: thanks for reminding me of that fan vote poster.  When the noir festival started back in the end of June, I had only seen one or two of those films.  Now I realize I have seen them all but for Rebecca!  I am making progress.  LOL!  If I were to vote now, I would add Gilda, The Woman from Shanghai, Deadline at Dawn, Angels Over Broadway, and Cornered to the list. 

[JasonPratt]

The Musketeer books (including The Man in the Iron Mask) are from Alexandre Dumas. She did however write a novel (The Glass-Blowers) about her ancestors in the time leading up and into the French Revolution. Perhaps she imported the Musketeers as cameos?

[Emeraldlis]

Thanks for putting me right on that Jason , I got my authors mixed up !! I still love the three musketeers though :)

Rooks Bailey I really hope you enjoy watching Rebecca . I made my daughter watch it with me a while ago just to get her to appreciate something different , I think movies like this stand the test of time and become timeless classics because they are just so well written , acted and directed :) my daughter much to her surprise really got into it and enjoyed it  O:-). I think that the movie being in black and white adds to the drama and the atmosphere of the film , I loved it :)

I need to watch it again now ! Lol  ;D

[RooksBailey]

Rooks Bailey I really hope you enjoy watching Rebecca . I made my daughter watch it with me a while ago just to get her to appreciate something different , I think movies like this stand the test of time and become timeless classics because they are just so well written , acted and directed :) my daughter much to her surprise really got into it and enjoyed it  O:-). I think that the movie being in black and white adds to the drama and the atmosphere of the film , I loved it :)

I need to watch it again now ! Lol  ;D

Guess what, Emeraldlis!  I finally found the time to watch Rebecca!  You were right! It was a great film!  Really involved plot - you could tell is what based off of a complex novel.  As with all these old films, the acting was marvelous, especially by Joan Fontaine.  However, I have to say that I wouldn't really consider it film noir in the strict sense.  Sure, it had a lot of the elements: chiaroscuro lighting, a first person narration (at least initially), an obsession with past events, and a protagonist who gets themselves in over their head.   But, as with Sunset Boulevard, I found the movie to be something other than noir.  Just as I consider Sunset Boulevard more of a horror movie with noir elements, I consider Rebecca to be more of a epic romance with noir elements.  But that is just me.   :)  Regardless, it was an excellent film that was well worth watching.  Thanks for the recommendation!

Now I have seen all three of the classic chick flicks: Gilda, Laura, and Rebecca.  Would the universe tear in half if you could get all three demi-goddesses in a room together?   ;D

Sadly, TCM's Summer of Darkness concluded the Friday before last.   :-\  Those were swell times.  I think that was the most time I put into television in a very, very long time.   I must have watched around 40 films over a nine week period!  Then there was the additional course work I did for the tie-in online course offered by TCM!  I never, ever dug so deeply into a genre before.  Sure, I have my favorite genres such as sci-fi, history, fantasy, but I never really became obsessed with a specific genre like I have with film noir.  As many film historians have remarked, it really was the apotheosis of American cinema, and our unique contribution to world cinema (just as jazz is America's unique contribution to world music - and I found it interesting that jazz and film noir nurtured each other.  What a happy romance!). 

Honestly, I think I have related to film noir so strongly for the same reason that post-World War II America fell in love with it:  due to a general cynicism concerning the state of the world.  One of my favorite lines in film noir comes from a great flick called Dark City (not the sci-fi one that is also a good example of noir, albeit sci-fi neo-noir).  In it, Lizabeth Scott tells Charlton Heston about something she read in the newspaper.  He replies that he does't read the paper.  Shocked, Scott asks "Don't you want to know what's going on in the world?"  Heston snarls: "What's going on in the world stinks."   Yup.  Pretty much my attitude, too.  That cynicism towards the world, particularly the powers that be, is a good reflection of my attitude at the moment.  Maybe that is why I am suddenly finding myself enjoying playing the part of anti-establishment criminals in games, too (it would explain my passion for Shadowrun  :) ).

I hope TCM makes this a regular event.  It actually made TV worthwhile for me again!  Fortunately, I still have a large backload of films noir waiting for viewing on Youtube, Amazon and Netflix.  This will help get me through the Friday withdrawls.  I have also discovered that noir fiction, from the original inspirations of Chandler, Hammett et cetera, to some new authors I am still ferreting out, is pretty awesome, too.  Looks like I have a new hobby.   ::)

The other day I stumbled upon this excellent documentary on why film noir remains such a popular international phenomenon.  I highly recommend watching it.  It is not a dry doc, but very entertaining (Sin City's Frank Miller and the "Czar of Noir' Eddie Muller are both contributors, amongst may other cinema notables such as Pollack).  It also manages to cram a lot of the essential facts about the genre into its hour running time.  Hopefully it helps introduce this timeless genre to some new fans.  Enjoy:

[RooksBailey]

Even though SoD has sadly ended, I continue to explore the genre on my own. I came across a reference to the following movie in the Noir City e-mag and had to give it a shot as it sounded so amusing. Wicked Woman is one of those "poverty row" 'B' noirs made with a very low budget and lesser know actors. Interestingly, I have found a lot of these cheap noirs were actually quite good because they made up for their lack of budget by really ratcheting up the noir aspects. Here, it was the femme fatale that got the super-deluxe treatment with Beverly Michaels delivering a wonderfully trashy, over the top performance. I was a bit disappointed in the ending as it had a "quick fix" aspect to it, but I did appreciate seeing the movie end just like it began, which was clever. Long short, if you liked the classic Detour!, you will also love this!  Call if a fitting (for noir) "guilty pleasure."  8)

Interesting "history of"article here:  http://cinemasojourns.com/2015/07/27/beverly-michaels-wicked-woman/

Voluptuous vixens, murderous golddiggers and greedy femme fatales were a familiar sight in B-movie melodramas of the fifties but Wicked Woman (1953) stands out from the rest of the pack. The look and feel of the movie captures the lurid quality of trashy pulp fiction covers from the same period like Tavern Girl, Passion Has Red Lips or Any Sex Will Do. Even the minimalistic, sparsely decorated sets, that represent a confined universe of dingy boarding house rooms and the neighborhood bar, exude a sleazy authenticity and sense of claustrophobia. And scheming her way through these lower depths is Beverly Michaels in the title role of Billie Nash. Blonde, statuesque and sullen, she is the quintessential hard luck tramp, moving from town to town in a futile search for a change in luck. 

[RooksBailey]

And I can scratch another noir classic off my list! I was actually hesitant to watch this because I was always under the impression that this movie was primarily a steamy romance - which is not my cup of tea. However, I discovered that there is a lot more going on in this movie - A LOT more. Postman is a potent mix of adultery, murder, a court procedural, blackmail and even a meditation on God's inescapable justice. This was a truly fantastic movie that, like Double Indemnity, is must-see viewing for noir fanatics as well as for classic movie buffs. It gets a rarea 5/5 from me! Here is a clip from the movie that contains one of the most famous introductions of a femme fatale ever: Lana Turner's stunning entrance that causes Frank (John Garfield) to lose his breath. Enjoy!

One of the things I so love about classical noir is how sharp the writing is. In The Postman Always Rings Twice, a motorcycle cop remarks on a  cat that was electrocuted when it stepped on a power line. Of course, this is just a metaphor for the doom approaching Lana Turner: "Cats are poor, dumb things. Killed her deader than a doornail. I never saw a prettier cat. Killed her deader than a doornail."