After the Thin Man

Actually, Mr. Movie Poster, it's "Mr. and Mrs. Charles are back."  The "thin man" from the first film referred to a missing person, not William Powell's character.  What's that, 1930s moviegoers?  You've decided to make William Powell the "thin man?"  Um.  Okay.  I guess it's too late to do anything about that now.

After the Thin Man takes place, appropriately enough, immediately following The Thin Man.  Does that mean you should be familiar with the first film to enjoy this one?  Not at all; if you haven't seen the first movie, though, you really ought to give it a try --- it's a treat.  Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) Charles have arrived via train to their home in San Francisco, just in time for New Year's Eve.  Unfortunately for Nick, the pair are expected to join Nora's family for a fancy formal dinner party.  No one in Nora's family seems to like Nick, either because he married into his money or because he's a lush or because he's a bit of a smart-ass. 

Tuxes for a dinner with the family?  That doesn't sound stuffy at all

For better or worse, the evening takes an interesting turn when it appears that the nogoodnick husband, Robert (Alan Marshal), of Nora's cousin, Selma, is missing.  The family has never liked Robert, but if they didn't resolve his disappearance soon, it was worried that Selma would get dramatically crazy and bring shame to the family name.  The disappearance is easy enough for Nick and Nora to solve, but it is almost immediately followed by a murder in which Selma is the prime suspect.  What's a moderately bored and perennially drunk amateur gumshoe to do, but solve the mystery and put a neat bow on it?

After the Thin Man is an interesting bit of early Hollywood.  The first film was a big hit and this was only the first of five (!) sequels.  The original film was based on Dashiell Hammett's final novel, but this was completely original.  Hammett was hired to write the story for After the Thin Man, with the talented team of Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett returning to turn his story into an acceptable screenplay.  I don't know any specifics (because I'm too lazy to do any actual research), but I know that Hammett's post-novelist years were filled with sickness and booze, so it should not be surprising that the story here is not as intricate as in the original film.  Nevertheless, it manages to overcome some Scooby-Doo-esque plot twists and typical 1930s film tropes and it remains an entertaining bit of lighthearted comedy, even by today's standards.

Ha ha ha!  Get it?  She's being arrested for murder!

The key to this film working once again rests on the shoulders of William Powell and Myrna Loy.  Powell's charm and excellent line delivery are essential to this film, but it is the banter between him and Loy that really makes the movie succeed.  Loy's role is a little less entertaining this time around (she has to be nice to her family, after all), but she is still more than a capable foil for Powell's wit.  As much as I enjoyed watching the duo feign drunkenness in the first film, I enjoyed their interactions more in this one.  They were a pleasant blend of mean and tender that is surprisingly believable in a couple.

As a married man, I am all too familiar with that look

The supporting cast is a little more noteworthy in this sequel.  I was surprised to see a young James Stewart in his first substantial film role; this is the first time I have seen him in a non-leading role, so it was interesting to see his typical aw-shucks charm being applied to someone who wasn't the main hero.

Maybe he's the titular thin man?

The rest of the supporting cast is less spectacular, but a number of recognizable people played small roles.  Penny Singleton (the voice for Jane Jetson) plays a scheming nightclub singer.  Noir actor Sam Levene plays the hapless policeman forced to look like a fool next to Nick Charles.  Hard-working character actor Paul Fix also has a small part.  My favorite of the less famous supporting actors was Joseph Calleia, though; the man was such a great movie villain that it doesn't really matter that his character here was relatively tame.

Joseph "Born Evil" Calleia

Like the original film, After the Thin Man was directed by W.S. Van Dyke.  His direction is adequate from a technical standpoint --- don't expect to see any subtext or clever uses of frame or lighting here --- but he once again handled the cast quite well.  With the bulk of this movie relying on the charm and chemistry between its stars, Van Dyke's touch with the actors was critical.  On the other hand, with a considerably less dense script than the first film, Van Dyke's limitations are a bit more obvious.  The supporting actors are portrayed in broad strokes with very little complexity and Van Dyke panders to the audience a little too much when it comes to the dog.

Actual subplot: Asta is depressed, thanks to an unfaithful wife

After the Thin Man fares best when it is not directly compared to its predecessor.  Nick and Nora are still a lot of fun to watch and their dialogue is more than worth the price of admission.  This movie is a bit more cute than actually funny, but it is still a fun watch.  It certainly could have used a more compelling mystery, but the charm of the main characters helps balance that.  Perhaps the film's biggest miss was its inability to actually make anything look seedy. 

This is their idea of a dive bar

It is fun to watch Nick interact with criminals (to Nora's amusement), but I would have liked them to appear out of their element at either (or both) ends of the social spectrum; here is a film with snooty rich folk looking down their nose, as well as nightclub patrons planning on theft and murder --- and the Charles' never miss a beat.  As good as Nick and Nora are, I would have liked to see them unsettled at least once.  While I doubt anyone will argue that After the Thin Man is a masterpiece, it is still a fun, disposable bit of film fluff.  Many great films have had truly unfortunate sequels, but this isn't one of them.

The Glass Key (1942)

I like to think of myself as a bit of a film noir fan.  I am no expert (yet), but I'm a big fan of what I've seen so far.  I'm also a big fan of literary noir; my favorite author is Dashiell Hammett, and my favorite work by him is The Glass Key.  One of my favorite movies of all time --- the sublime Miller's Crossing --- is more or less based (the directors say "influenced") on The Glass Key, too.  Needless to say, I was happy to find the second, and more famous, film version of The Glass Key on television this week.  But would it live up to my high expectations?  See what I did there?  That's a cliffhanger, folks.

Ed Beaumont (Alan Ladd) is the right hand man for the town's head mobster, Paul Madvig (Brian Donleavy).  Ed is smart, mean, and relatively emotion-free.  Paul is a gutsy fighter who worked his way up the mob scene through violence and perseverance.  Paul has become infatuated with Janet Henry (Veronica Lake), the daughter of the reform candidate for governor, Senator Ralph Henry (Moroni Olsen, the voice of Disney's magic mirror), so he has given his considerable political support to Mr. Henry's campaign.

Her dad's the head of the Committee for Hot Senatorial Daughters

That's a problem; reform candidates are trying to change the system, but Paul obviously isn't interested in changing the fact that he's pulling the strings in this town's politics.  That's a little dumb, but Paul also combines this folly with the choice to battle an up-and-coming mobster, Nick Varna (Joseph Calleia), who is strong enough to give Paul some serious trouble.

"Have you ever considered being less stupid?"

Even that wouldn't be a fatal error if it wasn't for the mysterious murder of Senator Henry's son, Taylor (Richard Denning).  Why is all that a problem?  Well, Taylor died in circumstances that implied that Paul was the killer.  When you combine that with a shaky political alliance and a worthy adversary making war, you have more than a small problem on your hands.

That summary doesn't really do the story justice.  While Paul Madvig is definitely the cog that turns the wheels of this plot, the main character is absolutely Ed Beaumont.  Ed is smart, except when he's gambling.  He's tough, especially when being weak would benefit his body.  Most importantly, though, Ed is the eyes through which we see the plot.  He doesn't know who killed Taylor Henry, but he's sticking by Paul until his mind gets changed.  He knows he shouldn't give a fig for the manipulative Janet Henry, but he is more than willing to manipulate her to find the truth.  And, eventually, love her in a sexual fashion.

"Have you heard of sexual healing?"

This is the second film version of this story (the first was made in 1935), but it is definitely the more famous one.  That is primarily due to the on-screen chemistry of Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake.  The duo had teamed up in This Gun For Hire already, but the film had not been released before The Glass Key began filming; apparently, their chemistry was enough to guarantee a reunion here, as well as in two other films.  Alan Ladd is pretty good in this role, especially for the time.  He's not as tough as Bogart (or, for that matter, Gabriel Byrne, who would reprise the role), but he's somewhat no-nonsense and certainly has more charm than his sourpuss character deserves.  One thing I definitely didn't like about his performance was when he had to play conniving or desperate; Ladd smirked in those scenes, where he definitely should have had anything but a smirk on his face.  Veronica Lake is a pretty lady, but not the femme fatale that I think Janet Henry should be.  She is supposed to be a lying, manipulative bitch, after all.  I will give her credit, though; her scenes with Ladd make his frequent goofy smiles completely understandable. 

Noir heroes should leer, not smile

Brian Donleavy was okay as Paul Madvig, but I thought Donleavy was a tad young for the part.  He certainly played up Madvig's stupidity well enough, but I think his character deserved a little more age to explain how disassociated he was with reality.

Paul Madvig: distrusting of beards and attractive ties

 The rest of the supporting cast was merely okay, with the exception of William Bendix, who played Varna's muscle.  While he was certainly not the most subtle actor in the movie, Bendix was definitely the most intimidating and the best physical presence.  It's hard to find an actor who can convincingly play a thug that loves violence, but Bendix turned in a great performance in a relatively minor role.

Bendix, pondering the effects of violence, in-between beating sessions

The direction in The Glass Key is decent, but nothing more.   Stuart Heisler told a comprehensible tale, despite several twists and turns in the plot, but he didn't do much more.  The lighting is pretty standard, the acting isn't fantastic, and the camera work is nothing special.  While there are better examples of noir villains in this era, I think Heisler did a pretty good job with the actors, especially the charismatic bad guys.

Charismatic and snappy dressers!

The Glass Key is a pretty solid movie, even if it doesn't match up to my admittedly high expectations.  I don't believe in noir heroes who show emotion, and Alan Ladd spends a lot of time smiling at Veronica Lake.  Much of the film feels dated, particularly Brian Donleavy's emotional reactions.  His obviously faked knockout "punch" didn't help, either.  This story has a lot of potential; it could be a story of political intrigue, a mobster story, or just the tale of a smart hood.  The Glass Key decides to use Ladd and Lake's admittedly good chemistry and instead craft a story of star-crossed love.

Or stare-crossed love!  Get it?  Okay, I'm sorry.

I'm not saying that this is a bad movie, by any means.  I was just underwhelmed because I am familiar with the source material and wanted it to live up to the book.  It doesn't.  Luckily, it retains enough of Hammett's characters to make this an entertaining film.  It's not as tough and gritty as I like my noir, but I can't ignore how much I like this story.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Why does Bogart have a different haircut in this movie than he has on this poster?

Who says remakes are always a bad idea?  The Maltese Falcon is the third film adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's classic novel of the same name, and the third time is definitely the charm.  I haven't seen the other two versions (one has the same title and the other is a comedy, titled Satan Met a Lady), but only this one is widely regarded as a timeless classic, so I think it's safe to assume that this is the best version to date.

I'm going to be completely honest with you right now.  I am a huge fan of Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled novels and am a fan of any movie that chooses to adapt his work.  I am also a big fan of Humphry Bogart, at least in part because I've only seen him in his classic roles; I'm sure the man made some flops in his time, but history tends to gloss over those mistakes in favor of his more famous work.  I am also a big supporter of director John Huston.  And if none of that convinces you that this is going to be a great viewing experience, it was in the inaugural class of movies chosen for preservation in the Library of Congress' National Film Registry.  If you're still hesitant to check out this movie because it's black-and-white or because it's old or because you only like movies with talking animals in them, my advice is simple.  Man up and get some culture.  It is significantly awesome.

The private detective firm of Spade and Archer consists of three people: the secretary, Effie (Lee Patrick), Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan).  One day, a new client hires them to track down her sister, who has run away from home with an undesirable man named Thursby.  The client, Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor), doesn't tell a very convincing tale, but she waves around a lot of money, and that's enough for the detectives to take her case.  Liking the looks of his sexy new client, Miles offers to be her proverbial white knight, boubie, and track down this Thursby himself.

Did Miles Archer influence the character of Ellis from Die Hard?  Surprisingly, they're pretty close.

That night, Miles is shot and killed.  Sam gets the call, heads to the crime scene, and promptly leaves to clear his head.  When he gets home a few hours later, the police are right behind him; Thursby had just been gunned down in the streets, so the cops naturally assume that Sam killed the man who killed his partner.  He didn't, but his alibi is basically "wandering around aimlessly in the streets," so Sam Spade has to solve the case to clear his name.  Besides, it's good business to avenge the death of your partner.  Sam quickly finds himself in complex web of lies and deceit as he tries to discover...well, I suppose he's trying to solve the murder of his partner and simultaneously cover his own ass, but he doesn't seem to concerned about that.  Instead, Sam seems to genuinely enjoy the game of deception as he and three other interested parties converge on the object that ultimately caused all this trouble, the Maltese Falcon. 

Bogart, about three seconds away from giving you a facial burn for laughing at his toy bird.

Admittedly, the story isn't terribly special.  A detective manages to get entangled in a mess of lies?  You could pick my jaw up off the floor.  It's handled very well, though.  The pace is brisk, the plot is murky enough to keep you guessing while Sam Spade puts all the pieces together, and the ending scenes are great, appealing to many demographics (romantic, cynical, heart of stone, tough guy, etc.) and somehow never losing its bad-ass edge.

The acting and directing are nearly flawless.  This is one of the two films that helped Bogart become a star in 1941 (the other was High Sierra) and was his first significant non-gangster role.  What can I say?  The man was born to play tough guy detectives.  His timing with dialogue is perfect here, managing to be funny, witty, and sadistic --- sometimes in all in the same line.  As someone who has read dozens of hard-boiled novels and seen many film noirs, I can state that Bogart's portrayal here is the archetypal noir hero.  That might seem like a "no duh" in retrospect, but consider just how many classic actors from Hollywood's golden age tried similar roles; it's a great performance, but it's even more impressive when you realize how many other actors fail to live up to it.

So that's where they got the hair idea for There's Something About Mary...

The supporting cast was nearly as good as Bogart.  Mary Astor's femme fatale, while a little melodramatic by modern standards, still holds up pretty well today.  She's mean and nasty, but vulnerable and magnetic, the very epitome of a dangerous lady.  The other women in the film play their parts pretty well, but Gladys George (Archer's wife) and Lee Patrick can't hold a candle to Astor's performance.  Peter Lorre does a great job as an effeminate criminal; the interactions between him and Bogart amuse me so much, especially when Bogart is mocking an armed Lorre.

Well...that's phallic.

This was Sydney Greenstreet's film debut (and the first of nine movies with Peter Lorre) and his performance is especially impressive for a rookie; as the main villain in the film, he managed to be sneaky, powerful, and humble in quick succession.  Perhaps my favorite supporting performance in the film (although it is hard to beat Lorre) comes from Elisha Cook, Jr. and his part as the gun-toting arm of Greenstreet.  I've always liked the idea of a character that plays tougher than they truly are, but I think Cook really nailed that idea on the head with his performance.

The writing gave these performers a lot of great lines, but John Huston did a wonderful job directing them all.  The timing in each scene was impeccable, the pace is fast but you never get lost in the details; these are important elements in any crime story, but are essential when the dialogue needs to crackle with wit.  Huston also did a good job with the cinematography; there is a lot of symbolism in this movie and there are a lot of interesting (and, thankfully, meaningful) camera angles used.  Even though this was his first film, it must have been apparent from the start that John Huston was a master director.

When you add all that up, what do you get?  In short, probably my favorite movie of all time (although Raiders of the Lost Ark is another good choice).  It has great direction, a better script and a delightful cast.  Is this an action-packed movie?  No, but the story moves quickly enough to make you think otherwise.  That might be the key to this film's longevity; even though times have changed, everyone loves the guy who outsmarts the competition and mocks his enemies.  It's the American Way in (a slightly cynical) film format.  In other words, in a genre --- this is vintage film noir, in case you hadn't realized it --- of tough men, dangerous women, and hazy morality, there is nothing better than The Maltese Falcon.

The Thin Man

Dashiell Hammett essentially wrote only five novels, but three of my favorite movies are based on his work, including this one.  The Thin Man is one of the best dialogue-based movies you will ever see and it is still extremely entertaining, despite having been released in 1934.  To put that in perspective, please consider that the following all happened in 1934:

• Lou Gehrig won the Triple Crown and was not the American League MVP in baseball.
• The Chicago White Sox finished 47 games back in the American League.  Wow.
• John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde all died.
• Persia changed its name to Iran.
• The first Three Stooges short film was released.
• Adolf Hitler became the Fuhrer of Germany.
• Leonard Cohen, Ralph Nader, and Sparky Anderson were born, none of whom were ever young.

Until I watched this movie, I was under the impression that no true classic movies were made until at least 1939, but The Thin Man proved me wrong.

Nick and Nora Charles are quick-witted, hard-drinking socialites in New York for Christmas.  Nick (William Powell) was a detective before marrying Nora (Myrna Loy), but now he spends his time amusing her and running her father's business.  An old client of Nick's, Claude Wynant, has gone missing and his girlfriend has turned up murdered.  Wynant's daughter, Dorothy (Maureen O'Sullivan), manages to drag Nick into the investigation.  There are a lot of reasons for Wynant to have left New York; his girlfriend was stealing from him, his ex-wife (Minna Gombell) milked him for money at every opportunity, his ex-wife's boyfriend (Cesar Romero) lived off the money he gave his estranged family, and his son had a creepy Elektra complex.  Clearly, a lot of people have their own reasons for Wynant to stay on the lam or to turn himself in to the police or to turn up dead.  In the process of solving the case (that shouldn't be a spoiler), Nick manages to get shot, knock out his wife, unite lovers, end relationships, and solve three murders (maybe more...there's a lot of people to keep track of), all while pleasantly buzzed from habitual drinking.

This film was only the first Thin Man movie; its success led to five sequels, all with "Thin Man" included in their titles.  Nick Charles is not the titular character, though.  In a bit of throwaway dialogue (that acts as a clue to the case), Nick refers to Claude Wynant as a thin man.  Nevertheless, Nick was identified as the thin man by the movie going public, so the title stuck throughout the series.

The plot to this film is decent, but nothing spectacular.  It's a layered mystery, where one answer leads to another puzzle, which leads to another puzzle, ad nauseam.  The story and director W.S. Van Dyke both do a good job keeping the pace brisk.  This movie has dozens of characters and plot twists, but does not really demand much comprehension.  This movie is more of a ride than something you want to puzzle out for yourself.  That would be a problem with most mystery movies, but the mystery is logical and clever for those who choose to pay close attention; this movie doesn't demand your analytical mind, though, to enjoy it.

The dialogue is what separates this film from so many others.  The screenplay from Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett is smart, funny, and --- most of all --- fast.  The only movie I have ever seen that has faster dialogue with this much quality is His Girl Friday, which had the benefit of Cary Grant, so it's an unfair fight to begin with.  This script, though, has more explicit flirting and outright affection, even if it is pretty sarcastic.  The first time I watched this, I thought it was decently funny, but I missed a lot of the lines because I didn't hear them, or was trying to figure out the last joke.  Sure, there are little easy jokes that anyone can catch, but there are a lot of language jokes as well.  Not everyone out there is an English major, I know, but my favorite jokes are the ones that come from misunderstandings of vocabulary.  "I heard you were shot five times in the tabloids.  It's not true; he didn't come anywhere near my tabloids," is a good snapshot of the movie's dialogue.  Now just imagine every other line being like that, and you'll have a pretty good idea of why I like this so much.

Of course, the dialogue would just be noteworthy, were it not for the truly great work from William Powell and Myrna Loy.  Powell steals the show with his wit and charm.  It is rare to see an actor enjoying himself this much in a role.  I also appreciate the quality of his drunk acting; as a child, I just assumed that all adults hiccuped and stumbled around while a trombone played in the background for effect.  Most movies play up the overacting drunk for comic relief.  Powell manages to appear subtly tipsy for the entire film, only occasionally delving into the stereotype.  Loy is able to match Powell's intensity and dialogue delivery in every scene. It's a shame that she was not nominated for an Oscar for her work because I think hers is one of the smarter and stronger female leads in early Hollywood.  The rest of the actors are fine, but they are just playing broad, usually comical, characters.  Their role is simply to show up and be commented on by Powell and Loy, and they do it well.

This is a fun movie, and one with replay value since you definitely won't catch every funny line the first time through.  The movie's pace keeps up with the dialogue, but can get a bit confusing at times; a lot of the supporting characters in Hammett's novel didn't do much speaking, so those characters are sometimes interchangeable on the big screen.  Van Dyke does a good job making sure that the dialogue doesn't fall flat, but he spends all his effort on the humor, and probably not enough attention on the plot.  It's okay, though.  The film is a little uneven because of that and is a little dated (not bad for being over seventy years old), but I absolutely love it.