The Third Man

The first time I sat down to watch The Third Man, I was struck by how incongruous the soundtrack was.  It's a fine soundtrack and I like the main theme, but it just didn't feel like it matched the film at all.  When I think of film noir, the zither is not an instrument that comes immediately to mind.

Over the years, as I've watched and re-watched The Third Man, I've grown to enjoy the contrast of tone the zither provides in this film.  Regardless of how much you like the soundtrack, though, you have to admit that scoring this movie with a zither was a distinctive choice.

Holly Martin (Joseph Cotten), a none-too-successful writer of American Western dime store novels, has just arrived in post-World War II Vienna to meet up with his childhood friend, Harry Lime.  Harry has offered Holly a job, which is good because he has just about zero dollars.  Unfortunately, Harry died just the other day; he was killed by a car when crossing the street.  After the funeral, Holly is approached by someone claiming to be a friend of Harry's, who offers to pay for Holly's flight home.  Similarly, the local British MPs seem keen to ship Holly back home, too.  Since he has no money and no prospects for making any, Holly is ready to leave --- he just wants to commiserate with Harry's grieving girlfriend, Anna (Alida Valli), first and get a clear picture of his pal's later life.

Commiserate, be a creeper --- to-may-toe, to-mah-toe

When he's at Anna's apartment, which is where Harry was leaving when he died, Holly starts to smell a rat.  Harry's pal who offered Holly a way home had said that he and another man had carried a dying Harry out of the street and that Harry's last wish had been to make sure Holly and Anna were taken care of.  But the superintendent of Anna's building caught the aftermath of the accident from his window and claimed that Harry had obviously died instantly and that there had been a third man helping remove the body from the street.  Why would anyone go out of their way to lie about this?  Unless, of course, Harry's death was not an accident at all...!  With that thought, Holly takes it upon himself to uncover the conspiracy surrounding Harry's death and find that third man.

"You're probably not the third man, but I'd like to do some more inspecting"

For the most part, I don't think the acting in The Third Man is anything terribly special.  Nobody is bad, but there is only one truly great character in this film.  Unfortunately, that character is not Holly; thus, Joseph Cotten's acting here takes a back seat to the thankless task of propelling the plot.  Cotten turns out a solid performance --- aside from his unfortunately cartoonish drunk scene --- but his innocent character was never intended to be the focus of this film.

Tip to appear drunk: Don't maintain the flawless quaff

I liked Alida Valli quite a bit more; her best moments are when she is at her coldest, but I also appreciated how well she played a character that does not follow traditional movie logic.  While those two have the most screen time, the star of the film is, without a doubt, Orson Welles.  He is a blast to watch, whether it be when he is being charming and enigmatic or just a soulless douchebag.

Or a cross between the two

It's funny; when I think of Orson Welles, I think of him primarily as a director.  That isn't an insult to his acting ability, but I think his history as a maverick filmmaker generally overshadows his acting work.  The Third Man is a great example of just how good Welles can be as an actor, especially a key supporting character.  Welles famously referred to his part in this film as an almost absentee part, but I think that is selling him short; yes, the buildup to his appearance definitely eases his job, but Welles gave perhaps the quintessential amoral performance (pre-1950, at the very least) here.  The rest of the cast is completely decent, but not spectacular.  Trevor Howard plays an uptight English military man quite well and I will admit that it took me a few viewings to recognize Bernard Lee (of James Bond fame) as an underling.  I also enjoyed the myriad European character actors that popped up in this movie --- most of whom were comically evil-looking --- but none of them really stood out for me more than any other.

What does stand out, though, is the direction of Carol Reed.  Reed, along with his cinematographer Robert Krasker, made one of my favorite movies to just...watch.  Sure, there are probably too many angled shots, but they are all framed gorgeously; I (obviously) haven't been to post-WWII Vienna, but they captured an interesting blend of majesty and rubble.

The Third Man is, quite simply, one of the most visually alluring films I have ever seen.  I love when a director adds little bits of flair to imply intent, and this movie is absolutely brimming with examples.  Thanks to the importance of those shots, there are many moments that have become iconic, and deservedly so.

Gorgeous.  Simply gorgeous.  Even if he is peeing.

Some have proposed that The Third Man was at least partially directed by Orson Welles, with Carol Reed simply maintaining the official credit; while I think it is obvious that Reed was heavily influenced by Welles, what I see in this film --- the fantastic cinematography, the boring leading man, and the directorial intent --- are natural progressions of what I've seen in his earlier work.  And, of course, his choice for the soundtrack was brilliantly subversive.  Did Welles have a hand in the direction of this movie?  I doubt it.  Still, there are worse things than being suspected of being too Wellesian, right?

The Third Man is, for me at least, one of the best film noirs ever made.  Exactly what separates it from, say, The Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity?  I think that boils down to just two scenes.  The first is the Ferris wheel scene.  Aside from being a great image, this scene also has a fantastic monologue from Orson Welles, one which has been referenced a number of times since, even in two separate episodes of Law & Order. 

Moral: all ants need to die, and die horribly

The other iconic sequence is the chase scene in the sewers of Vienna.  It is a combination of the lack of dialogue, the fantastic cinematography, and some high-quality suspense that makes this sequence work, but oh, does it work!

This film also bucked tradition by being filmed on location --- which was still decades away from being a standard practice --- and sticking with an ending that isn't exactly all wine and roses.  For all these reasons and more, I highly recommend this movie.  The only thing keeping it from being a perfect "10" in my book is the fact that the main characters are not terribly interesting.  Even with that as an obstacle, this is one of the true cinema greats.

And check out this cool The Third Man poster made by some random dude on the interweb!  It's good stuff.

Find more here

Odd Man Out

As much as I enjoy the film noir genre, I have to admit that I am not an expert in it.  I've only seen eight of the top ten IMDb top noir titles, and eleven of the top twenty, feerchrissakes!  And I've only reviewed two!  I could pretend that it's not my fault that this genre that I profess to love has gone largely unstudied by me, that this is a genre whose time has mostly passed, but I'm a classy guy and can admit that my research on this subject matter is not exhaustive.  One of my all-time favorites, though, is The Third Man, directed by Carol Reed --- and that's what led me to Odd Man Out.

The film begins with a preface that explains that, though the film takes place in a time of political unrest, this is the tale of innocents caught in the mix between the law and the outlaws.  That's kind of a downer to start the movie, eh?  An organization --- which is in no way supposed to resemble the IRA, except it is in Ireland, is against the government, and is absolutely an IRA analogue --- is planning to rob a mill to fund their further exploits against the government.  The leader of the organization is Johnny McQueen, (James Mason), who spent a long stretch in jail before escaping a few months back; since then, he's kept a low profile in a woman's house, and this is his first gig back in the action.  There is some question about whether Johnny is up to a strenuous robbery, but he insists on leading the heist.  Bad idea.  He gets stressed out, starts daydreaming, and ends up getting shot --- and shooting a civilian --- before escaping.  He doesn't get away scot-free (interesting side note: that phrase is Scandinavian.  Who knew?), though.  His buddies, in their haste to escape a murder/robbery scene, fail to secure Johnny in the car, and he falls out.  This means that Johnny has to find his own shelter, while wounded, in a town that doesn't want to offend either the Irish radicals or the British government; Johnny is their leader, though, which means that his organization can't afford to let him get caught.

If you are not familiar with James Mason, that's okay.  Until I saw this movie, neither was I.  It turns out, the man was a pretty popular actor at the time, and a handsome man, too boot.

He's like Gregory Peck, only capable of smiling.

Mason is the lead actor in the film, even if his character is not so much a protagonist as a character that causes others to act.  Mason is pretty good, but his character doesn't have a whole lot of dynamism.  He is certainly sympathetic, but his appearance is a burden on any character that encounters him; Mason deserves credit for making such a sluggish character appealing.  Sure, he has the advantage of having "the voice of god," according to most Eddie Izzard sketches, but I think he's a generally appealing leading man.

Limeys + drag = James Mason jokes?

It was also refreshing to see a wounded character actually act like he's wounded from a gunshot.  The rest of the cast is far less impressive than Mason, even if he's such a low-key main character.  Kathleen Ryan played Mason's ever-loving and absolutely crazy not-quite girlfriend; this may have been an acceptable role for women before 1950, but her character just seems batshit crazy now.  Robert Beatty was decent enough as the only member of the IRA analogue to seek Johnny out, but the other IRA-ish members were unimpressive.  I did enjoy Maureen Delaney's work as the sleazy gambling house owner; it's rare to see a middle-aged woman showing cunning in a 1940s movie.  Other actors you might recognize include cameos from Eddie Byrne (Star Wars), Wilfrid Brambell (Paul's grandad in A Hard Day's Night), and a few others who frequently had bit parts in British films of the period.  William Hartnell (the original Doctor Who), Robert Newton, and F.J. McCormick are fine in their supporting roles --- they are some of the strangers that Johnny puts in a hard spot, just by encountering them --- but nobody was fantastic.  I should point out that the Irish accents are occasionally pretty thick in this film; I've been told that they aren't authentic Northern Irish accents, but I don't have enough information to judge them.

The real star of the film is the direction from Carol Reed.  Reed, along with his cinematographer Robert Krasker, made a beautiful movie.  While the acting wasn't terribly impressive --- which isn't a surprise, given the fact that the main character is stumbling around, half-conscious, for most of the movie --- the story is still interesting.  That credit goes to the director.  What I liked more than the storytelling were the visuals.  Many scenes were gorgeously framed, adding to the growing dread and anxiety of the film's tone.

Pop quiz: is something good going to happen here?

There were a couple of cool camera tricks that were rarely used in 1940s British cinema that were used well here, including a morphing transition from a dream to reality and some pretty cool camera shots to imply disorientation.  This isn't the work of a master director (yet), but there is a lot of artistic promise shown in this movie.

As impressive as the direction and cinematography are, the film doesn't quite live up to them.  The main problem lies in the script; by focusing on how Johnny made others react --- I have never watched a film where so many characters opted to not help a wounded man --- it became more of a social commentary than a story.  I also didn't follow the logic of the primary supporting characters.  Robert Beatty's character had a plan to distract the police, but it was more than a little sketchy.  As for Johnny's crazy almost-girlfriend, she discussed the option of a murder-suicide with a priest.  There aren't many people who will listen to that and agree that it's the best solution, but a priest is probably the worst choice.  I'm also confused as to why the IRA ran away from the police who were checking random civilian IDs on the street; am I supposed to believe that a group of militant activists don't have any fake IDs --- especially when they didn't require photographs?  What deliberate lawbreaker doesn't have a fake ID?  Turning around and walking away from an inquiring policeman isn't a Plan B.  It's stupid.  It's not terribly annoying, though, just dumb.  The opening preface that tells the audience what to think was annoying; I'm sure it was tacked on by the movie studio to avoid any IRA-related hostilities/sympathies, but the audience should be able to figure that out on their own.

Even with all those problems, I thought this movie was pretty decent.  Even playing a wounded man, James Mason was appealing and I always enjoy a visually interesting film.  This could have been a fantastic movie, given the director and lead actor, but the script was lacking.  Still, it's worth a look for any fans of the genre that are curious what an Irish noir might look like.

While researching James Mason, I stumbled across this ad campaign for Thunderbird wine.  That's right, the bum wine.  Yes, the stuff that tastes and smells like gasoline.  How did a bum wine get a classy guy like James Mason to be its public face?  Hint: he loves the smell and taste of gasoline.