On Dix sending $300, remember the other driver complains Dix ruined his new $200 paint job. So, whatever the value in today's money, Dix gave him 1.5 the value. Enquiring minds can search "CPI calculator" at Google to get the value vs. whatever year you happen to be reading this.
Great review, MM. I never connected Gloria Grahame as the blond crossing the street in "It's A Wonderful Life." I like yr clever cut to Bart's "cut out his heart" line. Done that too many times!
@@abogadojon Aw thanks. Yeah I think It's A Wonderful Life and Song of the Thin Man were her two major acting credits prior to In A Lonely Place. Maybe Crossfire?? I don't know. But this kinda seemed to place her on the map in regards to being worthy of bigger roles with more meat to em.
this movie has a special kind of hold with me. I think it has to do with the way the characters becoming, so perfect, so quickly for each other, and yet you know they are doomed just as fast.
I know I'm a little late to the party but I literally love this movie, I love how the movie literally reflects the movie itself. The movie is about a screenwriter and is sometimes looked on negatively because his movies are not like the source material so he gets a girl to tell him the plot of a book he's writing a screenplay. This movie is based off of a book, and the movie is nothing like the book. It's just an interesting movie that many people don't know about and every single time I watch it I notice other details you literally explained my thoughts perfectly!
Great review, thanks! A lot of people will be looking out for Gloria Grahame's films, after they have seen "Film stars don't die in Liverpool" - released in Dublin (Ireland), November 2017. It's the story of her late-in-life love affair with an actor, Peter Turner, who was 28 years younger, at a time when he was starting his career and she was coming to the end of hers. It is extremely witty, this film, in a 1950s manner of dialogue, and it's heart wrenching.
Excellent work! You should not shy away from all the evidence you presented about the impact of war trauma on Dix - his work, his ability to form relationships, and his violent outbursts. Nothing defines these postwar noir films more than the problem of reintegrating emotionally and physically damaged vets. We think of it now as the “The Good War,” but consider how the PTSD and economic anxiety of vets drives the plot of films such as “Dead Reckoning”, “The Blue Dahlia”, and “Side Street.” And who is more cynical and broken than Richard Erdman’s character in “Cry Danger”?
Aw thank you! Yeah...I honestly don't feel there's enough evidence in this film to diagnose Dix with PTSD. He displays some symptoms but others are missing and/or left unaddressed. When I encountered this, I poked around into Nicholas Ray and Andrew Solt's life looking for insight. Andrew Solt was a bit of a dead end because whatever he wrote Ray almost completely rewrote. So, I focused my energies on Ray. What I discovered convinced me that Dix is an emotional self portrait. Feel free to disagree. This is just me putting some stock into authorial intent.
Movie Monarch, I hope you’re not implying that “authorial intent” should usurp “critic’s personal agenda”! Do you realize the number of Master Theses that universities will have to retroactively rescind? Blasphemous stuff you’re suggesting! I still think you’re right about the PTSD, and the brilliance of the writing is that the “auteur” doesn’t present every aspect of the diagnosis. Instead, he leaves enough clues for the viewer (and Laurel) to find, as a good mystery should. By 1950, the audience was ready to move past the damaged veteran stories and start embracing Westerns and the Eisenhower Era. Check out the exchange between the escaped convict and the reporter in “Split Second” (1953).
I would never classify Nicholas Ray as an auteur. That implies he desired a Kubrickian level of control over his movies when he didn't. Ray encouraged improvisation, he trusted his actors, and if they came to him wanting to try a scene a certain way, he let them. Ann Doran credits James Dean for directing 'Rebel Without a Cause' because Ray let him have so much input over how scenes were shot. One of the most famous of which being Jim Stark's plea to 'let me do something right' where the mother is on the stairs and the father is bellow trapping and dividing Jim's attention while arguing with each other. It was James Dean's idea to do it like that and have it end in physical violence when his father can't stand up for him. I believe Ray poured himself into the script and that Bogart could tap into that because they were so similar in personalities. Bogart detested pretension and snobbery as much as Ray did, and they were both heavy drinkers prone to bouts of self reflection. If you want to say it's PTSD, fine. There's an argument to be made for that, but please don't accuse me of shying away from anything when in fact I'm just not as convinced as you are. As for 1950s being ready to move past the damaged veteran stories, I think 'the Bridge over the River Kwai' tells a different story, as does HUAC and the MPA.
You're forgetting the book. Dickson Steel was not Nick Ray and his mental state is all about the war. Dorothy B. Hughes was clear that Steel felt like a somebody during the war but not after.
@@sallyreno6296 True, but the film and the book are two completely different stories with very little overlap. So to say the book has any bearing on the film or its character development is to ignore the subtext of the movie in regards to Nicholas Rays feelings about book to film adaptations.
I agree. My absolute favorite! Perfect femme fatale. Flawed male figure played perfectly by Bogart. Great story that leaves you stunned and sad that things didn't work out for 2 very likeable leads.
Great job - I had seen this movie some years ago and was trying to remember the finer details of the plot - this is exactly what I needed. Good summary and analysis.
Your review put me in a less lonely place. Love how you edit and cut into lines from the movie, your one critique of the whole film is playful and hilarious and finally, your voice as narrative is perfect. Thank you for a pitch perfect video presentation.
Very nicely done. The novel is also extremely good, and I find the contrast between it and the film fascinating. They are like alternative histories, about a younger and older Dix, and different ways Dix's pathology might have played out.
A most excellent analysis. I actually replayed sections several times. I offer additional thoughts. Consider The Best Years of Our Lives. In a Lonely Place might be seen as the flip-side of the coin, particularly the Dana Andrews Character. Another insight into Dixon Steele might be seen in John Huston's documentary, Let There Be Light.
For me this could be Bogart’s best & most interesting work of all. Wish the whole film will appear on You Tube sometime. Gloria Grahame is great as well. One of the top films of its time.
great review thanks , using quote for book im working on and havnt had time watch it yet. But now i will defiantly watch the whole film as inspiring author
Wonderful! I suspected the proposal story scene in The Proposal with Andrew referencing "Humphrey Bogart style" could allude to this movie. Then I came to your review. In addition to the superb review, it just adds a wonderful little nuance with the question about makeup - so, eventhough I haven´t watched the movie yet, it seems this is a match!
I think Andrew was referencing movies more like 'the Big Sleep' or 'the Maltese Falcon' where Bogart plays a detective and is known for finding hand written notes with scant information.
Just remember if you're going to correct my pronunciation of anything to look in the description of the video first because chances are 300 other people beat you to the punch.
Just saw this movie! May have before and don't remember. (I'm 66! 😁) I loved the movie ... BUT ... I noticed the makeup too!! 😂 Excellent synopsis!!! ❤️
For me, this film scores on every level! It is probably Humphrey Bogart's best film! Gloria Grahame is excellent! and it also happens to be one of the best films directed by Nicholas Ray! I can't speak too highly of 'In a Lonely Place' and in short, it's my favourite Film Noir!
Always nice to feel appreciated. Unfortunately, you're very correct. I am incredibly busy at the moment with other projects. However, I do plan to do an in depth analysis on "Woman on the Run" sometime in the future. Possibly "the Lost Weekend" but don't ask me when because...I'm a mess.
@@moviemonarch1617 I love Grace Kelly's feet pressing the pedals in her sandals. They should've had more shots of her feet when she was driving. Her feet and sandals ae pretty too! I guess you see that I have a female foot and shoe fetish!
just looked up why ray and Grahame got divorced and whoo boy 😬 Wonderful analysis. I was thinking the car scene might have referenced Notorious, the scene where Grant hits Bergman, also a Hitchcock movie. Perhaps not idk, but the whole movie had me thinking of Notorious in a way, almost like a response to that sort of archetype generally, and I just really like that movie. Would be interesting if it did and then Hitchcock then referenced this one in turn. Idk though.
Yeah Grahame's infidelity is statutory rape and makes me gag. It wouldn't surprise me if Ray drew inspiration from Hitchcock who was the definitive master of suspense at the time, but where Notorious focused more on Cary Grant's hands wanting to take the wheel I think Ray made Laurel's reactions his own with her pressing down on the non existent break. Not only to show her reaction to Dix's reckless driving but as second hand for a woman caught in another bad relationship and wanting to pump the breaks and get out.
Watched this last night, first time, loved it! Who played Effie, the vacuuming maid with cigarette hanging out of her mouth? Caught my attention, couldn’t miss her😀
10:00 well i always tought that he was more disappointed in her then she was in him so he leaves coz he realize that she will never regain his trust and vice versa. Then she just acknowledges that while speaking on the phone and he leaves. I think that he did not wait for her response or anything. She said: "this would have meant so much to us". That would be irelevant if they are breaking coz of his bad temper (coz she would found it sooner or later). But if they are breaking coz of her distrust towards him then information about the killer would be relevant. But ofc she had doubts because of his violent nature so your point of view may be the right one.
Hello! Nice for you to drop a line. I always encourage conversation, and since you were kind enough to respond to my opinions allow me to respond to yours. "i always tought that he was more disappointed in her then she was in him so he leaves coz he realize that she will never regain his trust and vice versa." At that point (in the movie) I would argue it’s not about distrust. They're breaking up because Dix crossed a line into physical violence. Laurel may have doubted Dix, but he proved her fears were right when he assaulted her. And if I gave you the impression that violence and anger are mutually exclusive then allow me to apologize. That was not my intention at all. So just to be perfectly clear: violence and anger are not mutually exclusive. In fact they often go hand-in-hand. Laurel mistrusts Dix because she's seen first hand accounts of Dix getting angry then violent. Examples include: second hand accounts from her masseuse, the driver he almost kills with a rock, and Mel. So it's not just Captain Lochner's word that makes Laurel doubt Dix, it's her own experience with the man. When Dix gets angry he gets violent. And that's not okay. AT. ALL. So, again, their breaking up is not just about Dix's temper. It's about what happens when Dix allows that temper to rule over his actions. That's what Laurel fears and mistrusts. And as we can see (towards the end, when he's choking her) she's right. And he knows it. And that's why he walks away. Not because of her but because he knows what he did was wrong.
I don't think this is a fair assessment of her abilities. You have to remember that the studio system was incredibly restrictive for actors and actresses, especially during HUAC years when stories had to be censored. Not only were actors tied to a specific studios where parts were practically assigned to them, but once they were associated with a particular genre few ever escaped type casting. By the time studio systems fell out of favor in Hollywood, Bacall was not longer 19. Hell, roles of substance were hard to come by before a woman hit 30, but after they're practically non-existent. However, Lauren Bacall did a wonderful job playing Mrs. Hubbard in Murder on the Orient Express, and not just for her obnoxious Americanisms but the ending. Bacall doesn't say a word after the first blow to Ratchett, but every stab afterwards does something to her. It's why the camera keeps cutting back to her face and reaction because we see how upsetting it is for her and we're not sure why. Is it catharsis, shock, guilt? All three? None of them? It's wonderful because it allows for interpretation and that's all do to her. I wish every actress could have the longevity of Joan Crawford, Angela Bassett, Helen Mirren, Viola Davis, or Meryl Streep but in this way Hollywood hasn't changed much because these women are the outliers. They're the few who maintained careers once blush of youth faded by fighting back when executives wanted to keep them in the box of teeth, tits, and ass back when they were 20.
The only feedback of your analysis that I would offer, is that you critique, albeit briefly, the director for suggesting this movie relationship does not end in violence. To my mind, he referred to the very end of their relationship. Not to the final night together, or their final week together, but to the outcome. In so many before the outcome is a death, whereas this one has our male lead simply walking away after having destroyed the relationship. I think he only meant that. Otherwise, love your analysis and love the movie.
Thank you for your comment! However, I was aware that Ray's definition of 'violence' was only referring to it's terminal point. I chose to remark on it deliberately because, as a woman, I am horrifically aware of the many shades that the word 'violence' encompasses. Ray probably meant that noir movies don't have to end in death to impactful. I get that. I DO understand. It's why I chose the visuals that I did ('Sunset Blvd', 'Double Indemnity', 'the Roaring Twenties'). However, Laurel and Dix's relationship still ended in violence. I wanted to make that explicitly clear. Call it a moral obligation to everybody who has ever been (or still is) in an abusive relationship. It was never meant to be a slight towards Ray. I hope you can see this.
Excellent video! (with bonus points for The Simpsons reference) I'd agree that Dixon Steele may not have PTSD, but I think there's room to speculate that the war did have a harmful effect on him. Brub points out that Dix was his CO for three years overseas: that's a long time. And the very few people Dix could call legitimately call his friends are all dependent on him: Mel, his agent; and Charlie, for a handout to get drunk; and Paul, for a steady customer. The war may have taught someone like Dix that security in life comes from having people depend on you (like your military subordinates) and from seeing life in adversarial terms. Mel and Charlie are no threat to Dix -- not creatively, not intellectually, and not as rivals for women. Even Paul, the restaurant owner, doesn't throw Dix out: he just asks him nicely to take it outside next time. Dix and Brub, we're led to think, are friends, but remember Brub said that he called Dix a long time ago and Dix never called back -- but when Brub *depends* on Dix to help him solve the mystery (and clearly, Dix thinks he's smarter than the police), then Dix is his pal. Challenge Dix, though, and you get slapped or punched. In the same way that other film noir protagonists return from the war and locate moral certainty and order by becoming private detectives, Dix asserts himself and what he sees as his integrity with his fists. Personally, I think Dix doesn't truly love Laurel: Dix loves the *idea* of Laurel -- someone with whom he can have quick-witted repartee, but who remains dependent on and subordinate to him. All in all, a fantastic movie, rich with meaning, and again: great video!
Thanks for the kind words and interesting insights. I agree Dix surrounds himself with people who are dependent on him (I'm now disappointed I never considered Charlie but it makes sense. Brub I just thought 'oh well in the book he's the CO but since Lovejoy's younger than Bogart they had to make Dix the commander.' Which could still be the case but it fits in nicely with the psychology of the characters). Still I'm not sure I agree about Dix being in love with the idea of Laurel. I think he's intrigued by her from the get go. She's beautiful (which is what he first notices), but when she vouches for him and says he has an 'interesting face' knowing full well he's being accused of murder--I think the fact that she's not afraid of him is like a balm to soul. It makes him look at her and go 'if she handle this she handle the rest.' The only problem is she's never seen how bad he can get. She's only been told. And that's where the cognitive dissonance comes to bear against their relationship.
@@moviemonarch1617 I agree with your point "If she handles this, she can handle the rest,": that sounds right. I think it's also worth noting that as soon as Laurel agrees to marry Dix, he wants to get the ring, the car, the house -- as if he wants to hurry up and seal and deal before this one changes her mind (or finds out she has good reason to). The funny thing about Laurel is that she's a femme who's not fatale: she wants to love Dix, not be his ruin. Initially she looks like a sleek, self-assured, imperturbable high-class dame ... but it turns out *Dix* is the one who's "fatale." And just like there can be a big difference between the book and the movie, the difference between the reality of who Dix is and who Laurel might want him to be ultimately can't be denied. Interesting how Mel, the agent, tells her that when Dix has success, he doesn't need anything else -- and he's saying this a woman named Laurel, whose very name suggests victory and the honors of success. I like how Mel tells Laurel that she's got to "take the good with the bad" with Dix because he's been taking it for 20 years -- he's talking to her like he's a woman who's been Dix's lover: "You can't change him, honey, I've tried." But maybe in 1950, in post-WW2 America, that was the choice that some women felt they had to make: You either had to take the good with the bad, or, like Brub's wife, you settled for the security of someone who was "average."
@@timlemire6852 You shouldn't have brought Greek mythology into this now I've got all sorts of ideas playing around in my head. Particularly the story of Daphne as told by Ovid which states that Eros, upset with Apollo, unleashed two arrows. One to inflame Apollo's love and one to cool Daphne's heart. The result being he pursues her and she is terrified. Even the passages are more akin to him hunting her down 'his muzzle at her heels.' It kinda reminds me of Dix towards the end when she doesn't trust him. Only when Apollo is upon her does Daphne become Laurel. So it seems like that name Laurel was doomed from the get go especially when Dix treats her like his muse. You know I had that same thought about Dix being the masculine fatale, but the more I thought about it the more it doesn't fit. A fatale character (to me) is one who is deliberately malicious, manipulative, or conniving. Dix has anger issues but at his core he's an okay guy. He just desperately needs therapy. Unfortunately he is in love with Laurel probably more than she is with him. Which sucks because Dix is a passionate guy he burns hot at both ends. And Mel knows this better than anybody because he's been in a relationship with Dix far longer than any of Dix's lovers. That is the intimate nature of the agent/client relationship. Good ones require honesty, trust, communication, and respect. Same for lovers. So you're not off when you say Mel talks to Laurel like he's Dix's lover because in a lot of ways they parallel each other. Even in the physical abuse. Mel gets hit and Laurel is strangled. Only Laurel has the ability to walk away and not be financially decimated. Mel doesn't have that luxury. So he'll be there to the bitter end or until he gets more clients. And sadly I think he'll be there to help put Dix back together because love wounded him as much as it wounded Apollo.
@@moviemonarch1617 Very interesting thoughts -- I really appreciate having an extended exchange about this fascinating movie. Even though, at the time this movie was made, people didn't have the same understanding of PTSD as we do today, no doubt plenty of people in the audience in 1950 could relate to the fact that "good ol' Dix just hasn't been the same since he came back from the War." And yes, Dix does seem like an OK guy ... at times. But there are OK guys in this world and even OK guys with anger issues who don't strangle their girlfriends or get a crazed look in their eye when they're narrating a re-enactment of a murder! When you say that Dix's relationship with Laurel was doomed from the start, I agree, because I'll say again that Dix is more infatuated with the *idea* of Laurel than with the reality of who she is, where she's been, what she wants. And how many men does that describe, in 1950 or 2020?
@@timlemire6852 Too many men. And I guess the definition of 'okay' really depends on everyone's individual capacity for forgiveness. Because you're right. His actions towards Laurel and others don't warrant the label of okay. When I wrote at his core he's an okay guy, please understand I don't condone anything that he's done. Rather I'm acknowledging the fact that he knows his actions are wrong. That he feels remorse shows he has a moral compass. A skewed one, but given of the cultural environment of 1950s America it's not difficult for me to see how. Again, I'm *not* condoning what he's done. This isn't me offering up an excuse in saying society created this monster and he doesn't bear any responsibility for his actions because...that's not true. He totally does. What I am saying is I think he can be okay with LOTS AND LOTS of professional help. However, I don't think Dix getting a look in his eye when directing a reenactment of a murder is a sign of him being not okay. I think it's more him being an excellent storyteller by putting both these people in a certain mindset by slipping into it himself. But yes he's in love with an idea of Laurel and that's not good either.
Wonder why so many people hate impact wrestling I'm a fan I know we are a small company but that doesn't give people the right to hate them you can not like the product fine but no hate OK
I noticed that but it's still doesn't sit right with me because he's apologizing to Laurel for hitting Mel when Mel's the one who deserves to hear it the most. I mean he's the one who got hit. Not that Laurel didn't deserve one as well, but it rings hollow considering he's given another opportunity to rise above his anger and learn from past situations only to repeat them making the contrition behind his apology meaningless.
Lucky you! I would've killed to have read Hughes in my class. I loved her use of the fog in 'In a Lonely Place' and you can definitely see her influence on Patricia Highsmith. UGH! I truly envy you. Bogart is brilliant in this role.
"There was a multi format option for less than $10." When you write this, I assume you're referring to the screen caption embedded in my video of the amazon page, yes? If so, then there are several things you ought to know. First and foremost I took the screen shot AFTER Columbia re-released it. So that was never an option prior to 2016. (As for after 2016 continue reading.) Secondly, I despise Amazon. With a passion. So, even with all my love and adoration for this film, I would never buy it through them. (Which might beg the question: Then why did I bother to include a screenshot of their website in my video? Well, to show that I was not exaggerating about the $50 price tag. One that they were STILL advertising even after Columbia re-released it.) Thirdly, I adore the Criterion Collection. They do good work, and offer a ton of extras for nerds such as myself to geek out over. For instance there was a really great essay about "In a Lonely Place" by Sara Smith, who had some really interesting insights that helped shape this video. So I don't mind paying extra for them. In any format. I just bitched about BluRay because...well...not two days after I got it in standard did they release it HD BluRay. As you can see, I was a bit bitter that I didn't keep the receipt. So, in conclusion, yes, I do realize it comes with a DVD.
Yes, as in 'film noir'. It's a genre that's incredibly hard to characterize, but according to Google they're usually crime dramas marked by a mood of pessimism that was typically seen after WWII as propaganda films were no longer needed to boost morale.
bur-GONING? I think "burgeoning" is pronounced "BUR-junning" (soft g). Also, "creepy" masseuse? Sounds a little homophobic to me. The character is obviously gay (is "lesbian" still an acceptable term?) and is obviously physically attracted to Laurel (while maintaining professional boundaries) but is an excellent listener, a sympathetic ear and helpful friend as Laurel feels increasingly distressed and trapped in her relationship with an increasingly unstable Dix, and is on the whole a sympathetic character- a rare positive portrayal of a gay (especially lesbian) character in that era in Hollywood (lesbians were usually portrayed as vicious, murderous man-haters, etc. back then). Otherwise, excellent analysis.
"bur-GONING? I think "burgeoning" is pronounced "BUR-junning" (soft g)" Hi, welcome to my channel where I mispronounce at least one word in every single video. If I do not...body snatchers. "Also, "creepy" masseuse? Sounds a little homophobic to me. The character is obviously gay..." It's not obvious unless they kiss someone of the same gender on screen or say the words 'I'm gay'. Otherwise it's coded. And the masseuse (Martha) definitely has elements of queer coding in her portrayal, I won't argue that point. However, that's not what makes her creepy. What makes Martha creepy (in my opinion) is that she's listening to Laurel say how happy she is with Dix and then tells her how she should instead be up on Miller Drive with Mr. Baker because he built her a pool and she needs to start thinking of her financial security with his real estate. ... ... ... Like, I'm sorry but I don't see how that's any of her business. Then Dix enters and exits the apartment, and this is where Martha dramatically changes tactics. Starts really planting the seeds of doubt about his character into Laurel's head. "They still don't know who killed that hatcheck girl." ... ... ... Say what? Like, I'm sorry, but that's neither professional nor friendly it's manipulative. And manipulation wrapped in a warning is still manipulation and Laurel was right to call BS on her. "[Martha] is an excellent listener, a sympathetic ear and helpful friend as Laurel feels increasingly distressed and trapped in her relationship with an increasingly unstable Dix, and is on the whole a sympathetic character" Rewatch the movie and you'll see Laurel didn't feel trapped in her relationship with Dix until after the incident with he car which happens right after Martha's scene. Which means Martha is completely out of line at this particular point in the movie. Like...the entire scene starts with Martha dictating to Laurel "six hours sleeping, typing all day. No wonder your nerves are all tied in knots. You can't be a nursemaid, a sweetheart, a cook, and a secretary. You've got to think of yourself." And Laurel's response is "I've never been happier." Martha's response after that is: "We should be up on Miller Drive..." and WOW is that 180 twist to judgmental alley. Like, bitch, you may be willing to sell your body for some land and security, but trying to manipulate Laurel out of one relationship and into another? Survey says: creepy.
@@moviemonarch1617 I think I agree with @mackb909 here. A film only shows some of what is happening. The masseuse knows that DIx is a bit of a psycho before Laurel does, and before we do. Think of what she says as foreshadowing.
Not to my knowledge, no. I don't know what your frame of reference is for Gloria Grahame, but it's important to remember that this woman had an obsession with plastic surgery. From her nose to her mouth to her cheeks to her eyes, she had a lot of work done in very small increments. And there's even stories of her lining her upper mouth with wads of tissue to give her lips a fuller/sexier appearance on screen. This would definitely influence how she sounded on set. But she's also an actress who had many different roles. In 'the Bad and the Beautiful' she had a high pitched southern accent. In 'the Big Heat' she's a moll with a slight slur to imitate drunkenness (although when she hums/sings that part was definitely dubbed over). Here she needed to be sultry so she speaks at a softer register. Either way I'm pretty sure it's her.
@@sallyreno6296 Yes, she was. theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/gloria-grahame-turns-up-the-big-heat-at-bfi-southbank/ Skip down to question about Oklahoma! and you'll read Josephine Botting of the British Film Institute saying: "Oklahoma! is a key title in Grahame’s filmography. Even though the musical was not her natural habitat, it shows her versatility. She wasn’t a natural chanteuse. She had played singers in other films and her singing voice was dubbed in all of them."
Movie Monarch When I watched Annette Bening play her I noticed that in some scenes her upper mouth looked funny, puffed out some. I didn't know Grahame did that on purpose but it's a great little tid bit of knowledge there. I love the little details of info!
@@songbirdy Your welcome! Unfortunately Grahame is just one in a long line of Hollywood actresses who felt they had to alter their looks to meet beauty standards. I think everybody knows what MGM put Judy Garland through, but not enough know about Marlene Dietrich having molars removed so her cheekbones would stand out, or Rita Hayworth having electrolysis so she'd look "less Latina". And the men! You wouldn't believe me if I told you about the men.
You realize I made this video four years ago, yes? So trust me when I say it wasn't an option back then because it was still under lock and key by the studios who only after MASSIVE negotiations re-released it for DVD under the criterion collection and then for streaming services.
@@randywhite3947 Interesting. Because even now CZcams is telling me it's available to buy or rent. Not free. So either we live in completely different territories where different algorithms and metrics apply to our states, or aliens. I honestly don't know. All I can say is that in California watching it for free (even with ads) has NEVER been an option for In a Lonely Place.
Too literal an interpretation. The movie is not the novel. It’s better. There ARE actual serial killers. There ARE men with anger issues and in reality both are tolerated at women’s expense. But they are not equivalent. Every angry man is not a serial killer but every SK is an angry man. Violence or aggression - anger- need not end in death. Anger in a marriage may end the union but not take lives, and under different circumstances may not end the marriage. Doubtful but possible. I’m glad Ray refused to have Dix kill Laurel. Equally glad Laurel was allowed to walk away.
I didn't understand why Ray had the reputation he had until, rather late in the game, I saw this film. I love your review for the most part, but was annoyed by the way you handled the marriage between Ray and Graham. How can anyone talk about this movie without mentioning the fact that, during shooting, Gloria Graham slept with Nicholas Ray's son by a previous marriage? Sorry, but I can't help suspecting that you left that part out in furtherance of a feminist "Men always bad -- women always good" agenda.
No, it was more like I didn't want the entire conversation to be usurped to just Gloria Graham slept with a fourteen year old. If people want to look that part of the history up and discuss it amongst themselves--fine. I on the other hand, find the whole thing grotesque and completely off topic which is In a Lonely Place. That's what I want to talk about. Not how Gloria Graham deserves to be on to catch a predator.
@@moviemonarch1617 That's fair, I guess. Actually, I've always liked Gloria Graham. I'm also a big fan of Errol Flynn, and we all know what HE got up to. When confronting these issues, our current society needs to find a reaction somewhere between "We condone this behavior" and "DIE PREDATOR DIE! CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL!!!" Even so, I still suspect that, when IALP was filmed, what happened offscreen was germane to what we got onscreen. For one thing, the on-set tension may even have helped Graham's performance. The fact that the main set was a replica of Ray's own apartment complex indicates Ray used this project to work through some personal issues. I"m old enough to recall when Roman Polanski committed his crime. I was furious, of course, even though I was (and am) an admirer of his work. That said, it boggles me that Polanski still arouses white hot fury while nobody takes a judgmental attitude toward Gloria Graham. (I've even heard the strained argument that what Graham did was somehow her husband's fault.) You have to admit that there really IS a feminist double standard at work there.
@@CannonfireVideo I don't think it's a feminist double standard so much as it is a double standard. Meaning I don't think a cabal of feminists exists that have been secretly controlling and manipulating the attitudes of society for hundreds of years to the point where so many feel a guy can't be r@ped without his consent, but still haven't managed to close the gap of women executives to male. Still, you're right. There is a double standard when it comes to cases of sexual @$$@ult. Women are taken WAY more seriously when they report r@pe especially in regards to statutory r@pe where an older woman is involved. Men who do it are prosecuted WAY more extensively than women when it is just as predacious and damaging to their victims. However I don't think the root cause of this is as simple as feminism. It is a much deeper cultural problem than stems from this hideous cultural idea that women's virginity is a precious thing to be protected at all costs while men should rejoice to lose it as quickly as possible to someone so experienced (at least when it comes to hetero relations). It is insidious and does nothing but promote a chasm of shame when victims feel justifiably violated, but are constantly surrounded by an echo chamber of 'atta boy!', 'you da man', 'how'd ya do it?' and 'lucky dog'. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed articles in psychological journals around the world about how this is bad and it needs to stop. And I hardly think you'd find any feminist worth their salt who would disagree, but maybe you already have. In which case don't lump them in with me. I don't want them any more than you do.
Enjoyed the review, but i didn't like this movie at all. It was awful to watch her stay until the end. He could have killed her. And she knew she was in danger. I was facepalming and rolling my eyes at so many scenes. I liked your take on the message, though personally I viewed the moral, so to speak, as never allow yourself to be so enthralled with someone that you're unwilling to take action if they become a threat to you. It is very hard to see clearly when you're in love.
Fair enough. Old movies and modern sensibilities tend not to mix well. If you don't like it, cool. But please don't blame Laurel for moving with extreme caution. Abusive relationships are not that cut and dry and fear of retaliation is real and crippling. Especially when they live in the same building and he has a key.
Well it's an analysis of a movie so spoilers are kinda implied. Plus the fact that the video's description comes with a warning so for future reference... there you have it.
@@moviemonarch1617 I used to read the movie critiques of Pauline Kael, etc, and in reading them, nothing is spoiled. I guess it's not easy when the review is in video form. I would do it differently, though. I would add SPOILERS warning message. But hey, that's just me.
What? It's not a typical romantic boy meets girl flick! Did you even watch it? It was a meeting of like minds. Dix met his equal in terms of wit and dialogue. Go back to watching Hallmark movies.. 😂
These are just my opinions. Feel free to disagree.
On Dix sending $300, remember the other driver complains Dix ruined his new $200 paint job. So, whatever the value in today's money, Dix gave him 1.5 the value. Enquiring minds can search "CPI calculator" at Google to get the value vs. whatever year you happen to be reading this.
Great review, MM. I never connected Gloria Grahame as the blond crossing the street in "It's A Wonderful Life." I like yr clever cut to Bart's "cut out his heart" line. Done that too many times!
@@abogadojon Aw thanks. Yeah I think It's A Wonderful Life and Song of the Thin Man were her two major acting credits prior to In A Lonely Place. Maybe Crossfire?? I don't know. But this kinda seemed to place her on the map in regards to being worthy of bigger roles with more meat to em.
Excellent work, thank you :)
this movie has a special kind of hold with me. I think it has to do with the way the characters becoming, so perfect, so quickly for each other, and yet you know they are doomed just as fast.
I know I'm a little late to the party but I literally love this movie, I love how the movie literally reflects the movie itself. The movie is about a screenwriter and is sometimes looked on negatively because his movies are not like the source material so he gets a girl to tell him the plot of a book he's writing a screenplay. This movie is based off of a book, and the movie is nothing like the book. It's just an interesting movie that many people don't know about and every single time I watch it I notice other details you literally explained my thoughts perfectly!
glad you liked it
Absolutely brilliant movie analysis, I really loved it. What an marvelous actress Gloria Grahame was! Hello from New Belgrade, Serbia ☺
Great analysis, makes me appreciate the film more.
Dankeschön! Always delighted to read that.
Great review, thanks!
A lot of people will be looking out for Gloria Grahame's films, after they have seen "Film stars don't die in Liverpool" - released in Dublin (Ireland), November 2017.
It's the story of her late-in-life love affair with an actor, Peter Turner, who was 28 years younger, at a time when he was starting his career and she was coming to the end of hers.
It is extremely witty, this film, in a 1950s manner of dialogue, and it's heart wrenching.
Excellent work! You should not shy away from all the evidence you presented about the impact of war trauma on Dix - his work, his ability to form relationships, and his violent outbursts. Nothing defines these postwar noir films more than the problem of reintegrating emotionally and physically damaged vets. We think of it now as the “The Good War,” but consider how the PTSD and economic anxiety of vets drives the plot of films such as “Dead Reckoning”, “The Blue Dahlia”, and “Side Street.” And who is more cynical and broken than Richard Erdman’s character in “Cry Danger”?
Aw thank you!
Yeah...I honestly don't feel there's enough evidence in this film to diagnose Dix with PTSD. He displays some symptoms but others are missing and/or left unaddressed. When I encountered this, I poked around into Nicholas Ray and Andrew Solt's life looking for insight. Andrew Solt was a bit of a dead end because whatever he wrote Ray almost completely rewrote. So, I focused my energies on Ray. What I discovered convinced me that Dix is an emotional self portrait. Feel free to disagree. This is just me putting some stock into authorial intent.
Movie Monarch, I hope you’re not implying that “authorial intent” should usurp “critic’s personal agenda”! Do you realize the number of Master Theses that universities will have to retroactively rescind? Blasphemous stuff you’re suggesting!
I still think you’re right about the PTSD, and the brilliance of the writing is that the “auteur” doesn’t present every aspect of the diagnosis. Instead, he leaves enough clues for the viewer (and Laurel) to find, as a good mystery should.
By 1950, the audience was ready to move past the damaged veteran stories and start embracing Westerns and the Eisenhower Era. Check out the exchange between the escaped convict and the reporter in “Split Second” (1953).
I would never classify Nicholas Ray as an auteur. That implies he desired a Kubrickian level of control over his movies when he didn't. Ray encouraged improvisation, he trusted his actors, and if they came to him wanting to try a scene a certain way, he let them. Ann Doran credits James Dean for directing 'Rebel Without a Cause' because Ray let him have so much input over how scenes were shot. One of the most famous of which being Jim Stark's plea to 'let me do something right' where the mother is on the stairs and the father is bellow trapping and dividing Jim's attention while arguing with each other. It was James Dean's idea to do it like that and have it end in physical violence when his father can't stand up for him.
I believe Ray poured himself into the script and that Bogart could tap into that because they were so similar in personalities. Bogart detested pretension and snobbery as much as Ray did, and they were both heavy drinkers prone to bouts of self reflection. If you want to say it's PTSD, fine. There's an argument to be made for that, but please don't accuse me of shying away from anything when in fact I'm just not as convinced as you are.
As for 1950s being ready to move past the damaged veteran stories, I think 'the Bridge over the River Kwai' tells a different story, as does HUAC and the MPA.
You're forgetting the book. Dickson Steel was not Nick Ray and his mental state is all about the war. Dorothy B. Hughes was clear that Steel felt like a somebody during the war but not after.
@@sallyreno6296 True, but the film and the book are two completely different stories with very little overlap. So to say the book has any bearing on the film or its character development is to ignore the subtext of the movie in regards to Nicholas Rays feelings about book to film adaptations.
I agree. My absolute favorite! Perfect femme fatale. Flawed male figure played perfectly by Bogart. Great story that leaves you stunned and sad that things didn't work out for 2 very likeable leads.
By far, one of the best reviews (not just of this film, but of any film) ever. Subscribed.
Absolutely top review, especially now the entire film is available on CZcams! When I first read this terrific review I was left desperately searching.
Can u link it here? I cnt find it
Great job - I had seen this movie some years ago and was trying to remember the finer details of the plot - this is exactly what I needed. Good summary and analysis.
Ah thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I love your voice and with the added entertaining commentary of the film, you've helped me so much with writing my discussion for this movie.
Huzzah!
Watched this for the first time today, and I fell in love with it. This is definitely the best analysis I've seen on youtube for it. Great work
Aw thanks.
Your review put me in a less lonely place. Love how you edit and cut into lines from the movie, your one critique of the whole film is playful and hilarious and finally, your voice as narrative is perfect. Thank you for a pitch perfect video presentation.
You're welcome, and thank you for the lovely comment.
Very nicely done. The novel is also extremely good, and I find the contrast between it and the film fascinating. They are like alternative histories, about a younger and older Dix, and different ways Dix's pathology might have played out.
I really enjoyed the book as well but more for it's contrast and similarities to Patricia Highsmith's the Talented Mr Ripely.
A most excellent analysis. I actually replayed sections several times.
I offer additional thoughts. Consider The Best Years of Our Lives. In a Lonely Place might be seen as the flip-side of the coin, particularly the Dana Andrews Character. Another insight into Dixon Steele might be seen in John Huston's documentary, Let There Be Light.
You did a nice job on this examination. Its a great film that I have only first seen recently.
Outstanding work sis! Thank u for posting this. I'm 54 and only recently saw this treasure of a film for the very first time.
Glad you enjoyed it! :)
For me this could be Bogart’s best & most interesting work of all. Wish the whole film will appear on You Tube sometime. Gloria Grahame is great as well. One of the top films of its time.
Just buy it. It's a masterwork and worthy of multiple viewings.
Peter Graham why can’t y’all just buy the damn thing instead of complaining
It is here in 10 parts movmus77
Hey dude, keep it up. Your work is solid.
Brilliant review! Made me want to watch it again!
Awesomely good! Thank you for making this video🙌🏻🎥🎞💯
great review thanks , using quote for book im working on and havnt had time watch it yet. But now i will defiantly watch the whole film as inspiring author
This is an excellent movie, just saw it and extremely underappreciated
Also, the end of your review is one of the best and most humorous.
A brilliant analysis. Thank you!
You're welcome :)
Inspired a great tune of the same name by the Smithereens on their first album.
Oh cool! I've never heard this song before, but yeah wow the inspiration here is all over it. Thank you so much for telling me.
Please do a review of of "Out of the Past" and "Detour" ! - signed, Studio Contract Peasant.... (thanks for the "In a Lonely Place Analysis", too.)
Wonderful! I suspected the proposal story scene in The Proposal with Andrew referencing "Humphrey Bogart style" could allude to this movie. Then I came to your review. In addition to the superb review, it just adds a wonderful little nuance with the question about makeup - so, eventhough I haven´t watched the movie yet, it seems this is a match!
I think Andrew was referencing movies more like 'the Big Sleep' or 'the Maltese Falcon' where Bogart plays a detective and is known for finding hand written notes with scant information.
@@moviemonarch1617Awesome! I´ll check that out, too. The falcon sounds promising right away ;-) Thank you!
Great review. Thanks from London.
Thank you for your kind comment. And you're welcome from California.
I loved this! Liked and subscribed! Lemme just binge watch the rest of your videos. Brb.
Just remember if you're going to correct my pronunciation of anything to look in the description of the video first because chances are 300 other people beat you to the punch.
@@moviemonarch1617 me ? I wouldn't dare haha
Just saw this movie! May have before and don't remember. (I'm 66! 😁) I loved the movie ... BUT ... I noticed the makeup too!! 😂 Excellent synopsis!!! ❤️
Great video!
For me, this film scores on every level! It is probably Humphrey Bogart's best film! Gloria Grahame is excellent! and it also happens to be one of the best films directed by Nicholas Ray! I can't speak too highly of 'In a Lonely Place' and in short, it's my favourite Film Noir!
Couldn't agree more.
very good analysis!:)
Aw thanks!
We need you!!! I know your probably a busy girl but I would love some more noir reviews
Always nice to feel appreciated. Unfortunately, you're very correct. I am incredibly busy at the moment with other projects. However, I do plan to do an in depth analysis on "Woman on the Run" sometime in the future. Possibly "the Lost Weekend" but don't ask me when because...I'm a mess.
@@moviemonarch1617 no problem. Just making sure you don't forget us
I liked Gloria pressing her feet on the floorboard. I started calling her "Miss Step On Feet."
I like Gloria doing it too so when I noticed Mr. Cary Grant doing it in 'To Catch a Thief' I couldn't resist.
@@moviemonarch1617 I love Grace Kelly's feet pressing the pedals in her sandals. They should've had more shots of her feet when she was driving. Her feet and sandals ae pretty too! I guess you see that I have a female foot and shoe fetish!
@@andersport That's cool.
This was great!
Very good!
Their showing it at my cinema soon in 4k cant wait.
LUCKY!!
It's also a very good pulp novel 😁
Unquestionably. I mean you can tell that Patricia Highsmith borrowed a lot from it.
just looked up why ray and Grahame got divorced and whoo boy 😬
Wonderful analysis. I was thinking the car scene might have referenced Notorious, the scene where Grant hits Bergman, also a Hitchcock movie. Perhaps not idk, but the whole movie had me thinking of Notorious in a way, almost like a response to that sort of archetype generally, and I just really like that movie. Would be interesting if it did and then Hitchcock then referenced this one in turn. Idk though.
Yeah Grahame's infidelity is statutory rape and makes me gag.
It wouldn't surprise me if Ray drew inspiration from Hitchcock who was the definitive master of suspense at the time, but where Notorious focused more on Cary Grant's hands wanting to take the wheel I think Ray made Laurel's reactions his own with her pressing down on the non existent break. Not only to show her reaction to Dix's reckless driving but as second hand for a woman caught in another bad relationship and wanting to pump the breaks and get out.
I’ll watch this after I see the movie. I’m afraid you’ll spoil it for me.
Good call.
Great analysis, would love to do a crossover sometime
Watched this last night, first time, loved it!
Who played Effie, the vacuuming maid with cigarette hanging out of her mouth? Caught my attention, couldn’t miss her😀
Ruth Warren
😱 OMG omg what a movie what a great movie
This movie is marvelous. Pure noir brilliance.
10:00 well i always tought that he was more disappointed in her then she was in him so he leaves coz he realize that she will never regain his trust and vice versa. Then she just acknowledges that while speaking on the phone and he leaves. I think that he did not wait for her response or anything. She said: "this would have meant so much to us". That would be irelevant if they are breaking coz of his bad temper (coz she would found it sooner or later). But if they are breaking coz of her distrust towards him then information about the killer would be relevant. But ofc she had doubts because of his violent nature so your point of view may be the right one.
Hello! Nice for you to drop a line. I always encourage conversation, and since you were kind enough to respond to my opinions allow me to respond to yours.
"i always tought that he was more disappointed in her then she was in him so he leaves coz he realize that she will never regain his trust and vice versa."
At that point (in the movie) I would argue it’s not about distrust. They're breaking up because Dix crossed a line into physical violence. Laurel may have doubted Dix, but he proved her fears were right when he assaulted her.
And if I gave you the impression that violence and anger are mutually exclusive then allow me to apologize. That was not my intention at all. So just to be perfectly clear: violence and anger are not mutually exclusive. In fact they often go hand-in-hand.
Laurel mistrusts Dix because she's seen first hand accounts of Dix getting angry then violent. Examples include: second hand accounts from her masseuse, the driver he almost kills with a rock, and Mel. So it's not just Captain Lochner's word that makes Laurel doubt Dix, it's her own experience with the man. When Dix gets angry he gets violent. And that's not okay. AT. ALL.
So, again, their breaking up is not just about Dix's temper. It's about what happens when Dix allows that temper to rule over his actions. That's what Laurel fears and mistrusts. And as we can see (towards the end, when he's choking her) she's right. And he knows it. And that's why he walks away. Not because of her but because he knows what he did was wrong.
Great review!
Thank you!
I can't imagine Bacall in this movie. She always played the "tough cookie", but could never convey vulnerability.
I don't think this is a fair assessment of her abilities. You have to remember that the studio system was incredibly restrictive for actors and actresses, especially during HUAC years when stories had to be censored. Not only were actors tied to a specific studios where parts were practically assigned to them, but once they were associated with a particular genre few ever escaped type casting.
By the time studio systems fell out of favor in Hollywood, Bacall was not longer 19. Hell, roles of substance were hard to come by before a woman hit 30, but after they're practically non-existent. However, Lauren Bacall did a wonderful job playing Mrs. Hubbard in Murder on the Orient Express, and not just for her obnoxious Americanisms but the ending. Bacall doesn't say a word after the first blow to Ratchett, but every stab afterwards does something to her. It's why the camera keeps cutting back to her face and reaction because we see how upsetting it is for her and we're not sure why. Is it catharsis, shock, guilt? All three? None of them? It's wonderful because it allows for interpretation and that's all do to her.
I wish every actress could have the longevity of Joan Crawford, Angela Bassett, Helen Mirren, Viola Davis, or Meryl Streep but in this way Hollywood hasn't changed much because these women are the outliers. They're the few who maintained careers once blush of youth faded by fighting back when executives wanted to keep them in the box of teeth, tits, and ass back when they were 20.
Good job girl
Muito bom!
Underrated film.
Hard agree.
The only feedback of your analysis that I would offer, is that you critique, albeit briefly, the director for suggesting this movie relationship does not end in violence. To my mind, he referred to the very end of their relationship. Not to the final night together, or their final week together, but to the outcome. In so many before the outcome is a death, whereas this one has our male lead simply walking away after having destroyed the relationship. I think he only meant that. Otherwise, love your analysis and love the movie.
Thank you for your comment! However, I was aware that Ray's definition of 'violence' was only referring to it's terminal point. I chose to remark on it deliberately because, as a woman, I am horrifically aware of the many shades that the word 'violence' encompasses. Ray probably meant that noir movies don't have to end in death to impactful. I get that. I DO understand. It's why I chose the visuals that I did ('Sunset Blvd', 'Double Indemnity', 'the Roaring Twenties'). However, Laurel and Dix's relationship still ended in violence. I wanted to make that explicitly clear. Call it a moral obligation to everybody who has ever been (or still is) in an abusive relationship. It was never meant to be a slight towards Ray.
I hope you can see this.
@@moviemonarch1617 100% agree Ray did not articulate well what he meant. ♥ Loved your take (and the movie).
Excellent video! (with bonus points for The Simpsons reference) I'd agree that Dixon Steele may not have PTSD, but I think there's room to speculate that the war did have a harmful effect on him. Brub points out that Dix was his CO for three years overseas: that's a long time. And the very few people Dix could call legitimately call his friends are all dependent on him: Mel, his agent; and Charlie, for a handout to get drunk; and Paul, for a steady customer. The war may have taught someone like Dix that security in life comes from having people depend on you (like your military subordinates) and from seeing life in adversarial terms. Mel and Charlie are no threat to Dix -- not creatively, not intellectually, and not as rivals for women. Even Paul, the restaurant owner, doesn't throw Dix out: he just asks him nicely to take it outside next time. Dix and Brub, we're led to think, are friends, but remember Brub said that he called Dix a long time ago and Dix never called back -- but when Brub *depends* on Dix to help him solve the mystery (and clearly, Dix thinks he's smarter than the police), then Dix is his pal. Challenge Dix, though, and you get slapped or punched. In the same way that other film noir protagonists return from the war and locate moral certainty and order by becoming private detectives, Dix asserts himself and what he sees as his integrity with his fists. Personally, I think Dix doesn't truly love Laurel: Dix loves the *idea* of Laurel -- someone with whom he can have quick-witted repartee, but who remains dependent on and subordinate to him. All in all, a fantastic movie, rich with meaning, and again: great video!
Thanks for the kind words and interesting insights. I agree Dix surrounds himself with people who are dependent on him (I'm now disappointed I never considered Charlie but it makes sense. Brub I just thought 'oh well in the book he's the CO but since Lovejoy's younger than Bogart they had to make Dix the commander.' Which could still be the case but it fits in nicely with the psychology of the characters).
Still I'm not sure I agree about Dix being in love with the idea of Laurel. I think he's intrigued by her from the get go. She's beautiful (which is what he first notices), but when she vouches for him and says he has an 'interesting face' knowing full well he's being accused of murder--I think the fact that she's not afraid of him is like a balm to soul. It makes him look at her and go 'if she handle this she handle the rest.' The only problem is she's never seen how bad he can get. She's only been told. And that's where the cognitive dissonance comes to bear against their relationship.
@@moviemonarch1617 I agree with your point "If she handles this, she can handle the rest,": that sounds right. I think it's also worth noting that as soon as Laurel agrees to marry Dix, he wants to get the ring, the car, the house -- as if he wants to hurry up and seal and deal before this one changes her mind (or finds out she has good reason to). The funny thing about Laurel is that she's a femme who's not fatale: she wants to love Dix, not be his ruin. Initially she looks like a sleek, self-assured, imperturbable high-class dame ... but it turns out *Dix* is the one who's "fatale." And just like there can be a big difference between the book and the movie, the difference between the reality of who Dix is and who Laurel might want him to be ultimately can't be denied. Interesting how Mel, the agent, tells her that when Dix has success, he doesn't need anything else -- and he's saying this a woman named Laurel, whose very name suggests victory and the honors of success. I like how Mel tells Laurel that she's got to "take the good with the bad" with Dix because he's been taking it for 20 years -- he's talking to her like he's a woman who's been Dix's lover: "You can't change him, honey, I've tried." But maybe in 1950, in post-WW2 America, that was the choice that some women felt they had to make: You either had to take the good with the bad, or, like Brub's wife, you settled for the security of someone who was "average."
@@timlemire6852 You shouldn't have brought Greek mythology into this now I've got all sorts of ideas playing around in my head. Particularly the story of Daphne as told by Ovid which states that Eros, upset with Apollo, unleashed two arrows. One to inflame Apollo's love and one to cool Daphne's heart. The result being he pursues her and she is terrified. Even the passages are more akin to him hunting her down 'his muzzle at her heels.' It kinda reminds me of Dix towards the end when she doesn't trust him. Only when Apollo is upon her does Daphne become Laurel. So it seems like that name Laurel was doomed from the get go especially when Dix treats her like his muse.
You know I had that same thought about Dix being the masculine fatale, but the more I thought about it the more it doesn't fit. A fatale character (to me) is one who is deliberately malicious, manipulative, or conniving. Dix has anger issues but at his core he's an okay guy. He just desperately needs therapy. Unfortunately he is in love with Laurel probably more than she is with him. Which sucks because Dix is a passionate guy he burns hot at both ends. And Mel knows this better than anybody because he's been in a relationship with Dix far longer than any of Dix's lovers. That is the intimate nature of the agent/client relationship. Good ones require honesty, trust, communication, and respect. Same for lovers. So you're not off when you say Mel talks to Laurel like he's Dix's lover because in a lot of ways they parallel each other. Even in the physical abuse. Mel gets hit and Laurel is strangled. Only Laurel has the ability to walk away and not be financially decimated. Mel doesn't have that luxury. So he'll be there to the bitter end or until he gets more clients. And sadly I think he'll be there to help put Dix back together because love wounded him as much as it wounded Apollo.
@@moviemonarch1617 Very interesting thoughts -- I really appreciate having an extended exchange about this fascinating movie. Even though, at the time this movie was made, people didn't have the same understanding of PTSD as we do today, no doubt plenty of people in the audience in 1950 could relate to the fact that "good ol' Dix just hasn't been the same since he came back from the War." And yes, Dix does seem like an OK guy ... at times. But there are OK guys in this world and even OK guys with anger issues who don't strangle their girlfriends or get a crazed look in their eye when they're narrating a re-enactment of a murder! When you say that Dix's relationship with Laurel was doomed from the start, I agree, because I'll say again that Dix is more infatuated with the *idea* of Laurel than with the reality of who she is, where she's been, what she wants. And how many men does that describe, in 1950 or 2020?
@@timlemire6852 Too many men. And I guess the definition of 'okay' really depends on everyone's individual capacity for forgiveness. Because you're right. His actions towards Laurel and others don't warrant the label of okay. When I wrote at his core he's an okay guy, please understand I don't condone anything that he's done. Rather I'm acknowledging the fact that he knows his actions are wrong. That he feels remorse shows he has a moral compass. A skewed one, but given of the cultural environment of 1950s America it's not difficult for me to see how. Again, I'm *not* condoning what he's done. This isn't me offering up an excuse in saying society created this monster and he doesn't bear any responsibility for his actions because...that's not true. He totally does. What I am saying is I think he can be okay with LOTS AND LOTS of professional help.
However, I don't think Dix getting a look in his eye when directing a reenactment of a murder is a sign of him being not okay. I think it's more him being an excellent storyteller by putting both these people in a certain mindset by slipping into it himself.
But yes he's in love with an idea of Laurel and that's not good either.
Wonder why so many people hate impact wrestling I'm a fan I know we are a small company but that doesn't give people the right to hate them you can not like the product fine but no hate OK
👍😀 nice movie 🎥🎥🍿🍿
Dix does apologize once, to Laurel for hitting Mel and answering the phone
I noticed that but it's still doesn't sit right with me because he's apologizing to Laurel for hitting Mel when Mel's the one who deserves to hear it the most. I mean he's the one who got hit. Not that Laurel didn't deserve one as well, but it rings hollow considering he's given another opportunity to rise above his anger and learn from past situations only to repeat them making the contrition behind his apology meaningless.
Yes...I like Grahame's pretty white sandals!!
Thanks we are studying the book in college English. And Bogart is everything.
Lucky you! I would've killed to have read Hughes in my class. I loved her use of the fog in 'In a Lonely Place' and you can definitely see her influence on Patricia Highsmith. UGH! I truly envy you.
Bogart is brilliant in this role.
@@moviemonarch1617 Patricia Highsmith right...never made the connection. College English has evolved but still has a long way to go.
@@wolffenhaus If you ever read 'the Talented Mr. Ripley' you'll see it.
👍
Because of Gloria's feet in those white sandals I also like calling this movie "ln Some Lonely Sandals".
Certified footpost
There was a multi format option for less than $10. You do realize that comes with a dvd right?
"There was a multi format option for less than $10." When you write this, I assume you're referring to the screen caption embedded in my video of the amazon page, yes? If so, then there are several things you ought to know.
First and foremost I took the screen shot AFTER Columbia re-released it. So that was never an option prior to 2016. (As for after 2016 continue reading.)
Secondly, I despise Amazon. With a passion. So, even with all my love and adoration for this film, I would never buy it through them. (Which might beg the question: Then why did I bother to include a screenshot of their website in my video? Well, to show that I was not exaggerating about the $50 price tag. One that they were STILL advertising even after Columbia re-released it.)
Thirdly, I adore the Criterion Collection. They do good work, and offer a ton of extras for nerds such as myself to geek out over. For instance there was a really great essay about "In a Lonely Place" by Sara Smith, who had some really interesting insights that helped shape this video. So I don't mind paying extra for them. In any format. I just bitched about BluRay because...well...not two days after I got it in standard did they release it HD BluRay. As you can see, I was a bit bitter that I didn't keep the receipt.
So, in conclusion, yes, I do realize it comes with a DVD.
Keep posting CZcams vids
I shall try my best!
The Macguffin.
Noir?
Yes, as in 'film noir'. It's a genre that's incredibly hard to characterize, but according to Google they're usually crime dramas marked by a mood of pessimism that was typically seen after WWII as propaganda films were no longer needed to boost morale.
bur-GONING? I think "burgeoning" is pronounced "BUR-junning" (soft g). Also, "creepy" masseuse? Sounds a little homophobic to me. The character is obviously gay (is "lesbian" still an acceptable term?) and is obviously physically attracted to Laurel (while maintaining professional boundaries) but is an excellent listener, a sympathetic ear and helpful friend as Laurel feels increasingly distressed and trapped in her relationship with an increasingly unstable Dix, and is on the whole a sympathetic character- a rare positive portrayal of a gay (especially lesbian) character in that era in Hollywood (lesbians were usually portrayed as vicious, murderous man-haters, etc. back then). Otherwise, excellent analysis.
"bur-GONING? I think "burgeoning" is pronounced "BUR-junning" (soft g)"
Hi, welcome to my channel where I mispronounce at least one word in every single video. If I do not...body snatchers.
"Also, "creepy" masseuse? Sounds a little homophobic to me. The character is obviously gay..."
It's not obvious unless they kiss someone of the same gender on screen or say the words 'I'm gay'. Otherwise it's coded. And the masseuse (Martha) definitely has elements of queer coding in her portrayal, I won't argue that point. However, that's not what makes her creepy.
What makes Martha creepy (in my opinion) is that she's listening to Laurel say how happy she is with Dix and then tells her how she should instead be up on Miller Drive with Mr. Baker because he built her a pool and she needs to start thinking of her financial security with his real estate.
...
...
...
Like, I'm sorry but I don't see how that's any of her business.
Then Dix enters and exits the apartment, and this is where Martha dramatically changes tactics. Starts really planting the seeds of doubt about his character into Laurel's head. "They still don't know who killed that hatcheck girl."
...
...
...
Say what?
Like, I'm sorry, but that's neither professional nor friendly it's manipulative. And manipulation wrapped in a warning is still manipulation and Laurel was right to call BS on her.
"[Martha] is an excellent listener, a sympathetic ear and helpful friend as Laurel feels increasingly distressed and trapped in her relationship with an increasingly unstable Dix, and is on the whole a sympathetic character"
Rewatch the movie and you'll see Laurel didn't feel trapped in her relationship with Dix until after the incident with he car which happens right after Martha's scene. Which means Martha is completely out of line at this particular point in the movie.
Like...the entire scene starts with Martha dictating to Laurel "six hours sleeping, typing all day. No wonder your nerves are all tied in knots. You can't be a nursemaid, a sweetheart, a cook, and a secretary. You've got to think of yourself." And Laurel's response is "I've never been happier." Martha's response after that is: "We should be up on Miller Drive..." and WOW is that 180 twist to judgmental alley. Like, bitch, you may be willing to sell your body for some land and security, but trying to manipulate Laurel out of one relationship and into another? Survey says: creepy.
@@moviemonarch1617 I think I agree with @mackb909 here. A film only shows some of what is happening. The masseuse knows that DIx is a bit of a psycho before Laurel does, and before we do. Think of what she says as foreshadowing.
eBay paid $10 🤑
Before 2016 or after???
After
@@teresavaughn7499 That makes sense. Kudos on your bargain!
Who will be cast as Laurel Gray?
Bogey: My wife
Ray: No, my wife
So true.
😂
Did they use a voice over for Gloria? It sounds nothing like her in this movie.
Not to my knowledge, no. I don't know what your frame of reference is for Gloria Grahame, but it's important to remember that this woman had an obsession with plastic surgery. From her nose to her mouth to her cheeks to her eyes, she had a lot of work done in very small increments. And there's even stories of her lining her upper mouth with wads of tissue to give her lips a fuller/sexier appearance on screen. This would definitely influence how she sounded on set. But she's also an actress who had many different roles. In 'the Bad and the Beautiful' she had a high pitched southern accent. In 'the Big Heat' she's a moll with a slight slur to imitate drunkenness (although when she hums/sings that part was definitely dubbed over). Here she needed to be sultry so she speaks at a softer register. Either way I'm pretty sure it's her.
Her singing wasn't dubbed.@@moviemonarch1617
@@sallyreno6296 Yes, she was. theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/gloria-grahame-turns-up-the-big-heat-at-bfi-southbank/
Skip down to question about Oklahoma! and you'll read Josephine Botting of the British Film Institute saying: "Oklahoma! is a key title in Grahame’s filmography. Even though the musical was not her natural habitat, it shows her versatility. She wasn’t a natural chanteuse. She had played singers in other films and her singing voice was dubbed in all of them."
Movie Monarch When I watched Annette Bening play her I noticed that in some scenes her upper mouth looked funny, puffed out some. I didn't know Grahame did that on purpose but it's a great little tid bit of knowledge there. I love the little details of info!
@@songbirdy Your welcome! Unfortunately Grahame is just one in a long line of Hollywood actresses who felt they had to alter their looks to meet beauty standards. I think everybody knows what MGM put Judy Garland through, but not enough know about Marlene Dietrich having molars removed so her cheekbones would stand out, or Rita Hayworth having electrolysis so she'd look "less Latina". And the men! You wouldn't believe me if I told you about the men.
Om
subscribe ! do more noirs ❤
You could watch In A Lonely Place on CZcams for Free
You realize I made this video four years ago, yes? So trust me when I say it wasn't an option back then because it was still under lock and key by the studios who only after MASSIVE negotiations re-released it for DVD under the criterion collection and then for streaming services.
@@moviemonarch1617 well no duh I was trying to say it’s been free on CZcams since 09 (which I should have put 3 days ago so my bad).
@@randywhite3947 Are we talking about the USA?
@@moviemonarch1617 yes
@@randywhite3947 Interesting. Because even now CZcams is telling me it's available to buy or rent. Not free. So either we live in completely different territories where different algorithms and metrics apply to our states, or aliens. I honestly don't know. All I can say is that in California watching it for free (even with ads) has NEVER been an option for In a Lonely Place.
!!!
A great movie...One of Bogart,s last performances before his death!!
Too literal an interpretation. The movie is not the novel. It’s better. There ARE actual serial killers. There ARE men with anger issues and in reality both are tolerated at women’s expense. But they are not equivalent. Every angry man is not a serial killer but every SK is an angry man. Violence or aggression - anger- need not end in death. Anger in a marriage may end the union but not take lives, and under different circumstances may not end the marriage. Doubtful but possible. I’m glad Ray refused to have Dix kill Laurel. Equally glad Laurel was allowed to walk away.
Grahame was not better than Bogart.
I didn't understand why Ray had the reputation he had until, rather late in the game, I saw this film. I love your review for the most part, but was annoyed by the way you handled the marriage between Ray and Graham. How can anyone talk about this movie without mentioning the fact that, during shooting, Gloria Graham slept with Nicholas Ray's son by a previous marriage? Sorry, but I can't help suspecting that you left that part out in furtherance of a feminist "Men always bad -- women always good" agenda.
No, it was more like I didn't want the entire conversation to be usurped to just Gloria Graham slept with a fourteen year old. If people want to look that part of the history up and discuss it amongst themselves--fine. I on the other hand, find the whole thing grotesque and completely off topic which is In a Lonely Place. That's what I want to talk about. Not how Gloria Graham deserves to be on to catch a predator.
@@moviemonarch1617 That's fair, I guess. Actually, I've always liked Gloria Graham. I'm also a big fan of Errol Flynn, and we all know what HE got up to. When confronting these issues, our current society needs to find a reaction somewhere between "We condone this behavior" and "DIE PREDATOR DIE! CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL!!!" Even so, I still suspect that, when IALP was filmed, what happened offscreen was germane to what we got onscreen. For one thing, the on-set tension may even have helped Graham's performance. The fact that the main set was a replica of Ray's own apartment complex indicates Ray used this project to work through some personal issues.
I"m old enough to recall when Roman Polanski committed his crime. I was furious, of course, even though I was (and am) an admirer of his work. That said, it boggles me that Polanski still arouses white hot fury while nobody takes a judgmental attitude toward Gloria Graham. (I've even heard the strained argument that what Graham did was somehow her husband's fault.) You have to admit that there really IS a feminist double standard at work there.
@@CannonfireVideo I don't think it's a feminist double standard so much as it is a double standard. Meaning I don't think a cabal of feminists exists that have been secretly controlling and manipulating the attitudes of society for hundreds of years to the point where so many feel a guy can't be r@ped without his consent, but still haven't managed to close the gap of women executives to male.
Still, you're right. There is a double standard when it comes to cases of sexual @$$@ult. Women are taken WAY more seriously when they report r@pe especially in regards to statutory r@pe where an older woman is involved. Men who do it are prosecuted WAY more extensively than women when it is just as predacious and damaging to their victims. However I don't think the root cause of this is as simple as feminism.
It is a much deeper cultural problem than stems from this hideous cultural idea that women's virginity is a precious thing to be protected at all costs while men should rejoice to lose it as quickly as possible to someone so experienced (at least when it comes to hetero relations). It is insidious and does nothing but promote a chasm of shame when victims feel justifiably violated, but are constantly surrounded by an echo chamber of 'atta boy!', 'you da man', 'how'd ya do it?' and 'lucky dog'.
There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed articles in psychological journals around the world about how this is bad and it needs to stop. And I hardly think you'd find any feminist worth their salt who would disagree, but maybe you already have. In which case don't lump them in with me. I don't want them any more than you do.
Enjoyed the review, but i didn't like this movie at all. It was awful to watch her stay until the end. He could have killed her. And she knew she was in danger. I was facepalming and rolling my eyes at so many scenes. I liked your take on the message, though personally I viewed the moral, so to speak, as never allow yourself to be so enthralled with someone that you're unwilling to take action if they become a threat to you. It is very hard to see clearly when you're in love.
Fair enough. Old movies and modern sensibilities tend not to mix well. If you don't like it, cool. But please don't blame Laurel for moving with extreme caution. Abusive relationships are not that cut and dry and fear of retaliation is real and crippling. Especially when they live in the same building and he has a key.
This was quite a spoiler. But fortunately, I've seen the movie. It's a great movie.
Well it's an analysis of a movie so spoilers are kinda implied. Plus the fact that the video's description comes with a warning so for future reference... there you have it.
@@moviemonarch1617 I used to read the movie critiques of Pauline Kael, etc, and in reading them, nothing is spoiled. I guess it's not easy when the review is in video form. I would do it differently, though. I would add SPOILERS warning message. But hey, that's just me.
@@denniszenanywhere I'll give your words all the consideration they deserve.
Bogart was miscast. Too old for the role.
In what way?
What? It's not a typical romantic boy meets girl flick! Did you even watch it? It was a meeting of like minds. Dix met his equal in terms of wit and dialogue. Go back to watching Hallmark movies.. 😂