Mon 15 Sep 2014
Review: DASHIELL HAMMETT – Woman in the Dark (Book/Film).
Posted by Steve under Crime Films , Reviews[6] Comments
DASHIELL HAMMETT – Woman in the Dark. First appeared in Liberty Magazine in three installments, April 8, April 15 and April 22, 1933. Later published in Woman in the Dark, a digest paperback original collecting six stories, including the title novella: Jonathan Press, 1951. Alfred A. Knopf, hardcover, 1988. Vintage Books, softcover, 1989.
WOMAN IN THE DARK. RKO Radio Pictures, 1934. Also released as Woman in the Shadows. Fay Wray, Ralph Bellamy, Melvyn Douglas, Roscoe Ates, Ruth Gillette, Joe King. Based on the story by Dashiell Hammett. Director: Phil Rosen.
Actually I recently watched the movie first, then decided I didn’t remember the story all that well and not being able to locate my copy of the 1951 paperback, I bought the more recent one from Amazon for a ridiculously low price.
For only a long novelette, there’s a lot of story involved. Hammett’s prose is crisp and clear, and I found myself really enjoying reading it again, after some umpteen years. If I were to try to summarize the story in as short a space as I could, it would go something like this. I’ll fill in more later as I go along:
A guy named Brazil (John Bradley in the movie, played by Ralph Bellamy) has just been released from prison for killing a man in a fight, and he knows he has to keep his temper from now on for fear of going back. In the course of events, however, he knocks a man down who hits his head on a fireplace. When Brazil learns the man is dying, he takes it on the lam.
This summary is far from adequate, of course, since there’s no mention of the girl who comes knocking on his door in the middle of the night (Luise Fischer in the book, Louise Loring in the movie, played by Fay Wray). Turns out that she’s on the run from the member of local gentry whom she’s been staying with as a live-in “house guest,” and all the people around know what that means.
It’s the fellow’s buddy who gets socked, though, after the two of them come to retrieve the runaway Luise. Brazil objects, not because the girl is good-looking, especially, but mostly on general principles.
For a place to hide out for a while he heads for the apartment of a former cell mate (Donny Link in the book, Tommy Logan in the movie, played by Roscoe Ates) and his full-bodies blonde wife Fan (Lil in the movie, played by Ruth Gillette), where they are welcomed, but when the police are tipped off, the safe haven suddenly isn’t so safe any more.
I hope I don’t spoil things by saying that it all works out, with a slight twist and a happy ending to boot, but a good part of the real enjoyment is Hammett’s tough, terse prose in the getting there, told in such a wonderfully atmospheric, precise fashion that I think the movie could have been filmed without changing a thing.
But while of course they did, and not only the names of the characters, most of the story comes through intact. There are two long opening scenes to set the stage that are not in the book, the first in which we see Bradley (Brazil) being released from prison, the second at the home of the local sheriff, whose daughter has had a long time crush on Bradley, and against her parents’ wishes, is there in his cabin when Louise comes stumbling in from the cold and the dark. (Fay Wray in a white dress stands out beautifully in the night sky.)
Ralph Bellamy seems to be a man of some wealth. I didn’t catch that that was so for Brazil in the book. Brazil seems to have been a rougher, tougher man than a Ralph Bellamy type, the latter seen most memorably lounging against the fireplace in his cabin, casually puffing away on a pipe.
There is a flashback in the movie that describes how Louise met her benefactor Robson (a suitably slimy Melvyn Douglas), softening her image somewhat. In the movie she’s a singer down on her luck; in the story it is less clear, but she sadly seems to acknowledge that when she is called a strumpet by the local folks, they may not be altogether wrong.
One scene in particular surprised me little when I saw it reproduced in the movie almost the way I pictured it in the book. It is when the lawyer that Brazil’s pal calls on for assistance repeatedly puts his hand on Luise’s knee, and she accidentally brushes it off with the tip of her cigarette.
What consistently breaks the mood of the movie, though, is the comic antics of Roscoe Ates as Bellamy’s former cell mate. Hammett could be amusing in a tough, hardboiled way. It isn’t over the top, but the movie really could have done without silly stuff like this.
Fay Wray is near perfect in her part, though, and the near pre-Code release date means we get to see camera shots of her beautifully long legs as she examines them for bruises, but there’s far more to her role than that.
September 15th, 2014 at 9:10 pm
This is a spot on review. It’s a terrific, seldom mentioned Hammett novella and a respectable film representation (albeit with the unnecessary comic relief). Film is easily available on Amazon and well worth tracking down. Think I’ll watch it again tonight!
September 16th, 2014 at 10:29 am
I learned from this article, too!
Have never seen the film version.
But think that Hammett’s short fiction and novellas are the core of his achievement. People need to pay them more attention.
September 16th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Wasn’t this originally written for the screen as a screen story and expanded as a short book? That would explain a few things.
Any Hammett is worth having, but no one should expect this to be top notch Hammett anymore than AFTER THE THIN MAN is. I agree with most of what is said about this, but its not his best work and its screen origins show.
Don’t get me wrong, this is more than worth reading and has moments that are pure Hammett, but it is also far from top notch Hammett and for anyone not already a Hammett fan I would say read this last, not first. Hammett himself didn’t think much of it, and while I think he was being too hard I would not hand this to someone to prove how good Hammett could be, and there is nothing in the movie that is particularly Hammett like or tougher and more explicit than most pre code films. Hammett touches certainly show through, but so do Hollywood clichés. This is Hammett writing for Hollywood or the slicks, not BLACK MASK. It feels like the LIBERTY serial it was.
That said for those of us who already know and love Hammett both are terrific lesser known efforts, and the film can be watched on YouTube for the time being. For the already convinced it is a great little piece.
I’m not disagreeing with Steve, Stephen (certainly the expert), or Mike, I’m just saying this will be more appreciated by Hammett enthusiasts, but is unlikely to create any on its own. For most people on here the review and comments are dead on, but its a better place to end up with Hammett than start out.
I’m not sure those not already familiar with Hammett would see what the rest of us are enthusiastic about.
September 16th, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Roscoe Ates has an effective scene in Gone With The Wind — Confederate soldier with broken arms rubbing his back against the wall: “These animules are killing me.”
September 16th, 2014 at 8:18 pm
I’ll stand by my comments about the film. It’s flawed but competently done, with many scenes if not necessarily always the dialogue straight from the book.
And I think the book is better than its reputation, which I believe is generally along the lines, “Even minor efforts by Hammett are better than the best of most writers.”
It’s not BLACK MASK material, but I think it’s rougher and tougher than I would have expected most readers of LIBERTY magazine had previously been exposed to. And reading between the lines, even more so.
September 17th, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Steve,
That’s what makes horseraces, but I don’t think if I read this or saw the movie without knowing the Hammett connection I would find it much more than entertaining. That was strictly my personal assessment of both, and slick fiction of the era isn’t all whitewashed — the major writers who influenced Hammett and Chandler like Hemingway and Fitzgerald were writing for the slicks in this era too.
This by no means a bad work, but it is by no means a lost masterpiece either. I seriously doubt Hammett saw it as much more than a paycheck either in LIBERTY or on screen.