Thu 15 Mar 2012
SMOOTH AS SILK. Universal Pictures, 1946. Kent Taylor, Virginia Grey, Milburn Stone, John Litel, Jane Adams, Danny Morton, Charles Trowbridge, Theresa Harris. Remake of the film A Notorious Gentleman (1935). Director: Charles Barton.
I don’t know, but if you were to ask me, the movie theaters in the US during 1946 and 1947 were filled with an abundance of crime films just like this one, filmed in black-and-white and on a budget and therefore considered by many to be “noir†looking back today.
But not by me, not really, not in this case. There’s no sense of “doom†nor “fate†in Smooth As Silk, only a whole lot of crooked activity going on by people that ought to have known better, but of course they don’t, starting with Kent Taylor’s character, a lawyer you might even call shady, simply because he can get a rich man’s nephew, a drunken playboy, acquitted from a charge of manslaughter, simply by coming up with a couple of mighty convenient witnesses.
Or maybe it is noir, since his success in the courtroom does not carry over to his love life, as the uncle (aka the rich man) repudiates his side of deal and refuses to consider Taylor’s girl friend (Virginia Grey) for the part he promised to do so for her. Whereupon the girl friend’s true colors come out, since she really does want the part and decides to make a play on her own, or make that two plays, and either way, no pun intended.
Things turn sour for him, in other words, and quickly. When the rich uncle is found murdered, there are several ways the D.A. (played by Milburn Stone, who is also making a play for the would-be actress’s kid sister, Jane Adams) can decide to play the investigation, and that goes for the killer as well. The title of the movies refers, I believe, to Kent Taylor’s character, but as slick as he is, he can’t find a way out of this one.
As you can see, I’m sure, there is a lot of plot to this story, just over 60 minutes long. There’s no depth to the characters, needless to say, but it’s still a lot of fun to watch, should you ever come across it, wherever your travels may take you.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:01 am
There is a terrific article by Otto Penzler about “Noir.” Comes down to this. Noir is about losers, not criminals. It is a mood of engulfing failure. This thing is just contrived nonsense with a few personable actors.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:22 am
I don’t always agree with Otto, but he makes some points in that article that are right on, beginning with the very first paragraph:
“Noir fiction has attracted some of the best writers in the United States (mostly) and many of its aficionados are among the most sophisticated readers in the crime genre. Having said that, I am constantly baffled by the fact that a huge number of those readers don’t seem to know what noir fiction is. When they begin to speak of their favorite titles in the category, they invariably include a preponderance of books and short stories that are about as noir as strawberry shortcake.”
For the rest of his article, here’s the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/otto-penzler/noir-fiction-is-about-los_b_676200.html
He’s talking about noir fiction, not films, but that doesn’t make any difference. One thing that he points out is that everyone mixes up PI stories and noir fiction, and the two are diametrically opposed to each other.
After tossing it around in my head overnight, I now think that SMOOTH AS SILK has more noir elements to it than I did late last night when I wrote the review. Kent Taylor’s suave attorney figure is really a loser, and so is Virginia Grey’s character, the actress who all but sleeps her way to success (and maybe she does behind the scenes) is not really going anywhere at all.
And be sure to read the blurb in the small print on the poster…