Fri 18 Jul 2014
A Movie Review by Dan Stumpf: THE GREAT ST LOUIS BANK ROBBERY (1959).
Posted by Steve under Crime Films , Reviews[9] Comments
THE GREAT ST LOUIS BANK ROBBERY. United Artists, 1959. Steve McQueen, Crahanm Denton, David Clarke, Molly McCarthy. Screenplay by Richard T. Hefron. Directors: Charles Guggenheim & John Stix.
The title on the film itself is simply The St. Louis Bank Robbery, so you see how art gets corrupted. The only name in the whole cast and credits you’d recognize is Steve McQueen, which is a shame because this is written, played and directed with unusual insight by all concerned.
And I mean they do a really credible job of bringing out what Chandler used to talk about in terms of a crime and its effect on the characters. It’s as if a bunch of real people were plunked down into a caper film and left to sort out their aspirations and disappointments in the film’s brief running time.
The result compares with the best of the French New Wave films that were coming from the likes of Godard and Truffaut at that time and getting a lot more critical attention. St. Louis languished in oblivion but it’s well worth the few dollars and ninety minutes’ investment it takes.
By the way, in researching this, I found that director Charles Guggenheim, also produced a TV series I’ve never heard of, back in the early 1950s — Fearless Fosdick!
July 18th, 2014 at 7:47 pm
I had not heard of this film until now. Will plan on watching it soon.
Incidentally, I just bought a (non-fiction) book about heist films. It looks a bit academic, but I am going to have to see if this is listed or mentioned in it
July 18th, 2014 at 8:14 pm
I just watched it this week. I’m a huge McQueen fan and enjoyed it for the most part though the King of Cool still had a few years to go to iron out his acting chops. Still, a worthwhile film.
July 18th, 2014 at 8:55 pm
The on-screen title doesn’t have the word “Great” in it, but the movie looks Formidable!
Thanks for finding and sharing this great escape, Dan!
July 18th, 2014 at 9:38 pm
I loved Fearless Fosdick when he appeared in the Li’l Abner comic strips. I didn’t know it had ever been a TV series.
July 18th, 2014 at 9:46 pm
Here’s some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Fosdick#Fearless_Fosdick_TV_show
“Fearless Fosdick proved popular enough to be incorporated into a short-lived television program in the early 1950s. A puppet show based on Fosdick premiered on NBC-TV on Sunday afternoons, and even made the cover of TV Guide for the week of October 17, 1952.”
An episode can be seen at
http://jfredmacdonald.com/avhighlights/playonutv26b_fearlessfodsick.htm
See if that brings back any memories!
October 23rd, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Hullo. I have seen this film–owned it on DVD for a few years–and I gave it close attention while it was in my possession.
I purchased it because I’m not satisfied to let ‘The Blob’ stand for Steve McQueen’s early career–being a longtime McQueen fan–I just had to see some of his very earliest acting which this movie contains. That is what guided my hand to snatch it up from the bargain-bin where I first spied it. And boy, did I get my shekel’s worth.
The OP’s comments in this case–surprisingly brief?–do correctly single out the movie’s most salient aspect. It is messy; what happens to the characters in this story is both messy and wrenching. He is spot-on. But I think this deserves some additional comment; I can expand even further on the observations made by the OP.
First, it is one of those films where there is barely a single likeable character. Practically the entire cast is seedy, sweaty, or repulsive in some way. At some points you may even wonder whether trained actors are being used; or whether the director simply enlisted some of his gambling buddies or losers-off-the-street. One of the ugliest casts I can ever recall seeing.
Overall: no, it is far from a great film (it is barely even watchable). And no, Steve McQueen is not great in it. He is off-poise here–he wasn’t yet cool or confident. He was choppy and uneven; hesitant, timid. But that’s not the point. It’s early McQueen, the real thing—before his adult persona was fully-assembled–so, even this brief role furnishes one a lot to mull over.
The production: frankly, it is not well-done. It isn’t tidy, confident, polished, or meticulous the way a good heist film should be. It is raw, amateurish, ill-conceived, and even nasty. You sit there watching it lumber along with a sort of morbid astonishment and even some queasiness.
I think the movie was shot both cheaply and in wintertime, there’s a lot of ugly outdoor locations in crummy parts of the city–leafless trees–characters with pale, chilly faces and hunched-over postures thanks to the cold.
The cinematography too, has something unwholesome and putrid-seeming about it; I want to say it has a ‘documentary feel’ to it but even that’s not quite it. You know what? If anything, it has the look of a film shot by a porn company. And this conveniently matches up with some aspects of the storyline.
The first 1/3 of the film is a foursome of scurvy ex-cons meeting to go over the plans for a bank heist. Then, it turns out that they don’t have enough money to get their scheme launched. McQueen (in a varsity jacket, he’s a former HS football star who dropped out thanks to the scandal of getting his girlfriend pregnant) signs on to ‘just be the getaway driver’…but his new cohorts force him to go borrow some money from her. She squeals, the heist is botched (probably the worst-executed heist ever) and the whole thing ends in a vicious and really quite disturbing hail of gunfire. That ending is grisly in the extreme.
But here’s what’s really going on: there’s a massive and bilious homosexual undercurrent to the film. It’s a case where the subplot conks the surficial-story over the head and kicks it out into the hall.
Imagine my discomfort, expecting (worst case scenario) just a clumsy caper film; and instead I get to see the King-of-Cool sleeping in just his shorts with another unclothed man in the same bed.
Yes, that happens in this movie. It’s true. The would-be bank robbers in this movie–thanks to their long stretches in the ‘pen–are all essentially queer and none more queer than the gang leader himself, a truly menacing figure who will thankfully–at film’s end–‘refuse to be taken alive’.
Too late for his cronies though, because all throughout the heist preparations, he has been trying to line up McQueen as his new bunkmate! His current bed-buddy is getting too fat and too bald. Truly psycho. Can you believe it? How could a bank job go off okay with this looniness?
Now what happens to McQueen is that he is left holding the bag and the reason that it’s ‘his’ movie in the end is because he finds himself in a standoff with the police and suddenly his character implodes, regresses back to an infant state. Literally, McQueen is shaking in a foetal position on the bank floor!
This part is what’s fascinating. Young Steve McQ had little clout, so when the director asks him to collapse into a blubbering baby (this is what the story calls on McQueen’s character to do) McQueen gives it his all. *Emotional* McQueen. You will almost never see this again, throughout the rest of his career. If you ever wanted to know whether McQueen could emote-on-cue, this film has the answer.
Yep. There was a time when McQueen didn’t know his destiny, *didn’t know he was McQueen*. Instead, he was trying to be Dean ( as in, James Dean). It wasn’t too long after this that he realized that acting wasn’t his forte (being smoov was!) and for that we can all be grateful!
October 23rd, 2014 at 12:33 pm
p.s. What nonfiction book on heist cinema was that? (mentioned above). Title?
October 23rd, 2014 at 1:46 pm
It’s The Heist Film: Stealing with Style
by Daryl Lee (2014).
And thanks for the long comment. Makes me want to see the film again! I bought my copy a couple of years ago at a library sale for a dollar.
August 13th, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Very disagree. It is a very, very good film. It was strange to see it today, the photography is great. Light and faces, and expression made me feel that there is a lot of expressionism in the characters of each of them. The way the story is told also is very unusual for that time, actors act very naturally, as something not so important would happen, and still, a kind of resignation about their lives. To me it was a surprise, very, very good film