Mon 25 Feb 2019
A Movie Review by Dan Stumpf: EDGE OF DOOM (1950).
Posted by Steve under Crime Films , Reviews[8] Comments
EDGE OF DOOM. Samuel Goldwyn, 1950. Released in Britain as Stronger Than Fear. Dana Andrews, Farley Granger, Joan Evans, Robert Keith, Paul Stewart, Mala Powers, Adele Jergens, Harold Vermilyea, Douglas Fowley and Ray Teal. Screenplay by Charles Brackett, Ben Hecht and Philip Yordan, from the novel by Leo Brady. Directed by Mark Robson.
A powerful and moving film noir despite some pasted-in tampering.
Farley Granger stars as Martin Lynn, a hard-working young man up against it: low-pay, a sick mother, and in love with a woman he can’t afford to marry. He has also carried a grudge against the Catholic Church ever since his father’s death by suicide years earlier.
Brackett, Hecht and Yordan sketch out his dilemma in a few pungent scenes as Martin frets over his mom, all but begs for a raise to move her to a healthier climate — and gets warmly refused. Director Robson handles it quickly, in a prosaic, sunlit style, contrasted with Granger’s politely controlled desperation, then moves to moodiness when Mom dies, leaving Martin shadowed in guilt—and determined to give her a fine funeral.
Things progress with a fine scene, written and played perfectly as Martin argues with the parish priest over what is clearly going to be a charity job. He’s up against Harold Verrmilyea, who had a good line in bent lawyers and venal medicos in those days. Here he’s cast as a burned-out priest who has lost the warmth and care Martin so badly needs. His dour refusal clashes with Martin’s growing angst and the young man’s well-bred manners visibly disintegrate when Vermilyea tosses him a buck for cab fare; more frustrated than angry, he clubs the priest to death with a heavy metal cross.
From here on, Edge of Doom moves solidly into noir territory, following Martin through a nightmare of suspicion, dread and guilt like a tortured Raskolnikov, harassed by hard cops (Robert Keith, Douglas Fowley and Ray Teal at their nastiest) befriended by Dana Andrews as Vermilyea’s compassionate successor, and tempted by sardonic Paul Stewart as a petty crook.
Edge is well played and poignantly written, but what struck me most was the steep visual style imparted by director Robson and photographer Harry Stradling. Together they fill the frame with vertical lines: tall buildings, high windows and elongated door frames, imparting a unique and evocative look to visually reinforce Edge’s themes of alienation and redemption.
Vertical lines serve to isolate Farley Granger’s character on the screen, and suggest oppression. But they also convey salvation. The great cathedrals and many other religious structures are traditionally designed with strong vertical lines, lifting the eye upward to the heavens. And so it is here, as the viewer sees on a subconscious level that Martin has a chance to rise from the mess of his life… and wonders if he’ll take it.
I’ll just add here that after some negative preview feedback — and, I suspect (but have no evidence for) pressure from the Church — producer Sam Goldwyn ordered Dana Andrews back for some additional scenes, showing him as a knowing but compassionate priest to further counterbalance Harold Vermilyea’s unsympathetic portrayal. They also added a prologue and epilogue to show us everything’s just fine, go home folks, and don’t worry, your Priest knows best.
And I won’t comment on that except to say it doesn’t spoil a gripping and eloquent film.
February 26th, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Casting a young , attractive actor, inadequate as he may have been, as Raskolnikov, did not work with either the critics or public. But, the Goldwyn Studio must have dreamed about a reception similar to what you have given their project.
February 26th, 2019 at 3:48 pm
Barry I long ago decided that Farley Granger was woefully underrated as an actor. His edgy performances here and in ROPE and STRANGERS ON A TRAIN put him right up there with Monty Clift.
I am quite serious about this though I realize it is a minority opinion. As often happens, I shall wait for fashion and critical consensus to catch up with me.
February 26th, 2019 at 4:27 pm
Farley Granger’s main film career lasted only from 1948-1955 and 17 films. This is a short run.
But in addition to the two famous Hitchcock films, Granger worked with other auteur directors in good films:
They Live By Night (Nicholas Ray)
Side Street (Anthony Mann)
Mademoiselle (Vincente Minnelli)
Senso (Luchino Visconti)
All this helps Farley Granger still be remembered today.
After this he had an extensive career in television. I’ve seen almost none of this. “The Charles Avery Story” on Wagon Train is pretty good.
February 26th, 2019 at 8:35 pm
I have long agreed that Granger was very underrated and never given his due. The films mentioned by Mr. Grost give evidence. His nervous and edgy performance as a hapless outlaw in THEY LIVE BY NIGHT helped prepare the world for the coming of Brando’s and Dean’s rebels without causes in the years to come. I do remember the WAGON TRAIN episode a little and often fondly look forward at Christmas times for his touching performance in O’HENRY’S FULL HOUSE. I think fashion will indeed catch up with you on this, Dan. Thanks.
February 26th, 2019 at 9:37 pm
Granger had limited range as a likable all American clean cut type, but within it could be used effectively as he was in some of the films mentioned in comments showing both easy charm and good timing, but while I agree on Dan’s eloquent description of Robson’s use of imagery both as uplifting and imprisoning in this film Granger here just felt too collegiate and too strained in a role that doesn’t really fit him, both too mature and too clearly middle class for a juvenile delinquent in an impoverished urban setting.
Granger, as I said, could be used very well, and was in several films, but here I couldn’t help but feel the role needed someone with a bit more weight and sense of violence and even ethnicity.
Frankly the setup is too contrived to have that true noir feeling of uncompromising fate, and the needs of the script to keep reminding us of the innocence of the Church and priests in general in the person of Andrews strong good priest tends to distance us from identifying with Granger’s anger and pain.
The film is professional all the way around, but feels a little too slick for its own good. I had trouble believing Granger’s character would kill over the insult offered or be so easily redeemed once he did.
The film almost manages to be as eloquent as Dan finds it, I won’t flaw his finding it so, but for me neither Granger or Andrews feels convincing here in roles that might have fared better played by two less All-American actors, whose presence cuts against the whole ethnic poverty ridden setting, they almost seem to have wandered in from an old Warner’s Dead End Kids drama from suburbia. For me it’s almost as if they had cast Frankie Avalon instead of James Dean in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE.
Watching this all I could think was how much better this might have worked with Tony Curtis in the Granger role, not a better actor, but certainly a more traditionally ethnic one.
February 26th, 2019 at 10:11 pm
A wise analysis, David, and we only differ in our view of the result. I don’t believe anything, other than production design, works effectively. Not Granger, Andres or anyone else. Personally, I have little interest in The Dead End Kids, and none at all in either James Dean, Frankie Avalon, Tab Hunter but Tony Curtis was a much stronger actor in terms of technique and depth. His comedies are funny, he holds his own with Cary Grant, and does at least as well with Sidney Poitier. In The Vikings, despite being total miscast, he is not laughable. As the disgusting Sidney Falco, a film a despise, he delivers the despicable goods. Best of all, and generally unsung, The Rat Race.
February 27th, 2019 at 6:11 pm
I agree Curtis has more range than Granger, and I really meant that at that point in his career he wasn’t a better actor (or didn’t get the roles to show he was, by the late fifties and early sixties Curtis matured into a fine actor who was good in both drama and comedy achieving things Granger never approached).
I reference the Dead End Kids because part of what worked with them was their ethnicity, they were easy to believe as a group of inner city tough guys, where Granger and Andrews both feel out of place in this one, as if the cast of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER were trying to put on a hard hitting urban crime drama. I really think the film would have been improved if you didn’t have to get past Granger and Andrews in those roles.
February 27th, 2019 at 8:35 pm
I’ll beg to disagree with Bary & Dave:
Farley Granger was one of those actors like Lee Van Cleef, Jack Palance and Montgomery Clift, of enormous screen presence and limited range: One who needs the right part and a good director. Like Palance & Clift, he was best at portraying barely-contained emotion, and in this case it worked beautifully.