Fri 23 Jul 2021
RIFFRAFF. RKO Radio Pictures, 1947. Pat O’Brien (PI Dan Hammer), Walter Slezak, Anne Jeffreys, Percy Kilbride, Jerome Cowan. Director: Ted Tetzlaff.
It’s a question that needs investigating, but while I recognize the truth of that statement, I haven’t yet done so. Here it is, though: Who came first Dan Hammer, or Mike Hammer? Both made their first appearance in 1947, and that’s as far as I personally have gotten. What is not up for doubt is the obvious followup question: Which of the two made the bigger impact on American pop culture history?
While there are quite a few good things to be said about Dan Hammer, and Riffraff, his only appearance in motion picture form, he’s remembered by almost nobody. Almost all of Riffraff takes place in Panama, where Dan Hammer, as played ever so suavely by movie actor Pat O’Brien, is the to-go-to man about town. He knows the people to see, the ropes to pull, and every so often, it is said that folks in need of help actually pay him for the tips he gives them.
He may have hit the jackpot this time around, one that may be worth several thousand dollars to him – if only he can find the map to several Peruvian oil wells potentially worth many times that amount. With both Jerome Cowan and Walter Slezak in the picture (pun intended), the competition is fierce. And of course there’s a girl involved. Just whose side is she on?
Unfortunately, the dialogue, acting and the photography are all individually and collectively better than the plot which is as barebones as that previous paragraph would suggest. In quite unusual fashion, the opening scenes go on for six or seven minutes with no dialogue, an interesting approach in starting a B-movie mystery back in 1947. It is as if those in charge in production were striving for more, and in fact I think they were almost but not quite successful in doing so.
Unfortunately (for the second time), the romance between Pat O’Brien (48 at the time) and Anne Jeffreys (half his age at 24) falls totally flat, or so it seemed to me. No sparks. He’s middle-aged, a bit paunchy with a receding hairline, and she’s young, blonde and vivacious. Of course she’s leaving Jerome Cowan for him, so maybe there’s a message somewhere there.
But do watch this movie if you get the chance, especially if you’re a fan of minor league PI’s located in out-of-the-way places. And any movie with Percy Kilbride in it is always worth watching, no matter what kind of old movie you’re a fan of.
July 23rd, 2021 at 7:28 pm
For a second opinion on this film, opined by someone whose opinion you should trust, go here:
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=54905
July 23rd, 2021 at 8:19 pm
I thoroughly enjoyed this one, and agree with your view of it. Jeffreys is far too young for O’Brien, but within the context of the film it’s at least as acceptable as Bogart and Bacall in TO HAVE AND TO HAVE NOT.
O’Brien made some entertaining films with a mystery bent in this general era from CRACK UP to SLIGHTLY HONORABLE.
July 23rd, 2021 at 10:38 pm
O’Brien and Jeffreys. No sparks. Bogart and Bacall? Sparks galore.
July 23rd, 2021 at 11:22 pm
O’ Brien is a nice actor in support, Bogart was never good in that role, but exploded at least in the forties, as a star. Something chemical.
July 24th, 2021 at 9:05 pm
Steve
Agreed about the spark, but it was still a guy in his forties and her under 18, Jeffreys at least was of age.
I can’t say it bothered me much in either film any more than Gary Cooper or Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn did. They are just movies after all despite the real life Bogart/Bacall romance, and historically much closer to a time when no one thought much of the difference in ages in such matters. Much older man younger woman and even older woman younger man were neither that unsusual in the world they grew up in and certainly not in the circles of the Hollywood elite.
My great grandmother was 16 when she married my 36 year old great grandfather, a widower with five children, one 14, and considered practically an old maid by the standards of the 19th Century.
It’s one of those things that was absolutely nothing to audiences then that we suddenly notice now. Whether it always should have been something is another question.
Barry,
I agree with you about O’Brien, never-the-less he was quite good in a number of films like this one despite the drawbacks of him as a leading man. Notably in Europe and Mexico the tradition of the older stocky middle aged leading man went on well into the Sixties.
In our modern youth culture we tend to forget how many older leading men there were in the thirties and forties, certainly in serials where you were as likely to get Lyle Talbot or Jack Mulhall as Kane Richmond and Buster Crabbe.
July 24th, 2021 at 10:40 pm
David,
Of course, but in your last line, Buster Crabbe was included, who at the very least has to be ranked in his sphere as the Clark Gable of that crowd.
July 24th, 2021 at 10:47 pm
Different-aged characters –as a hindrance to viewing trained, studio-era actors perform –never hindered me. At least I can’t think of a single film when it ever threw me a horseshoe. I hope it’s okay to point out that in the real world, many young women harbor romantic interests in ‘father figures’. Whether this is flattering or not to Pat O’Brien, is up to each of us to decide. It’s been acknowledged elsewhere that he was both heavy-set and sported a retreating hairline, (at least) since his late twenties. Meanwhile Humphrey Bogart was …only 5’6″ tall? Something like that? And he made Bacall swoon? I privately think there’s far too many exceptions-to-our-assumptions to predict what a young woman **probably should** be attracted to. Last time I looked: Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, etc are all +40 these days. As Audrey Hepburn’s crush on Gary Cooper proves; chemistry does not obey seasons or calendars.
July 24th, 2021 at 11:40 pm
From a female perspective, here’s a quote from Laura’s review:
“She and O’Brien have an appealing chemistry, and the film does a good job developing their relationship ‘between the lines’ — someone making a pot of coffee has never had more significance, as there’s a fade out and then a fade in much later in the day.”
You can do a lot worse than reading her entire review. Here’s the link:
https://laurasmiscmusings.blogspot.com/2015/06/tonights-movie-riffraff-1947-warner.html
July 25th, 2021 at 10:10 am
O’Brien in his heyday at Warner’s excelled at playing priests, father figures, guys who lost the girl, and avuncular policemen. He found success doing those parts, while at RKO his range was broadened, and by 1950 he was in serious decline. Lower budgets, smaller parts.