Sat 5 Feb 2011
A Movie Review by Dan Stumpf: FEAR IN THE NIGHT (1947).
Posted by Steve under Mystery movies , Reviews[7] Comments
FEAR IN THE NIGHT. Paramount Pictures, 1947. Paul Kelly, DeForest Kelley, Ann Doran, Kay Scott, Charles Victor, Robert Emmett Keane. Screenplay: Maxwell Shane, based on the short story “Nightmare” by William Irish (Cornell Woolrich). Director: Maxwell Shane.
A nicely-done ”B” with some good atmospherics buoying up so-so characterizations and an indifferent script, wrapped around a fine, dream-like plot.
DeForest, haunted by nightmares that he’s killed someone in a make-believe room, confides in his Cop Brother-in-Law Paul, then finds that the room really exists and the murder actually occurred.
With a little sharper writing, this could’ve been a much better film, but as it is, it just misses the mark. DeForest is written as a trepidant weakling, and Paul as a Tough Cop, and the two of them never manage to break out of the cardboard confines of their cliche’d characters (he alliterated.)
Worse, writer/director Maxwell Shane seems perfectly content not to develop DeForest’s character, as if he never realized the Dramatic Potential in the story of a man trying to convince the World and himself that he’s not a Killer.
Well, it’s at least noir-ish enough to keep it interesting.
Editorial Comment: The movie in its entirety can be watched online here. (Follow the link.)
February 5th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Shane did a slightly slicker remake of this as NIGHTMARE with Edward G. Robinson and Kevin McCarthy in the roles played by the two Kelly’s. There aren’t really many differences between the two, though I tend to prefer the somewhat rougher edged original.
It’s always interesting to see Paul Kelly play a cop considering he did time for killing a man — although the crime didn’t really hurt his career since everyone seemed to feel the man he killed deserved it and the Hollywood community seemed to go out of its way to welcome him back and get him work — including major roles in films like SPLIT SECOND and THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY.
February 6th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
I saw this several years ago and reviewed it over at Netflix:
A very minor noir worth watching for Woolrich/Irish fans only. Experimental use of “surreal” special effects to convey the protagonist’s confusion between his dream state and his waking state may be of interest to cinephiles obsessed with vintage film techniques. But I fear most contemporary audiences will find this alternately laughable and boring. It also strains considerably on any educated viewer’s suspension of disbelief. I’m always eager to enter a film world and let the character’s bizarre situations run wild, but this movie enters the realm of the preposterous too often. There is a long sequence where the windshield wipers fail on the car during a downpour and the carload of daytrippers pull over to a strange house. Our haunted hero finds a key hidden in a flower pot and they just enter and make themselves at home like so many Goldilocks wannabes. They make a fire, they make tea, they lounge on the sofas. Then a cop just happens to pass by and ask what they’re all doing there. Inane. The whole hypnosis thing is so tired even for a movie made in 1947. Can’t really recommend this unless you are a die hard old crime thriller fan or desperately need to see Star Trek’s Dr. McCoy when he was in his 30s.
John
(And now if you go looking for this review at Netflix you’ll learn my username and my likes and dislikes in movies.)
February 6th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
John
Couldn’t disagree with you and Dan more. This is a seminal noir movie, and what it lacks in slickness it makes up for with good performances by the two Kelly’s and imaginative use of the resources at hand.
As for the story and the viewers suspension of disbelief — since when was any Woolrich story all that strong on logic? You start pulling him down on that one and nothing holds up — not even REAR WINDOW. Most of his best work depends on a dream like inevitability that exists well beyond logic and has more to do with fate, doom, and Greek tragedy than realism.
Complaining about logical behavior in a Woolrich story is about like complaining because the dwarves wouldn’t really have ceded their cottage to Snow White.
For that matter, despite docu noir, film noir in general has very little to do with reality. It is by its very nature an artificial view of the world imposed by its creators as stylised and unreal as screwball comedy or a Disney cartoon. It reflects a nightmare reality with its own internal logic and no other.
The key to this is in the original title — NIGHTMARE, and like much of film noir it has a dreamlike quality that is often otherworldly.
As for the hero entering the strange house and his behavior there keep in mind, at least in Woolrich version, they were all stoned out of their minds on some demon 40’s concept of pot more related to REEFER MADNESS than the real world.
You either buy the set up or not. I you don’t then your critiques are legitimate, but I will point out that most critcs of this film praise it as an important and imaginative early noir even while granting its problems.
That said, this is what makes horseraces, as they say, and I appreciate your review, but this educated film goer appreciates the film for its virtues as early noir and two good lead performances. I’ll only point out that Maltin (who I often disagree with) gives it three stars and most noir references agree with my assessment of the film.
You and Dan are reviewing the film that might have been made ten years later (and was, by Shane again with Robinson and McCarthy) and not the one that was made.
And I’ll go farther, and say this is one of the major early noir films despite its small budget, and probably the polish you and Dan suggest would have made it slicker, but also taken away the qualities than make it unique.
But like much film noir, if you are going to start taking it apart because the people in it behave contrary to logic you might as well abandon the genre entirely. Part of the definition of noir is of people caught up in self destructive behavior they can neither control nor understand.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Well, that settles it. I’ve had this film in the queue for several years now, and there it’s stayed, and somewhere close to the bottom. It’s about time I moved it up, so I can judge for myself.
I’m not sure that I realized even when I first got it that it was based on a Woolrich story. If I had, why haven’t I watched it before now? There’s no good answer to that one. I’ve been a Woolrich fan for over 50 years.
February 6th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Steve
If you can find it Shane’s remake with Robinson and McCarthy is still worth seeing. Robinson and McCarthy are good and the New Orleans jazz setting is well done. It isn’t as good as the original, but still well worth seeing.
John
I have to make one other argument with you, and that is in regard to hypnosis. You state: “The whole hypnosis thing is so tired even for a movie made in 1947.” And that simply isn’t true.
Hypnosis figured in many films of the general era including SPELLBOUND, BLACK MAGIC, THE HIGH WALL, CRACK UP, and WHIRLPOOL. It was also often used to comic effect in films like KNOCK ON WOOD. It wasn’t until at least the late 1960s that films began to question the nature of and effect of hypnosis — and even those were few and far between.
If anything hypnosis was one of the accepted tropes of noir film and trotted out regularly in films of the era.
February 7th, 2011 at 6:44 am
I saw both versions a few years ago and liked them both. FEAR IN THE NIGHT had a nice B-movie, low budget feel to it which somehow added to the fun of watching the Woolrich plot play out. The remake NIGHTMARE, had a higher budget, a better cast with Kevin McCarthy and Edward G. Robinson, New Orleans locations, and a nice jazz music background.
I vote NIGHTMARE as being the better film. But FEAR IN THE NIGHT came first and I can understand David liking it, etc.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:36 am
Walker
I have to admit it is a pretty close call in regard to the two films. The second version is certainly slicker and more professional, and probably more accessible to most viewers, and there is no doubt Robinson is a huge bonus as is McCarthy, no matter how good the two actors in the original were.
Maybe if I had seen NIGHTMARE first, or seen the two together as you did I would feel differently, but since I saw FEAR first the other film will always be a remake to me — though I agree the New Orleans setting and jazz music are both welcome elements.
The first film is rawer and a bit closer to the bone, but if I rate it over the second it is only by the slimmest of margins.