The Big Knife (1955) -- "Ohh, that studio!!"
FilmGene
<<The Big Knife is probably good to have as a title to "name drop."
If someone starts up with a comment on Sunset Boulevard, then
chime in "but in The Big Knife..." Interesting but not great.>>
Not "great" - but how many are?
I think the author's comment about name-dropping is very revealing. Yes,
the film is stagey (it was based on a play which required claustrophobic
settings). However, the problem Charlie Castle (nee Cass) faced was a
familiar one to film people in the studio era (and especially familiar to
Odets). The character of the actor is based on John Garfield, a New York
Jewish actor who was trained by the Group Theater, a left-leaning troupe
that represented the Golden Era of American drama in the thirties and
forties. Odets was the writing star of that group.
Many writers, directors and actors felt that they had "sold out" to the
movies, compared to their artistic yearnings in the theater. In fact, the
flirtation with Communism which produced the McCarthy / HUAC era, was a
very common malady in Hollywood after sound came in and a flood of New
York intellectuals came to town. Their guilt at making a fortune during
the Depression doing work they felt was far beneath them fueled their
desire to do something socially useful, misguided as it was.
I have always found "The Big Knife" to be a very moving parable of that
era just as it was ending. It would have been impossible to make such a
truthful film in the shadow of the great studios. This was an independent
film by Robert Aldrich released by the new United Artists which was the
distributor of choice for independents.
The acting is uniformly superb, if close to over-the-top, in keeping with
the theater style of the time. In particular, the performance of Wendell
Corey as "Smiley" Coy (the last name is even better than the first) is as
subtle and great as any supporting performance I have seen. Nick Cravat
(Burt Lancaster's old partner) is terrific as the punchy trainer. Shelley
Winters is heart-breaking as the discarded starlet, Everett Sloane excels
as the sentimental, pitiful agent. Jean Hagen once again proves what a
talent she was as the PR man's promiscuous wife. Rod Steiger and Ida
Lupino are memorable too. The only false note is the character played by
Wesley Addy, the writer with ideals who is pursuing Charlie's wife. He is
full of cliches and nobility and is clearly meant to be the author's
voice.
Yes, it's a little over-the-top and "stagey" (whatever that means), but it
is aware of itself as those two things, as the final shot proves. It may
not be everybody's favorite film, but as a microcosm of Hollywood history
and attitudes, it is irreplaceable.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Kolaga
[Spoilers, if it makes a difference. This talky-stagey movie is good
but don't feel bad if you don't see it. Kiss Me Deadly was better.]
The Big Knife (1955) directed by Robert Aldrich, based on a Clifford
Odets play and starring Jack Palance as an alcoholic, insecure actor
who is having some sort of mid-life crisis. Palance doesn't want to
sign his seven-year renewal contract with bad-boy studio-boss Rod
Stieger. Ida Lupino is Planace's estranged wife, Jean Hagen is
some sort of drop-in girlfriend and Shelley Winters is a studio
bit player (on contract) who just happened to be in the car with
Palance when he ran over child whilst driving home drunk after a
party.
That's the outline. I can't figure out why Palnace didn't want
to renew. Most of the film takes place in his Belair luxury ranch
house (with pool). Palance talks about "wanting to make good films."
Ida Lupino tells Palance that he's "lost his ideals." The Palance
character is drowning in a sea of phony angst. His predicament
doesn't ring true. If this was Errol Flynn who wanted to make
"serious pictures" instead of swashbucklers, then OK. There's a
joke about the studio making a film of _War_ _and_ _Peace_ where
Palance appears with a whip in one hand and a dame in the other.
So Palance agonizes. Ida Lupino is at the Malibu beach house. She's
seeing a screenwriter and the screenwriter has proposed. Palance
wants to reconcile. Stieger shows up at the Belair house and
delivers a you-gotta-see-it-to-believe-it total psycho speech
imploring Palance to sign. "Charlie... Charlie... The _pain_ of this
moment!" Stieger says. Stieger is as close to over-the-top as an
actor can get and remain in the realm of drama (and not comedy.)
Stieger threatens to reveal the truth about the car accident. In
fact, a studio employee was instructed by the gangster-like Stieger
to take the fall in Palance's place. Palance signs. Now there's
a problem with dumb blonde Shelley Winters. She knows what really
happened and she's been talking about it. She's an alcoholic too.
She complains about not getting any parts other than as a cigarette
girl.
Stieger plots to deal with Winters. With Palance back in line, the
studio boss sees the blonde bit player as a big liability. Some
studio lackey ("Smiley" -- an ironic name) tells Palance that Winters
must be "removed." What *is* this!?! Is this about a studio or is it
about the Mafia? I reckon it was supposed to portray studio bosses
as gangsters. So Stieger's plan is for Palance to take Winters back
to her apartment and pour her a few drinks from a spiked bottle.
Did I mention that Winters is summoned to Stieger's office and Stieger
treats her to a "boot party?" The studio plans to blame the bruises
on her poodle.
A few of the afore mentioned characters die at the end of the film.
Stieger isn't one of the dead.
The film is awfully stagey. When Fritz Lang filmed the Clifford
Odets' play Clash by Night (1952), it didn't feel so artificial.
Defenders could argue that the claustrophobic element was deliberate.
Jack Palance never had my sympathy. In fact, I couldn't figure why
he wanted to leave Hollywood. I could see that he wouldn't want to
work for Stieger. Also, Palance is still young in 1955. He doesn't
come across as the aging but still popular star. This isn't a good
portrait of a star -- not at least as good as the ones in A Star is
Born. That may be unfair. Still, there's so much talk and so little
illustrative stuff.
I could imagine an older William Shatter excelling as the insecure
alcoholic mid-life crisis star. This is a role that aims toward
being sort of Night of the Iguana filmed in Be lair. Well, in so
far as middle-aged alcoholics go, it does.
Rod Stieger does a fantastic job as the studio boss. For several
moments, I thought that I was watching The Godfather on
methamphetamine. Stieger is totally forceful and rapid-fire in his
delivery of lines that are full of bullshit -- but very menacing.
All the action (and violence) occurs off stage in the manner of a
Greek drama. Phone calls and messengers inform the audience of
the latest body count.
The Big Knife is probably good to have as a title to "name drop."
If someone starts up with a comment on Sunset Boulevard, then
chime in "but in The Big Knife..." Interesting but not great.
Aldrich did a better film noir in Kiss Me Deadly being as the
film ends with a larger body count, seedier motives and a White
Heat style exit. The Big Knife is annoyingly neurotic.
---
Remove the characters _Bogus from my e-mail address to reply
Jay Rosenberg
I remember seeing "The Big Knife" about 20 years ago, and was amazed
that it was a respected movie. I do not recall much about it but one
particular incident. In the movie, Rod Steiger has a electronic hearing
aid. The kind that has a wire running down from the earpiece to an
amplifier hung on his chest. During one scene, someone whispers
directly into the ear where the ear piece is. I remember thinking that
there would be no way for him to hear it.
---Jay
Kolaga
On 24 Jul 1997 18:18:10 GMT,
film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
><<The Big Knife is probably good to have as a title to "name drop."
>If someone starts up with a comment on Sunset Boulevard, then
>chime in "but in The Big Knife..." Interesting but not great.>>
>
>Not "great" - but how many are?
>
>I think the author's comment about name-dropping is very revealing. Yes,
>the film is stagey (it was based on a play which required claustrophobic
>settings). However, the problem Charlie Castle (nee Cass) faced was a
>familiar one to film people in the studio era (and especially familiar to
>Odets). The character of the actor is based on John Garfield, a New York
>Jewish actor who was trained by the Group Theater, a left-leaning troupe
>that represented the Golden Era of American drama in the thirties and
>forties. Odets was the writing star of that group.
Well, OK. Now that you say the actor's character is based on John
Garfield, it makes more sense. When Charlie Castle showed the
boxing film, I figured it was either BODY AND SOUL (which I've taped
but not watched yet) or else THE SET-UP. Garfield died young (39!)
of a heart attack -- though there were rumors of suicide. Garfield
also left Warners to go independent. I was figuring that the
reference to "Federated" in the film implied that Stanley Hoff (Rod
Stieger) might be based on Jack Warner. Garfield was estranged from
his wife when he died. All this fits. This is a connection that the
public might have made in 1955 being as Garfield died in 1952. At
least, it sets up an analogy in the same way that Conrad Birdie in
BYE BYE BIRDIE is clearly an allusion to Elvis Presley.
I can sympathize with any actor/actress who says they want to make
meaningful films. Funny thing is that THE BIG KNIFE and just about
all the meaningful films were made back before STAR WARS ushered in
the era of the blockbuster film.
I can imagine Sean Connery pacing around exclaiming that he doesn't
want to make any more James Bond films or anything remotely like one.
So the plight of Charlie Castle (Jack Palance) was easy enough to
understand. But what I couldn't understand was what the alternative
was. Was Charlie of the mind to return to Broadway? Did Charlie have
enough money stashed away that he could buy a bed-and-breakfast in
Vermont and do summer stock? (not that I really know what summer
stock is...)
Charlie is unhappy. So? Most of the time, someone comes along and
reminds us that we _have_ to do what we do on account of the need to
make the next mortgage payment. If the screenplay had drawn his
shattered dreams and illustrated in some concrete way the kind of
compromises that he was making, then I would have been more
sympathetic.
As it stood, for all I could tell Charlie is merely unhappy that he
hasn't won an Academy Award.
Compare Charlie Castle in THE BIG KNIFE to Joan Crawford in MOMIE
DEAREST. Joan is aware that her films are box-office flops and she
blames the scripts she been getting. She feels that she has the
talent and still has the public support to make better (a.k.a.
money-making) films. She blames the personal animosity of Samuel
Goldwyn for her predicament. She hates being used as a prop when the
financial guys (bankers) from New York come around. Though I wasn't
sympathetic to Joan in the sense that I felt sorry for her, I did at
least appreciate that she was under a great deal of strain at that
point in her career.
This is the one point in the movie that I wanted to have expanded.
Jim Beaver
film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
>I think the author's comment about name-dropping is very revealing. Yes,
>the film is stagey (it was based on a play which required
claustrophobic
>settings). However, the problem Charlie Castle (nee Cass) faced was a
>familiar one to film people in the studio era (and especially familiar
to
>Odets). The character of the actor is based on John Garfield, a New
York
>Jewish actor who was trained by the Group Theater, a left-leaning
troupe
>that represented the Golden Era of American drama in the thirties and
>forties. Odets was the writing star of that group.
Gene didn't mention that Garfield starred on Broadway in the stage
production as Charlie Castle. I suspect that Aldrich might have used him
in the film if Garfield had lived past 1952 and overcome the blacklist.
Jim Beaver
FilmGene
<<I was figuring that the
reference to "Federated" in the film implied that Stanley Hoff (Rod
Stieger) might be based on Jack Warner.>>
I think that Hoff is a composite of Harry Cohn of Columbia (the agent even
says "Hail Columbia" at one point in the film) and Louis B. Mayer of MGM
(the reference to the crying, the discarded first wife and the mania for
mingling with non-film celebrities - "one of the pens that ended WWII.")
<<But what I couldn't understand was what the alternative
was. Was Charlie of the mind to return to Broadway? Did Charlie have
enough money stashed away that he could buy a bed-and-breakfast in
Vermont and do summer stock? (not that I really know what summer
stock is...)>>
Take your pick. Charlie only says that he will promise not to make any
more films. Don't forget that this was the beginning of live television
too. Summer stock were small, rural theaters that only operated in the
summer and used professional stars along with local amateurs and a
volunteer crew. Many fading stars made a living touring in threadbare
productions of famous plays during the summer. It was also known as the
"straw-hat circuit". It was often a training ground for young people.
<<Charlie is unhappy. So? Most of the time, someone comes along and
reminds us that we _have_ to do what we do on account of the need to
make the next mortgage payment."
Oedipus is unhappy. So? Macbeth is unhappy. So? Willy Loman is unhappy.
So? Nicholas Cage is unhappy in "Leaving Las Vegas" So?