in-a-lonely-place-feat

He Says, She Says: In a Lonely Place

in-a-lonely-place

This series started a couple of years ago when my husband Jonathan and I started taking turns choosing movies we care about a lot to share with each other. We abandoned the series as our lives got busy, but now we’re ready to give it another go, except now the subject isn’t quite as restrictive. We only have time for one or two movies a week now, so we’re still alternating choosing them, but not necessarily from those lists of personally meaningful films. We won’t write up everything we see, but whenever we see something that strikes us both, we will.

The Movie: In a Lonely Place

in_a_lonely_place-posterDirector: Nicholas Ray
Screenplay: Andrew Solt
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Gloria Grahame
Info: 1950 USA, produced by Santana Pictures, released by Columbia Pictures
Chooser: Jandy
Date and Method Watched: 12 January 2014, recorded off TCM (why don’t I own this?!)

She Says…

Jandy-avatarNo sooner do I say we’re changing the parameters of this series when we watch a film that completely fits the old parameters. In a Lonely Place has been among my favorites for years – I still remember how leveled I felt the first time I saw it.

It’s a noir, yes, with a self-defeating main character (Dixon Steele, one of Bogart’s very best performances), but it’s also a melodrama, and a Hollywood Gothic, and a romance, and a tragedy. Sounds like a mess, and Steele is a mess, but the film is anything but. His struggling screenwriter hasn’t had a hit since before the war, but he’s still reluctant to go to the bother of adapting a sure-fire hit bestseller. He has a history of violence, which puts him under instant suspicion when a girl he was the last to see turns up murdered. He’s capable of great kindness, but rages at the merest slight. His future looks bright with the support of new girlfriend Laurel (a great role for Gloria Grahame), but even his expressions of love are colored by possessiveness.

Everything about the film is more complex than you expect – every time you think it’s going one way, it goes somewhere different, usually somewhere far darker even than other noirs of the time period. There’s no pat resolution for Dixon or Laurel, and by the end, you desperately want there to be. It packs one of the biggest emotional punches to the gut of any film I’ve ever seen.

I could go on listing all my favorite things or scenes in the film but then we’d be here all day. Seriously. I’ll make an itemized list available upon request.

He Says…

Jon-avatarThere’s the Humphrey Bogart you know, and then there’s the Humphrey Bogart in this. His Dixon Steele is harsh, unrelenting, and absolutely amazing. I went into this film thinking that I would get something akin to his turn in Casablanca, but was pleasantly surprised when he went in a much more complex direction. In one moment he gives his washed out actor-friend the attention he craves, and in the next he nearly beats a stranger to death. We never really get to wrap our head around this tragic character, which is what makes him so damn interesting.

I loved all the story touches as well. Can’t say I’ve seen a noir before that featured a screenwriter as the lead. It was interesting to see him wrestle (however briefly) with adapting a trashy bestseller into a film, something I hope to one day cross off my screenwriting bucket list. The ending was a huge bummer too, which means I dug the hell out of it. My wife sure knows me well, and I am grateful she picked this one out.

I seriously need to get cracking on the rest of Bogart’s filmography.

  • http://unpublishedforareason.blogspot.com/ Hannah K

    I saw this for the first time last year during my 28 Days of Romance movie challenge, and I was really blown away by it, especially since I’m a little iffy on noir as a general rule. Bogart’s character is so intriguing. I should give it a second watch one of these days. It deserves it.

    • http://www.the-frame.com/blog Jandy

      I don’t know that I would’ve pegged it for a Romance challenge, but it’s definitely very romantic in a tragic sense. It plays in the noir playground, but it’s not what I’d consider a traditional noir. Laurel is anything but a femme fatale for one thing. That’s a strength of the film, though – it uses the tropes that work for it from a number of genres and becomes something pretty special.

      • http://unpublishedforareason.blogspot.com/ Hannah K

        Yeah, some of the movies listed as “romance” on Flickchart turned out to be rather dubiously so. Many had a romance in the background but not as the focal point. (I actually ended up bringing up Barry Lyndon’s classification as such in the Flickcharters groups and got the genre removed, since it clearly wasn’t one.)

        • http://www.the-frame.com/blog Jandy

          Probably 90% of movies, especially those made before 1970, have romance at least in the background. Doesn’t mean it should be a defining genre. Good call.

  • http://ptsnob.com/ Dan Heaton

    Such a great movie. I saw this a few years ago on my brother’s recommendation, and I was blown away by it. Bogart is so chilling yet a believable guy, and the ending is quite a surprise. I’m not a melodrama fan, but this really worked for me.

    • http://www.the-frame.com/blog Jandy

      Yeah, it seems like most people watch the film because someone specifically recommends it. It doesn’t have the kind of instant recognition that Casablanca or even The Treasure of the Sierra Madre have. Which baffles me, because it deserves that kind of reputation.

      Melodrama gets a bad rap these days, but when well done, melodrama can be great.