Monday, June 18, 2007

David Miller, "Sudden Fear" (1952)

Sometimes it seems like media companies make marketing decisions based merely upon whatever is trendy, regardless of the true quality or nature of the product. Often this results in a dissatisfied customer. Occasionally it can lead a consumer to a discovery of something that he/she would not have checked out otherwise. Sudden Fear is a case in point of the latter phenomenon. Released by the Kino DVD publishing outfit as part of their Film Noir - The Dark Side of Hollywood 5-disc set, the film stars screen legend Joan Crawford and Jack Palance in a story of deep betrayal. In my opinion, the movie is a bit misclassified as noir. That genre is a difficult one to pin down, and allows a wide range of films to exist together in a somewhat arbitrary grouping. But when it comes down to it, noir is something amorphous that you recognize the more experience you have with it.

Sudden Fear, in my opinion, is better described as a Hitchcockian thriller. It introduces Crawford as a successful playwright, going about her business in the casting of her latest production. She overrules her producers and partners decision regarding the choice of the lead male actor. The character played by Jack Palance just isn't, in Crawford's eyes, romantic enough. He's a hell of an actor, but doesn't have the attractive looks that Crawford believes necessary for the part. Because of her track record, everyone defers to her wishes and Palance is fired. Crawford takes the responsibility for the decision, and Palance is visibly angry with her as he storms off the rehearsal stage. Things go well with the production, and Crawford's decision is vindicated.

Of course the viewer expects Palance to pop up later. It's too clear that his confrontation with Crawford is central to the developing plot. The two meet once again several weeks later on a cross-country train ride. While Crawford clearly finds this coincidental meeting awkward and embarrassing, Palance seems gracious and is eager for there to be no bad feelings about the past. They spend a lot of time together during the ride, and a new friendship slowly evolves into a budding romance. It appears that Palance has finally convinced the playwright that he is indeed a Casanova.

Soon Crawford is introducing Palance to her well-to-do San Franciscan social set, and all seems well as they court and eventually marry. It's clear that Crawford is absolutely mad for Palance. She adores him beyond any other object. But given the title of the film, we know that the good times can't last the complete running time (I really feel that I'm not giving too much of the plot away here). What is going on soon becomes abundantly clear, but how it will all play out is a different matter. How will the principles react to the shifting dynamics in their relationships? Director David Miller has done his job- he's engaged the audience in a twisted tale, and has constructed a pace that keeps the viewer on the edge of his/her seat. While some of his devices are awfully predictable, the diversionary route the ending wends through is often fascinating. Whether or not the grand finale is ultimately satisfying is a bit beside the point. It's a very entertaining film nonetheless.

One thing does puzzle me though- and it has nothing to do with the intelligent script, evocative cinematography, nor the competent professionalism of the director. It has to do with the casting of Sudden Fear. Did the person in charge of filling these roles truly view Crawford as a captivatingly beautiful actress? Did viewers in the 1950's think Joan Crawford was an ideal romantic lead? Because I found her scary and harsh looking all the way through the film. The choice to put her in the main role is ironic given the story itself. It was uncomfortable for me to watch Palance and Crawford share a series of onscreen embraces. In fact I was nearly disgusted. Was I supposed to feel that way all along? Crawford is clearly an amazing melodramatic actress. I will definitely check out more of her work. But unless I find out that she aged poorly, I never want to watch her kiss anyone again.

Labels: , , , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Love your noting of the irony of the Crawford casting. I too wonder if the American ideal of feminine beauty has changed over the years. There are any number of female romantic leads from the 40s and 50s who I don't find particularly attractive or appealing, lead actress or not. Then again, we had Barbra Streisand in the 70s and now Scarlett Johannson (sp?), to name just two. I believe there have been actresses who do not meet the traditional view of pretty, and some who in fact have altered that view somewhat just by being onscreen repeatedly. IF you had photos on your blog, it might make an interesting side to post some photos of the leading actresses of that period, and more recent. Beauty, after all, is truly in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes ya just gotta wonder, no? . Good review; I'll have to Netflix it.

7:26 AM  
Blogger Merge Divide said...

Who is Scarlet Johannsen? Does Paris Hilton meet the conventional standards of "attractive"? That's one I wonder about constantly.

9:28 PM  
Blogger Dagrims said...

Who is Scarlett Johansson? Surely you've seen Lost in Translation. What about The Prestige?

Scarlett is 100x more attractive than Babs, by the way. Now Cate Blanchett, there's a non-traditional looking leading lady.

9:52 PM  
Blogger Merge Divide said...

dagrims,

I've never seen Lost in Translation ,-
nor The Prestige .

I tend to miss a lot of the more mainstream films. I don't like Bill Murray, which rules out the former.

Cate Blanchett doesn't do a lot for me either. One non-tradional leading lady (just off the top of my head) I have liked watching is Parker Posey.

11:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home