Is this what they call Film Noir?

I jest, but the Criterion 4K restoration job here is a bit weird. I mean, they’ve removed all the scratches and stuff, but it seems like they’ve also lowered the contrast? Which is pretty unusual — you usually have them erring on the other side, making things too contrastey. I mean, I’ve seen this before, and I remember it looking cooler than this…

Can’t have Noir without blinds. Blinds are 90% of Noir.

Edward G. Robinson is the other 90%, of course.

What!

So here’s a screenshot from the 4K disc.

And here’s a screenshot from the 2K disc.

The 2K looks a lot punchier. But the 4K is in HDR, so, er, mpv does something to mix it down to SDR, and that’s not working optimally? Or… er… something?

Anyway, I’m switching to the 2K.

One moment…

There.

That looks noirer.

OK, it might just be my tribulations with the contrast here, but… I’m not totally into this film. It just seems a bit stodgy?

We skip back to his confession all the time, and that just makes the film drag a bit.

I mean, it’s good, but I was expecting excellent.

Huh:

Praised by many critics when first released, the film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, but did not win any.

OK, I changed my mind — this is really exciting. We’re really rooting for these murderers! I mean, for their plan, and we haven’t really been given much reason to do so. Sure, the guy they’re planning to kill is a tool, but Barbara Stanwyck could, like, leave him. Instead they’re gonna kill him and claim the insurance and I’m all YES! DO IT! and then I’m worried that their plan is gonna be foiled.

And it’s all down to them being the protagonists — Wilder doesn’t try to make them sympathetic, really.

OK, now it’s not as exciting any more, and parts are starting to seem ridiculous. Like meeting in grocery stores — sure, that’s not suspicious at all.

This is a good movie, of course, but I was disappointed. So:

Double Indemnity. Billy Wilder. 1944. ⚃

Bob Hope is really leaning into his “jumpy wimp” persona…

Before starting this Bob Hope box set (from the late 30s/early 40s), I wasn’t really much aware of him as an actor. I mean, I must have seen him a bunch of times, but somehow I think of him as a TV guy or something? And I’ve seen none of the almost dozen movies in this box set before, so I guess that means that his movies aren’t exactly critics favourites.

Look at that start of his film career — pumping out multiple films each year from the get go. But these aren’t exactly high-falutin’ auteur movies — they’re made by sturdy studio hands like George Archainbaud and Elliott Nugent.

Oof

So this film is about an actor who tries to get out of the draft (because he’s afraid of loud noises and stuff). This is from 1941, which makes it really, really topical, so I guess it was made very quickly?

This is by another veteran director I’m not familiar with. He directed his first movie in 1913 and did more than a hundred movies. And it’s well-made — but it doesn’t quite have the manic zip of some of the other movies on this box set.

It was a hit, though:

The film was a big hit and became Paramount’s second most successful release of 1941 after Louisiana Purchase.

And I can see why — it’s so topical (with a premiere just a few months before the US entered WWII) and is properly patriotic, taking the Bob Hope character from abject cowardice to (I’m presuming) a heroic ending.

But it does look like it was made in a hurry. I mean, it mostly looks great, but there’s scenes where you feel they’d have moved the camera a bit to get a better angle if they’d had more time — like this little bit, where their faces are covered for most of the scene.

This bit was really impressive (and funny).

Not all the gags are as snappy, though. This was a good idea, but it just lacked some timing.

It’s fun! But it’s not fun enough.

Caught in the Draft. David Butler. 1941. ⚂

This is pretty screwy. It’s got zip.

The name of the director, George Archainbaud, doesn’t really ring a bell, but:

He’s done about 110 films! Yowza. He started in 1917, and kept on working at a frenetic pace until his final year, 1953, when he directed six movies! OK, they were Gene Autry films, so they weren’t hard on the brain or anything, but still!

So I guess he was a reliable studio director, and this movie has that studio professional sheen. The same year he did this, he also did a Betty Grable film and a Ray Milland/Dorothy Lamour film.

This is really charming. It’s not really a screwball comedy like I first assumed, but it’s got a whole bunch of gags and zips along nicely. It’s also got these moody, romantic scenes… it’s a lot of fun.

Hm… are all cats in old films black cats? In comedies, there’s usually a scene or two with a cat (I know The Internet’s For Cats, but so were movies), and a surprising number of them are totally black. Or do they just film like it? I mean, I love all cats equally, but people seem to go for colours that are easier to Instagram these days which means fewer Voids.

Li’l Void.

*gasp* Shoes on the couch!

It’s a pretty small budget movie, I guess? It’s all set in one flat — perhaps based on a play? It really zips along, and has enough twists and amusing characters to carry the day. I really love the deadbeat friends that pop in all of the time.

Thanks for the Memory. George Archainbaud. 1938. ⚄