This film, in my opinion, portrays two men as being helpless. The way Lupino portrays them is totally different than the previous film noir, Double Indemnity. In that film the men of the movie were strong willed and able to think and do for themselves. In addition, the antagonist of the film was also a man, and it just so happened that this man was the person making the protagonists feel helpless.
Could it be that Lupino was trying to say something throughout this film, like men can be just a vulnerable as women? Or maybe it was the opposite? Maybe, Lupino was trying to show how smart a man can be when put into a sticky situation like the one in this movie. I mean these men were brought to their breaking point and managed to come out on top of the antagonist. However, they were also shown as being vulnerable, with one of the protagonists even breaking down and crying. This film is one that really make the viewer think hard about the message the director is trying to get across.
One can also pose the question if this film was done so well then why couldn't other female directors be successful with classical film noirs? Could it be that the portrayal of men in this film, was seen as a hit on the male figure at the time? Or could it simply be that women were just not able to direct film as well as a man? Questions like these are ones that came up for me throughout the entire film and really made me pause and think.
One of my biggest realizations that only came to me after the film was over was that there were no women (other than the girl in the grocery store) throughout the entire film. With a female director, I suppose I was expecting the opposite, where a statement was made with a prominent female character.
ReplyDeleteI really do agree with your analysis, and I too questioned many of these things after the end of the film.