Jigsaw

This 1949 film is interesting on several accounts. First off the movie appears to have been shot primarily on location in New York in the late 1940s. It appears to be the Brooklyn Museum where the finale of the movie takes place.

Franchot Tone plays the lead detective, and Jean Wallace plays a nightclub performer. Tone and Wallace were married at the time of this film, and would make other films together. This is still a few years away from the 1951 love triangle between Franchot Tone, Barbara Payton and Tom Neal, in which Tone was beaten to a pulp by Neal. In the aftermath of that event, Jean Wallace stabbed herself in an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Her and Tone had two children and the public humiliation of Tone and Paytons affair pushed her over the edge. Wallace herself was arrested numerous times in the 50s for drunken behavior.

This film appears to be a social commentary on communism. Though communists are never mentioned, the secret organization bears all the marks of a communist party. Several actors in the film, as well as some who simply had walk ons appear in the film, perhaps as a way of showing how they feel about communism. John Garfield, Marsha Hunt, Marc Lawrence all who were publicly involved in the witch hunts that occured in the late 40s and early 50s appear in this film. Other stars who have minor roles include Burgess Meredith, Marlene Dietrich and Henry Fonda. In the nightclub scene, look in the background for debutante Brenda Frazier, a kind of Paris Hilton of her day.

This little, low-budget noir mystery is marred by crude direction, cutting, and editing, reminiscent of and no more polished than most live television productions of the same period, and hampered by a heavy handed political script that leaves huge gaps in plot logic.

Its chief interest is as a rare curiosity. Its paranoid politics and style mirror the anti-Communist films of the period, but it was made by a group of primarily liberal and leftist New Yorkers (exemplified by the famous actors who contributed cameo appearances), who turned the usual premise on its head. Franchot Tone plays a liberal crusading "special prosecutor" who investigates a shadowy secret organization that is menacing and killing its own members, whom they think may expose them. But this organization isn't Communist or leftist; rather it's a vaguely racist group that is really just a financial scam, run only to collect membership dues and gather other profits. As a result, even the political statement turns out to be rather weak compared with films of the period that explicitly opposed discrimination, such as "Pinky," "Gentlemen's Agreement," "Crossfire," "Lost Boundaries," "No Way Out," and so on.

An odd little indie production. It's like the producers don't have the courage of their convictions, resulting in a muddled storyline, as others point out. The aim apparently is to warn viewers about the appeal of rightwing movements during the McCarthyite post-war period. The warning could be understood as a logical reaction to the anti- communist hysteria then gaining strength, particularly in Hollywood. The trouble is the message gets muddled by making the appeal ultimately a scam engineered by criminal elements. Thus the tricky political aspect is overshadowed by the less controversial element of criminality. I suspect a clearer message was expected by the cameo appearances of such principled liberals as Fonda and Hunt, plus a committed lefty like Garfield. So, my suspicion is the movie-makers backed off at the last minute with a hastily revised and ultimately muddled script, rather than risk going against popular currents of the day.

The movie itself is only mildly interesting. The elegant party scene with Tone's revealing voice-over is both novel and perhaps a highpoint. Director Markel shows some imagination with well- timed close-ups, while Tone delivers a nicely modulated performance, perhaps at times too modulated. Stealing the film, however, is unknown actress Winifred Lenihan as dowager schemer Mrs. Hartley, a premier mix of charm and menace. Overall, the movie remains something of an obscure curiosity, perhaps illustrative of the quandary liberals found themselves in during a vexed period in the nation's history.

This movie is almost impossible to follow because of its very muddled story and story-telling. I can't even exactly tell you what this movie is really about. It's almost as if the movie is constantly abandoning its own main plot-line. The story-telling also really isn't helped by its wooden and extremely bad and at times even laughable dialog and second grade actors that deliver the lines.

It has some noir ingredients, especially with its visual style, so this movie should also be called a film-noir, even though I wouldn't regard this movie exactly as a full-blood film-noir. As this movie shows, having film-noir ingredients doesn't guarantee that the movie is always a good and intriguing one.

One thing the movie does handle well is its tension. It knows how to build up certain sequences, even though you don't always understand what is exactly happening. This is also due to the poor quality of the print. The movie is real dark and grainy in parts, so you really literally can't see what is happening at times. But because the movie features a couple of good and tense sequences doesn't mean that the movie as a whole is a very exciting one. On the other hand it however also not a complete bore, since the movie always maintains a good pace.

I am not surprised that this movie is not really a better known one. It's a forgettable film-noir attempt, with a weak story and perhaps even worse story-telling. No, not even the biggest film-noir fans shall enjoy this movie thoroughly.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Film noir fans seem to be ready to watch just about anything that their favorite genre provides, very much including minor efforts of which few have heard. This particular one has been available from various public domain sources for years, but it will probably prove to be a tedious disappointment.

Franchot Tone plays a district attorney who begins an investigation into the suicide (?), which the audience knows from the opening scene is a murder, of a press printer for a hate group. Soon the D.A.'s reporter/buddy on the same case is also murdered.

This murky, confused, badly edited film's narrative is a challenge for anyone to follow. That's not particularly uncommon for film noirs, of course, but the film (especially with the various PD prints) also lacks any distinctive visual interest or directorial style, making for a pretty dull going that, for this viewer, at least, couldn't end soon enough. Prints of the film may vary. The one I saw was 74 minutes.

The most curious aspect of this low budget production are the various three to five second cameos made by a number of "A" list stars. There's Burgess Meredith as a bartender, Henry Fonda as a waiter, John Garfield as a newspaper reading street guy and Marlene Dietrich as a patron leaving a nightclub, that nightclub appropriately called "The Blue Angel." I also spotted Marsha Hunt and Everett Sloane.

Exactly why these stars briefly appear I'm not quite certain, though in the case of Garfield it was as a favor for pal Franchot Tone. It was probably much the same kind of thing with the others.

If you're a hardcore noir fan (there is one murder sequence done at a low camera angle that perks the interest a little), there are various prints of dubious quality available of this one on You Tube.