Jigsaw

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.

JIGSAW (1949)

** 1/2 (out of four)

After his reporter friend is murdered, a D.A. goes off looking for the killers. Once again, the 1940's delivered all sorts of gems within the noir genre. This film here has quite a good reputation but I personally found it to be quite slow and boring in spots. The performances are all good but the director isn't able to get much out of the story and in the end nothing makes too much sense. Seeing stars like John Garfield and Henry Fonda is always great but their cameos add very little to the film.

Available on DVD through various PD companies.

I got this film from one of those public domain mega-packs on DVD. While this is not a bad film, I can see why the film makers didn't bother renewing the copyright--it just wasn't all that interesting. Most of the problem seems to be with the writing. The plot seems to bounce all over the place and where the film began seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with where it ended. Had all the dull moments and irrelevant plots been eliminated or polished, I really would have enjoyed the film a lot more than I did.

Franchot Tone plays a prosecutor with the DA's office who is initially looks into the case of a White supremacist who might have been murdered. Whether or not this is the case is uncertain, but when Tone's newspaper friend is killed when he tries investigating (again, it was made to look like a suicide), he knows that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. However, instead of trying to bash heads and get to the bottom of it, he infiltrates an organization that might be behind all this--as well as buying and selling public officials.

As I said, the writing was pretty poor. However, for film nuts like myself, it's still worth seeing for all the strange and unexpected cameos, such as Henry Fonda and John Garfield (among others). Not a good movie but it has enough to it that it isn't a total waste of time seeing it--not exactly a glowing review, huh?!

... There has to be a limit. This movie is pretty much a mess. It doesn't feel like New York City, of which I am a native and almost-lifetime resident. It has too many plots going at once. They add up but only with force on the part of the writers.

It starts out as a sort of Northern "Storm Warning." (Now, there we have a superb, underrated movie!) I guess the racist posters that set off the plot are symbolic of the beginning of the McCarthy witch-hunts. If they aren't, they don't make any sense: OK, granted: According to my parents Manhattan at that time was not always friendly to people other than Caucasians. But were there actually plots and mobs? I can't believe it.

The casting gives it some noir cred. I'm not talking about the brief cameos by big stars. Nor,really, about Franchot Tone. He is OK but he isn't exactly a noir staple and he's maybe a bit old for the role.

But we have Jean Wallace. We have Marc Lawrence.

For me, the single best feature of the film is the presence in a fairly small but significant role of an actress I had never before tonight heard of: Winifred Lenihan.

I see that she was the first person to play the title role in Shaw's "St. Joan" on Broadway. She is in very different territory here. But whoever cast her did so with genius: She is absolutely perfect.

Also, I wonder about the character played by Hedley Rainnie. He's ambiguous in many ways. He wears a beard and maybe that's meant to signify his foreign origins. I wonder, though: Is he intended to be gay? The way the character is portrayed reminds me of the intentionally creepy go-between for the Senator and his ex lover in the better known and overrated "Advise and Consent" almost a decade later.

It isn't a good movie, in sum. And the print I saw was really bad. But watch it for Ms. Lenihan. In a very quiet way, she's brilliant!

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/