Jigsaw

... 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!

Combining elements of a political thriller with elements of a mystery story, "Jigsaw" ends up being somewhat uneven, but certainly interesting enough to make you keep watching. The mystery angle is the part that works the best, keeping you guessing much of the time. Most of the production is strictly B-quality, but the performance of Franchot Tone, some cameo appearances worth watching for, and some interesting plot ideas bring up the overall quality.

The initial story idea is a bit routine, with Tone as an Assistant DA who is concerned about the activities of an extremist political group. While not entirely predictable, this side of it is never all that interesting either. The group remains too vague to seem like more than a small-scale threat. What perks things up is when Tone begins meeting a series of interesting characters from an assortment of backgrounds, with each of them either a potential friend or a potential enemy.

The finale of all this intrigue sets up a very interesting showdown between a number of groups in an art museum. The low production values keep it from being as memorable as it could have been, but it is still a good idea. Likewise, the movie overall never quite comes together as well as it could have, but it does have a number of positive things to offer.

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.

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.

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/