Manhandled

One thing about Manhandled there are no shortage of suspects for the murder of Irene Hervey. About three quarters of the way through the murderer is revealed. It's what happens after that which gives Manhandled a rather unusual twist.

What's really odd about the film is that other than being a leading man and someone for Dorothy Lamour to take an interest in, Sterling Hayden has very little to do with the solving of the case. Hayden plays an insurance investigator whose company sends him in to help the police solve the case and recover the stolen jewels. But usually in these films it's the private investigators who show up the slow witted cops. That's not what happens here, lead detective Art Smith is very much on the job, more so than the audience is lead to believe all through the film.

I'm thinking that Paramount and Sterling Hayden were about to come to an unfriendly parting and Paramount did not want to exhibit Hayden in any kind of good light. He did two films before his war service and this was the third of three afterwards. Still Hayden did do well with what little to do he was given.

Manhandled is made by the host of character actors in the film playing some interesting parts. There's Alan Napier, Hervery's husband who has been having recurring dreams about killing his wife. There's Harold Vermilyea the psychiatrist Napier was seeing about said dreams and who Dorothy Lamour works for. There's Dan Duryea who is a private detective who's been seeing Lamour. Finally there's Philip Reed who Hervey's been seeing on the side.

So when Hervey is murdered the suspects are a plenty. I will say this that the actual culprit is someone who thinks fast on their feet. But it turns out the cops have not been as dumb as the culprit suspects.

Paramount as a studio did not do much in the way of noir. But when they did do it, the results were pretty good like Manhandled.

... makes this film. Paramount made another film with the exact same name 25 years before, but it was a Gloria Swanson film very much of its time, and this is a film very much of its time - the film noir cycle. And the title is a bit bewildering since "manhandling" really has nothing to do with the plot.

The film opens with psychiatrist Dr. Redman listening to his patient, Alton Bennett (Alan Napier) , talking about a troubling recurring dream he has in which he murders his wealthy and wayward wife, Ruth (Irene Harvey). The doctor advises Bennett to sleep in the guest bedroom for a few nights if he is afraid of what he might do. He then tells his secretary, Merl (Dorothy Lamour), to return that night because he wants to tell Mrs. Bennett all about what her husband just said. Patient-doctor confidentiality isn't what it used to be apparently.

The most catching of Mrs. Bennett's possessions are a bunch of jewels that she owns that are worth and insured for one hundred thousand dollars. After the doctor tells Mrs. Bennett about her husband's dream, she blows it off basically telling the doctor that her husband is harmless. But the next day she is found murdered in her apartment and the jewels are missing.

There are plenty of suspects besides the husband. For one, the secretary Merl has some kind of secret past, and she has only been working for the doctor for four weeks. Her downstairs neighbor, a PI and ex-cop (Duryea) seems up to no good, and Ruth Bennett told her latest boyfriend about the husband's threat and he seems surprised and fascinated when she also tells him that the jewels are authentic - he thought they were fake. Who knows what other people Ruth might have told about the jewels or who these people that we know about might have told.

There are plenty of twists in this one, and who actually did it is a surprise, but it is a bit of a mystery that Duryea is third billed since he is the person you notice, whose character jumps off the screen at you. Lamour and even Sterling Hayden, whose big break will come the following year in Asphalt Jungle, and are both billed above Duryea, seem a bit two dimensional in this. It is really a plot driven noir.

Paramount didn't do very many noirs, but the ones they did do were done extremely well. Maybe this one isn't as well known as "Sorry Wrong Number" because there are no really big names in it. I'd recommend it.

Despite Dorothy Lamour receiving star billing in "Manhandled", clearly the star of this one is Dan Duryea...a guy who really excelled at playing sleazy and malevolent characters. However, Lamour was a bigger stat at the time and Duryea mostly played strong supporting characters...so she got this billing. But for Lamour, there isn't much for her to do but be a victim...and hope that she isn't going to prison in this film.

When the story begins, a psychiatrist is having his secretary (Lamour) transcribe a very disturbed patient (Alan Napier) and his twisted fantasy of killing his wife. Well, pretty soon after this, the wife is murdered...and the rest of the film about the cops finding out the culprit. Karl Benson (Duryea) seems to be doing his best to frame her for the murder....but why?? And can the real story come out by the thrilling finale?

I loved a lot about this film but mostly what I loved was how gritty and nasty the film was...a great example of a noir classic. Duryea is at his best...so good you barely notice Sterling Hayden (a great noir actor)! See Duryea in the alleyway scene...where he plows a guy into a brick wall with his car! And, see Duryea slug Lamour's character...twice!! All in all, a nifty film...one that isn't particularly famous in the genre...but should be.

Manhandled is directed by Lewis R. Foster and adapted to screenplay by Foster and Whitman Chambers from the novel "The Man Who Stole A Dream" written by L. S. Goldsmith. It stars Dorothy Lamour, Dan Duryea, Sterling Hayden, Irene Hervey and Art Smith. Music is by Darrell Calker and cinematography by Ernest Laszlo.

I'm going to kill you, Ruth. I have to.

Manhandled is one of those late 40s crime mysteries that feature film noir legends and film noir narrative tints, thus why it finds itself under the film noir banner. This is more a curse than a blessing. For it's not a particularly great film, where the presence of Hayden and Duryea - and Laszlo on photography - just about keeps things bubbling away to make it watchable till the end. It has been said that the narrative is too tricksy for its own good, yet that isn't apparent since the story is very easy to follow. The twists come and go at regular intervals, but always with narrative clarity.

The main thrust of the plot finds Lamour being set up as the killer of Mrs. Alton Bennet (Hervey), with Bennet's jewels the reason for the crime. But there are a few other candidates in the frame, all of which are written to be believable suspects. The cops investigating are waspish of tongue, with Smith as dry as the Sahara, and Hayden is playing an insurance investigator who is along for the ride doing exactly the same job that the coppers are doing!

Duryea is the star attraction, playing a homme fatale type who chews gum a lot, calls his girlfriend Kitten and clearly is as untrustworthy as it gets (classic Duryea portrayal really!). Hayden doesn't show up until half an hour in, but he's a welcome arrival even if he isn't given much to get his teeth into. While Lamour pouts and ponders whilst gaining sympathy, which ultimately makes us wish she had of done more film noir type films.

There's some nice metaphorical touches, such as Duryea encamped in his apartment watching a vermin species consistently running on its wheel, and Laszlo's photography goes up a notch in the latter half of film - Lamour's apartment becomes foreboding and all the hall staircase sequences take on a greater oppressive meaning. A dream sequence is chilling, and there's one particular violent scene that is unforgettable. Unfortunately some of the comedy, whilst funny at times (drugs scenes are chucklesome), takes the pic out of its dramatic comfort zone.

Hayden and Duryea fans are safe in the knowledge that this is one to see, but it still winds up as a wasted opportunity to be something far more tougher and poignant. 6/10

Really loved the idea for the story, and 'Manhandled' is exactly my kind of film as a fan of crime, mystery and thriller in all media. Sterling Hayden was always watchable when he was in good roles. Likewise with Dorothy Lamour. It was interesting too seeing a pre-Alfred (from 'Batman') Alan Napier. Other than the story and my love for the genres, my main reason for seeing 'Manhandled' was for Dan Duryea in a role he could play at the back of his hand with no problem.

'Manhandled', after watching it, is worth a look. If you love Duryea and in the type of role he plays here, you won't be disappointed. If one wants a story that consistently grabs the attention and is consistently easy to follow, dependent on personal tastes 'Manhandled' may underwhelm, like it did with me. Is it a bad film? Of course not. There is plenty going for it and it is above average. It just had a lot of potential to be great.

Beginning with the good things, 'Manhandled' is shot and designed with a gritty and classy atmosphere that never lets up. It's a very good looking film without looking too clean or unneccessarily lavish. The music is suitably ominous when used. The script is generally tight and intriguing.

There is some nice tension in the storytelling, especially towards the end when things do become exciting, and did like that the atmosphere was uncompromising and had a seediness about it at times. Napier is a delight in his role and Art Smith is amusing in his. Hayden does quite well and in command with what he is given to work with and his character is not very well fleshed out. Stealing the film is a genuinely sinister Duryea, his face alone unsettles you.

Lamour is a lot less good however in my view. Her role is practically a nothing cipher and Lamour is very bland in it. The direction is competent enough if undistinguished and could have generated a lot more tension and crispness, some of the middle felt on the pedestrian side.

Although the story has moments, it tended to be too convoluted as a result of too much going on and too many characters. The flashbacks do intrigue in parts but generally slow the pace down and further confuses the story rather than making it clearer.

Concluding, above average but not much more. 6/10