¡Quiero vivir!

This movie is in black & white, has a jazzy score and a great central performance by Susan Hayward. She has many great lines of dialogue, most of which are spit out, and she plays the part for all its worth. The last half hour is completely engrossing. See it and then you'll remember it forever.

Barbara Graham (Susan Hayward) is an aged lying grifter prostitute. She's been in and out of jail. She willingly perjures herself for two cohorts and gets a year in prison. She is released to probation and joins two con-men. She tries for a family but her husband turns into a drug addict. The cops follow her and arrests her, Emmett Perkins and John R. Santo. She's arrested for passing bad cheques among many charges. The men throw her under the bus and claim she's the murderer. She becomes a media sensation and maintains her innocence throughout.

Hayward is terrific as a ballsy broad. She's not an innocent naive character although the movie portray her as innocent of the murder. The media sensation adds another layer to the movie. It is a bit hard to root for the character but Hayward makes the movie work. She gets to do some juicy acting as she prepares to be executed.

Susan Hayward's powerful performance as Barbara Graham has been much written about, and it is the single best part of this film. But there are so many other perfectly pitched performances surrounding her as well, mostly by actors relatively unknown even to film buffs, or early turns by actors whose faces, if not names, did find a national audience--Virginia Vincent as Peg (she played the mother in The Hills Have Eyes), Gas chamber guard Dabbs Greer (the Rev. on Little House on the Prairie and Picket Fences), and especially Raymond Bailey who plays the San Quentin warden. His understated forthrightness and humaneness are a far cry from his later manic turn as Mr Drysdale on The Beverly Hillbillies (with the addition of a toupee). Robert Wise handles the execution preparations with a clinicism that turns the stomach more than any posturing would do, bringing the horror of impending death home. And following the clock's second with a moving camera closeup, instead of just cutting to the clock on the wall, done so many times, is craftsmanship of the highest order.

Good cinema has rhythm. Most classic cinema moves to the flow of orchestral film music, but for a certain kind of picture in the mid-50s to mid-60s, the images would skip to the modish sounds of bossa nova and free jazz. This isn't the most melodic or listenable music ever created, and often it was used simply to be hip and different. However, I Want to Live! has a jazz score that runs right through the picture, regulating its pace and complementing its relentlessly gritty tone.

The picture opens in a jazz club, in a short sequence which has nothing to do with the plot, but sets the scene. From this point on, a musical feel pervades the picture. The director is Robert Wise, an exceptional but seldom recognised filmmaker whose pictures had always been sensitive to rhythm, and would later win Oscars for directing musicals. Wise was an expert when it came to matching music, image and performance. In an early scene with a party aboard a boat, we hear some staccato Latin American music. The frame seems excessively crowded and filled with movement, while the lighting gives numerous shades of grey. The whole thing appears natural, but also looks precisely choreographed to the rhythm of the scene. At other times we get a slow, moody melody, and here the tones are stark and the movements lethargic. Even in scenes without music, there is a complex and eerie sound design of closing doors, photographers' flashes, telephone rings and suchlike, not to mention the sharp vocal delivery. This rhythmic approach, which is always present but never seems overdone, adds character to each moment, gives abrupt changes between scenes, and makes the whole picture fast-moving. Some commentators on Wise's career try to draw a line separating films like this from West Side Story, Sound of Music and so forth, but Wise's style and intention is consistent.

But the central pillar in I Want to Live! is of course the captivating performance of Susan Hayward. Hayward's acting is the size of a house, and she absolutely dominates the screen. However it is the littlest things that make this performance work – a tiny flash of her eyes or shrug of her shoulders. These small things are what bring out our sympathy for the character, while it is the powerhouse acting that gives the picture its passion. So overpowering is Hayward, that every other performance becomes somewhat forgettable. Except that is for Simon Oakland, who is rather impressive in his film debut, with a role which is complex because there is often a discrepancy between what his character says and what he is really feeling. Lou Krugman is also very memorable in his small role as Jack Santo, simply because he comes across as genuinely menacing and sadistic. No-one else really stands out, but at least no-one is conspicuously bad, and besides it helps to have a supporting cast that is a little bland because you would not want anyone to upstage Hayward.

We will never know for sure, but it is now widely agreed that the real Barbara Graham was in fact guilty, and while this movie never openly commits itself either way, it makes every allowance for the likelihood of her being innocent. However, the point of I Want to Live! was probably not to exonerate Barbara Graham, it was instead to demonstrate the horror and inhumanity of the death penalty. What matters is that we are convinced of the humanity of the character, and the desolateness of the situation. The ins and outs of the case are never really clearly defined, whereas the tone and force of the picture most definitely is.

This is the story of Barbara Graham, party girl and petty criminal, who was charged, along with two men, in the March, 1953, real life slaying of Mabel Monohan, a wealthy and elderly widow who lived in Burbank, California. Technically, "I Want To Live" is a high quality production. It has excellent B&W photography, superb editing, a jazzy score; and, it features Susan Hayward's Oscar winning performance as Barbara Graham, a young woman portrayed as independent-minded, tough as nails, feisty, defiant, vulnerable, and a good mother.

Both at the beginning and at the end of this Robert Wise directed film the viewer is informed that the story is "factual". But the screenplay never delves into the actual "facts" of the murder. We don't learn anything about the victim, her relationships, the crime scene, or any of a thousand important details that must surely have surrounded this high profile case. Instead, the film focuses entirely on Graham, and goes out of its way to portray her as innocent, in the Monohan murder.

Even a cursory review of available literature suggests that the film, while "factual" in some respects, is fictional in others. For example, in reality, the police did not capture Graham and her two male friends in a warehouse at night, as the film portrays; they captured the three in a seedy apartment in daytime. The film omits her addiction to heroin. In more than one way, the film presents Graham sympathetically, and as a victim of the criminal justice system. There's an interesting story about the film's producer, and his motivations for making this film the way he did.

Nevertheless, I am not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was guilty, mainly because I do not have access to the detailed "facts" of the Monohan case. After all these years, the truth regarding the murder has become cloudy, obscure.

It is the thick fog surrounding the real life case that makes the film's final thirty minutes so gut-wrenching, as we await Barbara Graham's fate. Suspense is heightened by a deadline-induced outcome that will either be black or white, all or nothing, but certainly not gray. In setting out to portray a woman wrongly accused of murder, the filmmakers have thus created an ending that is amazingly effective.

"I Want To Live" is a well made Hollywood production with riveting suspense. But keep in mind the film presents only the case for the defense, which may or may not be consistent with the truth.