NOTE IMDb
6,6/10
4,6 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn attorney defends a young hoodlum charged with murdering a policeman using the oppressiveness of his client's upbringing in the slums to appeal to the sympathies of the jury.An attorney defends a young hoodlum charged with murdering a policeman using the oppressiveness of his client's upbringing in the slums to appeal to the sympathies of the jury.An attorney defends a young hoodlum charged with murdering a policeman using the oppressiveness of his client's upbringing in the slums to appeal to the sympathies of the jury.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires au total
Candy Toxton
- Adele Morton
- (as Susan Perry)
Florence Auer
- Aunt Lena
- (non crédité)
Vince Barnett
- Carl Swanson
- (non crédité)
Theda Barr
- Girl
- (non crédité)
Richard Bartell
- Reporter
- (non crédité)
Paul Baxley
- Policeman
- (non crédité)
Joan Baxter
- Maria Romano
- (non crédité)
Eddie Borden
- The Chef in Poolroom
- (non crédité)
- …
Hazel Boyne
- Woman
- (non crédité)
Joe Brockman
- Man
- (non crédité)
Argentina Brunetti
- Ma Romano
- (non crédité)
Charles Camp
- Waiter
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Humphey Bogart in his first movie for his own production company Santana. And introducing "pretty boy" John Derek. Bogart plays a sympathetic lawyer defending a juvenile delinquent(Derek)on trial for murder. Pretty average Film-Noir, but good enough to hold your interest. Courtroom scenes provide high drama and then comes the twist ending that really is not so surprising. Also in the cast are:George Macready, Allene Roberts and Mickey Knox. And then there is Dooley Wilson tickling the ivories.
Critics are correct: Knock on Any Door is flawed, perhaps badly flawed. However, it's also an interesting film from a number of standpoints, with several important compensations critics tend to overlook. I think it's worth examining some of each since the film does feature the legendary Bogart and perhaps the fastest rising young director of the time, Nicholas Ray. So why then are the results as mixed as I think they are. Here are a few conjectures.
A central weakness lies in the casting. Taking on the lawyer's role meant that Bogart's star power would require an expanded role for the attorney. That's unfortunate because the lawyer's part is both marginal to the plot and strictly one dimensional -- that of a "tough love" social reformer. Small wonder Bogart fans generally dislike the movie-- he gets a long emotional speech but no real chance at the darkly ambiguous character that was his specialty. The fact is that the part could have been filled by any number of lesser actors without loss to the movie as a whole
The real star part, of course, is John Derek's hard-luck Nick Romano. It's a complex role that would tax even the best young actor. Unfortunately, Derek lacks both the intensity and emotional depth central to the character's predicament. He's appropriately brash and arrogant, but lacks the the tragic dimension of sensitivity. It's too bad his career began with such a demanding role. The woeful tantrum scene at the lakeside cabin may be an extreme example, still it does illustrate the problem. The prospect of Brando doing the part is a fascinating one, but one that regrettably fell through.
Too bad also that the courtroom scenes are prolonged (probably to accommodate Bogart's starring role), since they amount to another key flaw. They're stagey, uninspired, and clash with the expressively noirish atmosphere of the slums. It's like two contrasting halves glued together in hopes that they will complement rather than clash. But conflict they do, because the slum scenes bring out the expressive artistry of director Ray, while the high-key lighting and prolonged dialog of the court resemble the boilerplate of the old Perry Mason show. I expect Ray did these scenes on auto-pilot..
And, of course, there's the final courtroom plea that should have been sent back for re- write. Critics are correct-- it's ham-handed to say the least. There have to be subtler, more effective methods of influencing the audience without hammering them in the process. The fact that the plea comes at movie's end leaves a bad last impression, which is why I believe so many of the positive elements tend to get over-looked.
But those positive elements are indeed present. Note the electrifying opening, of cops plowing wildly through crowds of seedy bystanders That's pure Nick Ray. The crowds even look fairly authentic by 40's standards. They're also atmospheric and colorful. Note some of the distinctive characters-- the shuffling cadaver named "Junior", or the slippery "Kid Fingers", or the black man acting in a rare uncaricatured fashion. Note also some of the subtler miscellaneous touches, such as the flame that flares up from the restaurant tray the moment Derek pledges to reform-- an ominous portent; or the ugly hot water tank that dominates the visuals of the young couple's cold-water flat where Emma finds a home but Nick only finds desolation.
There's also the film's central irony-- that the shrill, cruel-faced DA (George Mc Ready, with an enhanced scar) in fact wins the courtroom battle and Bogart loses. It passes by quickly, giving the DA no time to exult or the audience to react. But the fact is that attorney Morton (Bogart), who we've rooted for, has succumbed to systematic self-deception by seeing a version of his former self in the devious young Romano. This twist is jarring, because it abruptly overturns both movie convention and audience expectations.
Where the movie really works-- as one reviewer sagely points out-- is as a love story between Emma and Nick. That's not surprising since no one was better at bringing out the touching side of romantic love than Ray ("They Live by Night" {1947} or "Rebel Without a Cause" {1955}). He was especially effective with actresses. Here Allene Robert's Emma transforms poignantly from vulnerable neighborhood waif into glowing young wife. She's really the one who's tragically trapped by poverty and circumstance. (Note the poignantly cheap ribbons in her hair as she lovingly prepares a dinner for Nick that he will never eat.) Too bad that this, the most effective phase of the film, is too often overlooked.
Likely, the 90 minutes didn't help anyone's career, except maybe Roberts'. At least, Bogart and Ray were able to recover the following year with the artistically complete "In a Lonely Place" (1950), while Derek found a comfortable niche adorning a number of forgettable costume dramas.
Nonetheless, there's something haunting for me about this movie. Perhaps it's the spectacle of social conscience gone awry. More likely, it's the lingering image of Emma, alone in that ugly flat, the ribbons in her hair. Her modest little dreams now dashed beyond repair. I really wish the movie had succeeded.
A central weakness lies in the casting. Taking on the lawyer's role meant that Bogart's star power would require an expanded role for the attorney. That's unfortunate because the lawyer's part is both marginal to the plot and strictly one dimensional -- that of a "tough love" social reformer. Small wonder Bogart fans generally dislike the movie-- he gets a long emotional speech but no real chance at the darkly ambiguous character that was his specialty. The fact is that the part could have been filled by any number of lesser actors without loss to the movie as a whole
The real star part, of course, is John Derek's hard-luck Nick Romano. It's a complex role that would tax even the best young actor. Unfortunately, Derek lacks both the intensity and emotional depth central to the character's predicament. He's appropriately brash and arrogant, but lacks the the tragic dimension of sensitivity. It's too bad his career began with such a demanding role. The woeful tantrum scene at the lakeside cabin may be an extreme example, still it does illustrate the problem. The prospect of Brando doing the part is a fascinating one, but one that regrettably fell through.
Too bad also that the courtroom scenes are prolonged (probably to accommodate Bogart's starring role), since they amount to another key flaw. They're stagey, uninspired, and clash with the expressively noirish atmosphere of the slums. It's like two contrasting halves glued together in hopes that they will complement rather than clash. But conflict they do, because the slum scenes bring out the expressive artistry of director Ray, while the high-key lighting and prolonged dialog of the court resemble the boilerplate of the old Perry Mason show. I expect Ray did these scenes on auto-pilot..
And, of course, there's the final courtroom plea that should have been sent back for re- write. Critics are correct-- it's ham-handed to say the least. There have to be subtler, more effective methods of influencing the audience without hammering them in the process. The fact that the plea comes at movie's end leaves a bad last impression, which is why I believe so many of the positive elements tend to get over-looked.
But those positive elements are indeed present. Note the electrifying opening, of cops plowing wildly through crowds of seedy bystanders That's pure Nick Ray. The crowds even look fairly authentic by 40's standards. They're also atmospheric and colorful. Note some of the distinctive characters-- the shuffling cadaver named "Junior", or the slippery "Kid Fingers", or the black man acting in a rare uncaricatured fashion. Note also some of the subtler miscellaneous touches, such as the flame that flares up from the restaurant tray the moment Derek pledges to reform-- an ominous portent; or the ugly hot water tank that dominates the visuals of the young couple's cold-water flat where Emma finds a home but Nick only finds desolation.
There's also the film's central irony-- that the shrill, cruel-faced DA (George Mc Ready, with an enhanced scar) in fact wins the courtroom battle and Bogart loses. It passes by quickly, giving the DA no time to exult or the audience to react. But the fact is that attorney Morton (Bogart), who we've rooted for, has succumbed to systematic self-deception by seeing a version of his former self in the devious young Romano. This twist is jarring, because it abruptly overturns both movie convention and audience expectations.
Where the movie really works-- as one reviewer sagely points out-- is as a love story between Emma and Nick. That's not surprising since no one was better at bringing out the touching side of romantic love than Ray ("They Live by Night" {1947} or "Rebel Without a Cause" {1955}). He was especially effective with actresses. Here Allene Robert's Emma transforms poignantly from vulnerable neighborhood waif into glowing young wife. She's really the one who's tragically trapped by poverty and circumstance. (Note the poignantly cheap ribbons in her hair as she lovingly prepares a dinner for Nick that he will never eat.) Too bad that this, the most effective phase of the film, is too often overlooked.
Likely, the 90 minutes didn't help anyone's career, except maybe Roberts'. At least, Bogart and Ray were able to recover the following year with the artistically complete "In a Lonely Place" (1950), while Derek found a comfortable niche adorning a number of forgettable costume dramas.
Nonetheless, there's something haunting for me about this movie. Perhaps it's the spectacle of social conscience gone awry. More likely, it's the lingering image of Emma, alone in that ugly flat, the ribbons in her hair. Her modest little dreams now dashed beyond repair. I really wish the movie had succeeded.
Some have justly criticized this film for moralizing too much. However I still enjoyed it for the acting (Bogart of course and John Derek as well) and for the intelligent exploration of how much responsibility rests on the individual and how much on society. A note of interest is that Dewey Martin (Nicky's friend Butch) would later play Bogart's brother in The Desperate Hours. I also appreciated character actor Vince Barnett's (The Killers) portrayal as the less than reliable bartender. All in all, a flawed but nevertheless worthwhile film, 7/10.
Star-studded cast. Good acting throughout.
Pretty intense at times.
Solid camera work. Odd courtroom scenes.
Well worth seeing !
Humphrey Bogart has created an impressive resume in movies. Thus when trying to choose which film personifies his best, it's difficult to say. Some would offer it's the 'Petrified Forest', others would argue and suggest 'The African Queen', or 'The Maltese Falcon'. They are all Classics, still this movie " Knock on any Door " is the one I would select. The story is taken from the novel by Willard Motley and able directed by Nicholas Ray. Seen in Black and White it relates the story of Nick Romano, superbly played by handsome John Derek (the stone-cutter from The Ten Commandments). Growing up wild and undisciplined in the wet streets of a big city, he is arrested for a Capital crime and stands a good chance of imprisonment or death. However, the only obstacle to that bleak future is able defense attorney Andrew Morton, attorney at law. The courtroom drama is inter-fused with the life of the young Romano and Bogart is at his best with a incredible narrative which encompasses the film. The drama is excellent as is the acting, leaving little doubt the end result is one of Bogart's best. Easilly offered or recommended to any fan of Bogart or Derek as a Classic picture. ****
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen Humphrey Bogart was told that director Nicholas Ray wanted to film the entire 'sentencing statement for the defense' sequence in a single take, Bogart was concerned because he had never delivered such a long speech without cuts and feared he couldn't do it. Ray calmed Bogart down, suggested several rehearsals, and much to Bogart's surprise, Ray rolled during the rehearsals filming most of what has become the famous and well-played sentencing sequence.
- GaffesThe court artist is seen several times drawing various characters as photography is banned in courts then all of a sudden about half a dozen press photographers appear from nowhere and take several close range flash photographs of one of the witnesses in the witness box.
- Citations
Nick Romano: Live fast, die young, and have a good-looking corpse.
- Crédits fous"And introducing John Derek as Nick Romano"
- ConnexionsFeatured in Great Performances: Bacall on Bogart (1988)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Knock on Any Door?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Llamad a cualquier puerta
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 900 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée1 heure 40 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Les ruelles du malheur (1949) officially released in India in English?
Répondre