Phantom Lady

Phantom Lady is quintessential Film Noir and a must-see for anyone who appreciates the genre. The film is not, nor does it aspire to be, a whodunit with an airtight plot, or a mystery-thriller that ends with an inconceivable twist as in the original novel. If that is what you want or expect, this is probably not your cup of tea. Although many great films considered part of the noir genre may include some of these elements, that's not what film noir is all about.

Film Noir is almost synonymous with Cornell Woolrich (William Irish), the author of the novel Phantom Lady. His novels and short stories are the source of an amazing number of screenplays and teleplays, including several noir and non-noir classics such as Hitchcock's Rear Window.

As a writer and persona, Woolrich was a uniquely noirish sort of guy. In fact, he wrote a series of six "Black" novels, all have been adapted to the screen or TV at least once, and some multiple times. Obviously, noir means black, and these black novels inspire great noir films.

Many Woolrich stories, Phantom Lady is one, revolve around impossible crimes. As sinister forces close in, his protagonists are powerless do anything but follow some diabolical labyrinth that defies understanding. No wonder his work is a perfect fit for film noir, which takes place in its own dark universe, where characters struggle against powerful and malevolent forces. Unfortunately, the nightmare scenarios created by Woolrich, enhanced by his own inimitable style of description, often seem to get lost in translation when brought to the silver screen. Although most of the films are very good, these adaptations tend to be very different from their literary source.

Not so with Phantom Lady – up to a point. Although details may vary, director Robert Siodmak cleverly and adroitly uses dazzling Expressionist visuals and quirky character performances to emulate the dreamlike quality of a Woolrich story. A good example is the incredible scene where Elisha Cook Jr. drums up the sexual overtones for Ella Raines.

Since our psychotic mastermind is revealed early on, there is no who-done-it mystery to distract the audience. The revelation allows a brilliant means of reworking the story into a tight and infinitely more interesting screenplay. Woolrich's original story follows a different approach, not confirming the killer until the end. Obviously, some treatments work better as a novel than a movie.

Often over-shadowed in the movies which he appears, this time Franchot Tone fits so perfectly into the role of Jack Marlow that we are captivated by his machinations, wondering where it will all end. All of the other characters are great and true to form as well. Raines is exceptionally strong in her portrayal of the somewhat naive love-struck secretary who won't give up.

True to a Woolrich novel, the genius of the film is in the telling of the story; more important than structure or even the ending. Although the outcome is the same, the ending is much different in the novel. Also, after the killer is revealed in the original story, there are 16 long pages, explaining every detail of every plot twist. Unfortunately, this approach is anticlimactic, and would never work as a film. Nevertheless, Siodmak is able to present a more convincing story with almost no explanation.

Any screen adaptation of a Woolrich story is always in jeopardy of being swallowed up by massive plot holes. After all, part of the charm of a Cornell Woolrich story is that you never really know if you dealing with reality, or trapped in a drug and alcohol induced nightmare.

In Phantom Lady, a character reveals, "… I'd been blazing a reefer already before it happened, and you know what that does to you." Woolrich certainly did know, and much of his literature is obviously inspired by mind-bending experiences. If a screenwriter and director can artfully breach the massive plot chasms of an original Woolrich story, yet still preserve the beauty as in Phantom Lady, the film becomes a feast for any Film Noir fanatic.

So how did the producers get that orgasmic release scene past the censors. Sure, Carol (Raines) and Cliff (Cook) are about ten feet apart as he pounds on the drums while she sways back and forth in total sync, their faces contorted in frenzied delight. There's no guesswork here. It's as close to the real thing as the decade gets, and a masterpiece of simulated ecstasy. I wonder what the set was like while filming this.

The movie's a tight little thriller, helmed by noir master Robert Siodmak. So who is it that's framing architect Henderson (Curtis) for his wife's murder. By golly, the lovelorn Carol is going to find out even if it leads her down every dark, scary street on the studio lot. And once she dons her cheap hep-cat outfit, that's just where she's headed. But it's that frenzied jazz scene with Cliff that steals the show. Everything after seems something of an anti-climax. However, be sure to catch that beautifully modulated scene where Carol plies the emotionally disturbed Ann (Helm) for access to the incriminating ladies' hat. It's poignantly done, especially by actress Helm.

No doubt, this is one of the noir highpoints of the period, with dark symbolism and atmospheric shadows aplenty. Also, Raines gives a winning performance as the unstoppable Carol, while Tone wisely refuses to go over the top as the psychopath. On the other hand, it's a good thing we don't see much of Curtis in both a badly written and dimly performed part. I'm guessing Siodmak cared little how that particularly conventional role came across. Anyway, for fans of 40's noir, this Universal programmer remains a must-see.

Seldom have my expectations been as often derailed as in The Phantom Lady. The plot--while a bit farfetched--is never boring or predictable. Although it's a smaller film than say, The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep, it is immensely satisfying.

Ella Raines is the real stand-out here. Not only is she great to look at (think half-way between Veronica Lake and Lauren Bacall) she also acts circles 'round the two leading men. Luminous, expressive yet subtle, she is perhaps a better actress than those two icons, if slightly less perfect-looking than Lake and a bit less magnetic than Bacall.

Thomas Gomez turns in a surprisingly complex and interesting performance, but don't expect too much from Franchot Tone. Although his acting abilities need no defense, he didn't do much with this role.

Sure, there are plot holes, a couple of contrived turns, and at least two ridiculous performances (Elisha Cook and Aurora Miranda) but all B Noir has its faults, and this one wins by dint of its unpredictability and pacing, and some great cinematography. Oh--and miss Raines.

I found this film noir to be odd in that the beginning and the end were both lousy but the middle part was excellent. The "lousy" parts are such because they drag on and are simply boring when they don't have to be. The immediate opening scenes are fine, showing an innocent man, "Scott Henderson" (Alan Curtis) being charged and found guilty of a murder he didn't commit....but then almost nothing happens for the next 20 minutes.

Then comes the good part when Henderson's secretary "Carol 'Kansas' Richmond" (Ella Raines) gets involved, taking it upon herself to find the missing woman who could prove that her boss was innocent. During her pursuit we meet a couple of very interesting characters and we see some outstanding film-noir photography.

The most interesting character, "Cliff," was played by film noir regular Elisha Cook Jr. He has one scene in which he takes Raines to a local warehouse-type room where his jazz band is practicing. Cook then shows off with this drum playing and it is so frenetic, so bizarre that it is almost shocking to watch. You have to see it, to appreciate it. It's a small, insignificant scene but very memorable. A few other minor characters are a bit strange, too.

Thomas Gomez plays a cop ("Inspector Burgess") who winds up helping Raines a bit, and he's good to watch, too.In the end, Raines discovers what's up and is in peril herself. That scene has suspense but is too drawn out. It's like, "okay, already.....let's go on with it!"

I'll admit that I like a certain degree of plausibility in films. Thus, it was hard for me to totally embrace this movie after watching the scene in which the husband (Alan Curtis) comes home to his darkened apartment and calls out for his wife, wondering where she is,unaware that detectives were there waiting for him. It was obvious that Curtis expected the wife to be home, not to mention alive, yet the detectives never took this into consideration. If you strangled your spouse, would you return home later and call out for her? Besides, who could have tipped off the detectives that a murder had occurred? OK, if you get by these sore spots, you'll find a well-made film noir that is worth watching.