The Postman Always Rings Twice

The good atmosphere and Lana Turner's memorable role make this a film-noir classic worth seeing. The story starts out to be relatively simple, allowing the cast and the atmosphere to carry it, and then heads through a series of twists and turns, picking up the pace as it goes along.

John Garfield and the supporting cast are solid, but it is Turner who really stands out and grabs the attention anytime she is on-screen. It's nothing against Garfield to say that in comparison he is almost just along for the ride, yet he does a creditable job and makes his character believable. The supporting cast helps out as well, with Cecil Kellaway on-target as Turner's oblivious husband, and Hume Cronyn likewise in good form as a conscience-free lawyer.

The story pulls you in slowly, and then has some good turns as it picks up steam towards the middle. There may be a couple of too-convenient plot developments, but otherwise it is well-written.

This classic version is quite a bit better than the early 1980s remake, which required little imagination to make or to watch. Turner's character and performance, in particular (aided by good camera work), demonstrate that the suggestive can be quite a bit more effective and memorable than the explicit.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" has just about everything you could ask for in a film-noir. It's probably just a cut below the best of the genre, and still one of the movies that most fans of film-noir would not want to miss.

Funny, the comment there about the title - it's the strangest part of the adaptation because at least it IS mentioned in the film, but nowhere in the book. It's an absolute mystery to me how this title made it through intact when great titles like "Farewell My Lovely" were dumbed down to "Murder My Sweet" for the sake of Hollywood audiences. James M. Cain originally submitted the story to Alfred Knopf with the title "BBQ" (which makes sense in context) and was asked to change it; he considered "Black Puma" and "The Devil's Checkbook" before settling on the mystifying title by which the novel and both adaptations are well known.

Anyway, I like the film and think it's a great straight adaptation of the book, though the dialogue in the beginning seems a bit hurried (for the sake of the quick establishment of character and story) - the book does a better job of painting the hobo/gypsy lifestyle Frank embraces, and I think it's pretty central to the eventual conflict between him and Cora, so it's a shame it wasn't better depicted in the film.

Lana Turner is good, but probably just a bit mis-cast - she's a little too "glamorous" for Cora, which is also established immediately in the famous opening shot of her legs and lipstick (in contrast to the book, where she was introduced in an apron, working hard for the business like she always says she wants to.)

One note for femme-fatale buffs: Cora and Nick in the film are surnamed "Smith," which in the book was Cora's maiden name. (Nick in the book was Greek - "Papadakis") Is this a statement on marriage in general, or perhaps a desire to eliminate the racial implications in what happens? Seems unlikely; it is what it is, for smarter people than me to unravel.

"So long mister, thanks for the ride!"

Someone previously questioned the meaning of the title. In my view, it refers to the double twist imposed on the story's ending by the author--especially once the legal wrangling between opposing lawyers (near the conclusion) is exposed. Then, finally, after winning a victory of sorts, the unexpected happens--thus, the irony of the title. Anyway, this is as good as it gets--you won't find a better version of this story than this 1946 film. I'm always amused to read that someone on these posts "never looks at black-and-white films", a total putdown of all the great classics that came before color was even possible. How dumb can you get? For fans of complex, hard-bitten murder yarns with gritty background and suspense that tightens slowly like a knot, this is for you. Watch as the two leads get more and more entangled in their own web of deception and lies. Turner established herself as a strong actress who could play a role to the hilt when she identified with it. Garfield, of course, was always at his best in tough guy roles. Watch for my article on Lana Turner in an upcoming issue of FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE--much of the inspiration for it came from this particular film noir.

Lana Turner and John Garfield are great in this classic tale of deception and murder and its hard to imagine that another actress, save Barbara Stanwyck or Joan Crawford, could have played the role of the wayward wife as well as did Turner. Cecil Kellaway has a thankless role and it's hard to believe that he was as clueless as he was about the fires burning around him as Turner and Garfield carry on their affair. Kellaway seems more preoccupied with pinching pennies than noticing how his young, attractive wife is bursting with sexual energy. Turner is as beautiful as ever but she and Kellaway don't make a credible married couple. Hume Cronyn is good as the smug attorney but the courtroom drama is a bit of a letdown. Garfield brings a restless energy to his role and matches Turner's smoldering sexuality.

Hard-bitten drifter comes upon a diner run by a friendly, middle-aged coot and his glamorous, sinister-eyed spouse; soon, the dangerous femme fatale is conspiring with the handsome stranger to bump off her husband. Glossy but still potent film noir was--due to the times--a softened variation on James M. Cain's bestseller, yet is helped by the exciting star-performances from John Garfield and Lana Turner. Occasionally overwrought, but tightly-wound, absorbing and enjoyable. Remade in 1981 as an R-rated noir featuring Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange in the leads, and who proved to be a surprisingly dull screen duo. Stick with the taut original. *** from ****