The Postman Always Rings Twice

Drifter Frank Chambers applies for a job at a road side café belonging to Nick Smith, only to fall under the spell of Nick's wife Cora. He falls into desire which leads to deceit and eventually murder. Too late he falls in love but by then things have gone too far. He tells his story to us with the hindsight of a condemned man.

A classic bit of noir light. Based on Cain's sexual novel this underplays the explicit references but turns the subtle stuff way up - the film opens with a `Man Wanted' sign, while Cora is so well played that there's no doubt what she's offering. Without the explicit sex of the remake this story is a lot freer to be interesting rather than explicit. The court case and the mistrust between the lovers is as good as the early desire giving rise to murder.

Lana Turner is excellent as the femme fatale, she is smouldering and very, very desirable. Garfield is also excellent as the man trapped in her web. The two are the very center of the film and are both superb. If the film has any weakness then it may be that modern audiences need more than very subtle stuff, but that's probably our problem rather than the film's.

Overall this is very enjoyable, it has a great sense of mood and builds well to the inevitable conclusion.

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 ****

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.

It is wrong to compare this film with Visconti's masterpiece three years earlier, although they are both made on the same story. They are two totally different films. They start on an equal basis, but while Visconti concentrates on sticking to hard core realism and staying firmly on the ground with basics all the way, this film soon grows more romantic as a real noir feature and then turns into extensive complications of court procedures with two lawyers involved, one smarter than the other and both with agenda of their own. It is impossible to say which one is better, I haven't read book, but I presume both films follow the book rather accurately although they diverge into their own elaborations of the case. It's a great film with great actors and great music, the cinematography is superb, there can be no complaints, but the question is who makes the better performance, Lana Turner or John Garfield. They are both at their best, while my favorite actually is Cecil Kellaway as the adorable old fool Nick. Who could ever have the heart to kill such a nice and totally amiable guy?

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.