The Postman Always Rings Twice

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 ****

The original book published in 1934 by James M. Cain (author of "Double Indemnity") was a gritty unsentimental story of a low-class drifter and bum, Frank, who is taken in by a German immigrant, Nick, who owns a roadside café and his beautiful wife, Cora, who turns out to be much darker on the inside than the facade of her pure white skin. Cora, we learn, is dissatisfied with her life married to this older immigrant and the drifter becomes her catalyst to change her situation. The movie adaption of twelve years later is a slightly sentimentalized version of Cain's noir classic. That said, the movie still holds its own as a noir tale of betrayal and murder, but doesn't quite have the edge of Billy Wilder's adaption of "Double Indemnity".

Still, the movie works very well under its own terms, particularly because of the outstanding chemistry between the leads John Garfield and Lana Turner. In fact, the star of the show is really Turner who turns in a tour-de-force performance. Turner continually shows us the many faces of her character Cora Smith who is sometimes weak and vulnerable and other times resolute and stubborn, even unsympathetic, and yet oozing with unrealized sexuality. We gather that Cora is no ordinary woman, or at least not the soft sentimental Doris Day type. More like a cross between Eva Peron and Madonna. Sometimes hard and mean and other times sweet and feminine, she is the complex epitome of the Cain femme fatale of this era. She remains enigmatic from beginning to end which is I think what Cain would have wanted. Garfield, in probably the role of his career, is equally superb, at first rejecting the murder scheme and then later embracing it. Although lacking the enigmatic complexity of Cora, Frank is equally ambiguous and ambivalent to his life choices, and Garfield well conveys the multi-sidedness of Frank.

The story concerns a young man looking for work, finds a roadside café up a few hours north of Los Angeles, probably up the 101 freeway, and becomes the hired help. He is employed by Nick, a simple German-stock older-than-middle-age man, who simply wants to make enough money to be comfortable and occasionally play his little guitar. His wife, Cora, is about 40 years younger and wants to make something of their café instead of just eking out a meager living. But fleeing with Nick and beginning from ground zero is not what she wants. She would like to have the café and make something of it. And when the hired help Frank falls for her, she realizes he is the perfect means to get both of them out of their hellish existence.

A fine example of 1940's film noir with many of the stylistic considerations, such as the camera panning from feet-to-face when we first meet the woman Cora, the many unexpected twists and turns, and of course the dark desires of the leads. Every series of scenes leaves you guessing as to what will happen next. A couple of scenes were contrived that were superfluous to the book. Unfortunately, the film suffers slightly because of the stringent ethics codes that started to be imposed on films of that time. Probably film noir offerings suffered more than most because of their probing the darker sides of human nature. However, Postman still ranks as classic film noir.

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?

A great black and white film from start to finish. The twists and turns keeps you engaged. Just when you thought you had the film figured out, it surprises you. Enjoyable and entertaining. They don't make movies like this anymore.

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!"