Background to Danger

I liked this film although there were certainly many better for the time. It is the usual war time movie without being too much like the rest.

How can you go wrong watching Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre together? Greenstreet is simply magnetic, and I was stunned to find out he debuted in films with Casablanca only a year before.

I kept thinking during the movie how much better it would have been with someone else besides Raft in the title role, he is pretty wooden. I am not sure where his performance ranks with his other roles. I hope they were better but doubt that they were. I don't watch many of them normally.

Brenda Marshall provides window dressing mostly and the ending smacks of a cheap knockoff attempt, but the rest wasn't too bad.

It's 1942. The main powers are trying to persuade neutral Turkey on their side. There is a bomb attempt on German ambassador Franz von Papen. It's actually a scheme by Nazi Colonel Robinson and it fails when the Russians show their airtight alibis. Now, he comes up with another scheme. Meanwhile on a train to Turkey, American businessman Joe Barton (George Raft) is taken with mysterious stranger Ana Remzi who pulls him into a world of espionage with Soviet spy Nikolai Zaleshoff (Peter Lorre) and his sister Tamara Zaleshoff (Brenda Marshall).

I love that I can't trust or distrust Peter Lorre at any time. The only thing that I can trust is that everybody has their own interest at heart. Lorre is the best part of this movie. He is stealing every scene he's in. There are evil Nazis. Raft is a functional everyman. The action could be better but it's par for the course in its time. The scheme is not nearly complicated enough. Quite frankly, fake news could be done in many ways. Overall, it's a solid wartime spy thriller.

It's now part of Hollywood lore how George Raft immeasurably aided the career of Humphrey Bogart by turning down High Sierra, The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. After the last one I guess Raft thought he'd go for a Casablanca type story and the film of Eric Ambler's Background to Danger seemed like a good bet. If working with Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre worked for Bogey...........

Background to Danger only confirmed Raft's wisdom about trying to stick to what he could handle. Had he been in Casablanca, the film today would be a routine action adventure picture not the cinema classic it is.

According to a biography of Raft, Peter Lorre was stealing scenes all over the place and blew cigarette smoke in Raft's face causing him to lose concentration. After repeated requests to stop doing it, Raft clocked Lorre on the chin and that settled the problems they had. On the set that is, on screen Raft registers no presence at all with his fabled co-stars.

Raft is an American agent, Greenstreet a Nazi, and Brenda Marshall and Lorre are a brother and sister team of Soviet agents all looking for a forged document about false Soviet invasion plans for Turkey. The action starts in Turkey's capital of Ankara and ends up in the city of Istanbul.

Background to Danger had to be the first American made film based in Ankara. Before the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire, Ankara barely passed for an oasis. Mustapha Kemal selected it for his capital because of its central location on the Anatolian peninsula. The city grew exponentially between the wars and Turkish neutrality in World War II kept up the growth rate though the Ankara we see here is depicted on the back lot of Warner Brothers studio.

All the neutral capitals in the World War II years were good subjects for espionage films. Everyone of them could have been described like Ankara as a city of a thousand plots. Too bad a better film couldn't have been done here.

Yes, it's definitely not a work of art. It doesn't spend much time on character development. However, it moves very fast, never staying in one place for too long. Some good action sequences and scenes on a fast moving train, hotel rooms, in a German headquarters, etc. make this a fun film. The acting is not at all bad despite what you may have read elsewhere. Of course, Sidney Greenstreet plays his usual pompous rearend character that seems to be his one and only characterization but, he pulls it off well, causing the audience to dislike him appropriately. Peter Lorre obviously had fun with his role and George Raft was much better than I expected. Turhan Bey did a great job and his character was very welcomed indeed. All in all, if the viewers don't expect this movie to be the second coming of Casablanca and just sit back and watch the action, they will be rewarded with approximately 80 minutes of a suspenseful and fun movie.

Background to Danger (1943)

On the uncertain fringes of the European War are countries like Morocco, Syria, and Turkey, where the intrigues of diplomats and expatriates can become complicated and colorful, several movies were made about WWII. One of those, obviously, is "Casablanca," released to full distribution in 1943. And in this one we have Peter Lorre (as a shadowy character of course), Sydney Greenstreet (as a Nazi leader), and Bogart-wannabe George Raft, who takes the leading role.

Unlike Casablanca, however, this one, set in Syria and Turkey, is filled with action, chasing, fear, and trickery. The shadows are not glamorous and romantic, but dangerous. It's a Warner crime film adapted to the war. Raft plays an American archetype a little like Bogart would have, independent and a little sassy, though he is always more eager to be liked, both by the other characters and the audience.

Director Raoul Walsh is one of the greats of early Hollywood (he even assisted Griffith on "Birth of a Nation"). He makes this story intense, fluid, dramatic, and physical in the best ways. In particular, the huge range of sets and scenes (almost entirely on the studio lot) is impressive and effective. The camera moves, the light is harsh when it isn't pure shadow, and music swells and twirls, and most of all the characters are always on the movie.

The kinetic essence of the whole enterprise is in keeping with the first scary years of the real war, and that's on every audience member's mind. Unlike "Casablanca," set in the days before Pearl Harbor (though filmed after), this movie was planned and shot as the U.S. was already sending troops to Europe. The message here is clearly anti-Nazi, and desperate. Lorre is duplicitous and fabulous in his large role. The leading woman, Brenda Marshall, is no Ingrid Bergman, nor quite an effective action figure.

"I'm American. America's at war," Raft's character says halfway through. And Lorre lays out for him some of the complications of the real war, and how Russia is an ally with complicated intentions. And in a slightly opportunistic way, the movie makes clear that Russia (which is rarely called the Soviet Union, its real name) is a friend. It becomes clearer and clearer as it goes, until the last line of the movie nails it down.

A great movie this is not, but it's actually really good, worth seeing, a thrilling ride even if you have to swallow the kind of facile way the plot is kept intact at times. You can almost watch it for ambiance alone, as cinematographer Tony Gaudio pulls out the stops in the same way (visually) he famously did for Wyler in "The Letter." What Raft lacks in intensity Lorre makes up for in brilliance. Give it a chance.