The Sin of Nora Moran

This film is a great surprise. Apart from being thematically unusual (murder, suicide, corruption, capital punishment, rape, etc) it is visually astonishing and years ahead of its time, anticipating lots of stuff from 40's film noir to art-house European cinema (Bergman's Wild Strawberries for instance).

The film uses the `narratage' technique first used the same year by Preston Sturges in `The Power and the Glory' (also a very interesting film, directed by William K. Howard and a clear precedent of `Citizen Kane') which consists of voice-over narration and flashbacks and flashforwards, but if takes it much further with a very complex structure that includes flashbacks within flashbacks, dreams, hallucinations, flashforwards and characters appearing in scenes where they were not originally present and commenting the action with the main character.

The film is also extraordinarily shot with quasi expressionistic photography, lots of tracking shots, montages and very imaginative use of stock footage. To make all this even more admirable the film was produced on a very low B budget and it runs only 65 minutes.

The story really intrigued me on paper, and structurally 'The Sin of Nora Moran' fascinated just as much. Non-linear narratives are not for all but to me this structure has been done very well many times on film. Others have mentioned being drawn into seeing the film from its poster, and no wonder. It is definitely one eye-catching poster that has a real allure that is difficult to resist. So there were no real reservations before seeing 'The Sin of Nora Moran'.

While hopes were extremely high, there was admittedly a little doubt as to whether 'The Sin of Nora Moran' would work well. Having seen my fair share of films etc that had great potential but either doesn't fully live up to it or completely wastes it. Luckily 'The Sin of Nora Moran' did live up to expectations, if not exceeded them, and didn't waste its potential at all. Is it a masterpiece? No. Does it deserve to be seen more and is it a good film? To me, yes on both counts.

A lot works here. One of the most striking aspects of 'The Sin of Nora Moran' is the cinematography, not many pre-code films made this early on in the history of sound pictures had photography this realistic-looking. Stylish and atmospheric absolutely many times, like here, but the camera techniques and the atmosphere created with them was so vivid it was like watching a semi-documentary. The film is very skillfully directed, going at a tight pace while allowing some breathing room, and the scoring and use of sound is not intrusive or over-the-top in my view. Zita Johann gives a very powerful and heartfelt lead performance that makes one care about Nora without making her too obvious.

Rest of the cast do very well too if not quite up to Johann's level with their characters not being as interesting. Alan Dineheart comes off best as the second most interesting character and with some of the film's best lines. In a script that is very thought-provoking with some tense and poignant parts. The film may not look lavish outside of the cinematography, but in my view it does not look cheap and has a suitable amount of grit that suits the bold subject matter well. As well as the cinematography, the other interesting aspect of 'The Sin of Nora Moran' is the structure of the story. A relatively unconventional one at the time, not unheard of but not seen a lot, and an interesting one, not many films at the time had a flashback within a flashback for instance. Also appreciated its boldness, with some ahead of the time themes to address on film and none are sugar-coated. Did find myself caring for Nora and her plight.

Having said all of that, some of the constant back and forth in the first half can feel a little confusing (wouldn't go as far to say that it's illogical though personally) and like one is not quite keeping up always.

Some of it is admittedly melodramatic and schmaltzy early on.

In summary, very good and interesting on the whole. 8/10

MAJESTIC PICTURES in their short Hollywood production life 1930-35 made excellent small films using sets at other studios. This meant they could use those facilities and instead spend big on actors and crew. Without studio overheads their input concentrated on finding and using excellent A grade sets and costumes and facilities without owning them. As a result their films had an RKO or MGM look. Actors would be called to make a film at RKO and find it a Majestic title ensuring constant work on a big lot but maybe for a minor player. This allowed Majestic to get A tech and image at a bargain rate and not embarrass their desired actors. However in this film they even excelled themselves and most Hollywood majors studio style in creating a unique melancholy almost- noir nightmare of doomed love and honor... and all the emotional treachery that goes with it. Somewhere between SORRY WRONG NUMBER and DETOUR and overlapping time shift of PULP FICTION, this film THE SIN OF NORA MORAN uses those techniques and techniques of voice over, flashback and sad romance with equal parts hangman's noose, resigned fate and deceit. What a find! THE SIN OF NORA MORAN is a film school textbook of economic film making and could easily stand an upgraded remake today. Excellent! Treat yourself!. Good restored UCLA DVD too. Zita Johan in the lead part as Nora is simply exquisite and her melancholy tone throughout is most effective. Her sin? Being born.

I like (many) pre-code movies, simply because you never know what might happen. Quite a contrast to the formulaic stuff that was produced after 1935 (approx.) and, for those who think the 'Hayes' code is dead, the assembly-line production of rom-coms since 1990 rigidly stick to the same drivel: about 20 minutes from the end, a disagreement causes the intended couple to split, but miraculously re-unite by the final curtain. Nauseating.

Sins of Norah Moran is a bit melodramatic in places, esp. in the early going, but Majestic Studios (one of the so-called 'Poverty Row' film-makers, who rented space and equipment from the mainstream guys to keep costs down) weaved a melancholy tale here of a sad-sack orphan who grows up only to have the 'system' beat her down. She stands accused of murdering a former co-worker at the circus (he sexually assaulted her - a modern screenplay might have her nominated for Congress), and facing a death sentence. Her recent 'governor' boyfriend probably did it, but will Nora blow the whistle? I was struck by how the 'governor', a married man, cavorts so openly with this pretty young girl - were the 'Press' so under control during this era or was there just so much of this 'running-around' going on that the gov could hide in plain sight?

In time, he sees her at a 'kept' home every Friday & Monday - it kind of blows up when his wife finds a stack of unsigned love letters. The script makes no effort to condemn Nora or the Governor for their dallying, but, of course, it's poor Nora who will face severe consequences when the villain is suitably dispatched. Dang it-where's Perry Mason when you need him?

But that's pre-code: anything can happen. That's what makes it so interesting. Great camera work & use of flashbacks & voice-overs. Experimental. Unorthodox. Compelling. Kudos to TCM for reviving interest in this era. 8/10

Two viewings, the first on 9/3/2018 at the suggestion of YouTube. The initial experience was such that I revisited the film on the tenth. "The Sin of Nora Moran" is one of those not-quite-of-its time (or place) movies, with its use of layered flashbacks, contrasting first person narratives, and use of fantasy. In a little over an hour the movie delivers the narrative fullness expected from a much longer work. The contrasting stories, told in Rashomon-like fashion, deepen the reality of a paradoxically realistic (melo-)drama. A major artistic work, with techniques to be seen in "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Wild Strawberries" (1957) and even "Zentropa" (1991 - e.g., the two-scene featuring what appears to be a projected head of the heroine conversing with her governor-paramour). Apparently the film fared poorly with audiences at the time of its release. While its reputation has grown over the years, I must confess I had never heard of it before YouTube suggested it, and I'll guess that it remains unjustly obscure. If the film were from Europe it would probably be better regarded today, perhaps belonging on a double bill with Joe May's "Asphalt" (1929). This was one of many important cinematic discoveries I've made in the last few years on YouTube. I may see this again.