Three Strangers

Why is Three Strangers, a 1946 movie, set in the London in 1938? There's nothing in the story that links it to a particular time. But in 1938, Britain had yet to be drawn into the long and arduous war to come, when gallantry and self-sacrifice were the orders of the day. The characters in Three Strangers are mirthlessly ungallant and single-mindedly self-absorbed; relegating them to the fool's paradise of the year before all hell broke loose was a diplomatic courtesy.

But a movie centered around three unappealing characters presents another, more immediate problem: The problems they bring on themselves do not compel much sympathy. The movie opens before midnight as the Chinese New Year is about to strike. Geraldine Fitzgerald has been trolling the streets to bring two strangers (Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre) back to her flat. Her quest is not sexual but ritualistic: The Chinese goddess of fortune, a statue of whom graces her drawing room, requires the gathering of three persons unknown to one another before she will grant her annual wish. When all the conditions and codicils have been duly haggled over, the three agree to wish for a winning sweepstakes ticket.

Then they part ways to return to their separate hells. The grasping, manipulative Fitzgerald has driven away her husband, who returns from Canada with a young woman he wants to marry. The avaricious Greenstreet, a solicitor, has been plundering his clients' accounts to speculate in stocks. The alcoholic Lorre (by default the least offensive of the trio) finds himself on death row for a policeman's murder committed by one of his low-life friends who framed him. Their individual stories unfold and, in ironies reminiscent of de Maupassant or O. Henry, ultimately reconverge. As expected, Jean Negulesco directs handsomely but can't overcome the emotional vacuum in John Huston's script: The fates of these three strangers leave us cold.

One of the most unusual facets of the movie that struck me was the gowns/dresses designed for the lead actress--they stood out in this black and white movie making a not-so-tall Geraldine Fitzgerald look tall and elegant. Very few films have costume designs that out-do the performances--this film is one that achieves this unusual distinction.

Equally unusual was the written prologue for the film on the statue. It wreaked of populist myths of the Orient and then ended with the statement that the film's location was London. One expected British mannerisms and accents and its distinctive transport--but the only reasons for the choice of the locations seemed to be the legal system, the law on Trusts, the pubs, the mention of Canada being far away, the South African mines, and the solicitor's office. The rest was distinctly American. Curious stuff.

The film was equally curious for another factor: two women Icey and Janet look disturbingly similar, two men look considerably alike Mr Shackleford and Mr Fallon, save for their difference in height. Was there some reason for this or was this a coincidence.

Apart from these details, the film provided much of the fare that "The Maltese Falcon" made cinema history--John Huston's screenplay and the enigmatic performances of Greenstreet and Lorre. Greenstreet did not have the brilliant lines of "Falcon" to aid him but his chortling performance is nevertheless fascinating. Lorre on the other hand provides the best performance because the grey cocktail of good and bad touches the viewer. Similarly the lead character of Fitzgerald leaves the viewer wondering whether the character deserves our sympathy or not.

At the end, the viewer is forced to see ourselves in the mirror--we are but pawns of a mightier force, and none of us is either a villain or a saint. The film quite unwittingly makes the viewer think about life. That is probably why this film ought to rate better than "The Maltese Falcon" which no doubt has more catchy dialogues but less substance.

Alfred Hitchcock was interested in directing this, and I can see why. Because it plays out like three intertwined episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

Crystal Shackleford (Geraldine Fitzgerald) lures two strangers, solicitor Jerome K. Arbutny (Sydney Greenstreet) and drunkard Johnny West (Peter Lorre) to her London home on Chinese New Year in 1938 because of her belief that if three strangers make the same wish to an idol of Kwan Yin, Chinese goddess of fortune and destiny, the wish will be granted.

They must not know each other's names until after the wish is made, and she has thought this out and believes that the only common wish they could make is for money. So they wish for a sweepstakes ticket to come in, and they all sign their names to it. Crystal says that part of the bargain is that if the ticket wins they will bet it all on the ensuing horserace. Well of course they agree to this, because they don't really think anything will come of it anyways. So they go their own way having thought this episode nothing more than somewhat amusing.

Johnny is mixed up in a robbery that turned to murder even though he was just the look-out and drunk and did not really know what was going on.

Arbutny has embezzled money from a client's estate and the investment goes south, with him having insufficient funds to avoid disgrace and jail.

Crystal wants her husband back, but he is in love with somebody else and is adamant about wanting a divorce. She seems obsessed with winning more than she is in love.

Now I can see how Arbutny's problem would be solved by money. But as for Johnny and Crystal - no amount of money could get them what they want. And it's a strange film where Peter Lorre plays the most well adjusted character, somewhat resigned to whatever fate he gets as destiny.

Then the paths of these three people converge again and the whole thing ends quite ironically. If you are looking for Greenstreet and Lorre together, they really are not for the vast majority of the film, but it still plays to their strengths and I'd recommend it.

A woman entices two strangers to her home to fulfill an unusual Chinese prophecy, granting a wish... in this case, a horse race ticket that they hope to be a winner. With a screenplay by John Huston and appearances by Lorre and Greenstreet, and a figurine as a major plot device, you might expect a MALTESE FALCON retread. But this is a very different story. I hesitate to call it noir, although it does have some of the visual stylization and explores some of man's darker impulses. But it's really more of a triptych character study. The three represent different moral stances: Fitzgerald is conniving and ruthless, Greenstreet does something wrong but at least has enough decency to be conflicted about it, and Lorre is simply a carefree drunk who trusts the wrong people. I didn't count the minutes, but it felt like Lorre got the most screen time, and deservedly so. I don't know if I've ever seen a better performance from him, certainly not a more likable one. He's a charming character with a thoughtful outlook on life. His story also has the benefit of wonderful turns by Peter Whitney and especially Joan Lorring, a very appealing actress I've never seen before, but I'm delighted to see appears in a few more noirs I intended to see. Greenstreet's and Fitzgerald's plot threads are interesting as well, and the way all they come together and resolve at the end is satisfying. It's a quirky film with a very good script, quite fulfilling.

"Three Strangers" has long been a favorite film of mine, with its fascinating reference to the statue of the goddess Kwan Yin, who, in Chinese legend, opens her eyes and grants a wish to three strangers on the Chinese New Year. Geraldine Fitzgerald, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre are the above-mentioned strangers, each with an agenda that can be easily pursued by money. So the wish is that their sweepstakes ticket win, and the agreement is that it then be entered into the horse race that follows.

Geraldine Fitzgerald's character seems sympathetic, but she reveals herself as quite obsessive and delusional as the film progresses. Greenstreet plays a crooked solicitor, and Lorre portrays a small time criminal - he's the most sympathetic character and, to my mind, gives the most memorable performance.

The film asks the question - did the meeting of the three strangers change their lives, or did events proceed as they would have? This is an unusual, absorbing, and entertaining film. I highly recommend it.