L'ange de la haine

I got this film from one of those public domain mega-packs on DVD. While this is not a bad film, I can see why the film makers didn't bother renewing the copyright--it just wasn't all that interesting. Most of the problem seems to be with the writing. The plot seems to bounce all over the place and where the film began seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with where it ended. Had all the dull moments and irrelevant plots been eliminated or polished, I really would have enjoyed the film a lot more than I did.

Franchot Tone plays a prosecutor with the DA's office who is initially looks into the case of a White supremacist who might have been murdered. Whether or not this is the case is uncertain, but when Tone's newspaper friend is killed when he tries investigating (again, it was made to look like a suicide), he knows that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. However, instead of trying to bash heads and get to the bottom of it, he infiltrates an organization that might be behind all this--as well as buying and selling public officials.

As I said, the writing was pretty poor. However, for film nuts like myself, it's still worth seeing for all the strange and unexpected cameos, such as Henry Fonda and John Garfield (among others). Not a good movie but it has enough to it that it isn't a total waste of time seeing it--not exactly a glowing review, huh?!

Film noir fans seem to be ready to watch just about anything that their favorite genre provides, very much including minor efforts of which few have heard. This particular one has been available from various public domain sources for years, but it will probably prove to be a tedious disappointment.

Franchot Tone plays a district attorney who begins an investigation into the suicide (?), which the audience knows from the opening scene is a murder, of a press printer for a hate group. Soon the D.A.'s reporter/buddy on the same case is also murdered.

This murky, confused, badly edited film's narrative is a challenge for anyone to follow. That's not particularly uncommon for film noirs, of course, but the film (especially with the various PD prints) also lacks any distinctive visual interest or directorial style, making for a pretty dull going that, for this viewer, at least, couldn't end soon enough. Prints of the film may vary. The one I saw was 74 minutes.

The most curious aspect of this low budget production are the various three to five second cameos made by a number of "A" list stars. There's Burgess Meredith as a bartender, Henry Fonda as a waiter, John Garfield as a newspaper reading street guy and Marlene Dietrich as a patron leaving a nightclub, that nightclub appropriately called "The Blue Angel." I also spotted Marsha Hunt and Everett Sloane.

Exactly why these stars briefly appear I'm not quite certain, though in the case of Garfield it was as a favor for pal Franchot Tone. It was probably much the same kind of thing with the others.

If you're a hardcore noir fan (there is one murder sequence done at a low camera angle that perks the interest a little), there are various prints of dubious quality available of this one on You Tube.

... There has to be a limit. This movie is pretty much a mess. It doesn't feel like New York City, of which I am a native and almost-lifetime resident. It has too many plots going at once. They add up but only with force on the part of the writers.

It starts out as a sort of Northern "Storm Warning." (Now, there we have a superb, underrated movie!) I guess the racist posters that set off the plot are symbolic of the beginning of the McCarthy witch-hunts. If they aren't, they don't make any sense: OK, granted: According to my parents Manhattan at that time was not always friendly to people other than Caucasians. But were there actually plots and mobs? I can't believe it.

The casting gives it some noir cred. I'm not talking about the brief cameos by big stars. Nor,really, about Franchot Tone. He is OK but he isn't exactly a noir staple and he's maybe a bit old for the role.

But we have Jean Wallace. We have Marc Lawrence.

For me, the single best feature of the film is the presence in a fairly small but significant role of an actress I had never before tonight heard of: Winifred Lenihan.

I see that she was the first person to play the title role in Shaw's "St. Joan" on Broadway. She is in very different territory here. But whoever cast her did so with genius: She is absolutely perfect.

Also, I wonder about the character played by Hedley Rainnie. He's ambiguous in many ways. He wears a beard and maybe that's meant to signify his foreign origins. I wonder, though: Is he intended to be gay? The way the character is portrayed reminds me of the intentionally creepy go-between for the Senator and his ex lover in the better known and overrated "Advise and Consent" almost a decade later.

It isn't a good movie, in sum. And the print I saw was really bad. But watch it for Ms. Lenihan. In a very quiet way, she's brilliant!

This picture tries hard to recommend itself and tries hard to be a good Noir. It really does. And I tried hard to like it and recommend it and give it a good rating. Honest. But it won't let you. The plot is too muddled and the Director is not good enough to put it over.

Granted, he had some good actors in Franchot Tone and Myron McCormick. He also had a love interest who was a knockout in Jean Wallace, but she was a chore as an actress - in a climactic scene she flops badly - but what a knockout, to borrow a '40's phrase.

Well, that's about it. Confusing plot and a tepid, preachy story. I stuck with it because it was pouring outside. I gave it a rating of 5, but I gave Jean Wallace a 10...aesthetically speaking.

This little, low-budget noir mystery is marred by crude direction, cutting, and editing, reminiscent of and no more polished than most live television productions of the same period, and hampered by a heavy handed political script that leaves huge gaps in plot logic.

Its chief interest is as a rare curiosity. Its paranoid politics and style mirror the anti-Communist films of the period, but it was made by a group of primarily liberal and leftist New Yorkers (exemplified by the famous actors who contributed cameo appearances), who turned the usual premise on its head. Franchot Tone plays a liberal crusading "special prosecutor" who investigates a shadowy secret organization that is menacing and killing its own members, whom they think may expose them. But this organization isn't Communist or leftist; rather it's a vaguely racist group that is really just a financial scam, run only to collect membership dues and gather other profits. As a result, even the political statement turns out to be rather weak compared with films of the period that explicitly opposed discrimination, such as "Pinky," "Gentlemen's Agreement," "Crossfire," "Lost Boundaries," "No Way Out," and so on.