Les ruelles du malheur

Knock on Any Door was Humphrey Bogart's first film after leaving Warner Brothers. He and his Santana productions did a few for Columbia at that time.

It's a throwback film to the Thirties, a time it was seen that all cures to society's ills was a better social program. That's the message that attorney Bogart was driving home to the jury, that for a few better breaks his client John Derek would be a solid citizen.

Actually during the course of the film, what we see of John Derek's life showed he had some opportunities and blew them. It also did show that the family had some rotten luck. A mixed message to say the least.

The film shows Bogart as an attorney and his involvement over the years with young John Derek who was making his screen debut. Derek has been arrested for killing a policeman after a bar stickup and he turns to Bogart for help. The first part of the film is Bogart's opening remarks to the jury at the murder trial and we see in flashback, Derek's life and how it intertwined with Bogart's.

The second half was the trial itself and the aftermath. George MacReady as the District Attorney probably gave the best performance in the movie. Another reviewer described MacReady as evil. Granted he usually is in his roles, but here he's just one very effective prosecutor.

Yet Knock On Any Door, confused as it is, does still raise some relevant questions. The scenes in the reform school are still being shown today and had their not been Code restrictions might have been more graphic. I only have to cite the movie Sleepers from a few years back.

Bogart fans will like it and John Derek certainly merited the nickname "pretty boy."

It's fair to say, that life has left you somewhat scarred, growing up in poverty when times are hard, openings all but zero, just poor jobs that bring more sorrow, your only options leave you damaged, ruined, marred. But a lawyer chap has tried to help you out, given support, encouraged youth to grow and sprout, you've found a girl and settled down, past delinquencies outgrown, until that day when you're arrested, but there's doubt. In the courtroom you're examined, quizzed and grilled, after a copper was gunned down, brutally killed, your defence paints your life picture, how it couldn't be less richer, but under taunting, teasing, torment you're unskilled.

Humphrey Bogart's first film away from the controlled environment of Warner Brothers shows its technical flaws, particularly in the script which consists of scene after scene of relentless polemical exposition detailing the supposed evidence for why society has just as much a blame as the criminals living in the slums produced by them.

This is not a new message from the movies and after World War II, the intent to clean up the streets of America became much more of a signature statement for the left-leaning political crowd as a way to counter the focus on international affairs. Bogart and director Nicholas Ray were certainly huge figures in that movement but Bogie's first time as producer and Ray's second feature film leave much to be desired. Most of the performances are either too stiff or too exaggerated. Only Bogie manages to maintain a collected and understated performance despite his unnecessary preaching at the end. Perhaps no other actor in history portrays hard-edged cynicism better than Bogart, which makes it all the more surprising that his character remains this way for much of the film only to jump on society in the final scene.

Ray's direction is nothing too special as he was still feeling his way around a movie set. He does, however, exhibit some interesting and striking visual tricks, foreshadowing future films to come.

Humphey Bogart in his first movie for his own production company Santana. And introducing "pretty boy" John Derek. Bogart plays a sympathetic lawyer defending a juvenile delinquent(Derek)on trial for murder. Pretty average Film-Noir, but good enough to hold your interest. Courtroom scenes provide high drama and then comes the twist ending that really is not so surprising. Also in the cast are:George Macready, Allene Roberts and Mickey Knox. And then there is Dooley Wilson tickling the ivories.

Critics are correct: Knock on Any Door is flawed, perhaps badly flawed. However, it's also an interesting film from a number of standpoints, with several important compensations critics tend to overlook. I think it's worth examining some of each since the film does feature the legendary Bogart and perhaps the fastest rising young director of the time, Nicholas Ray. So why then are the results as mixed as I think they are. Here are a few conjectures.

A central weakness lies in the casting. Taking on the lawyer's role meant that Bogart's star power would require an expanded role for the attorney. That's unfortunate because the lawyer's part is both marginal to the plot and strictly one dimensional -- that of a "tough love" social reformer. Small wonder Bogart fans generally dislike the movie-- he gets a long emotional speech but no real chance at the darkly ambiguous character that was his specialty. The fact is that the part could have been filled by any number of lesser actors without loss to the movie as a whole

The real star part, of course, is John Derek's hard-luck Nick Romano. It's a complex role that would tax even the best young actor. Unfortunately, Derek lacks both the intensity and emotional depth central to the character's predicament. He's appropriately brash and arrogant, but lacks the the tragic dimension of sensitivity. It's too bad his career began with such a demanding role. The woeful tantrum scene at the lakeside cabin may be an extreme example, still it does illustrate the problem. The prospect of Brando doing the part is a fascinating one, but one that regrettably fell through.

Too bad also that the courtroom scenes are prolonged (probably to accommodate Bogart's starring role), since they amount to another key flaw. They're stagey, uninspired, and clash with the expressively noirish atmosphere of the slums. It's like two contrasting halves glued together in hopes that they will complement rather than clash. But conflict they do, because the slum scenes bring out the expressive artistry of director Ray, while the high-key lighting and prolonged dialog of the court resemble the boilerplate of the old Perry Mason show. I expect Ray did these scenes on auto-pilot..

And, of course, there's the final courtroom plea that should have been sent back for re- write. Critics are correct-- it's ham-handed to say the least. There have to be subtler, more effective methods of influencing the audience without hammering them in the process. The fact that the plea comes at movie's end leaves a bad last impression, which is why I believe so many of the positive elements tend to get over-looked.

But those positive elements are indeed present. Note the electrifying opening, of cops plowing wildly through crowds of seedy bystanders That's pure Nick Ray. The crowds even look fairly authentic by 40's standards. They're also atmospheric and colorful. Note some of the distinctive characters-- the shuffling cadaver named "Junior", or the slippery "Kid Fingers", or the black man acting in a rare uncaricatured fashion. Note also some of the subtler miscellaneous touches, such as the flame that flares up from the restaurant tray the moment Derek pledges to reform-- an ominous portent; or the ugly hot water tank that dominates the visuals of the young couple's cold-water flat where Emma finds a home but Nick only finds desolation.

There's also the film's central irony-- that the shrill, cruel-faced DA (George Mc Ready, with an enhanced scar) in fact wins the courtroom battle and Bogart loses. It passes by quickly, giving the DA no time to exult or the audience to react. But the fact is that attorney Morton (Bogart), who we've rooted for, has succumbed to systematic self-deception by seeing a version of his former self in the devious young Romano. This twist is jarring, because it abruptly overturns both movie convention and audience expectations.

Where the movie really works-- as one reviewer sagely points out-- is as a love story between Emma and Nick. That's not surprising since no one was better at bringing out the touching side of romantic love than Ray ("They Live by Night" {1947} or "Rebel Without a Cause" {1955}). He was especially effective with actresses. Here Allene Robert's Emma transforms poignantly from vulnerable neighborhood waif into glowing young wife. She's really the one who's tragically trapped by poverty and circumstance. (Note the poignantly cheap ribbons in her hair as she lovingly prepares a dinner for Nick that he will never eat.) Too bad that this, the most effective phase of the film, is too often overlooked.

Likely, the 90 minutes didn't help anyone's career, except maybe Roberts'. At least, Bogart and Ray were able to recover the following year with the artistically complete "In a Lonely Place" (1950), while Derek found a comfortable niche adorning a number of forgettable costume dramas.

Nonetheless, there's something haunting for me about this movie. Perhaps it's the spectacle of social conscience gone awry. More likely, it's the lingering image of Emma, alone in that ugly flat, the ribbons in her hair. Her modest little dreams now dashed beyond repair. I really wish the movie had succeeded.