Les ruelles du malheur

Star-studded cast. Good acting throughout. Pretty intense at times. Solid camera work. Odd courtroom scenes. Well worth seeing !

"Knock on Any Door" (Columbia 1949), a combination courtroom drama and delinquent youth social statement, was Nicholas Ray's directorial debut. Humphrey Bogart plays lawyer Andrew Morton, one time street tough turned idealistic lawyer. Bogart's independent production company made the film shortly after he broke away from Warner Brothers. Bogart's part was originally intended for Marlon Brando, but Brando withdrew after the death of producer Mark Hellinger.

On the verge of becoming a partner in his big-time law firm, Morton is yanked out of his ivory tower and into the past by the need to defend accused murderer Pretty Boy Romano (John Derek), who he attempted to help when Romano was a petty teenage criminal. This is told in flashbacks with Romano repeating his credo: "live fast, die young, and have a good looking corpse". Probably the first film use of what has become a very tired expression. Morton carries a lot of guilty baggage into the trial. He blames himself for the imprisonment of Romano's father, an event that plunged the family into poverty and led to Romano's life of crime. Through the years he had tried to help Romano who had married a nice girl and attempted to go straight. But setbacks at work returned Romano to crime. Then his pregnant wife's suicide unhinged him and he killed a cop.

The "Knock on Any Door" expression refers to Morton's plea for leniency during the trial, as he blames the conditions in the slums and the affects of poverty for Romano's actions. Stating that behind any door are young men whose lives will be wasted unless they receive guidance and are assisted in becoming productive citizens.

"Knock on Any Door" provides a nice example of the unpredictability inherit in the film making business. A look at screenplay and cast would lead you to expect the film's strengths to be the Bogart-Derek scenes and the courtroom drama, with the romantic background story (told in flashbacks) a glaring weakness.

But the trial scenes which take up a substantial part of the film suffer from the usual procedural inaccuracies and are not particularly effective dramatically. Bogart pretty much plays his Captain Queeg character ("The Caine Mutiny") and spends more time whining than defending. The Bogart-Derek scenes are nothing special and there is no chemistry between the two actors. The narrative actually contradicts the theme of outrage over social inequities. The simplistic conclusions about social justice ring hollow and any sympathetic feelings toward Romano seem misplaced.

The production design is great. When combined with the haunting the black & white photography it makes for one of the best looking examples of the film noir genre.

What ultimately saves the film and actually makes it rather special is the romance between Romano and Emma (Allene Roberts). This unlikely character pairing (imagine James Dean's "Rebel" having a serious relationship with Melanie from "Gone With the Wind") somehow works as Roberts and Derek have a real chemistry together. And she introduces intangibles that are missing from the rest of the production. In addition, the relationship itself introduces a nice irony as it is the pressure to make Emma proud of him and to tangibly demonstrate his love that ultimately leads Romano back to crime.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

A film for Bogart aficionados as this great actor once again oozes class as the tough but empathetic lawyer.

The film though doesn't hit the same mark. The script is fairly weak and dated. Similarly the plot is tenuous and as a movie it hangs together as a romantic drama to coming of age drama, to crime drama with noir touches to retrospective character study of a juvenile delinquent turned criminal and finally all under "courtroom drama". It tries to hard to be too many things and doesn't really do justice to any of them - only Bogart and McCready's performances save this movie from being destined to the "forgettable bin".

The pace and direction is generally good and though it was Nicholas Ray's second film, his cinematography and style (using noir tones and angles) is a clear forerunner of his classic noir films including In a Lonely Place (again with Bogart) and On Dangerous Ground.

And so to John Derek, he definitely had the pretty boy looks for the "Pretty Boy Romano" role but his acting is lame and isn't believable - no matter how much Bogart and McCready (who incidentally puts in a solid performance as the DA) try to drag him up to their standard.

All in all, a reasonably interesting and engaging watch despite the flaws. Had Ray cast a better actor than Derek (e.g. Clift, Garfield or Curtis) and developed a more robust plot and less cliched script, this could have been up there as yet another classic in the Bogart canon.

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.

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.