La marche à l'enfer

The great Dana Andrews gets first billing but his is a supporting role. This is Farley Granger's movie and he shows what a real actor is. It is very dour. Very sad. Sort of like Street Scene in the 1950s. There is not even a moment of cheerfulness. Yet it is very gripping and well written. I particular love the actors in the small roles. Even Ellen Corby and Ray Teal sneak in for great cameos. The movie is framed around a very unconvincing idea. Take those scenes out and this is a ten.

Sometimes dismissed by the critics (read Matlin's review ) as "histrionic Granger" , "edge of doom" should be considered as it was intended for : an edifying movie, a Christian profession of faith.

On the contrary ,Granger gives a gripping performance of an overwrought man who got a raw deal :nowadays, a person who commits suicide passes for "crazy" and is not denied a funeral in consecrated ground, but at the time, the Catholic Church was adamant ;Martin has a grudge against the priests who took his mom's hand-outs in the masses ,and never gave her anything ;since he lost his faith ;thus a contradiction for he wants a beautiful funeral for his departed mother ,with plenty of flowers ,even though he's got to work off the price all his life.But it's more a vengeance on the Church than an act of redemption.

Mark Robson has a flair for scenes with a sense of mystery ,probably stemming from his first Val lewton productions ("the seventh victim" " the ghost ship" " bedlam" ) : it shows in the murder scene , and even more in the funeral parlor where Martin sees his victim in his coffin ; the reconstruction of the crime is a great moment too ; Granger's face gives away his guilt ,his stress ;all along the movie,he plays as though he's about to break down:a lesson he may have learned from the masters Ray ("they drive by night" ) and even more Hitchcock ("the rope" in which his self-conscious nervous attitude contrasts with John Dall's aplomb).Note the omnipresence of the crucifixes.

It's a long flashback :a story told by a priest (Dana Andrews) to one of his younger colleagues who thinks that the load is too heavy.

"there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." (St Luke)

The first 40 minutes or so of Edge of Doom are quite interesting, as Farley Granger offers a character that we sympathize with and understand. Another standout is the always excellent Paul Stewart, who portrays a no-good neighbor of Granger's. But the movie becomes predictable and rather tiresome about halfway through, and the viewer is forced to endure trite dialogue and a tired climax before it's all over. Although there are several good scenes, and strong noir overtones, the overpowering religious message is a bit much, being pounded over the viewer's head like a mallet. It's not a complete waste of time, but it comes pretty close.

That a film of this sort should come from Samuel Goldwyn is in itself quite a surprise, for he was much more apt to produce something with an uplifting feeling (THE BISHOP'S WIFE, ENCHANTMENT) than a grim study of the lower fringes of society. He gave it some box-office assurance by combining DANA ANDREWS (as a priest) and FARLEY GRANGER (as a victimized youth from the slums). But in telling a story of how the poor boy becomes a criminal on the run, it fails to inject enough ingredients to make the screenplay work on any level.

And that, too, is surprising, since the screenplay is the work of Philip Yordan and it is directed in bleak, noir fashion by none other than Mark Robson. But neither of the two priest characters are well developed--the testy, aging priest who is murdered and his young assistant (played by DANA ANDREWS) are not given the amount of detail they were in the novel to explain their background and motives. This is equally true of the tormented young man who rebels against the Catholic Church's treatment of his father's death and his mother's funeral. Granger, however, is good in his edgy role.

Bleak and uncompromising, it nevertheless appeared to be a film ahead of its time and would probably be more appreciated today by fans of gritty film noir, as it captures the streets, the noise, and general atmosphere of a very blighted city.

My dad wrote the book that EOD is based on. It is interesting to me that a film that was declared a resounding failure still elicits some interesting commentary. The view that it is possibly the most depressing noir-type film around sounds like a huge compliment to me, given what noir is always striving to do, and indeed it IS a dark film (which makes the above comment about the Stradling cinematography kind of puzzling). Also, the IMDb trivia statement that the film has never been shown on TV can't possibly be true, since I remember seeing it on TV when I was a teen.

The novel Edge of Doom used a Crime and Punishment narrative style to tell a contemporary murder story revolving around poverty in a large American city—the template was Philadelphia—and to raise issues about how devotion to church alone can not solve the ills of a modern society. The subject matter is indeed bleak, and indeed ahead of its time. It's certainly a brooding tale, but the novel as literature was considered significant in its day. How Goldwyn came to produce it as a film is a story unto itself, but there can be no doubting that if the film's creative team had stuck to their noir-ish guns, and focused more artfully on the message, it would have been a much better film, not to mention a film that might've actually raised noir above its melodramatic station. (Noir is great, of course, and it's fun to view its style, but a lot of the entries in the genre are tough to watch nowadays, simply because the dialogue is so corny.) Bookending the movie with the corny priest scenes ruined the film's chance to actually probe the poverty theme with seriousness. By soft-pedaling its style, Mark Robson and Philip Yordan failed to capture what was important about the novel. Here was yet another example of Hollywood so afraid of box-office impact that they made a difficult situation worse, when what they might've had was a critically well-received work that would have also failed at the box office but at least might've been counted as art.

I can't say I agree with the above post that hails the work of Farley Granger. Granger has been publicly vitriolic about the movie, but in my view he did nothing to help it. He's wooden and self-conscious, and, let's face it, he was never a good actor even when Hitchcock directed him. However, I am also open to the possibility that, had Robson had any conceptual idea about how to best tell this tale, Granger might've made for an interesting screen subject. The Yordan screenplay tweaks trivialized the message and shortchanged the potential for a visual style. Even then, if Robson had brought a creative approach to things, even the screenplay issues might've been overcome.

EOD the film remains a historical curiosity, but it's mostly an example of what happens when unsympathetic, apparently clueless, filmmakers are hired to tackle a subject of seriousness, which they can only reduce to cinematic hackwork. It could have been, it SHOULD have been, a much better movie.