Propriété privée

Although this film is supposedly a fictional drama, I believe there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of lonely and attractive housewives all across North America who can relate to the scenes played out in the film Private Property. We have all heard that phrase before of "playful and innocent enough flirting or sexual teasing". And we have also heard the phrase "No means No" in countless drama films which are played out in both an actual and/or a fictitious court of law.

This film draws a very fine line between some tense criminal and very real sexual assault activity that is hard to watch and a very good dramatic simulated performance played out by all four (4) of the film stars. The female lead played by Kate Manx as the lonely suburban California housewife who was ignored by her business executive husband appreciated the attention bestowed upon her by the aggressive stranger who showered her with compliments as well as many lies.

We the audience could see that this lonely housewife was getting in over her head and the two strangers were thinking with their little heads and not their big heads. We see how quickly some playful flirting innocence can turn both violent and deadly. This black and white film is still a great watch some sixty (60) years later.

I rate Private Property a high 8 out of 10 rating that all women and men including young teenagers should watch to remind them to keep their emotions in check and the boys to keep their peckers in their pants.

Very few people seem to have heard of, let alone seen, this bizarre and strange film, but it is ripe for re-discovery as a precursor of the harsher realism that American movies were able to explore once censorship restrictions were lifted. It is open to all sorts of interpretation; is it a critique of capitalism in which the marriage partner becomes "property"? Is there a hidden homosexual motivation between the two buddies who can, apparently, only attain their "manhood" when in the company of each other? It is perhaps wrong to read too much into early movies using today's sensibilities, but subversive this film most certainly is, and reflects much of the thinking expressed in a ground-breaking book of that era entitled "The American Sexual Tragedy". Passion, when repressed, always runs morbid, and this film illustrates that notion with realism and skill.

This legendary, presumed lost film is now available is very good print on blu-ray and DVD. Was it worth the wait? I'd say yes. PRIVATE PROPERTY is artfully photographed and has a very capable cast who give convincing performances. The film is short and to the point: a crime thriller with some subtext, that holds a viewer's interest and sustains plenty of tension. It's not some lost masterpiece, but an accomplished minor film that is somewhat ahead of its time in frankness about some sexual matters.

Corey Allen (Duke), Warren Oates (Boots) play drifters who have apparently just met. Duke is the stronger personality and clearly a manipulating sociopath. He dominates Boots, promising a sexual initiation with a beautiful suburban housewife Ann (Kate Manx). The men have followed Ann to her home by way of nearly car-jacking another driver (Hollywood veteran Jerome Cowan). They hole up in an unoccupied house next door and watch Ann as she swims and sunbathes. All the while, Duke stokes Boots' sexual frustration. It's never clear just how much Boots actually wants Ann. He's clearly under Duke's spell, and soon Ann will be as well. Once Ann's husband leaves on a business trip the film kicks into high gear. There is a nice, moody, late-50s feeling to much of this film, especially in the scenes set inside Ann's home. But unlike most films of the era, PRIVATE PROPERTY has a frankness about sexual matters and sociopathy. Possibly only PSYCHO or PEEPING TOM (both also released in 1960) dared to openly portray violent sexual deviancy in similar ways. PRIVATE PROPERTY is nowhere near those films, artistically speaking, but it's still pretty strong stuff to watch. Leslie Steven's direction is economical and well paced. Thanks to Ted D. McCord, the film has an attractive look, occasionally resembling TV drama from the period. Pete Rugolo's score adds a lot to the atmosphere. Best of all are the actors. Manx is very affecting and it's too bad she did not appear in more films. Corey Allen (always underrated, even after a well- remembered sequence in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE) gives the strongest performance. He's very adept at playing on the other characters' weaknesses to achieve his own ends. And Warren Oates at the beginning of his career is a standout as the weak-willed, sexually conflicted Boots. It's great to finally have this film in such a terrific edition.

It wouldn't be fair for me to rate this 1959 flick. On one hand, it has historical significance since it was one of the first movies denied release by American censors who found it forbidden fruit. On the other hand, as entertainment, I found the 79-minutes unfortunately too talky and boring to endorse. Hence, it doesn't seem fair to choose between the two poles.

The flick starts off well enough, at a filling station where two seedy drifters, Duke and Boots, look to fill their empty lives by pursuing a wealthy blonde for seduction purposes. Now that's a promising start, but from there on, except for the brief ending, the narrative flattens out into a basically one-note affair. After all, how long does it take wily Duke to infiltrate blonde Ann's hilltop mansion where she usually lives alone, her businessman husband out making money. Then too, it's a stretch that wealthy hubby would leave her alone without household help.

Thus, it appears budget constraints flatten the main storyline into a series of hilltop one-on-one talk-fests. Sure, Duke wants to insinuate himself into Ann's life by pretending to be a gardener. But needed suspense in his manuevers is sorely lacking. Still and all, the hilltop setting does furnish a good scenic view of greater LA that kept me watching.

All in all, it looks like the indie effort was a well-intended effort to escape the bonds of 50's studio productions held captive by a strict censorship code. But what might have been cutting edge then, seems banal now when much looser public standards prevail.

My advice: if you're looking for more than mainly talky flatlining, skip it. But if you're interested in former forbidden fruit grab it and bite.

This movie has a high artistic quality. It was filmed by experienced veteran Ted McCord in the typical clinically clean black and white-style of the era. The main setting is an elegant house in the sun drenched hills of Los Angeles - and the location is very well used indeed. The bright setting is sharply contrasted by sexual frustration. The main character seems to be a piece of decoration for her husband, a successful, mainly absent businessman. Her constant stereotype Pepsodent smile renders her somewhat subhuman - well a part of the property. Yet she has a yearning which is unfulfilled. At one point she pulls a broad black belt around her neck, pulls it tight and lies down on the bed. Her lonelyness is relieved by two doubtful characters, one of them a young Warren Oates. Very well filmed underwater swimming pool scenes at the dramatic climax at the end.