Au milieu de la nuit

I saw this 20 odd years ago on broadcast/cable television. That is one of the reasons why I think this is a great movie; I did not see it in 1959, as it made an impression on me in the forgettable late 80's! It may have been TNT in 1988 or AMC when it started back in the mid 80's. It has stuck with me all these years, and I have been hoping it would come out on VHS/DVD. Kim Novak was a favorite, but Frederich March, even at the end of his career was extraordinary. Novak was ALWAYS good; March was even better. It being filmed in B&W made the relationship between two unlikely lovers even more 'special.' I've always compared this Novak performance with that Technicolor architect movie which escapes me; Novak did it with Kirk Douglas. It was great also, but this is much more touching. All you Novak fans need to find this one. You MUST.

Solid drama of older March falling for young insecure Kim. Both leads are excellent and present their flawed but decent characters simply. Kim was in her peak years and having just come off of Vertigo is a neurotic mess, probably a spill over from that experience but it fits her part. The people in their lives are shown in dark tones, a little heavily so, perhaps to illustrated the disapproval of society to such a relationship in the 50's. It does lend a heavy air to the film though since almost without exception they are a smothering and cruel bunch. Paddy Chayevsky's plays are usually intense emotional exercises but Mann keeps a steady hand on the tiller and the actors make the troubled lovers plight poignant.

I actually watched this in the middle of the night on one of those evenings where you fall asleep too early, then wake up and can't get back to sleep. As a veteran film buff and a huge fan of Director Delbert Mann and writer Paddy Chayefsky, I am surprised that I never heard of this very New York 1950's slice-of-real-life family drama with a May-December romance between Kim Novak (Betty) and Frederic March (Jerry Kingsley) as its Centerpiece.

As with Marty, the movie centers around the way that fiends of family members with concerns and pre-set notions of "what should be" of their own and reject the budding and heartfelt romance between two very lonely and insecure people who have just recently experienced trauma (divorce of husband and death of wife). The supporting turns by those trying to scuttle the relationship including Joan Copeland, Lee Grant, and Glenda Farrell among many others are terrific. On the supportive side, my favorite performance in the film was by Albert Dekker has March's long-time business partner. He advises March to reach out and hold on to the special relationship he has with both arms. He also has the film's best line saying, "When I die, they should write on my tombstone, What a Waste of Time!" Martin Balsam is also supportive as daughter Copeland's husband who supports Jerry's relationship and gets it with both barrels from his wife. The most surprising performance to me was from Lee Philips who I thought was awful in the two TV show guest appearances I saw him do before deciding that directing TV shows was a more suitable endeavor for him. Here, I found him perfect for his role and incredibly convincing as Betty's ex-husband who wants her back and at a minimum wants another sexual conquest of her. He's a smooth cad without being unctuous or obvious in any way and provides a stunning counterpoint to every other character in the film. He knows what he wants and is determined to get it regardless of whether it is what his ex-wife wants.

I always considered Novak underrated in Picnic and she's even better here. She conveys an insecurity mixed with determination about Betty that is as delicate a balancing act as I've ever seen. She wants to trust her love for Jerry but is so fragile she can't trust herself to be worthy of his love. At the same time, she loves the way he makes her feel special and finds that so different from everyone else in her life, she's willing to navigate the venom and BS thrown at her by all her friends and relatives. It's an incredibly complex and simple performance at the same time. I was almost awestruck.

All fairly compelling so far, right? So why didn't I give this a 9 or a 10 (Marty is a 10 in my book and a 10+ if IMDb would allow such a rating)? March's chemistry with Novak does not match hers with him in far too many of their scenes. March, of course, is a magnificent and accomplished actor who has given some of the most memorable performances on film (my favorite 0 Best Years of Our Lives). But he also can over-emote and connect more with the camera than with his love interest at times. Unfortunately, that happens here quite a bit. And his jealousy borne-out-of-insecurity seems to express itself too self-righteously given hid character and feelings - at least to me. When he allows himself to make eye contact with Betty, it is like day from night. In those scenes, the romance seems and feels genuine even when they are having rough spots (such as in the car toward the early middle of the film). On the other hand, March's chemistry with his threatened sister and with daughter Joan Copeland is perfect. He just seems to prefer the camera to Novak when his character is starting to convince himself that the doubters are right. These disconnections do not by an means ruin the film for me. I enjoyed it and wish to watch it again. It just stops it from being a classic for me.

I still recommend watching it - especially if you love Marty.

"Middle of the Night" was a surprise for me both before and after I saw it on Turner Classic Movies on a dreary Sunday morning. Before because the subject matter made me raise an eyebrow, and after, because I was genuinely shocked at how involved and absorbed I became in the story and how it made me feel a little guilty about my beforehand perceptions.

The movie stars two of the cinema's finest—Fredric March and Kim Novak—as lovers separated in age by thirty years. Novak is March's secretary. He owns a big business, his wife has died, and his children are all married and having families of their own. Novak, by contrast, has divorced her husband of three years and is still trying to recover from it as well as a feeling of not being wanted or loved. March comforts her as almost a father figure, they become friends, and then despite protests and age differences, become romantically involved.

Now the premise of this actually had me a little creeped out at beginning. And there were some parts in the first third of the movie that made me shudder a bit, but immediately after that, the story become involving and beautiful and sad and just the opposite of what I was expecting. Yes, Fredric March and Kim Novak aren't exactly like two peas in a pod in terms as a screen couple, but that was the psychology and genius of this movie. True, the idea of a man romancing a woman thirty years his junior seems a little…off-putting, but the way the filmmakers and performers work it, it becomes genuinely powerful.

March is not made over into being some kind of a creepy middle-aged sexual predator. And Novak is not presented as a freeloader or a sex object. Rather, these two characters are worked into being completely sentimental and sympathetic human beings and well into the story, I could actually believe they were in love and I feared for the outcome of their relationship. Now those creepy feelings I had? That was personified by the supporting characters. Novak's family saw March as a middle-aged sexual predator and March's saw Novak as a slattern out to get herself into a big home. The supporting characters essentially represent what the audience—including me—thought about the movie at the beginning and about the premise. And believe me, I felt guilty when I realized this. The movie works because it's not about lust or sex, but about love and affection and the irresistible longing for companionship. And that's why the relationship between March and Novak becomes moving. They say "I love you" to each other and we believe they are saying it from the deepest regions of their hearts and souls. They don't want each other for their physical appearances, they want each other for something that lies beneath the surface. And that is what love is.

Performances all around are excellent. Fredric March, one of the screen's legends, is excellent at creating a character portrait of a grieving, lonely man. And Kim Novak is even better at generating sympathy with her portrayal of a woman seeking love for who she is. These are typically the roles that Kim Novak was given during her golden era in the 1950s (other roles include "Picnic", "Pal Joey", and of course, her best film "Vertigo") and she played them well, partially because she was able, more in some cases and less than others, play herself and what she wanted people to see of her: a human being and not just something pretty to look at and to want lustily. Kim Novak is my personal favorite actress and one of the most underrated actresses who ever lived.

In the end, although I was at first unsure if I could approve of a movie like "Middle of the Night", I am not afraid to admit at the end, having seen it in its entirety, that I was amazed and absorbed by the story. I believed in the romance between the two characters, I was not uneasy looking at them together, and by the end, I felt really sick in my stomach from all of the sympathy that my heart had generated in the past two hours. The movie is rare and hard to find, perhaps because its subject matter isn't that all appealing *on the surface*, but the movie is well worth your time if you ever have the opportunity to see it.

Screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky adapted his own play about an elderly workaholic (Fredric March, in a stupendous performance) who reaches out to a beautiful woman half his age...but she's got problems of her own, beginning with her shaky self-confidence. Their sometimes-rocky, sometimes-tender courtship provides the basis for this lovely film. As the sad beauty, Kim Novak has seldom been better (it's amazing that professional critics at the time failed to see the growth in Novak as an actress here, focusing all their attention on March, who indeed is terrific). Great N.Y.C. locations, fine support from the always-reliable Lee Grant. Well worth-seeing. *** from **** (Relatively forgotten for years, the movie made its DVD debut August 2010 as part of a Novak collection.)