In a Lonely Place (1950)

Clumsy. But sincere.

There's something darn odd about Nicholas Ray's films. I'm thinking about this one, and Rebel without a Cause. Perhaps it's just that most movies in the 1950s were not much cop. You couldn't really call them good, let alone great. In this one the scaffolding supporting Bogart's performance as Dixon Steele (what a phony name) is quite mediocre, scarcely up to B-movie standard. The script is clunky, the dialogue poor, the second-string acting, especially the completely wooden cops and the ridiculous and permanently drunk thespian, downright ordinary, and the shooting just isn't anything to write home about, in spite of Curtis Hanson's panegyric. However, Bogart's performance is compelling, like Dean's in Rebel. There's something accurate and genuine about his psychology, and the feeling comes across as unusually real. I've known people precisely like this: their own worst enemies; strong tendencies to violence combined with ultra-sensitivity, almost paranoia, whose bizarre behaviour invites suspicion, even though they haven't done anything wrong. Something to do with an extreme egocentricity, and an inability to see things as others see them. This personality dysfunction may also be linked to a certain kind of creativity, but a basically second-rate kind. Bogart carries the story, which is otherwise presented in a very pedestrian and unsubtle manner. In one or two scenes Gloria Grahame just about matches him; although I frankly could never take to her. She always seemed to me highly unattractive-looking, unsexy, and I could never figure out why she got so many high-profile parts. There's no mystery to the plot. In fact, there's no plot at all: the whole thing is a character-study; and there's not one ray of hope for this particular character. Very depressing. April 7, 2008

NICHOLAS RAY, OPUS 4

***** 1950. Loosely based on Dorothy B. Hughes's In a Lonely Place (Femmes Fatales : Women Write Pulp), this film was directed by Nicholas Ray. A screenwriter, violent by nature, is suspected to have murdered a young woman he received in his apartment. Soon, his new girl-friend doesn't know anymore whether he's guilty or not. Superb movie about Hollywood and exceptional performance of the couple Humphrey Bogart-Gloria Grahame. Among the bonus, there is an interesting featurette which allows director Curtis Hanson to give some valuable thoughts about this movie which is a true masterpiece. Indispensable. March 11, 2008

Very good Noir

This is a good film. We see the "noir" side of a charming, talented screen writer, who apparently is suffering from what we might today label post traumatic stress disorder. His propensity for violent outbursts are tempered by acts of unexpected generosity. No wonder the beautiful blond neighbor finds him "interesting" and then falls completely in love with him.

Bogart and Grahame are a great match. Bogart is wonderful, as always and Grahame certainly holds her own with him. In many ways I found the movie was more about her dilemma than his. She is the one who has to make the hard decisions. She is smart, independent and probably lost and confused enough herself to fall for such a man. There is great on screen chemistry. I found the scene at the piano bar where the two of them were obviously enjoying each other, mostly unscripted, quite charming.

The plot is good. The direction is tight and effective. All of the supporting actors do very good jobs. It's a flawless piece of period movie style. I'm not a huge fan of all films noirs but this is a very good one. January 24, 2008

Tries hard but doesn't succeed.

An ambitious movie, but not one of Bogart's better ones, mainly because of the story and timing. Classified as a noir, although it never occurred to me while watching. Bogart is a Hollywood script writer with a bad temper and a tendency to violence. Suspected of a murder he didn't commit, he falls in love with his neighbor, Gloria Grahame, in one of her bigger roles. Their relationship is tortured by the murder suspicion and Bogart's temper, which eventually destroys the relationship. An unhappy ending. A tragic love affair. The movie focuses on the "complex" psychology of the tortured antihero, but it never really works. August 22, 2007

The Heart is a 'Lonely' Hunter

Nicholas Ray will be cemented in pop culture history, anonymously, as "the guy who directed REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE." This is a travesty on two levels: One, REBEL isn't even Ray's best movie (it's only his most famous), and two, because many think that the aching heart came from James Dean's raw performance. While Dean is heart wrenchingly good, REBEL would not have half of its power without Ray, a maverick American director whose best and most personal films would sympathize with the loners and rebels always living by night and outside of conformity. Many critics of Ray's times thought his films were melodramatic and very few were financial successes. However, like all amazing directors, Ray's films were about 20 years ahead of their times--the themes of a man alone and paranoia would become relevant with 70s films such as Scorsese's TAXI DRIVER. Ray saw the future in 1950, and indeed, IN A LONELY PLACE stands the test of time today.

The incomparable Humphrey Bogart plays Dix, a talented but violent and washed-up screenwriter given the dull task of adapting a trashy novel to the screen. Instead of reading the thing, he asks a hatcheck girl to summarize it. The next morning, she is found murdered and Dix is the prime suspect until his cool neighbor Laurel (Gloria Grahame, Ray's estranged wife at the time) clears him. Despite Laurel's guarded demeanor and Dix's deep internal demons, the two fall in love and find inner peace with their blossoming relationship. But their love cannot last long (this wouldn't be a true Nicholas Ray film if everything wrapped up in a nice pink bow), as distrust on Laurel's part and Dix's paranoia due to the ongoing murder investigation threaten their last chance at happiness and love.

Like all amazing movies, IN A LONELY PLACE has so much more than what meets the eye, full of sometimes violently true observations on love and paranoia. This movie had the bad luck of being released the same year as ALL ABOUT EVE and, more famously, SUNSET BLVD., all three scathing looks at celebrity. Although this movie was actually released before the other two, perhaps the subject matter was just too dark--did anybody really want to see Bogart as a potential murderer in a day and age when actors were movie stars first, selling variations of their personas? I'll take this movie any day over Wilder's bizarre satire, because IN A LONELY PLACE is just as scathing but more realistic and more emotionally involving. Dix's disillusionment comes both from the script but also from Ray; a talented director, he was a victim of the studio system and was forced to make projects that are obviously beneath him (indeed, the novel Dix is hired to adapt can be seen as a variation on Ray's "woman's picture" BORN TO BE BAD, which bears little of his fingerprints), and even his personal project ON DANGEROUS GROUND was cut up by Howard Hughes and slapped on with an uncharacteristic happy ending. This film can be seen as a thesis on a system that is only interested in selling popcorn over making something personal, which is what made Ray so appealing, and what solidified his status as an auteur.

Off-screen, both Ray and Bogart were vehemently against the HUAC Communist witch hunts (Ray would further develop this theme with JOHNNY GUITAR), and the murder investigation and the tension it causes is an obvious--and, in 1949, early--allegory for the Red Scare. Instead of dating this movie further, it only enriches its effectiveness. After all, we live in a post-9/11 world where we accept the fact that surveillance and spying is a part of everyday life, and fear leads to violence, the violence to destruction and loss.

Movie stars of the Golden Era are so often passed over in favor of Method Actors such as Marlon Brando, which is more than unfair. Imagine Brando doing what Bogart did in CASABLANCA with the same coolness and mystery. Bogart spent nearly 10 years forming his persona of the cynical but emotionally bruised anti-hero, and starting with TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE he started tearing it down. You can almost see the tough facade cracking under the pressure, revealing an undeniable vulnerability. It's hard to think of how many actors of any era could pull this off, making us root for a potentially murderous man, even when we don't entirely trust him. The movie never illuminates what makes Dix so violent, never showing the roots of his internal demons. There are only subtle clues dropped; we know that Dix is a war veteran. His faithful agent Mel tells Laurel in a moment of doubt that Dix, whom he's known for 20 years, has a violent streak that is as a part of him "as the color of his eyes or the shape of his head." And it is this ambiguity that is also the glory of the movie; there is no flashback to a troubled childhood or combat duty. For all we know, Dix could've been like this his whole life. Bogart, through impeccable body language, shows us how his creativity and passion lies right next door to his exploding temper--even as he professes his love for Laurel, his hands possess her neck as if he is ready to strangle her, a foreshadowing to the pessimistic climax. He shows us that Dix's very temperament stems from his insecurities and very human desire for love. You feel the heaviness of Dix's emotional baggage, and never before was Bogart more world-weary and exhausted in a movie. Never again would he come this close to a complete performance.

Between Bogart's real life wife Lauren Bacall in THE BIG SLEEP and (Katharine) Hepburn in THE AFRICAN QUEEN, there were few great Bogart love interests (the husky Lizabeth Scott is a poor man's Bacall), but Gloria Grahame is a revelation and gives the role a worldliness that Bacall could never have alluded to. In a role clearly meant for Bacall, Grahame more than makes a great Laurel, a woman at once strong, vulnerable, guarded and sly. She and Bogart make an amazing duo, regularly passing witty comebacks, then slowly seeing the distrust and insecurities in each other. She and Nicholas Ray quietly separated during filming; this movie is a testament to their professionalism under a tough situation. In a role that relieves her of playing the lovable floozy, this may also be Grahame's best performance.

While all three are known for bigger movies (Ray went on to direct REBEL while Grahame and Bogart would go on to win Oscars), their professional peak may have been this gem. It is because of the actors' trust in Ray that he was able to craft such deep performances, and their own bravery to play such flawed yet real characters that we remember--and still root for--Dix and Laurel's tragically doomed love affair in which nobody walks away a free man and humans are prisoners of their own fate. There is no ray of hope, only Nicholas Ray's powerful and ageless beauty of a film. July 30, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...