1078 Nightmare Alley

[DimitriL]

For those interested in those type of things, the tarot cards included are limited to only the initial pressing and will not be available with subsequent runs of the disc. So, if you were holding off for whatever reason on buying this particular title, think again.

Wait, what? Is there a way to tell the pressing? I got it the first day it was out and I didn’t have any tarot cards.

[domino harvey]

You can tell in person by shaking it, they are just rattling around in the booklet holder half of the case

[DimitriL]

Ah crud, I ordered it online so that wasn’t an option.

[brundlefly]

The cards also have a potential spoiler in them. Be warned, beware.

[therewillbeblus]

It'd be cool if they advertised this (same goes with Indicator's Twentieth Century's "stickers") as I'm sure more people would have pre-ordered copies directly from the sites with some notice- I know I would have for both. I realize it's a nice gesture to honor those who get there early without creating a rush from publicity, but it could only benefit sales figures, and perhaps stretching the number of copies including these items would raise sales overall. Hell, I'd buy a second copy of Twentieth Century in a heartbeat to get those stickers!

[omegadirective]

Damn! Thanks so much for the heads up.
I ordered this on Amazon and it came right away and had the cards inside.

Thanks again! I appreciate this kind of information!

[Brian C]

Just an update on the tarot cards: I ordered mine from Amazon over the weekend and got it today, complete with the cards. They’re still out there for those interested.

Fun movie, but it has too much of a moralist edge to be as truly “nasty” as its reputation. Not that the two movies have anything in common, but for me the real benchmark of nastiness in classic Hollywood will always be SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, which is just sharks swimming in dirty water from start to finish. This material is really screaming out for that kind of wicked edge, being plenty lurid, and certainly it’s easy to see how Power’s role would have been shocking to his fans at the time. But whether by necessity to get past the censors or for some other reason, it pulls its punches by stripping any possibility of audience identification away from him. In a way it’s a neat trick to make the protagonist the villain in his own movie, and another villain the hero, but it also allows us to remain above it all. I feel like we’re always one step ahead of his tricks but without being made to feel the allure and thrill of what he’s doing. My response was more impatience that anyone would fall for his schtick, as opposed to, say, watching one of Mamet’s characters run their cons.

And it’s pretty creaky in its narrative. I can’t offhand think of another movie that telegraphs its plot so brazenly right at the outset: “How can a man be brought so low?” he asks in one of his first lines. Just a bit schematic, isn’t it? And I think that’s ultimately the film’s biggest flaw: there’s just too much of a sense of “THIS IS A HORRIBLE MAN, BUT DON’T WORRY HE’LL GET HIS COMEUPPANCE” hanging over the movie. Maybe that’s just how it had to be in 1947, but it takes a lot of sting out of the bite.

[Never Cursed]

Fun movie, but it has too much of a moralist edge to be as truly “nasty” as its reputation.

Agreed - the late second act "you're goin' against God!" argument is one of the more comical invocations of conventional studio-era morals I've seen. That said, there are two brutal moments (the abortive conversion sequence and the miserable ending) that I feel make up for this in their cruelty.

Spoiler

The effect of that former scene is the total breakage of Taylor Holmes' character, taken to a tactile extent that one rarely sees in male characters of this time (even though Grindle isn't particularly physically strong, it's still painful to watch him just give up fighting against Power and sink convulsing to the ground).

[The Curious Sofa]

I revisited this the other week, I had not watched the film in several decades. I misremembered it ending with Tyrone Power

Spoiler

actually biting the head off a chicken,

which sadly was not the case, the ending is a cop-out. I still found the film enjoyable, especially how the three female lead characters guide and influence the protagonist in very different ways, but it's too much of a studio movie to have much bite. It may have worked better as a a gritty and more sordit B-movie. I'm not holding out much hope for the del Toro version, which inevitably will be over-designed and over-produced, though I'll watch it for the cast

[MichaelB]

You've just described the ending of the novel. Or rather, the novel ends

Spoiler

with a desperate, booze-sozzled Stanton Carlisle (the Tyrone Power character) trying to get a job - any job - and being told that a geek is all that's on offer. And the kicker is the very last line, "'What do you say? Of course, it's onloy temporary - just until we get a real geek.'"

[The Curious Sofa]

I've never read the novel, but it feels logical that this is how it should end.

[Red Screamer]

Fun movie, but it has too much of a moralist edge to be as truly “nasty” as its reputation.

I agree, though the moralism feels so excessive to me that I thought it qualified as one if the creepiest elements of the movie. It’s set up as a rise and fall narrative but the poor guy, whatever his sins, only has modest success before he’s beaten back down to zero in three or four different ways and to such such a cruel extent that the movie seemed to be savoring it for violence’s sake. The kicker for me isn’t

Spoiler

him becoming the geek, which is fairly predictable once you realize how sadistic the movie is gonna get, but the next plothole-jumping contrivance that he winds up at the same carnival as Molly, since their reuinion becomes another punishment: they’re clearly going to fall into the roles of Zeena and Pete, her taking care of him, him barely hanging on, their romance dormant, and everyone pitying them.

I like Dave Kehr’s comment on its mixture of nastiness and gloss that the movie is sleazy but you can also tell it’s directed by the same guy who did Grand Hotel.

[FrauBlucher]

This was on Noir Alley last week. Eddie Muller had some good info on his intros and outros. He mentioned that Zanuck asked the screenwriter to add to the ending that wasn't the novel's ending...

Spoiler

Where the novel ends as Stanton takes the job sadly and desperately as the geek. In the film, after Stan excepts the job as a geek, Zanuck has Stan and Molly flukishly reunite at that same carnival.

I was a bit surprised that Zanuck thought the ending was too difficult for the audiences. Of all the Studios from that era, Fox was more willing to take chances with difficult topics and difficult endings. I much would've preferred that the novel's ending being left for the end of the film. That being said, I didn't love the film. Lots of contrivances were used to move the narrative along. Tyrone Power was terrific though. His fans back then may have been turned off by this dirtbag character

[DeprongMori]

I would note that the 1947 and 2021 films have essentially the exact same ending, with only a minor variation, except the 2021 film makes it implicit rather than explicit.

Spoiler

The 1947 film ends with Carlisle showing up at the carnival and agreeing to geek (“temporarily”), and then being “rescued” by Molly into a life where they will undoubtedly live on as a new incarnation of Zeena and her broken, alcoholic Pete.

The 2021 film ends with Carlisle showing up at the carnival and agreeing to geek (“temporarily”), and the film ends there. Except, in an earlier scene at the hobo campfire Carlisle had found out about the carnival from a flyer that featured Zeena as a major attraction. The implication is that he will be “rescued” there by Zeena, and he will undoubtedly live on as a new incarnation of the broken, alcoholic Pete, but with Zeena rather than with Molly.

So, essentially the same ending.

[Rayon Vert]

Revisited this film through the waxy Criterion upgrade. I didn't think too much of it the first time, and less so the second. To the point where I think I'm just not going to keep this in my collection. The plot is too telegraphed as others have said here, and I'm just pretty much bored through the whole thing. The extras were good, especially like the historical review of carnivals and side-shows, but I just can't resonate with the claim (Imogen Sara Smith) that this is one of the best noirs.

[FrauBlucher]

I liked it, didn't love it. Don't need to see it again. del Toro's version was better, especially giving us a closer version to the novels ending

[Mr Sausage]

But whether by necessity to get past the censors or for some other reason, it pulls its punches by stripping any possibility of audience identification away from him.

Just re-watched the movie in I don't know how long, and while I basically enjoyed it, the above gets at my impatience with it. Because the movie so overdetermines its story trajectory, you need that identification to feel like the screws are tightening. Without it, rather than mentally screaming "don't do it!" to every bad decision, you find yourself just waiting around for the inevitable. So there's a certain boredom in watching the movie. It's offset by the luridness, the novelty of the carnival setting, and the wonderful photography, but it rears up at every movement of the plot. It adds to the feeling that the movie never fully commits to its own world. I sometimes feel, maybe uncharitably, that the movie's status is due as much to its aspirations as the final product.

I haven't seen the del Toro, but the man's such a big softie that I wonder if even he can successfully commit to a story so black. Might watch it next.

[The Narrator Returns]

I haven’t seen the original but I thought the Del Toro was similarly clanging and monotonous on the level of waiting around for the obvious punchline, likely even more boring for taking so much longer to get there.

[Mr Sausage]

It also struck me that this one has the exact plot and structure of a gangster film. Only gangster films make you identify with the lead, even if he is a worm, giving the whole rise-and-fall story energy and excitement. But then gangster films are meant to move like lightning; noirs are slower, favouring mood and atmosphere, so they really have to take care to make an overdetermined plot like this feel exciting. They can either involve you in the lead’s fortunes through some emotional identification or suck you in with the pure enjoyment of all the brazen wickedness. Nightmare Alley skirts both, preferring a removed seat of judgement, so it never quite catches fire the way it ought. Probably why all the best scenes involve the inner workings of the carnival—there at least the material is intrinsically interesting. Less so the scenes of Power too obviously trying to advance in the world. Admittedly my attention wavered the most in the back half, where everything was so inevitable I stopped caring about the details. But I really enjoyed the therapist character, even if the film announces with fanfare that she’s a sharper.

It is a fun movie, but even among noirs I’d say The Maltese Falcon is more poisonous (rewatched it recently and had forgotten how unpleasant Sam Spade is, how even at the end he can’t articulate a good reason for doing the right thing, just mumble some half-baked nonsense and trail off).

[therewillbeblus]

It is a fun movie, but even among noirs I’d say The Maltese Falcon is more poisonous (rewatched it recently and had forgotten how unpleasant Sam Spade is, how even at the end he can’t articulate a good reason for doing the right thing, just mumble some half-baked nonsense and trail off).

I think I had a similar reaction on my last watch of The Maltese Falcon..

I’ve never particularly cared for, or had any stake in, Spade or anybody winning in this film either, which is perhaps a strength or a weakness. Upon revisits it strikes as the latter if we’re supposed to embrace Spade as the “cool” antihero he seems to be drawn as despite the obvious signifiers for his flaws that should mask any attractiveness. Bogart’s final speech is so nihilistic as he grasps for meaning on placing value on a code he quickly forfeits in stressing calculated selfish reasons for his choices. It’s a brutally dark finale not because of the reasons most people think (abandoning ‘love’ for morality) but because that morality is mistakenly defined as such by the “when a man’s partner is killed, he’s supposed to do something about it” line that’s quickly muted by everything that comes next.

Though I find it fascinating that the famous moralizing line is a false note - it's kind of tragic and fitting with the darkest noir tones of fatalistic individualism that makes me respect the film all the more for it

[Mr Sausage]

Glad you picked it up too. Given how quickly Spade wanted to be rid of his mistress/partner’s wife the moment she became a liability, the whole spiel to Mary Astor strikes me as puff to cover the same thing again. Certainly the love story between them is unconvincing. I haven’t read the novel, so maybe it has a genuine ‘ethics over love’ selflessness, but as it plays in the movie, nothing about the choice comes across as ethical, let alone moral. Hell, it’s not even coherent. Even Spade has to give up on trying to square it, and he’s the most verbally agile character in the film. That’s what seals it for me, that such a nimble, verbal person is reduced to incoherent mutterings when trying to justify his final action.

It’s funny, I’ve always remembered the movie so fondly, even preferring it to The Big Sleep, but now the latter seems so much more amiable while the former has a big gnawing canker in it. The Maltese Falcon is still great, but I wonder why I felt such a friendly warmth towards it when it’s such a chilly film. Residual Casablanca feelings from seeing Bogart, Greenstreet, and Lorre together again?

[therewillbeblus]

Well put. Spade is just scrambling to make sense of something - to fight a nihilistic mass enveloping him, or something - and that final walk down the stairs is like a descent back into a hell-on-earth, a meaningless life without any real purpose or feeling. I like the attempt at moralizing because it demonstrates that Spade has a faint desperation to feel, but he just can't. That's what's so devastating about it to me - I don't connect with his character, but I can connect with the feeling. It almost transitions into an Antonioni film for a minute there.

The Big Sleep, on the other hand, I never took for more than just a fun ride. It eschews a lot of noir themes by making Bogart into a bonafide winner, where even in the darkest times he's confident and a step ahead of everyone else. There's no desperation for feeling because 'feeling' exists everywhere - he just chooses to avoid the ones that are going to get him into trouble or detour him from his mission.

I think The Maltese Falcon is "chilly" but also similarly fun a la Big Sleep in its first act, which is why I also look back at it fondly. I really enjoy all of the characters' entrances, but when it gets down to plot and motive, there's a flatness that morphs into something unsettling - a void of sorts that Huston's style can't overwhelm.

[Mr Sausage]

Agreed, there’s still plenty of fun to be had—I love when Cairo gets his gun back and then insists on still searching Spade’s place, earning a guffaw of disbelief from Spade. And Greenstreet and Lorre are delights all through. But there are so many unpleasant bits, too, that I’d forgotten. There’s the infamous grin before smacking Cairo, of course. And the pointed callousness toward his partner’s widow across multiple scenes. But even wilder is the tormenting of Elisha Cooke jr.’s gunsel(sp?). It’s conventional for the noir lead to taunt the other characters, but Spade does it to the gunsel so relentlessly and insistently the man is brought to literal tears of rage. It goes beyond fun noir tormenting into sadism. The whole movie started to remind me of Kiss Me Deadly by that point.

I like your reading that Spade’s ending speech is this half hearted attempt to locate some glimmer of human feeling that should be there and just...isn’t. So he gives up and returns back his void, the empty falcon becoming a symbol even of Spade. A far grimmer ending than the conventional reading where Spade has to choose honour over happiness, since leaving with one’s ideals intact is at least something.

Anyway, nothing I’ve said is a criticism of the movie. It’s just bleaker and more unpleasant than I remembered. The Big Sleep, tho’, is a pure vibe movie and I love it. The plot’s incomprehensible and the villains are totally unmemorable, and it doesn’t even matter—the fun is just watching Marlowe tool around L.A. cracking wise with whoever he meets. In that, The Long Goodbye is a logical extension rather than an eccentric subversion.

[therewillbeblus]

Absolutely. And one could argue that Nightmare Alley is trying to find a place between the two - to create an alluring vibe a la The Big Sleep with its atmosphere and narrative shifts, while committing to a darker tone like The Maltese Falcon. But I agree with your assessment - it's just not as enveloping as it wants to be by keeping us at an uncomfortable distance. And that distance, which can and has been used towards rich thematic ends in other works, feels accidental. I think the filmmakers believed they succeeded at investing the audience but forgot some basic tenants on how to do so, never finding that sweet spot between repelling us and inviting us in. It's frustrating because the film is long, and uses its time to provide a bunch of interesting ideas, but I never feel like I can access them fully. And the Del Toro remake is way worse.

[knives]

It’s more clear in the book, which is quite good by the way, but Cook’s character is getting the brunt of Spade’s homophobia and even calling him a gunsel is directed toward that direction.