SPOILERS BELOW, in case somebody stumbles on this who wants no spoilers.
I agree with you insofar as I think the filmmakers want us to believe him. They're indicating "truth", not lies. But, there are a couple things that give me pause about the Narrator's tale.
First, film noir is a "grey area" kind of genre. I know they weren't thinking of it as noir (obviously), but they knew the kind of shifty, shadowy world they were making.
Second, the narrator almost panics every time he gets to a moment of crime and sin. "You don't believe me, do you!?" He goes over this, and over it, and over it. His emotion belies his tension. Now, I think (as you do) that this is just meant to show his horror and revulsion of it, but it could be an indication that he's guilty and getting shaky while lying.
Finally, there's the moment Vera takes the phone into the room. I remember chuckling a bit, thinking that Roberts should have just yanked the cord out of the wall. Then he tries breaking the phone pulling in the wrong direction. What a great way to twist the movie's climax on him! I loved that moment. But, it did get me thinking about why he didn't just yank it out of the wall. Is he lying? He's saying, "Oh, I didn't know it was around her neck," but that's not the easiest way to do what he did... Of course, as I said elsewhere around here, it's not like he was a criminal mastermind. The guy was strung-out, aggravated, and drunk (if I recall correctly), so maybe he wasn't in a state of mind to yank it from the wall, instead accidentally throttling Vera.
I think it is fun to think about the nature of his story v. reality, though, and even if I ultimately do think he's telling (mostly) the truth, part of the point of the movie is how this is a hard-to-swallow tale, and a listener (like the cops) would question it, every dogged step of the way.
reply
share
JohnnyJohnson (345)
a year ago
I like the idea of an unreliable narrator. It makes more sense than to think he is the unluckiest person on the planet. I started not buying his story when he kept saying he didn't know if Haskell died falling out of the car. Huh? He was dead already. And the whole cord situation, when all he had to do was unplug it from the wall in the room he was in? Yet he pulls so strongly that he actually strangles Vera who is locked in an adjacent room? Not buying it.
I know, IT'S JUST A MOVIE. But deeper thinkers see things beyond Mary Had a Little Lamb. It's not just having an active imagination. When things don't make sense, intelligent deep thinkers try to figure things out. Sure, Al might have been the most unlucky person in the world. But it makes more sense to me to believe he wasn't being totally honest in his narration.
And no one knows if they are correct or not. That makes it such a compelling film.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9601)
a year ago
Unreliable narrators fit particularly well with film noir, too. It's a whole universe of grey morals and grey motives where the only thing that's black-and-white are the shadows around the naked bulbs.
I do think Al was one unlucky son-of-a-duck, but I also think he colours the narrative, just a little. For instance, with the phone cord, I think he probably wanted to hurt Vera, but I don't know that he was trying to kill her. I don't think it was a conscious, murderous impulse, I just think he wanted to shut her up. I don't think he killed Haskell and rolled him for the money, but I do think he knows that there was a high road ready to take and a low road he actually took.
Explorations of the grim cul-de-sacs in the human mind? That's what makes film noir so fun.
reply
share