I've watched this movie numerous times and for the life of me I can't work out why Sam Masterson kicks his hitchhiker out of the car after a relatively minor accident that leaves the car in good enough shape to be driven into Iverstown anyway! What possible reason could there be for dumping the poor sailor by the roadside and not at least taking him into town? Am I missing something obvious?
shareMainly so the sailor could catch another ride on the highway. The accident is the only reason he had to go into Iverstown.
shareThanks for your response. The highway would likely have passed right through the town anyway (as highways generally did in those days, before the advent of the Interstate Highway system), but I guess maybe it was easier to hitch a ride from a spot out of town than actually in the town. I think it looks strange to me because I have a notion that the sailor would prefer to be dropped where there were some facilities available!
shareThe highway would likely have passed right through the town anywayMaybe, but do you know for sure? Not all highways passed through towns because many of them had bypass highways for travelers.
Agree entirely. Actually the whole scene is wrong. The amount of time he spends looking back over his shoulder while driving on a highway is beyond credibility, even allowing for cinematographic license. Also, one would think that he'd have seen Iverstown on a road sign many miles previously and that therefore his surprise would have occurred much earlier than just as he was approaching the town limits. None of these things on its own is enough to wreck the scene but in totality their effect is awful. Actually, the entire movie to this point is somewhat insipid but from the moment he drives into town (when everyone's an adult) it takes a significant turn for the better!
shareActually, the entire movie to this point is somewhat insipid but from the moment he drives into town (when everyone's an adult) it takes a significant turn for the better!I concur.
I'm not sure if a flashback would work. The prelude does serve to set the scene for the rest of the movie and helps to create the right sense of excitement when Sam turns up in town and wanders into Walter's office, further heightened when Martha turns up. The later outdoor scene with Sam and Martha by the smoldering fire depends for its effectiveness on the recollection of a detail that occurred much earlier, not just for the protagonists but also for the audience. The effect couldn't be achieved as well with a flashback. So on balance I think the prelude has to be there. However, it could have been done a lot better. The scene with Mr. O'Neil and the two kids following old Mrs. Ivers's death is just too insipid.
shareThanks for your thoughts, gerard, and good points taken.
The prelude could have been better, or shorter, but I think it would be simpler and more effective to cut the whole thing and graft a few fragments of it back in here and there, as flashbacks, using only what was absolutely necessary.
The prelude is over 15 mins long and then what follows feels like the start of a completely different film to me.
The former doesn't really become fully meaningful in relation to the latter till quite a bit later and I can never make the two connect in my mind. Rationally, I know what's what, but on a gut level - an experiential level - the two are forever separate in a dysfunctional way.
As it is it just doesn't cut it for me and I say, like a gangrenous limb, it ought to have been amputated.
Other, messier, trickier options would be:
Trim the hell out of the prelude, at least halving it, then push it forward as one big early recollection of Hefflin's triggered by him being back in his hometown.
or:
Mess with the start of the 'adult phase' so that feels more connected to the prelude, introducing Stanwyck and Douglas's characters earlier, and before Scott shows up - actually I like that idea. This way I might have made the jump and tethered the two seemingly disparate worlds.
Cheers,
Anton
Time for a new signature, perhaps. Hmmmm...
Anton, I understand your concerns but I come back to my previous point about that outdoors scene with Sam and Martha and the shocking revelation that Martha stumbles on. It marks a fundamental transition in the relation between the protagonists and it only works because the audience recalls the allusion from the first part of the movie. I don't think it could be made to work with a mere flashback. We had to have seen it as "real", "non-archival" footage, if you know what I mean. I believe that this is the primary reason for the prelude as we know it, and for its length, which is probably timed so that the critical nuance that the audience needs later is not excessively obvious. Everything else in the prelude could potentially have been supplied in the dialogue later but not that particular visual detail.
shareI come back to my previous point about that outdoors scene with Sam and Martha and the shocking revelation that Martha stumbles on. It marks a fundamental transition in the relation between the protagonists and it only works because the audience recalls the allusion from the first part of the movie.I hear what you're saying... but I don't think they handled the revelation very well anyway, so it really wasn't worth it. Flashbacks could have gotten the facts of the background across, perhaps one major flashback from Hef on arrival in Iversville, centring on his plan to run away with Martha and eventual solo flight; one from Babs after seeing Hef again, showing the murder...well, juvenile manslaughter, that prevented her from joining Hef and including the relevant info; and one from Doug after his 'I'd rather get drunk' speech showing his dad, his place in Bab's life as a kid and indicating how he got to be married to her.
We had to have seen it as "real", "non-archival" footage, if you know what I mean.Well I think it would be MORE real if it were a flashback. As it is, it's disembodied time-travel and, to me, is out of place.
I believe that this is the primary reason for the prelude as we know it, and for its length, which is probably timed so that the critical nuance that the audience needs later is not excessively obvious.I take your logic, but for me this cunning plan - especially the length bit - backfires and seriously damages the film. And I think the gain, if there is one, is not worth the sacrifice - that revelation is not the moment of the film, it's just a moment of the film, a twist, it's a bit of spice... Just not worth it, in my opinion. I like the film but to me it fall short of being classic noir, largely because the prelude doesn't fit. The Hef, Scott, Stan, Doug quadrangle in dark satanic mill Iverstown, with motels and corruption aspect without the 19th C novel stuff might have made it a top 10 noir for me. I guess it's different strokes for different folks.
I always thought that the intro was a little strange, especially since the sailor bore a strong resemblance to Kirk Douglas, dimpled chin and all !
"J'ai l'oeil AMÉRICAIN !"
Well it was just so he would have to be delayed and forced to stay in town for a while rather than briefly passing by as he originally intended which would have meant the whole plot was done away with.
shareI agree the accident scene isn't credible but it does allow for the line "The road curved, I didn't".
shareI thought the scene was just so odd and contrived. I can't imagine anyone casually turning around to look behind him and at the same time carry on what seemed to be a one-way conversation with a guy who's asleep. Then, hitting a sign - without anyone hitting the windshield, minor damage to the car, which could only happen if the car were crawling at a snail's pace.
Such an awkward bit of the plot.
I think he just got a bit annoyed and decided that he'd have to deal with his car accident on his own.
Besides, it would be easier for the sailor to hitchhike from the road rather than from town.
~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER
Watching the film now and just saw the "sailor in the car" scene. Couple of quick points.
-Researched this site and found out that the sailor was played by Blake Edwards.
-Occurred to me, how we never see sailors or any other military people in uniform hitchhiking any more. Years ago, especially in the time period of the this film, you would always see military people hitchhiking
Which reminds me of the tragic case of the beautiful actress Helen Walker.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0907785/bio
[deleted]