Scott: At first I was wondering why they decided to use Montalban as the lead, but that was soon answered when it was revealed that the victim was smothered to death with real Corinthian leather. Okay, that didn't happen, nor did Montalban at any point wear a fake rubber bare chest with hugely defined pecs. Despite these massive shortcomings, however, the film was, as Lance said, very entertaining. In light of the fact that Montalban became almost a parody by the time he finished Fantasy Island and is sort of a punchline now, I thought he was actually quite good. I was a little unsure about certain decisions made by the screenwriters (I thought the build-up was unnecessarily long and kind of weird) but for the most part it was well written, which could be assumed by the fact it was nominated for a screenplay Oscar. The CSI stuff in particular was probably quite fresh at the time this was written, even if it seems a bit creepy now (superimposing skulls over women's faces to measure how well the eyesockets lined up is just a bit too Ronnie James Dio for my taste). I particularly liked the fact that even though Montalban's character was shown to be a conscientious, thorough detective, he was also totally wrong about who the killer was to the point of nearly booking the wrong guy's wife too, as an accomplice. It was a nice departure from the usual lead detective as infallible Sherlock Holmes super sleuth.
Lance: Right. To a large extent, the "hero" of the film is the researcher at Harvard who uses all of the newfangled forensics to solve the murder, not Montalban's character. Montalban is a good guy in the sense that he's just open-minded enough to listen to the doctor instead of his gut (although he does have the wrong guy charged and indicted while the investigation is going on).
And I liked the CSI stuff; I didn't find it creepy at all. In 1950 they superimposed photos of the skull and possible victims, in 2009 they use a computer to generate the images. I don't think the slideshow was any more creepy than what they do now.
I did have a couple of nits to pick. I thought the subplot of the meddling landlord got in the way. There were real timing issues as well...the opening scene happens "six months ago" according to an on-screen graphic. We later find that the scene took place in late May--which would set the rest of the movie from November on forward--yet the movie is clearly set during the summer time based on the foliage, dress of the characters, etc. Not a bit of snow, ice, or cold to be found. But that's not more than a minor distraction.
Scott: Lance has here spared you, the reader, from the details of the lengthy debate that arose about what "Six Months Ago" was supposed to mean -- whether these events were six months before the other events in the film (the dialogue clearly indicates the opening sequence is actually three months before the opening sequence, not six) or whether the opening sequence is supposed to be six months before the "current day", i.e. when the audience is watching it (which also doesn't make sense based on when the film was released). Either way, the "Six Months Ago" tag at the beginning is a superfluous source of confusion. That, of course, is pretty much the textbook definition of nitpicking, because I doubt there are more than a half dozen people in the world who noticed this when they watched the movie. And fewer that got in an argument about it. I'm also going to stick with my contention that the CSI stuff is creepy. As it happens, I think CSI itself is little more than exploitative, sensationalist murder porn, so in that sense I much preferred the restraint of Mystery Street, even if the title "Mystery Street" didn't actually have a single thing to do with this movie. Overall it was a well done, solid and entertaining film.
Tags: Ricardo Montalban Elsa Lanchester John Sturges Mystery Street 1950
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. As Lance has pointed out, the question is not so much who killed the blonde (that becomes obvious to the viewer early in the picture), but how forensics will help the law bring the right man to justice.
ReplyDeleteThe writing is fair, and the acting is strong (Elsa Lanchester's turn as a landlady with shifty morals stands out). Even the treatment of forensics seems surprisingly current considering the methods in use at the time are nearly 50 years old. Today's viewer, though more than familiar with modern forensics, can still enjoy watching the team figure things out.
The film's greatest strength is the overt and subtle treatment of bias. The fact that Montalban's character, Peter Morales, is ready to arrest the wrong man underscores his role as a kind of "everyman" who is both fascinated by the new science of forensics and hampered by out-dated assumptions. That Morales is, himself, the object of racial bias is a subtle irony that is handled tastefully, especially for 1950. It is a rare combination in a film noir.
For the record, the written information at the beginning of the movie doesn't detract in the slightest. It's clearly intended for the viewer (the actual release date is beside the point) to create a sense of realism.