I watched these two movies back to back, and what a contrast! First there's Nightfall, release date is variously given as 1957 or 1956. In either case, it's directed by Jacques Tourneur, the celebrated film-noir French-American director, widely admired for the excellent "Out of the Past" (1947). The cast of "Nightfall" is not much to write home about, with Anne Bancroft, Brian Keith, Aldo Ray, James Gregory. It has a pretty good IMDB score of 7.2 and RT Critic score of 100% and audience score of 75%. Based on the director, and the very high score, I was expecting at least a decent film. It's a total disaster, just an atrocious piece of work with zero redeeming features.
There are multiple giant problems, starting with the screenplay. Written by Stirling Silliphant, a pretty famous screenplay writer, based on a novel by David Goodis. I don't know if the novel is trash as well, but either way, Silliphant did nothing to improve it - it's just garbage on fire. Offensive and jaw dropping implausblities abound [SPOILER ALERT!!! - after this point, spoilers galore!], where a character is running through a forest and a field with a satchel of money, and then inexplicably declares he simply lost the satchel, and doesn't know how or where, and only realized later that he lost it! Straight out brain damaged insanity like this abounds. The main character - and all the other characters - act strangely and counter intuitively and never learn from their mistakes. The various "get aways" are always set up in the clumsiest of ways and telegraphed miles ahead - a bad guy ties up two of the victims, but strangely does not tie up the third who is the main opponent, and then of course the untied man takes him down... no explanation. Garbage like that non-stop. It's a kind of marvel of implausibilities without let up, practically every single scene. It's exhausting. Needless to say, every other element of this script is terrible as well - including interminably long scenes whose sole function is exposition, in the most boring and uninvolving manner possible. Btw., the title has nothing to do with anything, seems like a random word chosen purely for its noir connotations - "Nightfall" - it has nothing to do with the film.
The next biggest problem is the acting. Anne Bancroft, Brian Keith and James Gregory are passable - not great by any stretch, but serviceable. The giant turd in this is the main actor who is supposed to be the star of this sorry production - Aldo Ray. A more wooden, irritating and shambolic actor you have not seen. The guy can't make a single gesture, utter a word, or anything else without you wanting to scream. His very presence is an affront to the idea of acting. What an abomination. How the director decided to use this dunce for his main actor, I can't imagine - maybe some kind of hostage situation or death threat to his entire family.
The cinematography is a crime. It features some of the very worst day for night photography I've had the misfortune to see - and there's a lot of bad B&W day for night footage from the 40's and 50's out there.
The end effect is a thoroughly uninvolving, boring, predictable film. If one is looking for any scintilla of good, it's the first 2 minutes or so of the film have a tiny bit of noir atmosphere, before it's all destroyed by that blockhead Aldo Ray showing his oafish face.
What really bothers me about this atrocity though, is the critical acclaim - 100% critic's score on RT. Really? All these critics think this monstrosity is deserving of anything other than a 0 score? Scores like this is the perfect argument for always, always, always disregarding all such opinion and forming your own impression. I really should create a master list of critics one can just dismiss out of hand, when they give a 100% rating to a film that deserves 0% - since everyone has their own taste, I suppose such a master list will be different for everyone.
A great contast to this, is The Big Heat (1953). Directed by Fritz Lang, with Glenn Ford, Lee Marvin, Gloria Grahame, Jocelyn Brando. This is the first time I've conciously seen Jocelyn Brando, and I had no idea she was Marlon Brando's sister! She is quite good here - and coincidetally, she's also in the atrocious "Nightfall", but her role there is so small it's not worth mentioning. The standout here is Lee Marvin - if you know him from his later films, once he was established as a star, you might be surprised at how big a range he had, as an example in this film, he's just excellent. Glenn Ford is, well, Glenn Ford, he carries the role OK, nothing to celebrate, but he does the job and is believable. Gloria Graheme is excellent too, and gives a very touching performance in a demanding role.
What's interesting in this film, is that the whole is much better than the individual parts. Nothing is particulary outstanding individually - the story is OK, the photography serviceable, and so on. But somehow all of it is quite involving. A big part of its success is the excellent pacing - there almost no scenes which exceed their tension value. That is a huge secret to a successful film, a fact much underappreciatd - or not appreciated at all for so many films including today. The ability to say "this scene is only worth x amount of time" is invaluable. Plus, no matter how pedestrian a scene - and there are plenty of purely functional scenes in this movie - you should always include something to hold the viewer's attention, even if it's purely technical, such as lighting or camera angle, framing, movement, music, sound etc. I guess it can be credited to Fritz Lang, but maybe at least some of the pacing can be credited to the editor, I don't know (I looked up the editor, Charles Nelson, apparently won an Oscar and was nominated two other times, plus had a lifetime award from the American Cinema Editors, USA).
Is it a masterpiece? No, but it's a very solid piece of work and a film worth re-watching to see what makes it tick.
There are multiple giant problems, starting with the screenplay. Written by Stirling Silliphant, a pretty famous screenplay writer, based on a novel by David Goodis. I don't know if the novel is trash as well, but either way, Silliphant did nothing to improve it - it's just garbage on fire. Offensive and jaw dropping implausblities abound [SPOILER ALERT!!! - after this point, spoilers galore!], where a character is running through a forest and a field with a satchel of money, and then inexplicably declares he simply lost the satchel, and doesn't know how or where, and only realized later that he lost it! Straight out brain damaged insanity like this abounds. The main character - and all the other characters - act strangely and counter intuitively and never learn from their mistakes. The various "get aways" are always set up in the clumsiest of ways and telegraphed miles ahead - a bad guy ties up two of the victims, but strangely does not tie up the third who is the main opponent, and then of course the untied man takes him down... no explanation. Garbage like that non-stop. It's a kind of marvel of implausibilities without let up, practically every single scene. It's exhausting. Needless to say, every other element of this script is terrible as well - including interminably long scenes whose sole function is exposition, in the most boring and uninvolving manner possible. Btw., the title has nothing to do with anything, seems like a random word chosen purely for its noir connotations - "Nightfall" - it has nothing to do with the film.
The next biggest problem is the acting. Anne Bancroft, Brian Keith and James Gregory are passable - not great by any stretch, but serviceable. The giant turd in this is the main actor who is supposed to be the star of this sorry production - Aldo Ray. A more wooden, irritating and shambolic actor you have not seen. The guy can't make a single gesture, utter a word, or anything else without you wanting to scream. His very presence is an affront to the idea of acting. What an abomination. How the director decided to use this dunce for his main actor, I can't imagine - maybe some kind of hostage situation or death threat to his entire family.
The cinematography is a crime. It features some of the very worst day for night photography I've had the misfortune to see - and there's a lot of bad B&W day for night footage from the 40's and 50's out there.
The end effect is a thoroughly uninvolving, boring, predictable film. If one is looking for any scintilla of good, it's the first 2 minutes or so of the film have a tiny bit of noir atmosphere, before it's all destroyed by that blockhead Aldo Ray showing his oafish face.
What really bothers me about this atrocity though, is the critical acclaim - 100% critic's score on RT. Really? All these critics think this monstrosity is deserving of anything other than a 0 score? Scores like this is the perfect argument for always, always, always disregarding all such opinion and forming your own impression. I really should create a master list of critics one can just dismiss out of hand, when they give a 100% rating to a film that deserves 0% - since everyone has their own taste, I suppose such a master list will be different for everyone.
A great contast to this, is The Big Heat (1953). Directed by Fritz Lang, with Glenn Ford, Lee Marvin, Gloria Grahame, Jocelyn Brando. This is the first time I've conciously seen Jocelyn Brando, and I had no idea she was Marlon Brando's sister! She is quite good here - and coincidetally, she's also in the atrocious "Nightfall", but her role there is so small it's not worth mentioning. The standout here is Lee Marvin - if you know him from his later films, once he was established as a star, you might be surprised at how big a range he had, as an example in this film, he's just excellent. Glenn Ford is, well, Glenn Ford, he carries the role OK, nothing to celebrate, but he does the job and is believable. Gloria Graheme is excellent too, and gives a very touching performance in a demanding role.
What's interesting in this film, is that the whole is much better than the individual parts. Nothing is particulary outstanding individually - the story is OK, the photography serviceable, and so on. But somehow all of it is quite involving. A big part of its success is the excellent pacing - there almost no scenes which exceed their tension value. That is a huge secret to a successful film, a fact much underappreciatd - or not appreciated at all for so many films including today. The ability to say "this scene is only worth x amount of time" is invaluable. Plus, no matter how pedestrian a scene - and there are plenty of purely functional scenes in this movie - you should always include something to hold the viewer's attention, even if it's purely technical, such as lighting or camera angle, framing, movement, music, sound etc. I guess it can be credited to Fritz Lang, but maybe at least some of the pacing can be credited to the editor, I don't know (I looked up the editor, Charles Nelson, apparently won an Oscar and was nominated two other times, plus had a lifetime award from the American Cinema Editors, USA).
Is it a masterpiece? No, but it's a very solid piece of work and a film worth re-watching to see what makes it tick.