The Killers (1946) [DVD]

The Killers was directed in 1946 by Robert Siodmak (Criss Cross, 1948; The Spiral Staircase, 1945) and was adapted by Anthony Villier and John Huston from the Ernest Hemingway story of the same name. Much of the film is told in flashback sequences similar to that of Citizen Kane (1941). An insurance investigator, played by Edmond O' Brian (DOA 1950; Barefoot Contessa 1954), attempts to solve the murder of `Swede' who is gunned down by two hitmen. Burt Lancaster stars as `Swede' in his film debut and would later star in Criss Cross also. This truly is a brilliant film noir with some excellent dialogue, especially in the opening diner scene (lifted straight out of short story), as well as superb cinematography. The Killers also made a star out of Ava Gardener as the femme fatale interest Kitty. I don't think however she is as great a femme fatale as say Lana Turner, Gene Tierney, Lauren Bacall or Gloria Grahame were in similar roles. The Killers was a critical as well as box-office hit and received an Oscar nomination this year but lost out to William Wyler's `The Best Years Of Our Lives'

The DVD package is very basic with no extras but is a decent transfer.

Robert Siodmark was one of a clutch of directors who came out of the UFA studios in Berlin and took refuge from the Nazis in Hollywoood. (His first film, in Germany, was co-directed with Billy Wilder, Fred Zinneman and Edgar Ulmer.) Unlike the others, instead of making a beeline for Los Angeles, he lingered in France, and his films have a more European film to them.

This is particularly evident in the opening sequences of "The Killers" (in some ways the tautest and best bit), where Burt Lancaster, The Swede, is holed up in his boarding house waiting fatalistically for the hoods to come and kill him. The trapped young man, innocent but flawed victim of the femme fatale, harks straight back to Jean Gabin in Carne's "Le Jour Se Leve" Le Jour Se Leve [DVD] [1939]. The films flashback structure with multiple narrators draws on "Citizen Kane" Citizen Kane [DVD] [1942] but also echoes Carne.

The relationship between French romantic movies of the 30s and film noir may be something for movie buffs, but the big question is, how well does the movie play today? The answer is, pretty well, but not quite as well as it might. The main problem is the flashback structure, which takes away narrative pace. The main story, of the big gentle good-natured ex-boxer, drawn into crime when his sports career goes belly-up, and spiralling down for love of Ava Gardner, has a kind of momentum; however, every time we get somewhere we have to go back to Edmund O'Brien as the investigator, and set up how he gets to talk to the next witness.

This was Burt Lancaster's first film, and it shows slightly. He hasn't yet grown into film stardom, and his performance is a little too considered, "now-I-gotta-do-this", and the lines come fractionally too slow and deliberate. That he is going to be a star, though, there is never any doubt. In the action he shows the economy of the acrobat, and in close up there is that astonishing contrast between gentleness and the absolute ferocious concentration of the eyes. Like all true stars, he knows how to take his time, and he knows he doesn't have to shout.

It's an early role for Ava Gardner too, not as voluptuous as later, and when thinner there's an extraordinary masculinity to her face; with that strong, dimpled chin, she looks a bit like Kirk Douglas in drag. However, her final crack up, begging her boyfriend to save her even though he's already dead, is very effective.

Siodmak is a virtuoso, and it shows in the opening sequence, all shadow and ferocious dialogue, and above all in the filmed robbery, a single extended crane shot. But he's more than a virtuoso, he's a significant director because, unlike Zinnemann, for example, he has something to say about life. He knows it is all illusion, and it can all be taken away at any time, so enjoy the tiny sweet moment for what it's worth while you can. It's the philosophy of the refugee, and the German exiles created film noir not only in style from the German Expressionist films of the 1920s but also in the content of the shifting sands of human existence.

This was made in 1946, when film noir hadn't quite defined what it was, and certainly before it became self-conscious about it. Though not perfect, it was a big influence on films that were.

How do you make an interesting movie when the character the movie ostensibly is all about is just a dumb lug, as interesting as a boiled potato? The Swede stumbles into one situation after another, willing to believe in true love or lies. For me, director Robert Siodmak and screenwriters Anthony Veiller, Richard Brooks and John Huston (the last two uncredited) solve this problem three ways.

First, there is the great look and style of the movie. I think it's impossible to say one movie looks better than all others, especially when it comes to noirs, but The Killers nails as well as any the dark, foreboding feel of cheap hotel rooms, shadowy streets and close-ups of white, worried faces. Second, all the flashbacks in this movie create the sense of a complex jigsaw puzzle slowly being solved. The story not only becomes complicated and interesting, it's great fun to see what the next piece in the puzzle is going to show us. And what helps make all those puzzle pieces interesting is the cast of characters who take turns in the flashback spotlights. There's not a dud actor in the lot. And third, for me, is the sourness of the ending. No, not the last scene of a smiling Edmond O'Brien jauntily leaving his boss's office. It's the revelation of what a nasty piece of work Kitty Collins really was and how far out of her league was the Swede. He was just a big, thick-eared guy who, in other circumstances, might have gone straight, but he didn't have a chance when he saw Kitty that first time at the party sitting next to the piano player. I don't think this was what Rodgers and Hammerstein had in mind when they wrote about seeing a stranger across a crowded room.

Besides, "I did something wrong once" is a great line to power a crime movie with.

What also struck me is the simplicity of the logic behind Jim Colfax' decision to unleash the two hit men onto the Swede. At first, it seemed so much smarter just to let things coast by. But Colfax's reasoning holds up if you think about it, and that logic powers the action of the movie. What doesn't hold up is the motivation of the two hit men's behavior in the diner. How much easier it would have been to walk in, sit down and order a couple of cups of coffee. Then mention they were in town to pay back some money to the Swede but they don't have his address. Anybody know where he lives? Someone would have said, "Why, sure. He lives at Ma's boarding house just a couple of blocks from here." I know, this more practical approach would have gutted the foreboding and nervousness of the movie. I'm not advocating this, just suggesting that it's a little bothersome when a great plot device has a flaw.