Scarlet Street (1945)

When it’s on: Friday, 29 December (8.55 am)
Channel: Talking Pictures
IMDb Link

Some time ago on these pages, I covered Ms Joan Bennett and her luminous starring role in Max Ophuls’s The Reckless Moment. Both in real life and on screen, Bennett was a compelling and fascinating lady, capable of adapting her talents to various guises just as her world away from film spun through a series of controversies and scandals. You can imagine her acting ability being put to good use as she switched from delicate victim to femme fatale, always with her survival instinct present and correct.

Before Ophuls cast her as a compromised middle class housewife in his 1949 movie, Bennett was perhaps best known for the two films she made with Fritz Lang in the middle of that decade, The Woman in the Window followed by Scarlet Street. Both feature the same cast members – downtrodden, broken Edward G Robinson and thuggish spiv, Dan Duryea – but it’s Bennett who takes two very different parts. In the earlier film she’s classy, but in Scarlet Street she plays Kitty, a low rent tramp, tied to petty conman Johnny (Duryea), who she loves despite suffering physical abuse from him. Though the script never states it Kitty is almost certainly a prostitute, or at least ‘fallen’ enough to use sex casually, and as a consequence she’s beautiful, brassy and in her manner and speech as pure as the driven slush. It would take a true sap to see anything in her beyond irredeemable white trash, and into her world slopes Chris Cross (Robinson), middle-aged, subservient, his soul crushed by life, and yet hopeful.

Through Dudley Nichols’s screenplay, Lang’s direction and a top notch performance by Robinson, Chris is one of those characters who appears to have stumbled into the film from bitter reality. He represents everyone’s broken dream. His lowly cashier’s job pays little and offers nothing, and yet he’s just completed 25 years’ service. He’s married to a lady who dotes on her former late husband, his portrait hanging in pride of place within the parlour to put Chris squarely in his place. Chris works and does the domestic chores while spending his scraps of spare time painting, a release from the dirge that offers him some tiny sense of pleasure. He knows his attempts at art aren’t very good, but that isn’t the point – he loves doing it, despite his harridan wife (Rosalind Ivan) complaining about the smell of paint and threatening to throw all his work away.

In Kitty – who he chances across one night – he sees a chance to turn his life around. She seems to show an interest in him, and that morsel of attention is enough to compel Chris to begin lavishing her with money and gifts, but the entire relationship is based on misconceptions and assumptions. He refuses to let the shades fall away and see her for what she really is, choosing to ignore shady Johnny who always appears to be around while claiming to be just a friend. As for Kitty, her initial meeting with Chris happens when he’s returning from a night out – he’s dressed opulently and is taking about £50,000 art purchases, which suggests to her he’s loaded, a big shot. Johnny tells her to exploit this, which she does half-heartedly. She doesn’t want to take their plan of swindling Chris out of his money too far, but it isn’t long before she’s in over her head. While Johnny starts selling Chris’s paintings to make a bit on the side, the pair have no idea that his largesse is coming from robbing the work safe, that he thinks it will all be worth it because it will ultimately lead to marriage with Kitty and some half grasped happily ever after.

The result of all this scheming and dreaming is an inevitable spiral towards destruction and doom for Chris, Kitty and even Johnny. Each character is punished in some poetic fashion, and while The Woman in the Window came with a final twist that suggested redemption and lessons learned, there’s no such optimistic coda to be found here. It’s as though Lang was robbed of taking his earlier feature to its natural conclusion by a studio fearful of such downbeat storytelling, but was allowed free rein on Scarlet Street and seized the opportunity, handing his characters their just desserts in various degrees of bleakness. As a cruel irony, Chris’s paintings happen to be spotted by a prestigious studio and go on to sell for thousands, though thanks to Johnny’s machinations by then the pictures bear someone else’s name. It’s a satirical note, a comment perhaps on the whims of fate, or a wink back in time to the director’s own early years as a struggling artist before entering the German film industry and becoming part of the Expressionist movement. In any event it shows the possible ‘happy ending’ Chris wishes for, but has long since pulled it from beneath him.

Scarlet Street builds to one of the most pessimistic and indeed depressing finishes I remember seeing on film, certainly where romantic Hollywood cinema is concerned. It brings a European ethos to bear, the sensibility that stories in which people do bad things won’t necessarily lead to an ending where the characters are compensated but instead face ruin, whether through death or forced to live, destroyed morally and haunted by the ghosts of the past.  It isn’t an easy film to stomach, but it successfully holds a mirror to the attitudes of the period, the Noir ethic reflecting society’s sense of uncertainty as the horrors of war and endings that held no satisfactory note were all too real. There’s a hint of unfairness about Chris’s fate, that his only real mistake was to fall in with a ‘bad crowd’ and allow himself to be duped, but hey, bad things happen to people who don’t necessarily deserve it and Chris, who lets himself be manipulated and has no right to imagine a future with Kitty, sort of has it coming. While Lang does offer a note of pity in his instance, it doesn’t really amount to much and the character, shattered and in the grip of a complete mental breakdown, is left to shuffle off into the void of his own making.

So why watch it at all? The reality is Scarlet Street is masterly film making and that ought to be reason enough. Lang was a perfectionist, slave driving his cast and crew to put his personal vision onto the screen, and in this film he spared no effort in capturing it. Milton Krasner, the cinematographer who would be rewarded with an Academy Award for Three Coins in a Fountain a decade later, applied Lang’s visual language with some stunning imagery. The way Chris sees Kitty, bathed in white and angelic, utterly at odds with reality but emphasising his ironic perception, is bathed in soft white light. Later, as our ‘hero’ embarks on his walk of ruin, the shadows creep into the frame more. He’s living in a pathetic hovel, light offered harshly by a neon sign outside the window, which leaves most of his room shrouded in darkness. Chris hears the voices of Kitty and Johnny, his ‘Hello, Lazy Legs‘ and her whispered, sexy ‘Jeepers Johnny, I love you‘ taunting him, presumably for the rest of his days, and the camera all but suggests that those black corners contain their spirits.

Robinson is absolutely believable as the film’s victim, to such an extent in fact that when I picture him it’s as this character, all those years playing hoodlums and the likes of Keyes in Double Indemnity playing support to his role in Scarlet Street. The same with Bennett. Lang saw in her the beautiful woman who has lived and those years of blows, bad choices and bitterness have created the jaded character of Kitty, in her own way every bit as pathetic as Chris, trapped within a destructive relationship and heading in just one direction. There aren’t very many film roles, especially for females, from the classic period that hinted at such a complicated back story for their characters, honing them into the people they are in the movie, but Scarlet Street suggests exactly that and without slapping minutes of exposition onto the screen. The result is a pessimistic work, but a masterpiece in the telling and execution.

Scarlet Street: *****

Advertisements

10 Replies to “Scarlet Street (1945)”

    1. Thanks Sergio and certainly not, though the ending does take place at Christmas with seasonal jingles playing in the background – does that count? Of course it doesn’t, though it amazes me the films ‘they’ try to tell us are Christmas movies…

    1. Thanks Maddy, I sort of feel the same and that’s saying something, isn’t it? One of the most consistent and high calibre screen actors of his generation, so to put this above all his other roles…. And yet he’s perfect in it and there’s no doubt he’s built for it, even stooping throughout to make himself look more beaten and older against the cocksure Duryea character.

      1. He certainly was. I also like how he was able to switch between playing tough and scary gangsters, to playing average, shy and weary characters. He was one of the all time greats. I only wish he had gotten to play more characters like this.

  1. This is a very good film, an interesting companion piece for The Woman in the Window and much harsher film. It’s incredibly well made and has a lasting impact, but leaves a very sour aftertaste too. I’ll own up to preferring TWitW, partially because it leaves me feeling better (and that’s honestly bot a quality to be dismissed) and also because I think it, a little like Siodmak’s The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry, takes the viewer right to the brink and shows us a lesson learned, as opposed to relentless bleakness.

    I know it’s maybe a hobby horse of mine but I do appreciate an artistic work more when it at least offer a glimpse of redemption for those portrayed, which doesn’t have to equate with schmaltz by the way. Lang was more likely to offer his characters a shot at that in his better films – and I do believe his Hollywood material is more mature and both aesthetically and spiritually pleasing – and it’s one of the reasons I think they endure and resonate still.

    1. Thanks Colin. Based on things you have said in the past – your preference for RIO BRAVO over HIGH NOON for instance – I appreciate how the film makes you feel is a factor, sometimes the deciding one when the quality is so high.

      For my part, there’s a sense that THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW does cop out a bit at the end and using a device that even at the time was hackneyed, but I will confess that it comes as a relief, that the characters don’t fully deserve the bleak ending to which they’re inexorably heading beforehand, and so the redemptive note is welcome. I wouldn’t say the ending is schmaltzy, because it’s far too well observed and performed a film to push that button, but the conclusion of SCARLET STREET just hits me as more natural, pessimistic though it is.

      But it is bleak, which I fully understand can turn some viewers away – personally I think it’s very bold and consistent with everything that’s taken place beforehand. It isn’t as though real life always pulls back before destruction… All the same, I do appreciate where you’re coming from and thanks again for making the point with such eloquence. Certainly, any Lang film from this period offers the dark and light sides of humanity in the sort of stylistically and narratively satisfying ways that few others managed.

      1. Thanks, Mike, I guess the film and the direction of this discussion just drifts towards that area which always holds my attention. Of course I’m not attempting to put the case for TWitW being the better movie or even insisting a comparison be made – but the shared personnel and similar themes do invite us to look at them in such a way.

        No, the two films have different aims and set about achieving them in correspondingly different ways – I feel they do so successfully and therefore need not be pitted against each other. For me, it’s merely a matter of preference rather than any effort to pick a “winner” – it comes down to a wholly subjective view of which film elicits the more pleasurable response. And then, seeing as we are talking about artistic works here and the fact the film itself is indeed built around and plays off the idea, that starts to feed into the area of art vs reality, in turn raising questions about the necessity and perhaps even the desirability of their relationship. However, I could happily witter on about that all day, which would be a little unfair and no doubt tedious to both yourself and other readers. Mind you, I’ve no doubt it will come up again.

      2. Absolutely. I certainly like the point about there being no ‘winner’ here, they’re both great films and in offering different endings from similar casts not only do they invite comparison but they also give us the alternative and I suppose ask which we prefer. For my part I probably equate the close of SCARLET STREET with real boldness, perhaps not to a more realistic conclusion but definitely a bleaker one, yet that’s unfair with two such quality titles. Maybe it’s the case that the characters in SS are more flawed and don’t deserve the ‘let off’ offered in THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW, but as you say we could hammer this one out ad nauseum…? What I do appreciate is you taking the time to make your point here – it isn’t a dull one is it?

      3. That’s one of the things I like so much about Lang. His work is so rich that it’s easy to talk about, and it lends itself to discussion and alternative views so easily.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s