Postman Always Rings Twice, The (1946)
“With my brains and your looks, we could go places.”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: As the unwitting femme fatale who causes the downfall of both Garfield’s drifter and Kellaway’s bumbling restaurateur, “sweater girl” Lana Turner gives what is widely considered her best, most iconic performance: she’s all tanned legs, platinum hair, and seductive poses — literally a cheesecake model come to life — and while some (see DVD Savant’s review) have argued that she’s too pristine and wooden for the role of a gritty roadside waitress, Turner’s sunkissed looks are the perfect embodiment of a seductive force too strong to resist. John Garfield is well-cast as smitten Frank Chambers, and is a perfect match for Turner, effectively capturing the frustrations of a man torn between erotic desire, wanderlust, and a basic sense of decency. Other bit roles are nicely played as well, particularly Hume Cronyn as the brilliant if corrupt lawyer who first plays Turner off of Garfield, thus starting a downward spiral which ends — in typical noir fashion — tragically. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
One thought on “Postman Always Rings Twice, The (1946)”
A must – for its place in cinema history. But ultimately I’m not a big fan of this movie.
To me, this is one that gets worse on repeat viewings – it lacks a necessary richness that makes going back worth it. The problem is that the two main characters are rather uninteresting – and, myself, I cease caring what happens to them early on.
I know the story is all about the downfall of self-serving passion. But I find it more than a little one-note as presented here. And, though plenty of other films have characters at the forefront that we don’t want to root for, such films tend to also have elements that compensate (more intricate plot details or twists, snappier dialogue, better cinematography, etc.) Even as a kind of noir I find this picture wanting.
[I didn’t stick around this time to see how things developed in the second half – so I didn’t see the mano-a-mano of Cronyn and Ames. When the movie was losing me swiftly, all I could do was bail.]
Garfield has certainly been dependably better elsewhere any number of times. Turner is what she is: window dressing. Never a good actress, I think she actually ‘improved’ as the years went by and she played more into her limitations. But in this period (mid-40s to mid-50s), I find her more impressive in ‘The Bad and the Beautiful’.