Skip to main content

Review: The Killers (1946)



Written in the 1920s, when mobsters were a constant scourge to America’s society, “The Killers,” though containing no more than 3,000 words, reflects palpably the spine-chilling horror and relentless hostility that accompany such organised crime. The novella bears testament to Ernest Hemingway’s unparalleled genius, in that the author’s penchant for laconicness creates the most timeless of beauty. It is a bracing thriller that comprises barely any descriptions of the incident but short, impetuous, unnervingly comical conversations between the characters. Hemingway’s purposely-designed ending- the built-up towards the final climax is perfectly dismantled by a wanting of dénouement- is the prime example of a great suspense.

In a 1947 film directed by Robert Siodmak, Hemingway’s story becomes a point of departure whereon screenwriter Anthony Veiller appropriates the authorial voice and fills the audience in of the reason an ex-boxer, an outstanding debut from Burt Lancaster, is targeted by two hit-men, played with due eeriness by Charles McGraw and William Conrad. Hemingway’s creation is still preserved in its entirety in the first 20 minutes of the film, with the actors carrying out the hard-edgedness of the original with much brilliance and adroitness.

The remainder revolves around the unravelling of the mystery. Edmond O’ Brien is fitting for the role of a calm and calculated life insurance investigator, who searches high and low in his dogged pursuit of solving the puzzle. Through flashback the ex-boxer is revealed as a ruined man doomed the moment he claps eyes on a femme fatale named Kitty Collins, the first breakout role for Ava Gardner. He takes to bad courses, joins a mob, confronts the mobsters and flees with the booty when he realises he is double-crossed; only to be double-crossed again later by, unsurprisingly, his beloved Kitty. It is slightly disappointing of how Veiller recklessly bastardised Hemingway’s masterpiece by conceiving the backstory of the ex-boxer with stock materials that were particularly favoured by 1940s’ film noir.

Hackneyed though it seems the picture still has its sterling moments, and is effusively praised by Hemingway. Indebting to Siodmak’s dexterity, the film retains much of the suspenseful elements that Hemingway would’ve approved of if he were having in mind a more detailed version of the novella. The mystery is pared down layer by layer, which increases greatly the entertainment and excitement that are otherwise worn off if the tempo is unwisely hastened. Exceptional performance by the leading cast- Lancaster is smouldering, wistful, tragic-heroic; Gardner never disappoints with her seamless shifting between the sultry and the duplicitous- also helps exalting the status of the film to that of the classic. The score is composed by the prolific Miklos Rozsa.

Those who maintain the conviction of always giving the adaptations a wide berth are still encouraged to experience the first 20 minutes of the film after they read the novella. The thrilling sensation of seeing the immortalised words of Hemingway being so gruffly bandied about is simply ineffable. Avid readers of Hemingway are bound to be delighted.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Review: To Be or Not to Be (1942)

  In  Eichmann in Jerusalem  (1963), Hannah Arendt attributes the criminal mind of Nazi functionary Adolf Eichmann to a “sheer thoughtlessness - something by no means identical with stupidity…”  A Report on the Banality of Evil , which is the book’s subtitle, introduces a kind of evil - the worst conceivable kind in human history - that departs from the “radical evil” that is at the heart of Arendt’s  The Origins of Totalitarianism  (1951). Shortly after the publication of  Eichmann , Arendt wrote to philosopher Gershom Scholem:         […] I changed my opinion and do no longer speak of “radical evil.” […] It is        indeed my opinion now that now that evil is never “radical”, that it is only        extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension […]        It is “thought-defying”, as I sai...
Post a Comment
Read more

Review: Playtime (1967)

  Having left his sister’s family at the end of  Mon Oncle  (1958), a bittersweet coda which I take to symbolise in some way the irretrievable loss of an age of innocence, Monsieur Hulot, Jacques Tati’s beloved and bumbling alter ego, finds himself amongst other ill-adapted, increasingly mechanised denizens in a near-futuristic Paris -  Playtime  (1967), Tati’s penultimate full-length feature and arguably his best, involved a constructed set so lavish and enormous that the director was near bankrupt when he finished the film, three years after its start date. The so-called “Tativille” blends the Kafkesque with an impersonal internationalism; the scope of vision is at once grand and restrictive - there is space within a wide interior space and, as evidenced by a now canonical image of Hulot overlooking a grid of office cubicles (this anticipated by at least 20 years the dominance of such design), each inhabitant of the space seems contented and in a way codepende...
Post a Comment
Read more

Review: Black Narcissus (1947)

Wallace Stevens writes in “Imagination as Value”: “The truth seems to be that we live in concepts of the imagination before reason has established them.” Both imagination and reason are the chief mechanisms of constructing our worldview: postulated first by imagination and henceforth affirmed by reason. Elsewhere Stevens talks of noble art as “imagination pressing back against the pressure of reality,” acknowledging creativity as the potential force of disentangling men from the fetters of mundanity. These two meditative epigrams posit our perceptions of the world as shaped largely by imagination- not that of a virginal imagination perhaps but one that is refined by the developing of a cognition. But, one may ask, what is the genesis of our cognition? Is it yet another product of the imaginative faculty? Or is it also partly in thrall to the tyranny of reason? In the midst of such paradoxical argument a plausible interpretation arises: imagination and reason are, in essence, two s...
Post a Comment
Read more