Try and Get Me! (1950) thread

Posted by Bitter One on 8/3/2006, 7:05 pm

Just saw Try and Get Me.
I think this is the film that Martin Scorsese brought to the 2005 San Francisco Noir Festival?
A friend gave me his commercially released VHS of this film. I was pleasantly surprised by the very clear picture. However, the movie itself never grabbed me. The hero, Frank Lovejoy, made such stupid decisions from the start, and you could always see where the plot was going.
Many noirs, for example Narrow Margin, keep you guessing and have big surprises in store. Not this movie. And for me, an essential element of noir is snappy dialog, like you find in The Big Heat. This film had none. This was more of a crime picture with a message. Heavy on the message.
I know it was based on a real incident, but I found it hard to believe that the police couldn't keep the crowd out of the jail, like maybe hiding the keys to the cells instead of having them in the guard's hand? And I don't believe middle aged women in pearl necklaces would be part of a lynch mob.
Great acting by all the women in the cast. Lovejoy's wife was perfect and the manicurist was the only performance that got to me.
I'm glad I didn't trek out to the Balboa Theatre to see the late night screening of this at the Noir Fest. I would have been very disappointed.
I would be interested in the opinions of others. Is this anyone's favorite? Maybe I am missing something. It is admirable for the film to take the position that even those who are charged with the most brutal crimes deserve a fair trial, but for me that didn't make it a good movie.

------------

Posted by Curt on 8/3/2006, 9:13 pm, in reply to "Try and Get Me (spoilers)"

This was an over-the-top crime film that actually had a superior performance from the usually wooden actor Frank Lovejoy. The ending was very scary and brutal, and I didn't really agree with it, but overall the picture was nicely paced and wonderfully acted.

-------------
Posted by Floyd on 8/3/2006, 9:16 pm, in reply to "Try and Get Me (spoilers)"

I just watched this two nights ago (for the first time). I was more impressed than you, although I agree that it is not a first rank noir. I thought Lovejoy did a good job but I was blown away by Lloyd Bridges' loony killer role! I think that he did an excellent job. Like you, I thought that the movie was predictable. However, I feel that the mob scene was extremely effective. By the time they pulled the two out of their cells, I was literally on the edge of my chair. On reflection, I thought that the director had done an excellent job of building sympathy for the two criminals and making the obvious but important point that every accused person deserves due process. I gave the film a B-.

-------------
Posted by Harald the Swede on 8/4/2006, 12:01 am, in reply to "Try and Get Me (spoilers)"

I like it, but like the rest of you wouldn't consider it a first rate noir.
The main weakness of this movie if you ask me is that the world isn't dark enough (apart from the whole lynch mob thing at least). The classic noir story of a decent man who's down on his luck, and sees no other way out than to turn to crime (where he ends up in over his head), works much better if the world is a dark and seedy place, where crime, corruption, deceit, and betrayal is everywhere.
Of course it would've been harder to muster a lynch mob in such a world, but it would've fit much better with the way Lovejoy acted.
Lloyd Bridges made an excellent job of portraying crime as an easy and natural way out though.

--------------

Posted by David on 8/4/2006, 3:34 am, in reply to "Try and Get Me (spoilers)"

I will never forget my first viewing of 'TRY AND GET ME', as it left me more than a little shell-shocked. No, it doesn't follow the formula (tart one-liners, a supporting cast made up entirely of skulking sleazoids) - but it does (IMO) do a beautiful job of sketching characterizations, and following a slow-burning fuse towards it's inevitable cathartic final act.
One of my all-time favorite noir characters (and noir characterizations) I love watching the arc Howard Tyler takes - and during the scene in which he arrives home after the murder, and his senses are so overloaded and his nerves so frayed that a flapping blind seems deafening, I just want to applaud. I smile with respect and admiration every time I watch the scene towards the end in the nightclub, when we see Tyler through a tilted lens - transferring his queasiness to the viewer. For this fan, THAT is noir.
Desperately lost, confused, and hopeless - wondering how he could have let things jump the track so violently. All he wanted was to provide for his family. Why is he being punished so mercilessly? Howard Tyler is the noir everyman - the bourgeois noir protagonist, heartlessly crushed by fate.
Dave

---------------
Posted by Jay M on 8/4/2006, 5:45 am, in reply to "Try and Get Me (spoilers)"

I'm with Dave on this movie. I think it's very powerful, and truly Noir. It may not be in the all-time top 10, but I'd put it in the top 30 somewhere.
Lloyd Bridges's characterization is one of the most chilling in all Noir. He manages to inject a kind of realism into what could be a cardboard villain. Manipulative and volatile, 'Jerry Slocum' is not someone I'd want to depend upon.
I think this film may contain Frank Lovejoy's greatest Noir performance. His specialty was the vulnerable, flawed, but well-meaning Noir protag. I like him a lot in I WAS A COMMUNIST FOR THE FBI or THE HITCH-HIKER, but in TRY AND GET ME he surpasses even those. I find this a deeply sympathetic character.

My only real problem with TRY AND GET ME is the crime expert/philosopher/psychiatrist who pontificates about the criminal mentality. It's an obvious attempt to 'educate' the audience. But he only takes up a few minutes total I think.
The final sequence of this movie is hard to forget. A strong film, imho

---------------
Posted by ChiBob on 8/4/2006, 7:27 am, in reply to "A great noir"

Jay and Dave have been most eloquent on TAGE, so I'm not going to pile on, except to say we are the Three Amigos when it comes to this film. I probably wouldn't rank it as high as Dave, but higher than Jay. I'd put it in the top 15.
Two points: is snappy dialogue an essential component of film noir, or just a pleasant adjunct? Yes there is OOTP, The Big Sleep and Laura, but many of the best noirs are grim and relentless, and infused with fatalism, not narrative surprises or wise cracking dialogue. One of the essential noirs, DOA is pre ordained from the opening scene. What surprise would we have wanted - Bigelow waking from a dream at the end?
Lloyd Bridges is so good in TAGE that I wish he would have brought a bit more of the crazy Jerry character to his TV show Sea Hunt. It would have made it an all time classic - a psycho scuba diver.
Well, ya think ya know someone...

--------------
Posted by Gary G on 8/4/2006, 8:57 am, in reply to "Re: A great noir"

...and then the "Three Amigos" all place TRY AND GET ME somewhere in the top ten to top thirty films of the noir canon! Wow! Top ten for Dave, top 30 for Jay, top 15 for ChiBob...what a surprise!
I admire the film, and totally agree on the performance of Bridges...I think it's been mentioned here before that Lloyd may well be vastly underrated overall, especially in a few other films noir (TRAPPED and MOONRISE for starters). It also may well have been discussed here before the lack of appeal brought by Frank Lovejoy in most of his roles...just imagine Garfield (or even John Payne) subbing for Frank in this one, and you get the idea. While I agree that this may be the best work Lovejoy delivered, imo his lack of "whatever" knocks this one down a notch or so for me...that's not to say that Frank doesn't have his moments in the film (eloquently mentioned in Dave and Jay's posts)...if you allow yourself to buy into it, Lovejoy's lack of charisma (or acting chops or "whatever") may work for him here as the "everyman" he is playing.
I've watched this one twice in the last few years in an attempt to ferret out what those championing the film see...with less than stellar results. Director Cy Enfield's direction, while outstanding in some scenes, seems to lack something in pacing for me (some passages are slooooow)...but this may be a result of the quasi-documentary quality he was going for. IMO, TRY AND GET ME (a terrible title, imo) gets high marks for its nihilistic noir world, but suffers a bit in execution...well, at least until that great denouement...which is, perhaps, Lovejoy's finest moment on film, and one of the best finales in all of film noir (imo).
Having said all that...I do find TRY AND GET ME at least an interesting entry in the film noir canon, and maybe even an "important" one...but top 30?
Not for Uncle Gar...
All due respect to "The Three Amigos" (and have a good w/e!)
Gar

--------------
Posted by Jay M on 8/4/2006, 9:32 am, in reply to "Well, ya think ya know someone..."

Gary
I think you touch on something interesting here. Speaking only for myself, my response to TRY AND GET ME is largely emotional. The details of the production matter less than the characters. I identify with the desperation and poor judgment of the Lovejoy character. So the way the plot plays out has a strong impact on me. That said, I think Lovejoy himself is essential to the success of the film. An actor with more charisma or screen presence, such as Garfield, would not have had the same effect (good as he might have been). Lovejoy's 'everyman' qualities are what make some of his film roles so effective. We don't remember his ordinary face or voice so much, but we may recall the emotions he brings out in us. You never hear about a "Lovejoy movie" the way you do with Garfield, Bogart or other bigger stars. He was an everyman character actor.

-----------------
Posted by David on 8/4/2006, 11:07 am, in reply to "Well, ya think ya know someone..."

Guys,
For the record, I NEVER said I thought it belonged on the noir top 10 list.
It is in MY personal top 10, and high up too, but not on the big countdown.
I don't quite have the pacing problem with 'TaGM' that some here do, guess
it's a personal thing. It moves along okay for me.
Have a great weekend everybody,
Dave

--------------------
Posted by Floyd on 8/4/2006, 9:24 am, in reply to "Re: A great noir"

Bob: One of the reasons that I was so impressed with Lloyd Bridges' performance in this film is that fact that he so impressively captured the psycho character of Jerry AND that I was raised watching him in Sea Hunt. To me, Bridges has always been the good guy. This is the first film in which I've seen him play a heavy and he was very convincing! I think he stole the movie away from Lovejoy and everyone else.

---------------
Posted by ChiBob on 8/4/2006, 9:57 am, in reply to "Re: A great noir"

Floyd -
You're right, Bridges absolutely steals the film, it's a riveting performance. He's not the Bridges we customarily think of, much like the Lucille Ball we see in The Dark Corner, where she is light years more savvy (and somewhat sexy too) than Lucy Ricardo.
To think of Garfield in Lovejoy's role is tantalizing. But then just thinking of JG in so many other noir roles taken by the likes of O'Brien, Douglas and Lancaster is very tempting to think about. The man gave a type of "truth" to eveything he was ever in , whether it was the street punk in He Ran All the Way or the blinded war hero in Pride of the Marines.

--------------------
Posted by Don Malcolm on 8/4/2006, 10:20 am, in reply to "Re: A great noir"

Try And Get Me! (aka The Sound of Fury) is a courageous and highly ideological allegory of the fragility of civilization. One way to see it, I think, is as an update of Lang's Fury at a point in time when the "culture wars" that have ravaged American society for the past half-century were digging in for their long siege--one that is far from over, and that occasionally still spills out on this discussion board.
It is one of the last salvos from a subgroup of noir auteurs who urgently pushed back at hysteria in high places, and its ending is allegorically prophetic. While none of the blacklisted performers were lynched, they were silenced, forced to flee, and generally torn up in a counter-ideological threshing machine that is still in operation in 2006.
I had this film in my top ten for 1950, but not in the top five. As GG points out below, there are some pacing issues in the film, and the issue of why Tyler doesn't find the gumption to repudiate Slocum even after the crime spree has begun remains large enough to validate the view that aspects of the narrative are too "ideologically convenient."
A couple of other comparisons might be useful. The first is with Losey's The Lawless, made in the same pivotal year (1950), which is the only noir in the initial phase of the cycle to explicitly address racial bias and discrimination, and a film that ends, like Try And Get Me!, with mob violence. These two films should be viewed in tandem to see a variation on the use of social commentary in noir.
The second comparison is with what might be called an "A" noir, which Try And Get Me! certainly is not. That film is The Breaking Point, directed by a big-time Hollywood director (Curtiz) and featuring an A-list leading man (Garfield) not yet the beleaguered, fatally tainted outcast he would become only a year hence. These two films wound up in a dead heat in the 1950 NOTY voting, and it's an interesting juxtaposition since their core theme--the loss of the male's sense of self when economic conditions threaten his ability to provide for his family--is the same. How they go about exploring this theme, of course, is what makes them so different. The two biggest differences are: 1) the emphasis on the family/marriage, and 2) the deployment of production values to highlight the characters and themes in the film.
The beauty of noir is that a "B" director can utilize minimalism and dark lighting to his/her advantage, creating an atmosphere that permeates one's consciousness and heightens the sense of fatalism. Endfield does this quite well but somewhat inconsistently in Try And Get Me!. But noir is versatile enough in the continuum of its contemporary production code to be able to avail itself of more lavish sets and highly delineated lighting schemes, as is the case with The Breaking Point. After all, part of the point in the film is that Morgan doesn't want to have to relocate to a poorer area, he wants to hold on to the cozy, better-appointed life in post-war Newport Beach. Curtiz and his cinematographer Ted McCord also employ a highly symbolic lighting style/strategy in their indoor scenes, most notably in their key lighting for Wallace Ford and in the unsettling back-and-forth duel of light and dark in the sewing sequence.
Interestingly, only one voter in NOTY 1950 ranked these two films in the same category (the 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 "sorting bins" used in the poll). When we use a stat measure like "standard deviation" on the voting results for these two films, we find that they rank the highest by far of any of the films in the 1950 poll. To me, this indicates that there is a continuing schism in our thinking about noir as we attempt in the present day to reconcile its attempts to straddle the widening gulf of Hollywood and America. By 1950, the ability of an A-list, major studio film to make a powerful "noir" statement was virtually extinct, which left things to the termites, the "outsiders", the about-to-be-purged--and to a more limited subset of "B" directors who would occasionally slip through a thoughtful noir in the midst of an ever-coarsening crime genre in the 50s.

--------------------
Posted by Gord Gates on 8/4/2006, 4:26 pm, in reply to "Re: A great noir"

Best film Lovejoy or Bridges ever did imo. I love it. I dig mine out at least once a year and it still gets the job done for me.
Gord