Sunday, November 02, 2008

Hangover Square (1945)

As I was going down the list in my head to confirm that Hangover Square indeed met the proper criteria to be considered a film noir, on paper it seemed like sure a thing: Adequate ice water running through the veins of a prominent femme fatale character – check, male lead character unable to resist devious charms of said femme fatale – check, crazy blackout and flashback sequences – check, murders occurring during said blackout sequences – check, lead character experiencing overwhelming sense of dread from events beyond his control – check, cinematographer being far from stingy with shadows and chiaroscuro lighting – check, detectives on the hunt for a killer - check. Sounds like we got all the fixings for a classic film noir right? Not so fast, Hangover Square isn’t your run of the mill noir. I’d say it’s more like a cousin to the conventional film noir. It contains much of the same DNA, but it’s not in the immediate family. Hangover Square is however a beautifully shot and overlooked thriller that merits a view through the film noir lens; despite on its surface it may appear incongruous to that category.

George Harvey Bone (Laird Cregar) is a dull, sad sack type of figure, but he possesses a bright future as a music composer. He is on the verge finishing a concerto that carries great potential for international recognition according to his sponsor Lord Henry Chapman (Alan Napier) and his talented pianist daughter Barbara (Faye Marlowe). Things would be looking pretty well for George if it wasn’t for those pesky blackouts he occasionally experiences. When he comes to from them, he has the sneaking suspicion that he’s committed some bad deeds under their influence. We know this as viewers to be true because in the opening scene of the film George is stabbing a man in a London shop and then fleeing the crime scene after setting it ablaze. George commits these crimes without conscious knowledge, but he has grave concern as to the nature of his blackouts and conveys these apprehensions to Barbara. George decides to speak to an acquaintance at Scotland Yard, Dr. Allan Middleton (George Sanders) who is not a police officer but a psychiatrist figure of sorts. He allays George’s fears after checking out his blackout story (he can’t find any evidence to link George to the shopkeeper stabbing and fire) and tells him to relax as the stress of completing his concerto may be triggering these blackouts. These spells don’t cease however and neither does the George Bone blackout violence that ensues as the movie progresses.

video
To take his mind off all his worries, George decides to take in a show at a local beer hall. This is where he first sees dazzling songbird Netta Longdon (Linda Darnell) performing a bawdy musical number in front of a bunch of drunken blokes. Afterward George goes back stage and tells Longdon he admires her singing. She’s unimpressed until her manager, who has heard of George's talents, properly introduces her to him with the intention of George writing some new material for Netta. George spot composes a tune for her, while amalgamating her lyrics into it, and the result is a very catchy number. It’s so good her manager sells the song for 50 guineas soon after. Netta realizes that with George’s talents at her disposal, he would make an ample stepping stone for her career. George falls hard for the gorgeous Netta and is hopelessly wrapped around her finger. She uses his musical talents for her career gain and then tries to discard him when he gets wise to her plan. Unfortunately this wisdom came after George had just sprung an engagement ring on her. His moment of clarity, in realizing Netta’s opaque motives, happened after learning of her pending engagement to a successful promoter that could shoot Netta’s star much higher into the stratosphere than George’s talent ever could.

George is devastated at this development. Upon returning to his apartment he throws Netta’s sheet music against the wall where a number of his instruments are leaning against it. The discordant sound of the violins, cymbals and all the noisy instruments crashing down together (we finally learn) is the catalyst for George’s murderous blackout spells. He immediately becomes thrown into one of his attacks and is off to Netta’s place in his state of murderous somnambulism. He strangles Netta and his disposal of her body leads to the most striking and uncannily creepy scene of the film.

George formulates a clever plan (he’s apparently capable of doing such even under these homicidal spells) to burn Netta’s fresh corpse out in the open, in front of hundreds of witnesses. Luckily the evening he snuffs out Netta is Guy Fawkes Night in England. The ceremonial burning of Guy Fawkes effigies in the center of the neighborhood square happens with a huge towering bonfire. Before the giant pyre is lit ablaze, people pile on the effigies and George is the last to contribute his own “Guy.” George climbs up the long ladder with Netta’s wrapped body slung over his shoulder including a Guy Fawkes mask over her face. George slowly inches his way up the huge mound and simultaneously we see the mask starting to slip off Netta’s face; it’s becoming exposed to the sizable crowd below at the base of the pile. The tension increases as the crowd is egging on George to hurry up. They even start to light the base of the pile on the opposite side as George climbs down the ladder after depositing Netta at the top. At the very least it’s an extremely powerful scene. Not only is the entire sequence beautifully shot and edited, it concludes with people dancing in a circle around the bonfire. Their huge shadows cast against buildings and streets from the fire’s light makes for chillingly effective cinema. The scene is even more unsettling however when considering Linda Darnell’s real life demise came from a domestic house fire in which she suffered extensive burns and died the next day.

Hangover Square concludes with an over the top, but very well filmed scene where George finally gets to have his concerto played with full instrumentation backing him. This finale has some truly impressive sweeping camerawork that’s well coordinated with the stellar soundtrack. The police are on to his uncontrollable homicidal ways at this point in the film. George literally goes down in flames and concludes the films trio of fiery scenes that serve as narrative cruxes for George and the viewer. Finally and tragically George gets to hear his concerto as he descends into madness. The insanity he struggled with finally engulfs him like the flames that claim his body in the timeless, haunting final shot.



Much of this description may sound like a film noir, but the visual twist you must consider is the setting: 1903, turn of the century London. The street lamps are gas powered and not electric as were used to seeing in noir, but cinematographer Joseph LaShelle does a fantastic job with lighting, framing and camera movement. He especially exceeds in
choosing some great low and high camera angles along with some textbook noir shots such as George showing up at Netta’s door with new song in hand for her. LaShelle and director John Brahm, made some clever visual choices along the way. In one sequence toward the end of the film, he films Dr. Middleton (who now believes George is a killer) in darkness and George Bone (who now knows he’s a killer) in the light as Middleton questions him about a particular type of knot used with some of the victims that were strangled. The questioning occurs in George’s flat while he’s getting ready for his concerto premiere and we get plenty of close-ups of George tying the knot on his bow-tie in tandem with all the strangulation chat.

One aspect of Hangover Square that stands out is the fantastic musical score by the legendary composer Bernard Herrmann. He’s able to deliver a superior suspenseful score for the film, but he also does a very impressive piece of composing with the concerto finale performed at the end. Herrmann did a similar task a decade later with Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much by writing a composition that served as the centerpiece of the films dramatic climax. While it doesn’t hinge on something as specific as the cymbal crash in Hitchcock’s film for example, the concerto is a device that drives the plot in the film. Hermann’s concerto piece is spectacular because for the story to have credibility, it has to be such. The concerto is what drives and motivates George Henry Bone to potential greatness, but ends up delivering him into actualized madness.

There is a ridiculous aspect to the film that sticks in the logic craw: the inexplicable homicidal trances that George undergoes when hearing loud discordant noises. Not only do we not know how this peccadillo began, but also why these types of sounds trigger this behavior in George Harvey Bone. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the William Bendix character in The Blue Dahlia that is driven crazy when he hears jazz “monkey music.” It does serve a purpose in that it facilitates the noir trope of the sympathetic victim as the criminal. Its unaccountability is not so unforgiveable as to completely undermine the many positives of the film. What bothered me most about the way it was not explained or handled, was that John Braham didn’t seem to know how to do so in the first place. There’s a difference between adroitly being kept in the dark and feeling like you’ve simply been lazily left behind there.

The casting is strong all around with Laird Cregar turning in a truly fine (albeit slightly over the top during his wild eyed flashbacks) performance. Linda Darnell is fantastic however in the devious femme fatale role of Netta Longdon. Darnell lends enough credibility to Netta by not going overboard and hard selling her character’s selfish motives to the audience. She lets Netta’s self-centered ways show themselves in a seemingly organic fashion and believable pace. Darnell’s less than consistent number of appearances in film over the years, before her demise, is a true loss for her fans of which I am certainly one.

While turn of the century gaslight Victorian London may not seem like an obvious setting for a film noir, at the very least it becomes a surprisingly serviceable one under the direction of Braham and the camerawork of LaShelle. The essential film noir elements are there, but more so it’s a well crafted and acted thriller that deserves some recognition and kudos. At the very least it warrants viewing for the combination of Laird Cregar, Linda Darnell, the score of Herrmann and those fantastic scenes combining infernos and insanity.


Written by Tim (aka - Mappin and Webb Ltd.)



4 comments:

  1. Glad you got your comments working again. :)

    ...

    I really loved this movie. AND its two tragically lost stars.

    No mention of Cregar's death??

    That's why I liked the final scene best...the 'over the top', as you called it, is what made it so fascinating! And poetic...a bit morbid, perhaps, considering Cregar's soon-to-be reality...same as Darnell's bonfire scene...though the whole film, really, is sort of surreal! In a very small, dark way. I can never quite forget it.

    You mentioned your distaste (not you, right Steve? I'm not sure who wrote this...to whom I should direct this comment) with the 'discordant noises'...

    "There is a ridiculous aspect to the film that sticks in the logic craw: the inexplicable homicidal trances that George undergoes when hearing loud discordant noises. Not only do we not know how this peccadillo began, but also why these types of sounds trigger this behavior in George Harvey Bone."

    In the book, his attacks are more akin to panic- or anxiety-attacks. He says (and I agree...) when the attack starts, there is no noise or sound, yet all sound and noise is amplified! It's kinda hard to describe...sorta like the mind playing tricks on you, and trying to work overtime yet shutting down all at once. It's very unnerving (for a mind with too many nerves!)...and I think maybe whoever adapted the screenplay didn't really understand that the 'discordant noises' weren't the CAUSE of the attacks, but one of the many symptoms.

    And speaking of the book: you also mentioned it was strange to set a noir in 1903. The book actually starts off in 1938, so it's soon-to-be Wartime Europe verses Victorian Europe.

    A pre-war version would have probably made for a truer noir. :)
    ReplyDelete
  2. Ginger: I understand the book is fantastic... I'm going to have to pick it up. Tim wrote this article and he told me that he didn't want to mention The Lodger from the year before because it's far inferior to this... but I think Hangover Square is an attempt to remake that movie. I think that's why the period was moved. It probably would have been even better if it did take place right before WWII.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Ginger,
    As the writer of said review I should address a few of your points for clarification. First, I did address the deaths for not only Darnell, Cregar but also George Sanders on the Back Alley Noir board discussing this particular gem of a film

    http://filmnoir.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi?board=reviews&action=display&num=1225728682

    I decided not to discuss the actor’s deaths, other than Darnell, in the actual review as I felt hers was the most bizarre relating to her own demise and the specific Guy Fawkes scene in the film. If Cregar’s character starved himself in the film, well that would be a different story. Striking a balance between a film’s behind the scenes history and writing a review about it…sometimes the real life details end up on the cutting room floor so to speak.

    First, I must confess that I have not read the book and was writing the review on the film as a stand alone piece of work. I can’t address the differences between the two. I believe you’re correct when you write that “A pre-war version would have probably made for a truer noir.” My point being obviously that the film’s 1903 date is an unconventional setting for a noir, yet “Hangover Square” had so many noir elements I found the juxtaposition between those and the setting was an interesting one. Apparently Laird Cregar wasn’t happy with the script writer changing the setting of the film either. He was looking for a truer adaptation to the book overall. There’s a great, but short, documentary on Cregar in the extras on the DVD if you haven’t checked it out.

    As for the discordant noises you bring up an interesting and enlightening point regarding the symptom vs. cause regarding the noises and the effect on George Bone. It sounds like the book explores it more thoroughly and gives it some complexity and legs to stand on. In the film the way it was “explained” was these discordant cacophonous noises (instruments crashing down, those pipes falling to the ground in the street etc.) were the catalyst for George Bone’s spells. I’m all for suspending disbelief to keep on a story on track but my beef was how it was not explained or even attempted. It felt like director John Braham simply didn’t know how to handle that aspect of what is triggering George’s spells so he kind of lamely shows a flashback, for example, (again with the pipes crashing down in the street) and that is supposed to explain what was going on with George. It’s quite a leap from hearing those noises to strangling people without memory of doing such (hence my sarcastic use of the word “peccadillo.”) I found the “what is causing Cregar’s character to kill?” aspect interesting and it’s played up throughout the movie yet never delivers a pay off regarding that device’s genesis. My problem was there seemed an inept or lame explanation in which the audience has to glean the cause but is still wondering the “why?” I may have preferred a phony ridiculous explanation from George Sanders’ psychologist type character as to why George Bone has these attacks. Perhaps Braham felt it would bog down the pace or something and made that choice. Personally I felt it was a glaring head scratcher that I expected to deliver but never did.

    As for the ending, I hope it didn’t come across as disproval of it. I meant “over the top” in the best possible way. I think earlier in the review I used the same term to describe Cregar’s wide-eyed flashbacks, which were heavy handed, but with a negative connotation. Definitely not a wise choice on my part to use the same term twice in the review with two different colorings. I think Cregar was a fantastic actor, however, either his or director Braham’s decision to play the flashbacks like that seemed a fairly hokey.

    All that being said, I thought the whole final concerto/fire scene was truly amazing and brilliant…for the record.

    -Tim (aka Mappin and Webb Ltd.)
    ReplyDelete
  4. I have not seen this film, but I love gaslit Victorian Gothic. Of course the explanation to killer´s insanity - he hears wrong sound! - is ludicrous to the extreme, but it is more interesting when he is driven by psychotic illness and not sleazedom.
    ReplyDelete