Monday, June 27, 2011

Born to Kill (1947)

Robert Wise's Born to Kill has never been one of my favorite noirs. It regularly tops "best of" lists, and many film noir enthusiasts whom I respect love it, so I was hoping a fresh viewing would reveal something new to me.

Alas, for me it was still the same old flick. It's an enjoyable picture, but it's wildly melodramatic, there are subplots that never really go anywhere, and its over-the-top characters are mostly two-dimensional. The key to a great noir, like Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity (1944), is the sense that it could happen to you, or to someone you know. No matter how outlandish the schemes in a film are, if they're carried out by believable characters then I'm usually able to go along for the ride without asking too many questions.

Born to Kill tells the tale of a pair of sociopathic social climbers, the recently divorced Helen Brent (Claire Trevor) and the recently paroled Sam Wild (Lawrence Tierney). Their paths cross in Reno, the biggest little city in the world. Helen is there for a quickie divorce and Sam is there with his reedy little sidekick, Mart Waterman (Elisha Cook Jr.). Helen is staying at a boarding house run by the slovenly Mrs. Kraft (Esther Howard), who, when we first see her, is getting lit up on beer in the middle of the afternoon with the adenoidal tart Laury Palmer (Isabel Jewell).

After Laury goes on a date with dapper Danny Jaden (Tony Barrett) just to make the big lug she's dating jealous, she invites Danny inside for a nightcap. When Danny goes to the kitchen, he finds Laury's big lug waiting for him. It's Sam Wild, of course, and his brutal killing of both Danny and Laury is the film's high point. (Or the lurid low point, if you're a prissy scold.) The sound of crickets in the background, the neatly manicured suburban lawns surrounding Mrs. Kraft's boarding house, the dog barking in the background, and the uptempo swing music playing on the radio in the kitchen all lend a sense of immediacy and familiarity to the murder.

The rest of the film, however, just doesn't hang together for me. Sam's little buddy Mart tells him, "You can't just go around killing people whenever the notion strikes you. It just ain't feasible." I feel the same way about the plot of Born to Kill. It just ain't feasible.

After the murder, Sam blows town. He and Helen meet again on the train to San Francisco. When they disembark, Sam suggests splitting a cab, but Helen tells him she's going in a different direction. He responds, "That's where you're wrong. We're going in the same direction, you and I."

Sam insinuates himself into Helen's life. They are clearly drawn to each other, but she tells him that nothing in the world will stop her from marrying her fianc矇, Fred Grover (Phillip Terry). So Sam moves in on her sister, wealthy heiress Georgia Staples (Audrey Long), or, to be more precise, her foster sister, as Helen bitterly reveals to Sam. Not only is Georgia a beautiful blonde, but — as Sam tells Mart — "Marrying into this crowd will make it so's I can spit in anyone's eye."

Meanwhile, back in Reno, Mrs. Kraft retains the services of a sleazy, corpulent private investigator named Matthew Albert Arnett (Walter Slezak). Mrs. Kraft is played by Esther Howard, and her bizarre, bug-eyed performance in this film is nearly identical to the "Filthy Flora" character she played in Dick Tracy vs. Cueball (1946).

Helen and Sam pursue their doomed, twisted love affair.
"Fred is peace and security," Helen moans.
"You, you're strength, excitement, and depravity. You've a kind of corruption inside of you, Sam."
Arnett sniffs around. Sam and Georgia quarrel after she refuses to let him run her family's business. Mart Waterman shows up in San Francisco and starts living with the unhappy foursome. (Is he Sam's partner or his secret lover? The film is never completely clear.) Slowly but surely, the plot threads of the film intertwine, culminating in an orgy of murder and betrayal.

This is the second or third time I've seen Born to Kill. While I've griped about the ridiculously melodramatic plot, maybe I just want it to be something it's not. I could certainly see myself watching it again in the future and loving its over-the-top characters, unrealistic scenarios, grotesque supporting players, and generally high level of camp.

I think my biggest problem with Born to Kill is the relationship between Sam and Helen. Claire Trevor is a wonderful performer, but I was never able to accept that she'd love Sam enough to give up everything for him. Helen's histrionics in her scenes in tastefully appointed drawing rooms with Fred, Georgia, and Sam seem more scripted than natural, and Claire Trevor's performance as Helen seems too intelligent and composed for the debased character she's playing.

But maybe that's the point. Lawrence Tierney is a powerful presence, but he isn't a particularly gifted actor, especially when either subtlety or range is called for. Not only does Sam Wild commit murder whenever the notion strikes him, he can bend others to his will, getting his friend Mart to kill for him and getting Helen to provide him with an alibi for murder at the drop of a hat. He's a brutal alpha male, and loving him may go against all reason and sense, but that never stopped anybody before.

Born to Kill is directed by Robert Wise with vigor. The cinematography, by Robert de Grasse, is great, especially in the nighttime exteriors. Paul Sawtell's music is exciting. I found the plot ridiculous, but that shouldn't stop any noir fans who haven't seen Born to Kill from seeking it out.

Editor's note: possible spoilers in video

Written by Adam Lounsbery


  1. I really enjoyed this film when I saw it, but I can understand why you don't. And I think Lawrence Tierney is perfectly cast as a thug but I could never understand why the other characters found him so incredibly attractive. But then, Lana Turner found Johnny Stompanato irresistible. It does happen.

  2. I agree and disagree. I think the film is phenomenal, but the reason is when I first watched it, I had no idea what it was about and what direction it would go- when you first watch you feel like Trevor is playing the heroine, and you don't understand her poor choices, but that is just it. She's just a halfway sociopath, and he's a full one. He was a modern thug in this role- arbitrary, unstable, sexually magnetic in a cheap way, and almost all id. I think from this view it is a very interesting film.

  3. Well-written and argued. I've only seen Born to Kill twice, and I was underwhelmed both times. Nice job.

  4. One of my favorite movies ever.

  5. Enjoyed your post! - I think as to why noir fans rate Born to Kill so highly is that it has a cult appeal, beginning w/Lawrence Tierney (a 'cult' actor, if there ever was one). The 'over-the-top' aspect you mention about the movie also gives it a cult aura; and it's even a bit kinky, particularly in the S&M-inflected relationship between Tierney & Trevor (as I recall, Eddie Mueller in the DVD commentary says that some fans think the film doesn't go far enough in its 'over-the-topness' quality...)

  6. "The key to a great noir, like Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity (1944), is the sense that it could happen to you, or to someone you know. No matter how outlandish the schemes in a film are, if they're carried out by believable characters then I'm usually able to go along for the ride without asking too many questions."

    Born to Kill has flaws, but I don't share your definition of the key ingredient to a great noir. It's not that I'm a fan of plotholes or undeveloped characters, but I can enjoy noir as a fictional world even though I know I'd never live in it. The work of Cornell Woolrich in particular is full of illogical elements, which often add to the nightmarish sense of entrapment and doom without escape.

  7. Interesting point, surly hack. I guess in my defense I'll say that my definition of "it could happen to you" is not a very literal one when it comes to film.

    My favorite film noir is Detour, but I've never felt that it's a realistic film. It's certainly full of illogical elements and characters who behave very strangely, but there's a poetic truth to it all, at least for me.

  8. * Finally saw it last night for the first time ... I think that it's more of a success as "cult" than as "noir" ... The campy, over-the-top elelement in this film is SO overwhelming that it places it almost in the category of a film like, say, "The Bad Seed" -- in which the enjoyment is because it's SO ludicrous ... (I think I'd probably have to put "Too Late for Tears" in the same basket, for instance -- & certainly the Crawford vehicle "Female on the Beach") ... I'm looking forward to the Muller commentary...

    * In other words, of course it can't stand comparison to a film like "Double Indemnity" -- a perfectly-written stone-cold genre-transcending masterpiece ... Or even an A-grade "cult" noir like "Kiss Me Deadly" or something like that ... But for what it is, it's extremely entertaining I'd have to say!


Comment above or join the discussion at the Back Alley Noir review section. All comments at Noir of the Week are shared at Back Alley