Skip to main content

The murderer is right in this room, sitting at this table. You may serve the fish.

The Thin Man
(1934)

I’ve watched The Thin Man before, but so long ago I’d forgotten much of it. So it was a surprise and delight to see such a consistently irresponsible depiction of consequence-free drinking. Not because I’m particularly prone to excessive indulgence in all things that are bad for one (or because I’m a raging alcoholic) and so identify with William Powell’s tipsy Nick, or because I’m a rep for the alcohol industry. But because it’s so different, confounding expectations of this kind of film from this era (and, let’s face it, no one would present drinking this way today).


This outlandish helps to make the movie the very funny. This isn’t a picture with a kind of teenage “It’s so daring” attitude, and thankfully it’s a far cry from the opposite end of the spectrum’s Leaving Las Vegas. Rather, it possesses a flippantly cheerful outlook, and the party-loving Nick and Nora (Myrna Loy) are wholly functional. I’m also doing it something of an injustice by focussing on this element off the bat; The Thin Man’s greatest attribute is actually the amazing chemistry and repartee between (ex-) private detective (not the titular character, at least not at this point; that’s the missing Wynant) and his wife. The actual mystery is very much second fiddle, which is not to say that it doesn’t have its pleasures.


There are two things to know that help give context to The Thin Man (not that you really need any initiation to enjoy and find it highly amusing, any more than you do a Marx Brothers movie). One is that Prohibition had finally ended its decade-plus rein in the US the previous year, so you’ll have to excuse Nick if he’s in a somewhat unrestrained and jubilant mood. He just can’t put a cap on the bottle. The other factor is the censorious and highly prescriptive Hays Code (although it arguably resulted in the kind of creativity that only comes through limitation in many cases, not that that’s to justify it or anything), which had been introduced in 1930 but was only just receiving proper application in the year The Thin Man came out. Thus it’s a picture that rests on something of a cusp.


There are a lot of bawdy gags and innuendo-laced lines in The Thin Man. They deserve a paragraph or two all to themselves. Sure, Nick and Nora sleep in separate beds (at least until the final scene) but there is otherwise very little that is off limits. Adapted from Dashiel Hammett’s novel by Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich (a husband and wife writing team, they would deliver several of the sequels, as well as It’s A Wonderful Life; it’s hard not to conclude that something of their own relationship must have finished up in the feisty interplay between the two leads) and solidly if unremarkably directed by W.S. Van Dyke (never bound for great things, his directing career was nearly two decades old when he took this gig; he would also return for a number of the follow-ups), it was shot in a mere 12 days. If that no-frills approach is evident in the stagey set-ups, it’s more than defused by the bubbly bonhomie of the leading duo. Or should I say trio, as their faithful dog Astor (at the time the canine actor was called Skippy; the magnificent mutt would go on to appear in Bringing Up Baby) is an intrinsic part of the sleuthing team. He’s also the likely inspiration for the bow-wow in The Artist.


It’s a sign of the secondary nature of the titular type that we probably don’t recall exactly what he is up to before he goes missing; he’s an inventor, and he has his fingers on a new smelting process. He’s also, all evidence to the contrary, something of a flighty fellow. He has an ex-wife, a floozy, and hangers-on attempting to make a dime off him left right and centre. It’s also snowing, as it three months later (Christmas) when the majority of the movie is set. Which makes it something of a period of prolonged chills. All the more need for a beer (or gin) jacket.


Nick used to be a detective, but since he married he’s given up the trade. He was also once engaged by Wynant (William Henry) on a case, making him an obvious choice for a request for help when Wynant’s daughter (engaged to be married) bumps into him. What follows is a succession of semi-sloshed encounters with gold-digging ex-wives and their fancy men, less than brilliant police officers and an assortment of lowlifes. None of whom Nick treats with any more or less respect than the other. His lopsided outlook on the world is – and this is the precious thing in an industry generally reproved for its less than stellar female roles – matched pound for pound and witticism for witticism by his better half. The one big concern over the prospective Johnny Depp version is not Depp (I’m afraid I’m a defender, even at his most indulgently Burtonesque), or the involvement of Rob Marshall, or that they’re remaking it at all (well, why not?), but that if they don’t nail the female lead the whole thing unravels. Johnny can do the incorrigible drunk act in his sleep, but it’s the chemistry and trading of quips and adoring rebukes that will see it sink or swim in a fountain of champagne.


Nora: What hit me?
Nick: The last martini.

And they must be one of the big screen’s most adorable couples ever. Any trace of sentiment is bathed in a glow of badinage, so as not to seem overly concerned or invested. “I don’t care. It’s just that I’m used to you, that’s all,” says Nora, of Nick’s possibly dangerous excursion. She expresses her affection through faux-shallowness (“Oh Nicky, I love you because you know such lovely people”) but their every exchange reeks of genuine delight in each other. Nick jokes openly that he can’t possibly take the case (“I’m much too busy seeing that you don’t lose any of the money I married you for”, which includes the narrow gauge railway, lumber mill “and oh several other things”). They engage in pretend violence, trade presents like they’re big kids (Nick has a BB gun and proceeds to shoot all the balloons of the Christmas tree) and joke about how one or other might run off with someone else. Indeed, Nora is so assured of her husband’s fidelity that her nominally reactive lines are some of the best in the movie. Instead of being outraged at finding a girl in her husband’s arms she offers her a drink. And Nick’s gesture of how besotted he is with her is the absolutely marvellous description of his preferred type; “Lanky brunettes with wicked jaws”. When Nora discovers Nick is way ahead of her getting soused, she orders “Five more Martinis” to get up to speed and, after he has (bizarrely) punched her out to remove her from the line of fire, she merely complains that she didn’t get to see the action. (“There’s a girl with hair on her chest” utter the admiring cops). 


Reporter: Can’t you tell us anything about the case?
Nick: Yes, it’s putting me way behind on my drinking.

Which kind of sums up Nick’s approach to the case; it’s a distraction from the job in hand. You can see a glimmer of the Coen Brothers’ inspiration for the permanently stoned Dude in The Big Lebowski. It’s his intoxication that lends the plot its unique momentum. Any given reference to detective work yields consequent references to boozing (“Say, is he working on a case?”; “Yes, a case of Scotch” replies Nora). Asked why he’s in town, Nick replies “My wife’s on a bender. I’m trying to sober her up”. He greets guests in the morning with a drink, and suggests it for those who cant get to sleep. It’s also an excellent curative when afflicted by a bullet wound. He’s the kind of guy has no qualms about trying strange drinks in strange houses.


Nora: I read that you were shot five times in the tabloids.
Nick: It’s not true. He didn’t come anywhere near my tabloids.

The super-quick banter has something of the Marx Brothers about it, by way of screwball comedies. But it’s the gleeful innuendo that most puts one in mind of Groucho. When Nora asks about Nick’s relationship with Dorothy (Maureen O’Sullivan), he joshes that she is his daughter (“It was spring in Venice”). Some of the lines are even more overt; Gilbertt comments that his father was a sexagenarian, to which a reporter responds that they can’t put that in the papers;  You know how they are”. Nick spits out his drink when Nora exclaims “What’s that man doing in my drawers?” and the train tooting by, after Astor has been informed he will be occupying the top bunk, must certainly have tickled Alfred Hitchcock. This is all right on the edge, and its difficult to think The Hays Code would have accepted it a year or two later.


Astor the dog, the wirehaired fox terrier, is intrinsic to Nick and Nora’s relationship, the child they can dote over without (again, very much a no-no) becoming all gooey and sentimental. Nick even introduces him before Nora to the waiter at the “gin mill” he is frequenting (“Well, you might have mentioned me first on the bill”) and Nora lets slip her concern to the paltry pooch (“If you let anything happen to him, you’ll never wag that tail again”). Wonderfully, he is given a fire hydrant as a Christmas present (It’s implied he pees all over the tree) and crucially he leads Nick to the spot where crucial evidence lies. He also makes an unlikely vicious beast (“Don’t make a move or that dog will tear you to shreds”). As susceptible as we all are to very cute animals, it appears that the popularity of the pooch (and hounds of the same variety) led to over-breeding.


The rest of the cast is interesting varied. O’Sullivan is your standard winsome love interest of your standard rugged hero (Henry Wadsworth), neither of whom have much to do after the first 10 minutes at which point Nick enters the picture. But later there’s another interesting pre-Hays story beat where Dorothy decides to fall into the ways of sin and degradation; she arrives at the climactic dinner party with some guy she’s just picked up at the station. O’Sullivan went on to play Johnny Weissmuller’s Jane, and mother Mia Farrow. William Henry makes the most of his slightly creepy role as Dorothy’s brother, an ardent Freudian (“I know I have a mother fixation”) and given to unlikely theories regarding his father’s disappearance. Mina Gombell, who doesn’t seem nearly old enough to be the mother of this brood, has the kind of striking features that wouldn’t look out of place in a Universal Horror. Cesar Romero, Burt West’s Batman’s Joker, is her fancy man. And Nat Pendleton, well-meaning blockheaded Lieutenant Guild, makes a virtue of being always several steps behind Nick. Bursting in on a confrontation between Nick and a hood that results in a gun going off, Guild comments that it’s very lucky they arrived when they did. “Yes, I might not have been shot”, replies Nick.


Nick: The murderer is right in this room, sitting at this table. You may serve the fish.

Also much like a Marx Brothers film, we’re given a couple of comic set pieces that throw everything into the mix. An escalating party thrown by Nick finds ever more of Wynant’s family arriving to seek an audience with the ex-detective, necessitating various meeting places in the few unoccupied spots left in the apartment. Most memorable is the Agatha Christie-but-pissed dinner feast, where Nick assembles his cast of suspects and gets to the heart of the case. In a sense The Thin Man’s a good whodunnit as there are plenty of suspects and it really isn’t clear until the end who did what; it’s only quite obvious that the hubby is probably kaput, as the messages and phone calls from him all occur off-screen. So the only real problem with the mystery is, when you find out who it is, there’s no real impact; his simply isn’t a very interesting character or performance. Of course, for the mystery to be strong too would merely be the icing on the cake.


Nora: Is this true?
Nick: I don’t know.
Nora: Then why are you saying it?
Nick: It’s the only way it makes sense.

Nick’s run of witty one-liners and chipper disrespect for his guests is magnificent. Nothing that occurs throws him (“Er waiter, will you kindly remove that” he asks in relation to the unconscious body just laid out by Dorothy’s fiancé) and potential threats are wisecracked off (“If that knife’s missing, I’ll look for it in my back”). Neil Simon’s postmodern deconstruction of detective fiction in Murder by Death is redundant when The Thin Man is so self-aware (Simon even has a couple of Nick and Nora substitutes). And, as might be expected, Nick hogs the limelight but Nora walks off with the classic line (“Best dinner I ever listened to”).


Those who bemoan Hollywood’s sequel affliction (and for remakes! You go Johnny!) should take note that there were five follow-ups over a span of thirteen years. Admittedly, this was a time when such behaviour was expected of B-movies; now the B-movies are A-movies. I’ll hopefully get round to visiting them all over the next few months (I think the original’s the only one I’ve seen before). Whatever my take on the series’ (invariably and inevitably) declining quality, I heartily recommend the slightly rough around the edges ribaldry of this first escapade.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I added sixty on, and now you’re a genius.

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds
The Master Minds hitches its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it in The Town of No Return, but Robert Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac, but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for The Avengers) makes this episode more distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops, particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Where is the voice that said altered carbon would free us from the cells of our flesh?

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe – except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones, however, are at least more fortunate).

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

He's a wild creature. We can't ask him to be anything else.

The Shape of Water (2017)
(SPOILERS) The faithful would have you believe it never went away, but it’s been a good decade since Guillermo del Toro’s mojo was in full effect, and his output since (or lack thereof: see the torturous wilderness years of At the Mountains of Madness and The Hobbit), reflected through the prism of his peak work Pan’s Labyrinth, bears the hallmarks of a serious qualitative tumble. He put his name to stinker TV show The Strain, returned to movies with the soulless Pacific Rim and fashioned flashy but empty gothic romance Crimson Peak (together his weakest pictures, and I’m not forgetting Mimic). The Shape of Water only seems to underline what everyone has been saying for years, albeit previously confined to his Spanish language pictures: that the smaller and more personal they are, the better. If his latest is at times a little too wilfully idiosyncratic, it’s also a movie where you can nevertheless witness it’s creator’s creativity flowing untrammelled once mo…

The aliens are not coming, just so you know.

The X-Files 11.1: My Struggle III
(SPOILERS) Good grief. Have things become so terminal for Chris Carter that he has to retcon his own crap from the previous season, rather than the (what he perceived as) crap written by others? Carter, of course, infamously pretended the apocalyptic ending of Millennium Season Two never happened, upset by the path Glen Morgan and James Wong, left to their own devices, took with his baby. Their episode was one of the greats of that often-ho-hum series, so the comedown was all the unkinder as a result. In My Struggle III, at least, Carter’s rewriting something that wasn’t very good in the first place. Only, he replaces it with something that is even worse in the second.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

I'm going to open an X-file on this bran muffin.

The X-Files 11.2: This
(SPOILERS) Glen Morgan returns with a really good idea, certainly one with much more potential than his homelessness tract Home Again in Season 10, but seems to give up on its eerier implications, and worse has to bash it round the head to fit the season’s “arc”. Nevertheless, he’s on very comfortable ground with the Mulder-Scully dynamic in This, who get to spend almost the entire episode in each other’s company and might be on the best form here since the show came back, give or take a Darin.

You think I contaminated myself, you think I did that?