Skip to main content

You can go back to your pies now, Mildred. We’re through.

Mildred Pierce

(SPOILERS) Is Mildred Pierce really a film noir? Sure, its framing device revolves around murder, and there’s crime – it’s adapted from a 1941 James Cain novel, after all – and requisite black-and-white cinematography, but at its core, this is really melodrama. The picture’s genre specifics are evidently a well-thumbed subject for discussion, so I’m rather late to the table on that score. All I know for certain is, there’s only so much of Veda (Ann Blyth) being a right little spoiled cow to pushover mum Mildred (Joan Crawford) I can take before I’m longing for Bogey to show up and slap the little madam about a bit or stop her permanently with a slug from a .45.

The opening, though, as Mildred attempts to land duplicitous, money-loving business partner Wally (Jack Carson) in it for the murder of husband Monte (Zachary Scott), is steeped in noirish tones. Director Michael Curtiz was, of course, a dab-hand genre gadfly, holding no particular affinity for such pictures, but eminently adaptable. Indeed, one might argue the opening sequence sets us up for a movie Mildred Pierce entirely fails to be, particularly when one of the least convincing police “interrogations” ever begins (from Moroni Olsen’s Inspector Peterson). You’ll almost believe you’ve wandered into a z-grade B movie. “Detectives have souls the same as everyone else” he tells Mildred, about to launch into an obligingly detailed account of her life. It seems he’s ahead of her every step of the way, such that he knows she’s hiding identity of the true culprit, Veda, but the way it plays, you’d think Ed Wood was feeding Olsen his lines.

Cain had no murder in the novel – something emulated by Todd Haynes, a martyr to melodrama, in his 2011 HBO version – and Veda received no prison sentence; it appears her fate was predominately down to the censorship code (due punishment must be evidenced). Conversely, however, such dark deeds add an undeniable structural frisson, however blandly Oscar-nominated screenwriter Ranald MacDougall threads together the mechanics (it seems William Faulkner did a rewrite, between or during bottles).

What struck me most this time was how under-fuelled Crawford’s lead is in terms of iconic stature. Particularly given she was the only one – the movie received six Oscar nominations including Best Picture – to walk off with a statuette. Part of it might simply be the character she’s saddled with: an absurdly slavish seeker of validation from an extraordinarily obnoxious daughter who despises her, yet somehow savvy in other walks of life, rejecting useless husbands – well, until she fickly decides he was okay, really – and showing immense business can-do thanks to her culinary flair.

It might also be Crawford herself. Her Oscar win, per Anthony Holden’s The Secret History of Hollywood’s Academy Awards, was as much down to the apocryphal conjuring of the press and gossip merchants as legitimate admiration for her performance. As Holden tells it, considerable juicing of her award chances went on, such that she was concerned over the ridicule awaiting her, should it be discovered she had a “press agent plugging her for an Academy Award” before the production had even finished filming.

Crawford had been high and dry, career-wise, for about a decade when the role came along. It was one she lobbied for, but not to Curtiz’ initial acquiescence (“Me direct that temperamental bitch? Not on your goddam life!”) MGM had dropped her, and the director wondered “Why should I waste my time directing a has-been” with her “goddam shoulder pads”. Stories conflict and confabulate. Some say he became a convert during filming, and she presented him with some conciliatory shoulder pads at the end of filming. Others referenced monumental clashes and accusations of “Phoney Joanie” and “rotten bitch”. When it came to Oscar night, she faked pneumonia to justify her absence (like Vera’s pregnancy, then).

Curtiz does his best to make Crawford look attractive, rather than like Mr Ed, but she nevertheless gives off a steelier, more testosterone-fuelled vibe than any of her male co-stars. And yet, Blyth is much more indelible, as one of the least-likeable movie characters this side of a horror flick. Scott is also strong as the smooth heel who dallies with both Mildred and her daughter. Carson only ever seems like he’s playing a wise guy, so the snappy dialogue he’s served – "There's something about the sound of my own voice that fascinates me" – often fails to land as effectively as it should (he also seems to be an all-purpose fit for whatever use the plot wants to put his character to next). Eve Arden is great (and has great delivery) as the former employer who goes to work for Mildred, reliably firing off quick one-liners.

The most extraordinary dialogue is saved for the machinations of Veda, though, far more dangerous than any hand gun. “I wouldn’t be seen dead in this rag” she says of a dress her mother’s hard-earned has bought her. Later, she gives mom’s work uniform to the godawful high-pitched maid (Butterfly McQueen) as an act of spite. “My mother, a waitress” she seethes contemptuously. “Complimenting” Ida, she suggests “You’re so delightfully provincial”. She’s a truly awful, irredeemable specimen – “a rotten little tramp” – even when admitting to her own character defects.

We’re supposed to sympathise with Mildred, I think, but it’s impossible to be entirely on board with someone who so wilfully lets herself be walked over, who neglects her youngest (who dies of the quickest bout of pneumonia ever) and throws away all her hard-earned success to support her surviving daughter’s whims.

Time Out’s Phil Hardy had Mildred Pierce as a sage indictment of then mores (“In a patriarchal society, when a woman steps out of the house, the results may be disastrous”), but that may give it too much credit, and rather ignores its prevailing, mother-daughter causative dynamic. Pauline Kael appeared unpersuaded by its rep, finding time to take a poke at its lead (“Miss Crawford’s heavy breathing was certified as acting when she won an Academy Award for her performance here”).

Mildred Pierce was a big hit, and its reputation as one of the definitive noirs has been sustained through the years, but I don’t think it’s quite all that. Certainly not in comparison to other, more deserving pictures – many of them noirs to boot – that have been rather obscured by the mists of time.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi