No need to recap the plot. Instead, I want to single out an important thread in what amounts to an unusual movie for its time.
It's rather surprising that a film produced in the wake of WWII would so presciently anticipate the restless anxieties of the 1950's. But this dark little melodrama does. Forbes (Powell) is only two years away from the emotional upheaval of the war. Now he's got what most vets want—a good job, a loving wife, a bouncy son, and a nice home in the suburbs. In short, he's living what folks then would call the good life. For 1948, the three years is not much of an interval to develop the kind of boredom Forbes evinces as a father and insurance man. Perhaps if the setting had been the late 50's, that would be time enough for a routine to become a rut, (e.g. Bachelor Party {1957}, No Down Payment {1958}). All in all, then, mark one up for what amounts to a prophetic screenplay.
At the movie's outset, Forbes' itch, unsurprisingly, is a repressed sexual one. Wife Sue (Wyatt) is a by-the-numbers housewife and mom and presumably, lover. On the whole, his boredom with life in the suburbs and his job, even after the traumatic big war, is palpable. But then business sends him from his routine to Mona's (Scott) apartment, and, In a revealing libidinous touch, catch how Forbes lingers over Mona's (note the name) glamour photos. She's a blonde bombshell, but he's too dulled down to do more at the moment than contemplate. That is, until they take the fast, exhilarating ride together in her nifty little speedboat. It's a perfect metaphor for what she's tempting him with. Of course she's doing it for selfish reasons. But now, after the thrilling ride, Forbes, the officious drudge, is loosened up enough to act on some of his earlier repressed desires.
If this weren't a movie, we could probably expect their clandestine affair to last just long enough for her to drop him after she's got what she wanted. At the same time, he would keep up the domestic pretense but be grouchier than usual. But, this being a melodrama, we have to have a dark catalyst for more trouble, and that comes in the bulky shape of private detective MacDonald (Burr). Now Mac is the kind of guy who thinks that persistence overcomes all obstacles, even when Mona repeatedly rejects his egotistical overtures. It's not true love Mac's in the grip of; instead, Mona's a challenge he has to overcome in order to prove himself better than his sometimes employer, Forbes.
But then Mona finds out that Forbes is married, and proceeds to inform him of the prevailing norm of the coming 50's—he should be happy he's got the home, job and family he has and quit fooling around. Besides, with Mac in the picture and her ex-boyfriend Smiley out of jail, things have become complicated. As a result the illicit pair part and, significantly, without hard feelings. But now, Forbes has tasted a faster life than the suburban kind; so it can be wondered whether deep down he'll ever make a complete readjustment to a daily routine, though the movie finesses that aspect. But the question remains.
Plot-wise, however, Forbes is compelled to shoot Smiley, and the storyline plunges into something of a middle-class nightmare as the movie's darker trends finally come together. Despite the twist, Forbes eventually proves his underlying respectability by coming clean to the law and to Sue about what he's been keeping secret. Thus he makes the necessary initial steps toward returning to middle-class conformity. And with that, emerging suburban values are thereby affirmed. At the same time, an important period in American life is also affirmed. To the movie's credit, however, the storyline ends on a suitably ambiguous note for the Forbes's.
To me, it's this sociological (if you will) thread that's most notable about the movie as a whole. The thread itself is about 10 years ahead of its time. At the same time, it would be about 20-years before the so-called counter-culture would challenge these prevailing norms. Perhaps it's not surprising, in view of the movie, that a key catalyst of the counter- culture would be the "free love" movement. Forbes might well have understood, though I doubt the movie character would ever admit it.
The movie itself is compelling and well done. I like the location shots of LA suburbia that lend realism. Also Burr is excellent as the creepy (no other word really fits) MacDonald, while Wyatt is squeaky clean and subtly strong-willed as Sue. But I have to agree with those who find Powell too grim throughout. Together, he and Wyatt are one joyless couple—see if you can spot a single smile between them. While Scott, for once, amounts to more than a stiffly lacquered presence and even manages to show some acting chops. Also, there are some effective noirish touches, particularly when Mac punches out Forbes in the garage. But the emphasis throughout remains more on storyline than mood.
All in all, the production amounts to significantly more than simply another good noirish melodrama, and remains revealing despite the passage of years.
(In passing—Sue's not alone in singling out comic books of the time as a corruptive influence. We kids ate them up and they were grisly as heck. Finally, in 1954, I believe, some board was set up to censor them, and I expect readership fell off dramatically. I know mine did.)
It's rather surprising that a film produced in the wake of WWII would so presciently anticipate the restless anxieties of the 1950's. But this dark little melodrama does. Forbes (Powell) is only two years away from the emotional upheaval of the war. Now he's got what most vets want—a good job, a loving wife, a bouncy son, and a nice home in the suburbs. In short, he's living what folks then would call the good life. For 1948, the three years is not much of an interval to develop the kind of boredom Forbes evinces as a father and insurance man. Perhaps if the setting had been the late 50's, that would be time enough for a routine to become a rut, (e.g. Bachelor Party {1957}, No Down Payment {1958}). All in all, then, mark one up for what amounts to a prophetic screenplay.
At the movie's outset, Forbes' itch, unsurprisingly, is a repressed sexual one. Wife Sue (Wyatt) is a by-the-numbers housewife and mom and presumably, lover. On the whole, his boredom with life in the suburbs and his job, even after the traumatic big war, is palpable. But then business sends him from his routine to Mona's (Scott) apartment, and, In a revealing libidinous touch, catch how Forbes lingers over Mona's (note the name) glamour photos. She's a blonde bombshell, but he's too dulled down to do more at the moment than contemplate. That is, until they take the fast, exhilarating ride together in her nifty little speedboat. It's a perfect metaphor for what she's tempting him with. Of course she's doing it for selfish reasons. But now, after the thrilling ride, Forbes, the officious drudge, is loosened up enough to act on some of his earlier repressed desires.
If this weren't a movie, we could probably expect their clandestine affair to last just long enough for her to drop him after she's got what she wanted. At the same time, he would keep up the domestic pretense but be grouchier than usual. But, this being a melodrama, we have to have a dark catalyst for more trouble, and that comes in the bulky shape of private detective MacDonald (Burr). Now Mac is the kind of guy who thinks that persistence overcomes all obstacles, even when Mona repeatedly rejects his egotistical overtures. It's not true love Mac's in the grip of; instead, Mona's a challenge he has to overcome in order to prove himself better than his sometimes employer, Forbes.
But then Mona finds out that Forbes is married, and proceeds to inform him of the prevailing norm of the coming 50's—he should be happy he's got the home, job and family he has and quit fooling around. Besides, with Mac in the picture and her ex-boyfriend Smiley out of jail, things have become complicated. As a result the illicit pair part and, significantly, without hard feelings. But now, Forbes has tasted a faster life than the suburban kind; so it can be wondered whether deep down he'll ever make a complete readjustment to a daily routine, though the movie finesses that aspect. But the question remains.
Plot-wise, however, Forbes is compelled to shoot Smiley, and the storyline plunges into something of a middle-class nightmare as the movie's darker trends finally come together. Despite the twist, Forbes eventually proves his underlying respectability by coming clean to the law and to Sue about what he's been keeping secret. Thus he makes the necessary initial steps toward returning to middle-class conformity. And with that, emerging suburban values are thereby affirmed. At the same time, an important period in American life is also affirmed. To the movie's credit, however, the storyline ends on a suitably ambiguous note for the Forbes's.
To me, it's this sociological (if you will) thread that's most notable about the movie as a whole. The thread itself is about 10 years ahead of its time. At the same time, it would be about 20-years before the so-called counter-culture would challenge these prevailing norms. Perhaps it's not surprising, in view of the movie, that a key catalyst of the counter- culture would be the "free love" movement. Forbes might well have understood, though I doubt the movie character would ever admit it.
The movie itself is compelling and well done. I like the location shots of LA suburbia that lend realism. Also Burr is excellent as the creepy (no other word really fits) MacDonald, while Wyatt is squeaky clean and subtly strong-willed as Sue. But I have to agree with those who find Powell too grim throughout. Together, he and Wyatt are one joyless couple—see if you can spot a single smile between them. While Scott, for once, amounts to more than a stiffly lacquered presence and even manages to show some acting chops. Also, there are some effective noirish touches, particularly when Mac punches out Forbes in the garage. But the emphasis throughout remains more on storyline than mood.
All in all, the production amounts to significantly more than simply another good noirish melodrama, and remains revealing despite the passage of years.
(In passing—Sue's not alone in singling out comic books of the time as a corruptive influence. We kids ate them up and they were grisly as heck. Finally, in 1954, I believe, some board was set up to censor them, and I expect readership fell off dramatically. I know mine did.)