76 reviews
Interesting psychological drama told through flashbacks within flashbacks
Flashback within a flashback within a flashback!
Yes! This is the movie that does just that - but it's worth watching for more than that. It is an inspired piece of film-making with excellent direction and fine photography. It also features some strong performances especially from the (is she or isn't she evil) Laraine Day, and the wonderful Brian Aherne. And Robert Mitchum's pretty good too. The best bits are almost expressionist - especially the music box shots - and it's full of the pseudo psychological nonsense that Hollywood loved so much in this era. Highly enjoyable.
Psychological Neo-Gothic Melodrama
- JamesHitchcock
- Dec 11, 2005
- Permalink
Interesting Noir
Brahm's intricately constructed film is based on the obvious conceit of a locket: in psychoanalytical terms, it symbolises repressed memory and of the 'opening up' of hidden psychosis. In a filmic sense of course, The Locket itself is a cinematic 'locket', the flashbacks within flashback structure reflecting the secret enclosure typical of such a piece of jewellery.
In fact I can't think of another film that takes this much commented narrative technique to such extremes. Mitchum of course was well used to playing heros faced with abnormal feminine psychology. He faces similar femme fatales in Preminger's 'Angel Face' for instance and in Farrow's 'Where Danger Lives' - all made at around the same time (end 40's, start of 50's). This may reflect something of the obsession that Hollywood had with cod Freudianism just as much as noir convention, but there is no doubting that Mitchum's peculiar manner as an actor, his doe-eyed sleep-walking acting style, made his starring excursions into the dangers of the subconscious peculiarly effective.
Brahm, one of Hollywoods most neglected directors at least for the work that he did at this time in his career, makes the somewhat over- stretched structure of the film work, pun intended, like a dream. Nancy's final walk to the altar, immediately before her mental and psychic collapse, although necessarily melodramatic, is very effective version of a personal calvary and she seems stunned and trance like. In retrospect, of course, it is easy to see how the whole of the preceding film has been leading up to this sequence, (just as how the flashback structure of the film reminds one in passing of 'Citizen Kane') but the sound and vision montage is still powerful.
By setting the bulk of the film in flashback, Brahm places it in the past - or, more precisely, in the imaginatively reconstructed past, and it is this dream-sense that retains a powerful grip on the viewer as events unfold. This almost hallucinatory sense, together with a feeling of 'drifting with fate', marks out some of the greatest noirs and B-mysteries made at this time and is what makes this film still very watchable today.
A 'Locket' well worth looking into.
In fact I can't think of another film that takes this much commented narrative technique to such extremes. Mitchum of course was well used to playing heros faced with abnormal feminine psychology. He faces similar femme fatales in Preminger's 'Angel Face' for instance and in Farrow's 'Where Danger Lives' - all made at around the same time (end 40's, start of 50's). This may reflect something of the obsession that Hollywood had with cod Freudianism just as much as noir convention, but there is no doubting that Mitchum's peculiar manner as an actor, his doe-eyed sleep-walking acting style, made his starring excursions into the dangers of the subconscious peculiarly effective.
Brahm, one of Hollywoods most neglected directors at least for the work that he did at this time in his career, makes the somewhat over- stretched structure of the film work, pun intended, like a dream. Nancy's final walk to the altar, immediately before her mental and psychic collapse, although necessarily melodramatic, is very effective version of a personal calvary and she seems stunned and trance like. In retrospect, of course, it is easy to see how the whole of the preceding film has been leading up to this sequence, (just as how the flashback structure of the film reminds one in passing of 'Citizen Kane') but the sound and vision montage is still powerful.
By setting the bulk of the film in flashback, Brahm places it in the past - or, more precisely, in the imaginatively reconstructed past, and it is this dream-sense that retains a powerful grip on the viewer as events unfold. This almost hallucinatory sense, together with a feeling of 'drifting with fate', marks out some of the greatest noirs and B-mysteries made at this time and is what makes this film still very watchable today.
A 'Locket' well worth looking into.
- FilmFlaneur
- Apr 10, 2001
- Permalink
Very solid melodrama, well filmed, great pace
The Locket (1946)
Well, when you have a post-war movie with Robert Mitchum at his young prime, you can't go wrong.
The star (or starlet, as they used to say) is actress Laraine Day playing Nancy, and she pulls off a charming, attentive, smart perfect woman. A bride to be, in fact. The movie starts with people arrive to a high class wedding. Mitchum shows up via flashback (classic film noir stuff). In fact, there is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback (4 levels) and it's sort of fun.
There are some great lines like, "If you'e lucky you can afford to be nice." But some of the dialog, and maybe the plot overall, is a hair stiff at times.
Director John Brahm is not well known, but his "Hangover Square" the year before is really great. And this one shows a consistent sense of storytelling and drama with highs and lows if not always fully developed characters. The key character is Nancy, who uses her charm to win over the audience as well as the men around her in the plot. Day plays her role perfectly—swiveling sweetness against a just perceptible insincerity. She's a terrific liar.
Which brings me back to Mitchum, who is good but seems to be reading rehearsed lines too often. I think there was supposed to be chemistry between Day and Mitchum, but it wasn't there, even though they both look terribly good.
Though it has a noir-like flavor, this strikes me as a straight up melodrama overall, and with soaring music and lots of dramatic lighting there is no way to not get absorbed in it. There are some short but well done scenes of London during the war (bombs and blackouts).
A well done and lesser known good one. And a fun curiosity—the crazed music box music that denotes an uneven state of mind is the same as that used in the "Bad Seed."
Well, when you have a post-war movie with Robert Mitchum at his young prime, you can't go wrong.
The star (or starlet, as they used to say) is actress Laraine Day playing Nancy, and she pulls off a charming, attentive, smart perfect woman. A bride to be, in fact. The movie starts with people arrive to a high class wedding. Mitchum shows up via flashback (classic film noir stuff). In fact, there is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback (4 levels) and it's sort of fun.
There are some great lines like, "If you'e lucky you can afford to be nice." But some of the dialog, and maybe the plot overall, is a hair stiff at times.
Director John Brahm is not well known, but his "Hangover Square" the year before is really great. And this one shows a consistent sense of storytelling and drama with highs and lows if not always fully developed characters. The key character is Nancy, who uses her charm to win over the audience as well as the men around her in the plot. Day plays her role perfectly—swiveling sweetness against a just perceptible insincerity. She's a terrific liar.
Which brings me back to Mitchum, who is good but seems to be reading rehearsed lines too often. I think there was supposed to be chemistry between Day and Mitchum, but it wasn't there, even though they both look terribly good.
Though it has a noir-like flavor, this strikes me as a straight up melodrama overall, and with soaring music and lots of dramatic lighting there is no way to not get absorbed in it. There are some short but well done scenes of London during the war (bombs and blackouts).
A well done and lesser known good one. And a fun curiosity—the crazed music box music that denotes an uneven state of mind is the same as that used in the "Bad Seed."
- secondtake
- Aug 7, 2017
- Permalink
Interesting structure
This film by underrated director John Brahm is one of the more interesting works of the 1940s (not one of the best, but different).
Laraine Day plays Nancy, about to marry and hiding some dark secrets in her past. She was excellent at this kind of thing. Gene Raymond (not the most charismatic of actors but surprisingly good here) plays her intended, with Brian Aherne as the psychiatrist who knows about her previous life.
In flashback we see Nancy and her husband (a young Robert Mitchum) and then into another flashback (daring to attempt this at the time when many films were still pursuing conventional structure).
'The Locket' of the title obviously holds the key to the mystery, and we have an absorbing time pulling all the loose ends together. Reginald Denny, Ricardo Cortez, and Ellen Corby decorate an accomplished cast.
Laraine Day plays Nancy, about to marry and hiding some dark secrets in her past. She was excellent at this kind of thing. Gene Raymond (not the most charismatic of actors but surprisingly good here) plays her intended, with Brian Aherne as the psychiatrist who knows about her previous life.
In flashback we see Nancy and her husband (a young Robert Mitchum) and then into another flashback (daring to attempt this at the time when many films were still pursuing conventional structure).
'The Locket' of the title obviously holds the key to the mystery, and we have an absorbing time pulling all the loose ends together. Reginald Denny, Ricardo Cortez, and Ellen Corby decorate an accomplished cast.
Its not a movie about a little girls most valued treasure
Masterful use of flashbacks.
Saw this for the first time on Turner Classic last night and was thoroughly impressed with the successful use of flashbacks that were clearly understood and served the story well.
There was no confusion for the viewer despite the complex storyline and varying points of view involved.
The mystery held me throughout. It was a matter of he said/she said that left you undecided, or at least unsure, of who was being truthful and who wasn't. Even the sequences in the flashbacks were reflecting one person's point of view and not necessarily what really happened.
I would highly recommend this movie to my friends who love good scripts and especially to any would-be screenwriters looking at the correct use of flashbacks in film.
Characters, plot line, direction, photography, acting: all excellent.
There was no confusion for the viewer despite the complex storyline and varying points of view involved.
The mystery held me throughout. It was a matter of he said/she said that left you undecided, or at least unsure, of who was being truthful and who wasn't. Even the sequences in the flashbacks were reflecting one person's point of view and not necessarily what really happened.
I would highly recommend this movie to my friends who love good scripts and especially to any would-be screenwriters looking at the correct use of flashbacks in film.
Characters, plot line, direction, photography, acting: all excellent.
- MommyoAndretti
- Oct 5, 2005
- Permalink
Locket away
Having recently watched John Brahms' two preceding movies, both centring on psychologically disturbed men (killers in fact) in period features, here the director presents us with an emotionally unstable woman in a contemporary setting. I enjoyed the two earlier films "The Lodger" and "Hangover Square" and I enjoyed this one too.
The lead character is played by Laraine Day, whose beauty attracts men like honey to a bee, although little do they know that she is a closet kleptomaniac with slippery fingers around rich folk's jewellery, her condition traceable to a childhood incident when she covets an expensive locket given to her by the rich little girl whose house her mother serves, but taken back away from her by the girl's mother as too good for her. When the locket later goes missing she is menacingly if mistakenly accused by the mother and given to believe that her shame at this has coloured her future conduct as an adult. Not only do her good looks attract the interest of deep men like Robert Mitchum's artist and Brian Aherne's doctor, it all climaxes in a super-charged betrothal scene to her third beau, the very rich Gene Raymond whose mother's nuptial gift to her of a locket finally unlocks years of denial and guilt on her part.
I'd have to say that the plot certainly overdoes the Freudian associations of Day's Cassandra-like obsession with jewellery. I also couldn't quite imagine Mitchum firstly as a tortured artist and secondly taking the extreme action he does as he gives up Day to Aherne, while the final coincidence of the other locket was just a bit too much to swallow.
Nevertheless, it was again stylishly directed by Brahm with strong performances by Day as the beguiling magpie Nancy, as adept at stealing men's hearts as old folk's jewellery, Aherne as the duped doctor and even Mitchum, miscast as he was. The layered flashbacks I found intriguing while the use of dramatic lighting, staging and music added greatly to the suspense.
1940's Hollywood movies were awash with psychologically disturbed individuals in films from Citizen Kane on down and while this particular feature overdoes the angst more than a bit, it was none the less entertaining for all that.
The lead character is played by Laraine Day, whose beauty attracts men like honey to a bee, although little do they know that she is a closet kleptomaniac with slippery fingers around rich folk's jewellery, her condition traceable to a childhood incident when she covets an expensive locket given to her by the rich little girl whose house her mother serves, but taken back away from her by the girl's mother as too good for her. When the locket later goes missing she is menacingly if mistakenly accused by the mother and given to believe that her shame at this has coloured her future conduct as an adult. Not only do her good looks attract the interest of deep men like Robert Mitchum's artist and Brian Aherne's doctor, it all climaxes in a super-charged betrothal scene to her third beau, the very rich Gene Raymond whose mother's nuptial gift to her of a locket finally unlocks years of denial and guilt on her part.
I'd have to say that the plot certainly overdoes the Freudian associations of Day's Cassandra-like obsession with jewellery. I also couldn't quite imagine Mitchum firstly as a tortured artist and secondly taking the extreme action he does as he gives up Day to Aherne, while the final coincidence of the other locket was just a bit too much to swallow.
Nevertheless, it was again stylishly directed by Brahm with strong performances by Day as the beguiling magpie Nancy, as adept at stealing men's hearts as old folk's jewellery, Aherne as the duped doctor and even Mitchum, miscast as he was. The layered flashbacks I found intriguing while the use of dramatic lighting, staging and music added greatly to the suspense.
1940's Hollywood movies were awash with psychologically disturbed individuals in films from Citizen Kane on down and while this particular feature overdoes the angst more than a bit, it was none the less entertaining for all that.
Really good
Better than Maltin says
Though hardly a 'great' movie, this is a thoroughly absorbing and above-average B-movie that keeps one involved. The acting is excellent throughout, and the triply-nested flashbacks are an original conceit. It deserves better than the 2 stars Maltin gives it. Thanks, American Movie Classics, for bringing us this one.
This Movie has Aged Better than MOST!
Laraine Day supported by Robert Mitchum, Brian Aherne, and Gene Raymond. The three men associated with "Nancy" are all very adept in their parts, especially Robert Mitchum. The plots twist and turns keep you interested for the entire film. You will notice Lillian Fontaine as Lady Wyndham. She is also noted for her two brilliant daughters Joan Fontaine and Oliva de Havilland. The film is very much like a Hitchcock movie in its style. It is dark and has several different possible solutions, but the real end is not expected. It is much more complex than even a true mystery buff would guess. It does not keep you on the edge of your seat, it is not that type of film, it just plods along and keeps your interest throughout the film, and makes you think (a little).
Little-known noir gem
Knowing that this is the movie with the famous "flashback within a flashback within a flashback" draws people in, but the device never comes across as forced or artificial, and it works.
Like a lot of other people, I think Leonard Maltin underrates this one. "The Locket" is fun and suspenseful, as all "did she or didn't she" stories are when they're told right. This is Laraine Day's finest hour, and Robert Mitchum is very good in a sympathetic role. They are ably supported by Brian Aherne and Gene Raymond.
It's nice to see so many of the wonderful old thrillers from the 40s enjoying a revival. So many little gems like "The Locket" come in at under 90 minutes; they benefit from tight writing, intriguing premises and neat plot twists. Like "Detour," "Phantom Lady," "Follow Me Quietly" and many others, "The Locket" does not disappoint.
This is the kind of movie you think about all day long, and maybe the day after, if you happen upon it at 3:00 a.m. on TCM.
Like a lot of other people, I think Leonard Maltin underrates this one. "The Locket" is fun and suspenseful, as all "did she or didn't she" stories are when they're told right. This is Laraine Day's finest hour, and Robert Mitchum is very good in a sympathetic role. They are ably supported by Brian Aherne and Gene Raymond.
It's nice to see so many of the wonderful old thrillers from the 40s enjoying a revival. So many little gems like "The Locket" come in at under 90 minutes; they benefit from tight writing, intriguing premises and neat plot twists. Like "Detour," "Phantom Lady," "Follow Me Quietly" and many others, "The Locket" does not disappoint.
This is the kind of movie you think about all day long, and maybe the day after, if you happen upon it at 3:00 a.m. on TCM.
- ecjones1951
- Oct 8, 2005
- Permalink
Meet Nancy Monks-Blair-Patton - Thief? Liar? Murderess? All The Above?
Hello!?... Are you ready for a vintage, Hollywood movie (circa 1946) whose story (get this!) is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback? (ho-hum!) (And, believe me, with each subsequent flashback you're sure to find your head spinning while you're saying "WTF!?" to yourself about every 5 minutes, or so)
Well, if this flashback business is the sort of movie-scenario that appeals to you, then you need look no further than 1946's The Locket. I swear this one's web of tangled situations requires that you start out with a "connect-up-the dots" map in order to navigate yourself sanely through its multi-layered stratum.
I also warn you - Do not take The Locket's dead-serious story at face value. Viewed 70 years later, this film is packed with all sorts of unintentional humour. And for me, this accidental irony was its only real "highlight", 'cause without it this movie was just a ludicrous mess of Hollywood gibberish from start to finish.
Anyway - Another reason why I so generously gave The Locket its 5-star rating has to do with actor Robert Mitchum being in the cast.
As Norman Clyde, the "soon-to-be-successful", NYC artist, Mitchum (28 at the time) was acceptably adequate in his part. But, with that said, I guarantee you will not believe how his character exits the story. (Hey! I won't spoil that moment for you. I think you really need to see it for yourself. But believe me - It's a dilly!!)
Well, if this flashback business is the sort of movie-scenario that appeals to you, then you need look no further than 1946's The Locket. I swear this one's web of tangled situations requires that you start out with a "connect-up-the dots" map in order to navigate yourself sanely through its multi-layered stratum.
I also warn you - Do not take The Locket's dead-serious story at face value. Viewed 70 years later, this film is packed with all sorts of unintentional humour. And for me, this accidental irony was its only real "highlight", 'cause without it this movie was just a ludicrous mess of Hollywood gibberish from start to finish.
Anyway - Another reason why I so generously gave The Locket its 5-star rating has to do with actor Robert Mitchum being in the cast.
As Norman Clyde, the "soon-to-be-successful", NYC artist, Mitchum (28 at the time) was acceptably adequate in his part. But, with that said, I guarantee you will not believe how his character exits the story. (Hey! I won't spoil that moment for you. I think you really need to see it for yourself. But believe me - It's a dilly!!)
- strong-122-478885
- Jul 25, 2015
- Permalink
Interestingly different film that comes together despite a risky flashback-within-a-flashback structure
Just before his wedding to the beautiful and carefree Nancy, John Willis is visited by Doctor Harry Blair who informs him that he knows the real Nancy and warns the doctor not to make the same mistake as him by marrying her. He tells her the story of how he had just married Nancy when a man called Clyde turned up in his office and told him a story about how he had met Nancy and had got drawn into her world of deception.
Shunning conventional structure is always a risk and in this film it is one that it takes as we have a story being told by Blair that is basically about him being told a story by Clyde. This makes for an interesting approach especially since the stories are both told by her dumped lovers. In this regard we're not sure what is true and what isn't and, while the stories engage on one level, I was conscious of the fact that they were telling and not necessarily facts (a trick Usual Suspects would later repeat to great praise). Existing within the minds of the characters, the story is interesting and is all the better at the end for it. For many viewers the story-telling approach will be a little slow and I times it did drag a bit but mostly it comes together and works as something different and interesting.
The cast are roundly good although they take second fiddle to the script and the ideas of director Brahm (who produces some clever ideas in Nancy's bridal march). Aherne is a bit too stiff in the role where really I wanted him to display a bit more range. Mitchum is good in his role but it wasn't the sort of thing I was used to seeing him in and he has been much better elsewhere. Day takes the main role of Nancy and does well with it she is part of the reason we're not sure what is true and what isn't and she convinced me that she didn't know either. She has plenty of nice touches as well as one or two very strong moments. Like I said though, this wasn't a great actors film but nobody was less than good.
Overall this is an interesting and different film that takes a risk by stepping back to flashback within flashback but mostly pulls it off. The story format might be a little testing on the patience (hearing about something implies a lack of action in the time where we are after all the audience spent the film in the Willis study) but the material is worth it and, once back in the present, everything comes together nicely. Worth seeing for being a different style of drama from the period.
Shunning conventional structure is always a risk and in this film it is one that it takes as we have a story being told by Blair that is basically about him being told a story by Clyde. This makes for an interesting approach especially since the stories are both told by her dumped lovers. In this regard we're not sure what is true and what isn't and, while the stories engage on one level, I was conscious of the fact that they were telling and not necessarily facts (a trick Usual Suspects would later repeat to great praise). Existing within the minds of the characters, the story is interesting and is all the better at the end for it. For many viewers the story-telling approach will be a little slow and I times it did drag a bit but mostly it comes together and works as something different and interesting.
The cast are roundly good although they take second fiddle to the script and the ideas of director Brahm (who produces some clever ideas in Nancy's bridal march). Aherne is a bit too stiff in the role where really I wanted him to display a bit more range. Mitchum is good in his role but it wasn't the sort of thing I was used to seeing him in and he has been much better elsewhere. Day takes the main role of Nancy and does well with it she is part of the reason we're not sure what is true and what isn't and she convinced me that she didn't know either. She has plenty of nice touches as well as one or two very strong moments. Like I said though, this wasn't a great actors film but nobody was less than good.
Overall this is an interesting and different film that takes a risk by stepping back to flashback within flashback but mostly pulls it off. The story format might be a little testing on the patience (hearing about something implies a lack of action in the time where we are after all the audience spent the film in the Willis study) but the material is worth it and, once back in the present, everything comes together nicely. Worth seeing for being a different style of drama from the period.
- bob the moo
- Dec 26, 2005
- Permalink
You gotta pay attention during this one!
I don't know if this is available on DVD; fortunately we recorded it when we saw it listed on the TCM schedule. It's a movie you really need to pay close attention to. As others have suggested, fix your drinks and snacks beforehand, turn off the cell phones, and use the bathroom before starting to watch. Also, if you hate flashbacks, be warned that this has flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks - you almost need a scorecard! Laraine Day is terrific - just right for the role; I had only seen her in simple ingenue parts previously.
- fairweatherfan
- Sep 3, 2018
- Permalink
Fascinating psychological (if slightly melodramatic) suspenser with noirish undertones - and a fairly insightful Freudian portrait of mental illness - a true hidden gem!
Laraine Day as Nancy is a revelation here, reminding me of Sharon Stone somewhat, in this story of a man who relates the tale of another man who tells of HER history in nested flashbacks, reaching back to 1938, WWII, around 1935, brief childhood scenes around 1925, and back again to 1946. The plot is extremely intriguing and there a couple of sudden wild twists with a climactic, ironic ending. Along the way, occasional striking visual effects convey the (disturbed) state of minds of certain characters including the use of some haunting paintings from artist Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum). The latter was well suited to his role as the struggling bohemian making his way to patronage among the higher classes. To liven things up even more, there are plenty of varied settings, including London during the Blitz. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and it brought other favorites to mind such as Leave Her to Heaven (1945) and even The Hand That Rocks the Cradle (1992). What gives it a noirish edge is that sense of paranoia, of not knowing who or what to trust, unreliable narrators and one could say that even a hint of femme fatale is present. I highly recommend this!
- declancooley
- Jul 25, 2023
- Permalink
Men Paying For Her Crimes
Laraine Day probably got her career screen role in The Locket playing a completely amoral woman who steals on compulsion and leaves a slew of men in her wake paying for her crimes. Those crimes also include murder.
The title of the film comes from a locket that Day as a child was given and then taken back by the mother of the rich girl she played with. Day's own mother was a housekeeper at a rich estate. The rich girl's mother is played with appropriate wicked relish by Katharine Emery.
The film begins with an unknown ex-husband Brian Aherne crashing the pre-wedding reception that Gene Raymond is having. He's about to marry Day, but he's frightfully ignorant of her past. Aherne proceeds to enlighten him and most of the film is in flashback.
Two other men in her life are millionaire Ricardo Cortez who is an art patron and Robert Mitchum the Bohemian artist she convinces Cortez to patronize. It all ends really bad for both these guys and others.
Special mention should also go to young Sharyn Moffett who plays Day as a child. During her scenes we get a glimpse of why Day is the way she is.
I'm surprised that Day got no Academy recognition for her performance. Had this been at a bigger studio than RKO she just might have with the bigger publicity machines at their command.
The men are all good, but Laraine really makes this film all her own.
The title of the film comes from a locket that Day as a child was given and then taken back by the mother of the rich girl she played with. Day's own mother was a housekeeper at a rich estate. The rich girl's mother is played with appropriate wicked relish by Katharine Emery.
The film begins with an unknown ex-husband Brian Aherne crashing the pre-wedding reception that Gene Raymond is having. He's about to marry Day, but he's frightfully ignorant of her past. Aherne proceeds to enlighten him and most of the film is in flashback.
Two other men in her life are millionaire Ricardo Cortez who is an art patron and Robert Mitchum the Bohemian artist she convinces Cortez to patronize. It all ends really bad for both these guys and others.
Special mention should also go to young Sharyn Moffett who plays Day as a child. During her scenes we get a glimpse of why Day is the way she is.
I'm surprised that Day got no Academy recognition for her performance. Had this been at a bigger studio than RKO she just might have with the bigger publicity machines at their command.
The men are all good, but Laraine really makes this film all her own.
- bkoganbing
- Jul 7, 2010
- Permalink
Masterpiece
Grade A actors at the top of their form. It is amazing how they made the flashback within a flashback work. It all feels original and fresh and expertly done.
A rare turn for Mitchum as a good guy.
A rare turn for Mitchum as a good guy.
A Real Choker
- writers_reign
- Dec 7, 2005
- Permalink
It's not the what's but the whys and the hows that fascinate me
The Locket
John Willis (Gene Raymond) is just getting happily married to a beautiful woman named Nancy Patton (Laraine Day), when a strange man (Brian Aherne) shows up to the wedding reception. He introduces himself as Dr. Blair, a psychiatrist, and claims to be married to Nancy. Suspicious at first, John starts listening to Blair's story about how he first met Nancy and how she might not be what she claims to be. Nancy's earlier escapades are then seen in multiple flashbacks within each other – her story includes an artist named Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum), stolen jewellery, even murder... or are they all just jealous rumours?
Many of film noir's key elements are present in the film: stark lighting, black and white cinematography, retrospective narrative structure and a femme fatale character who maintains her mystery throughout and keeps everyone guessing until the end. The mood is softer than in hardboiled detective stories though; The Locket is more interested in Nancy's character development than a forlorn atmosphere. Her thieving tendencies are portrayed as stemming from her childhood as the daughter of a rich family's housekeeper, particularly an instance when she was falsely accused of stealing a diamond necklace. Regardless of what one thinks about the believability of pointing out a clear cause for Nancy's character traits, it must be noted that Laraine Day succeeds in the role very nicely; it seems believable that her fragile, pretty face might well be a facade for a dangerous seductress. Robert Mitchum is very charismatic too as the unfortunate artist Clyde, but some of the child actresses in the farthest-reaching flashback are not so convincing.
Even though the three-fold flashback method feels quite heavy a manner to unwind the story, it makes sure the different timelines don't mix confusingly and keeps things neatly where they belong. It also adds to the mystery of Nancy; since we mostly see her the way she is remembered by possibly unreliable characters, we can never be quite sure about how she really is. The ending comes across as a bit watered down considering the film's noir roots, but most of the time it is interesting to follow Nancy manipulate the hapless lovesick men around her. In the end, The Locket is well worth watching, even if not among the most atmospheric movies of its kind.
Many of film noir's key elements are present in the film: stark lighting, black and white cinematography, retrospective narrative structure and a femme fatale character who maintains her mystery throughout and keeps everyone guessing until the end. The mood is softer than in hardboiled detective stories though; The Locket is more interested in Nancy's character development than a forlorn atmosphere. Her thieving tendencies are portrayed as stemming from her childhood as the daughter of a rich family's housekeeper, particularly an instance when she was falsely accused of stealing a diamond necklace. Regardless of what one thinks about the believability of pointing out a clear cause for Nancy's character traits, it must be noted that Laraine Day succeeds in the role very nicely; it seems believable that her fragile, pretty face might well be a facade for a dangerous seductress. Robert Mitchum is very charismatic too as the unfortunate artist Clyde, but some of the child actresses in the farthest-reaching flashback are not so convincing.
Even though the three-fold flashback method feels quite heavy a manner to unwind the story, it makes sure the different timelines don't mix confusingly and keeps things neatly where they belong. It also adds to the mystery of Nancy; since we mostly see her the way she is remembered by possibly unreliable characters, we can never be quite sure about how she really is. The ending comes across as a bit watered down considering the film's noir roots, but most of the time it is interesting to follow Nancy manipulate the hapless lovesick men around her. In the end, The Locket is well worth watching, even if not among the most atmospheric movies of its kind.
- random_avenger
- Sep 23, 2010
- Permalink
tour de force for Laraine Day!!!
HOW MUCH IS THIS LOCKET...?
A hypnotic film noir which centers on an impending nuptial which is interrupted by a psychiatrist w/ties to the bride's past. It turns out she suffers from kleptomania stemming from an abusive upbringing by her mother's former employer. Utilizing the mother of flashbacks to tell the story (I counted 5) this movie latches upon the fascination of mental health (really popular at the time) so much so that even the woman who came up w/the story underwent therapy. This was the last supporting role Robert Mitchum would play before hitting the big time as a leading man.
Overrated melodrama
THE LOCKET is a middle-of-the-road melodrama/film noir that features a supporting role for Robert Mitchum. Mitchum isn't actually in this film all that much, which means this must have been made just before he hit the big time, and instead the viewer is saddled with a number of weaker actors, none of whom stand out particularly.
The storyline has some shades of REBECCA and all of those 'evil husband' film noirs that were popular during the decade like GASLIGHT, albeit with a twist; it's the wife who's the kooky one in this case. Her bizarre behaviour turns out to be linked to a childhood trauma, meaning that this is a psychological thriller along the lines of some of those Hitchcock films of the 1940s. Sadly, I never engaged with the material much, as the situations seemed to me to be rather slight and the character reactions exaggerated. Laraine Day gives it her all as the confused and brooding Nancy but the film as a whole just feels a bit trite and overheated.
The storyline has some shades of REBECCA and all of those 'evil husband' film noirs that were popular during the decade like GASLIGHT, albeit with a twist; it's the wife who's the kooky one in this case. Her bizarre behaviour turns out to be linked to a childhood trauma, meaning that this is a psychological thriller along the lines of some of those Hitchcock films of the 1940s. Sadly, I never engaged with the material much, as the situations seemed to me to be rather slight and the character reactions exaggerated. Laraine Day gives it her all as the confused and brooding Nancy but the film as a whole just feels a bit trite and overheated.
- Leofwine_draca
- Sep 17, 2015
- Permalink