An indie drama with Franchot Tone and Jean Wallace, and I would say that their acting was unexpected, not as in whimsical, but as in refined, inspired, refreshing and suiting the movie; she has an appealing dynamism, and is very gracious in a scene when she talks with the conspirators.
Franchot Tone looks somewhat like J. Depp (but plays way subtler). After Barbara was killed, Malloy seems a bit heartless, a bit insensitive and indifferent. One of the politicians had defined him as a tough guy, and indeed he does a fight scene, with an intruder whose knuckles he takes and then shows to the providential and populist angel of politics.
I think it looks like an indie movie. I enjoyed it. It's experimental movie-making not only because of the cameos, but also in its style, an intelligent and quirky one: dry, unadorned, effective and graceful.
It also suggests a comparison with European '70s crime dramas.
Anyway, the plot seems vague, the opposite of a '30s crime movie about sinister conspiracies, etc.; the style is ironic and well mastered. This aloofness, the distancing are deliberate, achieving a comic book atmosphere. Tone's performance is vivid, but all the characters, the prosecutor included, are made to seem cryptic. The indoors scenes have a smoldering appeal: the rooms, then the museum.
The countless cameos are red herrings, and serve in fact to suggest mirrors, a play of mirrors.
Even today, it's misinterpreted by many, and it deserves a reappraisal; it requires a taste for starkness, for unadorned movie-making (this, despite the misleading offering of cameos). And it makes a welcome treat for those curious to see the leading player in such a role.
Its dismissal is due to the audiences' bad habits (of dismissing what they have been told to); one can question its aesthetics, but not without acknowledging that it certainly has one, as it was not an assemblage of cameos, but an experimental work.
Franchot Tone looks somewhat like J. Depp (but plays way subtler). After Barbara was killed, Malloy seems a bit heartless, a bit insensitive and indifferent. One of the politicians had defined him as a tough guy, and indeed he does a fight scene, with an intruder whose knuckles he takes and then shows to the providential and populist angel of politics.
I think it looks like an indie movie. I enjoyed it. It's experimental movie-making not only because of the cameos, but also in its style, an intelligent and quirky one: dry, unadorned, effective and graceful.
It also suggests a comparison with European '70s crime dramas.
Anyway, the plot seems vague, the opposite of a '30s crime movie about sinister conspiracies, etc.; the style is ironic and well mastered. This aloofness, the distancing are deliberate, achieving a comic book atmosphere. Tone's performance is vivid, but all the characters, the prosecutor included, are made to seem cryptic. The indoors scenes have a smoldering appeal: the rooms, then the museum.
The countless cameos are red herrings, and serve in fact to suggest mirrors, a play of mirrors.
Even today, it's misinterpreted by many, and it deserves a reappraisal; it requires a taste for starkness, for unadorned movie-making (this, despite the misleading offering of cameos). And it makes a welcome treat for those curious to see the leading player in such a role.
Its dismissal is due to the audiences' bad habits (of dismissing what they have been told to); one can question its aesthetics, but not without acknowledging that it certainly has one, as it was not an assemblage of cameos, but an experimental work.