La dama en el lago

Out of the many Marlowe novel adaptations, this must be one of the closest to the spirit of the original. Unfortunately Chandler himself does not seem to have had the opportunity to contribute to the screenplay - although there are plenty of Chandleresque wisecracks. The film, unlike most of the other adaptions reflects the original author's full dislike of the cops (although the tough police chief having to answer a telephone call from his daughter during an interrogation is an unusual appeal for the viewer's understanding), and mistrust bordering on pathological hatred of women (I suspect that the ending is an uncharacteristic 'cop out' to assuage the producer's or popular taste). Director/star Robert Montgomery shows great self-restraint by appearing only briefly in the action. When he does show himself, mainly in mirror-reflections, the star appears (as in that other great latter day film noir, China Town) battered and bruised and not at all flattering. The plot is suitably twisted and confusing - just like the novels. And the concept of timing the whole dark affair against the backdrop of the Christmas holidays only emphasises the bleakness of the subject matter. Incidentally the idea of continuing the opening titles' jolly Christmas carol chorus in darker, more disturbing tones throughout the soundtrack is fascinating and I think unique. Audrey Totter (whatever happened to her?) makes a very sexy femme fatale. And as she plays most of her lines to camera we are seduced just as protagonist Marlowe. On top of that, her gowns are absolutely magnificent examples of forties chic. Lloyd Nolan deserves special mention as a superb heavy. What a wonderful example of Hollywood film noir.

I saw this film on TMC on Christmas Eve 2000. I thought it was pretty interesting. The first first-person film I've ever seen. It really caught the first-person POV with which Chandler wrote the novel. I loved Marlowe, wise-cracking, one-liners ("Do you fall in love with all of your clients? Only the ones in skirts.") I thought the director handled the camera very well, with the mirrors to show the first-person perspective. I like it a lot. Great noir! Kept me riveted.

I recently saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs Film Noir Festival. Popular actor Robert Montgomery branches out into directing in this Film Noir from 1947 with mixed results. Using a subjective camera technique, Montgemery stars as detective Phillip Marlowe in a film shot from Marlowes point of view and is rarely on screen himself except for occasional mirror reflections and in a few scenes where he relates the story directly to the camera. This POV technique for an entire film can be demanding on the actors who talk to a disembodied camera instead of an actor and can wear thin on an audience after a while but although I did like the film, I can see why others may not. Based on the the Raymond Chandler novel with a screenplay by Steve Fisher who enjoyed success in the Film Noir genre with several film screenplays it has some good witty lines. The film begins with Christmas carols and the opening credits on Chrismas cards and it does take place on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day but that's the only thing Christmasy about it. It wasn't even released for Christmas and make it's debut in theaters in late January of 1947. Marlowe is set to give up his private eye career and become a writer instead and submits his first manuscript to an agency specializing in pulp fiction and horror stories. Adrienne Fromsett (Audrey Totter) isn't interested in Marlowe's literary talents and instead want to hire him to find out what happened to the missing estranged wife of her boss Derace Kingsby (Leon Ames). Totter's expressions, emotions, wit and beauty make a strong camera presence carry the film. Tom Tully as Cpt. Kane and Lloyd Nolan as Lt. DeGarmot make an excellent good cop-bad cop combination. Dick Simmons as Chris Lavery is excellent in a small role and Jayne Meadows as the mysterious Mildred Haveland is superb in her rapid-fire delivery. Meadows herself was on hand for the film's screening at the festival and did a Q&A for the audience after the screening in which she said she had never seen the film before even when it was first released. Beautiful blonde bit part actress Lila Leeds was only 18 years old when this was filmed in May of 1946 and was probably being groomed by MGM as the next Marilyn Monroe but in 1948 she was arrested along with Robert Mitchum for marijuana possession and as a community service part of her sentence she was given a staring role in the 1949 anti-drug film "Wild Weed." It would be her only starring role and at age 21 her film career was over. Look for great costumes on the actresses in this film by noted designer Irene. There are no location shots in this film and we never make to the lake and only learn of events that happen up there. It's an all-around strange film but a great cast and I would give it a 7.5 out of 10 and recommend it.

If you want a great, serious Philip Marlowe mystery, go check out "The Big Sleep." If you're in a lighter mood, however, this one is well worth watching. The POV is cute and leads to some decent effects, but it's also tremendously goofy sometimes. The dialogue really sells it though. The lessons I learned from this movie were 1) Only men can handle guns. 2) Having four thumbs is bad. 3) Never, ever tell anyone the time. 4) If you try hard enough, you can drink whiskey through your eyes. I'm sure there are hundreds more gnomic sayings, easily applicable to daily life, scattered through it!

Seriously, though, it was a lot of fun to watch, mostly because of the problems with it, and I'd highly recommend it.

Shatteringly clumsy and agonizingly inept treatment of a Chandler story, totally lacking in style, variety and excitement. First impressions, for once, can be trusted: the disastrous opening scene in which Marlowe sits at his desk and *addresses the camera* gives you an utterly correct impression of the kind of cinematic screw-up you are in for. Next disaster: Robert Montgomery is a wholly uninteresting and un-charismatic actor whose attempts to portray the fast-talking, back-chatting Marlowe frequently come across as merely nasty. Failure Number Three is the ludicrous decision to film the entire story as a series of 'point-of-view' shots, giving us a 'Marlowe's-eye-view' of what little there is to see (Don't miss the bit where Marlowe crawls on his hands and knees - and we see the backs of his hands - before going on to use a telephone - when, gosh, we find ourselves looking at a telephone...). The two-fold pointlessness of the continual P.O.V. beggars belief: first, because it throws the weight on supporting players whose third-rate skills cannot carry it; second, because the fact that we have to watch a series of long, unbroken, unvaried, UNINTERESTING takes - in which whoever Marlowe is talking to simply faces the camera 'square-on' and talks 'back' to it - make vast stretches of the film UNBEARABLY TEDIOUS to watch and the details incredibly difficult to take in. Directors don't cut, employ 'reverse angles', reaction shots, profiles and so on for no reason. Fourth problem: removing Marlowe almost entirely from the visible action removes a lot of useful possibilities and adds PRECISELY NONE. Fifth problem: when Marlowe *is* actually visible, all we see is some lug talking to the camera - whereas a 'voice-over' would at least let us see something *different* happening. And why angle the story as a 'solve-it-yourself' mystery when *everyone* tries hard to work out a Chandler plot anyway? All in all, the results are so abysmal that one asks oneself how it could possibly have come to be done that way. Well, here are my suggestions. First, Bogart is a tough act to follow: by putting Marlowe out of view here, someone must have thought they were avoiding unfortunate comparisons. Second, look who the director is: yes, it's wooden leading man Robert Montgomery, who plainly can't see how bad his direction is when he's acting, and won't see (or hear) how bad his acting is when he's directing. Someone has bitten off more than they can chew - and this is the result: an unwatchable, saggy mess that manages to be significantly less interesting than 90 minutes spent putting your books in alphabetical order.