Sudden Fear

In the film Jack Palance tells a woman during an embrace, "I could break your bones." And he means it romantically! That probably sums up the odd, entertaining, and off-beat nature of this movie. There is so much "eye-action" from Joan in this one that it's almost funny. Actually it is funny. Though Sudden Fear is not a comedy, it has moments that are truly hysterical in a "did they really just say that?" kind of way. Watch for the moments when Joan responds to overheard conversations, personal scheming, (or the voices in her head)with nothing but wide-eyed reaction shots. Joan is also a tremendously sympathetic character more so than in almost any other Crawford film I've ever seen (and I've seen almost all of them). I caught this film on TV one night and was utterly surprised at how entertaining it was. Not that I had low expectations but Sudden Fear wasn't a film I'd ever heard of. It was proof that there are lots of dark diamonds hidden out there. We all know about the "top 100" lists and the legendary films on them but there are gems worth watching that never got the attention they should have. I watched from beginning to end not knowing what to expect. Truly thrilling in places and just plain classic Crawford. Watch for the moment when Joan embraces her love interest Palance and asks, "I was just wondering what I'd done to deserve you."

Sudden Fear (1952)

Such a dark and dramatic, noir-styled surprise for me. Joan Crawford as the rich daughter and talented playwright is terrific, avoiding the camp of later years and really playing a complex, emotional role perfectly. I didn't even notice that Gloria Grahame was in it, and when she shows up I knew there was going to be a thrill--she balances Crawford, and gives the third main actor, Jack Palance, a way to bounce back and forth. And Palance, as a seeming actor/lover, is two-sided and then some, and really gives the part depth. He's so believably likably it's chilling.

Add to this some of the darkest, and most shadowy, night photography you've seen, and a hard hitting orchestral score, and fast editing up and down the streets of San Francisco, and you've got a gem. It's an amazing, over-the-top movie, but it makes sense, and the last shot of Joan Crawford at night (I'll say no more) is astonishing for its emotional shifts. Yes, there is Mildred Pierce and countless other great Crawford films, but for her performance alone you have to see this one. Director David Miller I've never heard of and may never hear of again judging by his film history, but he pulls off a stylish, intense masterpiece. It's filled with common types and common twists, but a lot of them, and well done, well done.

It seems that the first impressions are really the most lasting. No matter how seriously we take that into account, a slightly similar conclusion could arise at the encounter of a playwright Myra Hudson (Joan Crawford) with an actor she auditions. Lester Blaine (Jack Palance) does not appear to be HER idea of a romantic leading man, "he just looks romantic but does not sound so." What is more, his notion about an oil painting of Casanova leaves confusing riddle within her mind and yet...she will soon stand before the dilemma to make up her mind and stick to it no matter what price she is going to pay.

Like Joan Crawford did not, initially, prefer Jack Palance as her leading man in the motion picture, Myra Hudson did not fancy Lester. Changing her mind, however, occurs inevitable. Myra soon utters romantically "Without you I have nothing!" And yet, is the truth about him disguised behind a romantic smile? Will sudden fear occur to disillusion Myra and rescue her from sudden murder?

When I have recently viewed this wonderful film noir, I felt it was the right time because I had already got to know the greatest films of the genre, not superior ones but similar ones. What I mean by that are the films directed by the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. When seeing SUDDEN FEAR, you had better be acquainted with some of Hitchcock's best films because then, you may realize that SUDDEN FEAR has so much in common with the gem of noir. It's Hitchcock's fertile theme and Miller's stylish bravura. From the characters, objects, undertones, certain details, doom-filled atmosphere to the unique charm of San Francisco and the utterance that seems to be the core of Hitchcock's suspense: "This place is so perfect for an accident." Let me broaden some aspects of David Miller's picture which make us see it as one of the greatest representatives of its genre in the purest form.

The TORMENTED LEADING CHARACTER, Myra Hudson played brilliantly by Joan Crawford, highlights something truly ahead of its time. As an executive producer of SUDDEN FEAR, Ms Crawford allows viewers to get into her inner psyche and provokes a progressive approach: we psychoanalyze her as a character! Nothing like a linear storytelling, forget it! Yet, something that talks about a psychological world. We psychoanalyze her 'professional eye' in the theater scene, her coldness melted on a train at the match game that becomes as mysterious as the manipulative flirts, her 'blind confidence' in wedding Lester, the seeds of doubt that are being slowly planted from the moment he does not answer her phone. As a matter of fact, this is a purely genius scene when viewers-observers, unlike Myra herself, are granted a signal: "something is wrong about him." As a result, we differ from Myra, we feel suspicion earlier than her and, consequently, wait for her disillusion. When the unbelievable shock comes in her library and she confronts the reality, her behavior is utterly unpredictable: she does not resort to a state of blending fantasy with reality but remains cold and disguised both to us and to the people around her. In that respect, isn't she a typical Hitchcock's leading lady? Apart from one difference - she is not a blonde. Nominated for Oscar, Joan Crawford offers us a pure masterwork of acting.

JACK PALANCE, who replaces Ms Crawford's initial wish of casting Marlon Brando or Clark Gable, is truly surprising as a leading man. The fact we are not used to him in such a highlighted performance that combines a doe-eyed romanticist with a secret fox makes the effect even more memorable. An important fact here to state is that Lester is equally appealing in the psychoanalyzing approach as Myra. His pretense at the beginning, his patronizing behavior on the train, his look at hands, and his gradual 'promotion' in Myra's eyes beautifully depict an ambitious type. Later, his vitality and efforts are, somehow, focused on two women: Myra and Irene. When Myra begins to be his object of wealth's desire, Irene becomes his object of lust's desire. She is a 'blonde of lust.' Their scheme is a realization of their sexuality - something very Hitchcock-like where crime goes with sex. "Kiss me hard..." Note the love scene at the fireplace in the summerhouse and the way it is shot. Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor, Jack Palance appears to give a performance beyond our expectations.

Another great aspect that makes the genre so engrossing and absorbing is the use of objects that manipulate our perceptions and the cinematography that builds the atmosphere. Staircase scenes that purely recall STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and many great noir genres. And the objects including the clock that reveals heartbeat, the phone that disturbs the chain of emotions and rises fear, and, above all, the DICTATING MACHINE that becomes, in a way, another character of the story. The nightmarish fantasy seems to recall SPELLBOUND. The atmosphere is immensely powerful as the secret is partly revealed by the dictating machine ("I know a way") and Myra's reaction being one of the most natural and daring we can encounter. Mind you the realism (she vomits and we deduce it). Charles Lang's cinematography reaches the climax in the shots of interiors where everything seems to be overwhelmed by torments: images are combined with various sounds from the clock ticking to screaming and morose silence.

For a number of reasons, SUDDEN FEAR is a surprisingly modern entertainment, its age makes it a unique achievement on its own and the one that will never be duplicated thanks to top rate performances, haunting cinematography, plenty of daring ideas. A really ambitious and insightful production. One and only in its riveting entertainment!

I've lately been listening to a series of blogs on Joan Crawford's career and so was directed to this film noir for which she was Oscar nominated. It turns out to be a terrific thriller with la grand dame Joan in her element as the rich middle-aged heiress who in her spare time knocks out hit plays on Broadway. While casting her new play she rejects for the lead part a young actor (Jack Palance in an early role) much to his disappointment but when they later share a train journey back to San Francisco, romantic sparks surprisingly seem to fly between them and before long Crawford's Myra Hudson apparently has the one thing missing from her comfortable but incomplete life, a loving husband. Or so she thinks. At one of the couple's house parties, an attractive young woman (Gloria Grahame) appears who we soon learn is actually Palance's girl-friend and before long they've cooked up a plan to get rid of the millionairess Joan, leaving all her lovely money to Palance as her grieving widower for them to spend.

Only problem is that Crawford plans to change her will as soon as her lawyer comes back to town after the weekend, donating the bulk of it to charity and so greatly reducing Palance's expected bounty. So Palance and Grahame hurriedly devise a plan to murder Crawford over the weekend but accidentally and inconveniently for them as it turns out, record their plan on Joan's dictaphone recording machine for her to later hear, much to her horror. When she accidentally breaks the recorded disc of the evidence, it seems to her the only way to save herself is to devise a cunning plan of her own to eliminate her would-be murderers. Like the playwright she is, Myra's own plan is carefully crafted but naturally things don't exactly go to plan leading to a tense, exciting dead of night climax on the dark deserted streets of San Francisco.

This is one of those noirs with a too-fantastic plot which could fall apart at any moment but builds up such a head of steam down to taut atmospheric direction, a strong Elmer Bernstein soundtrack and top acting by the three leads (Palance was Oscar-nominated too), that you're swept along with each unlikely turn of events until the fraught conclusion which returns Joan to a darkened apartment with a gun just like it did Mildred Pierce years before only this time she's looking out for herself and not her selfish daughter. She's great in this, her expressive face often shown in close-up reminding us she started in silent movies. Palance is surprisingly good as the fawning, oily-slick husband and Graham as ever is good value as the pushy, tarty mistress egging Palance on.

Making good use of San Francisco's exteriors, Joan's extensive wardrobe and in a key-scene, a mechanical toy-dog, this is a great fast-paced noir led by a star performer in one of her last but best leading roles.

Well, close enough. At least the title rhymes.

Joan Crawford is playwright Myra Hudson. She has great independent wealth, but she likes the satisfaction of creating her written works and the appreciation and accolades that it brings her. Lester Blaine (Jack Palance) is auditioning for the lead in one of her plays when Myra uses her veto power because she just doesn't see him as the romantic type. Lester doesn't take this too well, and tells her off.

Later, on her way back to San Francisco, she sees Lester on the train home and ironically he woos her in a whirlwind courtship. Now there is something that happens before they get married that lets you know that Lester is manipulating her, but you can't be sure if it is because he truly loves her and wants her to feel like she is losing him or he just wants to marry a rich woman. It's door number two.

So the two have a romantic honeymoon, and Myra thinks everything is fine. For that matter, so does the audience. But a girl (Gloria Grahame as Irene) that Lester knew before he met Myra shows up at a party of Myra's as a date of one of her lawyers, Junior Kearney. It can't be a good sign when the perennial bad girl of the noirs shows up accidentally on purpose with Mannix as her date. If you are under sixty you likely have no idea who Mannix is, but I digress.

So it turns out Lester was a con man pre-Myra, but it looks like he is OK with just being the kept husband of a rich wife until Irene shows up looking for a piece of the action. The two resume their affair and soon they are planning to kill Myra.

How does Myra find this out? There is a clever plot device introduced earlier in the film that leaves no doubt as to what is going on in Myra's mind. But she is the only person who is witness to it. The two plan to kill her sometime during the next three days - that is when she is signing a new will. She is naturally revolted and terrified at what Lester is up to, but she is also a playwright, and so she conceives a cunning plan to murder the murderers first. So why didn't she just use her great wealth to, I dunno, take the train to Seattle and then contact her lawyer and divorce the guy? I guess because there would be no film?

Actually Myra's plan has a couple of huge plot holes in it which I won't divulge. But among the more long running of the plot holes is that if New York is the city that never sleeps, then in 1952, San Francisco is the city that is fast asleep at 10PM and also everybody is stone deaf after sundown. Mayberry didn't roll up their sidewalks as tight as Frisco in this film. If you want to see what I mean, watch and find out. The film is neatly divided into two parts. The part before Myra finds out what is going on and is chuck full of dialogue - the first 45 minutes. And then the last 45 minutes where Myra has discovered what is going on and is trying to keep from being killed. The second half is practically a silent film, but the tension never lets up.

There is really some good acting going on in this film, especially by leads Crawford and Palance. Very subtle in that you can tell what they are thinking by just their facial expressions and body language in many cases. Joan Crawford was unlucky to be tied to MGM for 17 years and only be free when MGM fired her in 1942. The studio really did put her in some dreck especially in the late 30s and then blamed her when things didn't pan out. Her1940s and 1950s work was in much better quality films and this is one of them. I highly recommend it.