Man in the Dark

Edmond O'Brien stars in "Man in the Dark," a 1953 film also starring Audrey Totter. O'Brien plays Steve Rawley, a prisoner who undergoes experimental surgery that's supposed to erase the criminal elements of his brain. It also wipes his memory of past events.

Unfortunately Steve and some other thugs committed a big robbery and Steve hid the money. Now that he has no memory, he doesn't know where he put it. His old gang kidnaps him and tries to find out his hiding place. His old girlfriend Peg (Totter) is around, and she wants him to forget the whole thing and go away with her.

Steve starts remembering things in the form of bizarre dreams. He and Peg attempt to follow the clues in the dreams to track down the money.

Edmond O'Brien made a lot of these B films for Columbia. This one is no better or worse than many of them. The last part of the film takes place in an amusement park, and it's very good.

Originally this film was in 3-D, and like some other films, it was filmed in the seen-better-days area of Ocean Park near Venice, CA. I always like seeing the old LA, and this film has lots of shots of it.

I had one major problem with this film, and it's a major plot hole. If you had stolen a lot of money and hidden it, why would you agree to a surgery that is going to clean out your memory so that you don't remember where you hid it?

I don't know the answer.

If you approach this movie with the expectation that it's a noir crime classic, you'll be disappointed. But if you come to this film for what it was at the time -- the first 3-D movie barely over an hour long, that was rushed through production to beat out a better-known movie to theater audiences -- a low budget but not cheap crime noir with snappy, clever dialogue that Tarantino wishes he wrote -- a black/white crime caper that skillfully blends backlot scenery (the rooftop chase scene must have been literally on top of the actual movie studio soundstages and offices) with Los Angeles street scenery, with genuine 1953-Lost Angeles street scenes, fashions and architecture -- all topped off with solid acting from star and superlative actor O'Brien, supported by journeymen character co-stars -- and for dessert -- the first glimpse of action choreography designed specifically to showcase the brand new 3-D technology (something we still see too much of in modern 3-D flix) -- then what we have is a movie whose parts are better than the sum total.

Oh, and did I mention the crazy fun dialogue?

If this movie is watched with an eye toward film history, then it goes from a rating of 6, to a rating of 8. This movie is a remake of a 1930s plot, then it was remade as a TV episode. Expect to see it again someday in a modern movie or tv show. It's a solid plot with all kinds of fun possibilities.

I watched most of Man in the Dark without realising it was originally shot in 3D. At first I thought I was watching a lost Fritz Lang classic---extreme closeups, odd points of view, shattering glass---until I remembered the film had been directed by, ahem, Lew Landers. Now nothing against old Lew, he delivered many a fine B picture, but Man in the Dark doesn't look like your typical Columbia programmer. It's black and white take on the 3D process is more noir than you'd expect and it obviously helped to have Floyd Crosby behind the camera. Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter are good as always, overcoming a pretty hackneyed script that is the film's major shortcoming. Worth seeing for the dream sequence alone, where O'Brien is pursued by policemen in bumper cars!!

Edmond O'Brien played in quite a few film noir pictures. And, interestingly, they all seem to be excellent...even "Man in the Dark" which you would expect to be a bad picture even WITH O'Brien. Why? Because the film was cranked out in only 11 days AND because there were a lot of cheap 3D tricks in the picture...yet it still turned out to be very, very good. So why would the studio do this in 11 days? Apparently, 3D movies were brand new and they wanted to be the first major studio to make a 3D picture....yet, amazingly, the film doesn't seem rushed or second-rate!

When the story begins, a prisoner (O'Brien) is about to undergo some surgery. When he awakens, he has no memory of who he was and is christened 'Steve Rawley' by the doctors. Unfortunately, his old gang doesn't know about the purpose of the surgery--they just know they've got to kidnap him and tell them where he stashed the loot from a robbery. But he really does NOT know where it is nor who he was. His only clues are strange dreams he's been having. Could they point him to the right direction before the gang decides just to kill him and be done with it?

As usual, Edmond O'Brien is great. He's tough, mouthy and just the sort of ugly mug you'd expect in a noir picture. And, having Audrey Totter and Ted de Corsia in supporting roles sure didn't hurt! Overall, a nice viewing experience...even with all the 3D gimmicks and use of rear projection towards the end (which I normally hate because it looks so fake).

Edmond O'Brien plays a criminal who is paroled to participate in experimental brain surgery which will remove his criminal impulses as well as his memory. The problem is that his former partners want their shares of $130,000 he stole before he went to jail. (Big Plot problem: Why would O'Brien agree to participate in this experiment if he knew he had a bundle waiting for him? Wouldn't he just do his time?) This B-crime drama, too light in tone to qualify as a Film-noir (check out O'Brien in DOA if you want to see some real Film Noir), with its paper-thin characterizations and dated tough guy dialog, would be easily forgotten if not for its status as the first Big Studio picture released in 3-D. Check it out: It beat "House of Wax" to the screens by one day. I just had the good fortune to see an excellent print of the film today at the Maryland Film Festival. (I should say prints, since it was projected by two cameras simultaneously.) The 3-D experience more than compensated for any deficiencies in the script. (In the film's defense, it does move along quite quickly in its effort to entertain.) I have seen many of the classic 3-D films in their natural format, and I found the 3-D in this film fabulous. Just seeing the black & white Columbia logo itself was worth the price of admission. Oddly, however, the intentional 3-D effects, amusing as they could sometimes be, distracted from the overall 3-D experience. I found myself fascinated simply by the illusion of depth in simple conversational scenes with the occasional object in the foreground. If I were flipping through the channels and watched a bit of this film flat on television, I doubt I would linger very long on it, but the excellent 3-D made it a worthwhile theatrical experience. Check it out if you ever get the chance.