Man in the Dark

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.

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!!

Originally made in 3-D, this is another of Columbia's black & white releases of this genre (like Vincent Price in the Mad Magician). 3-D process and numerous subjective camera techniques (like scapels used in operation coming out at the screen, bullets firing at speeding cars, whirling around car rides at an amusement park, etc.)make this interesting viewing and out of the ordinary story about a thug who can't remember anything about his $130,000 heist after brain surgery.

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.

Here's an example of a routine thriller that could have been so much better if the script hadn't been so banal. Unfortunately, nothing really riveting happens until the last twenty minutes when the amnesiac victim enters an amusement park with some startling results.

It's the final chase scene that make the film come to life, but by that time (and even though the running time is brief), many a viewer will be turned off by the pedestrian script and the average performances.

Even old pros like Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter look as though they know the script is the problem. Totter, minus her usually scrappy dialog has a colorless role. She plays it straight but makes almost no impression as the woman who wants her boyfriend to amend his old ways after he finds the missing loot that the villains are chasing him for.

It was originally intended to be shown in 3D, and this is obvious from some of the gimmicky B&W photography for the carnival scene. Still, the low-budget aspect of the whole thing is apparent from the start and the final impression is of a quickie B-film unworthy of O'Brien and Totter.

Ted De Corsia has his usual tough guy role as the punk who likes to slam O'Brien around but even he is handicapped by the hackneyed tough guy dialog. Lew Landers directs the story without any distinction until the final scenes at the amusement park.