Man in the Dark

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).

Originally made in 3-D, this is another of Columbia's black & white releases of this genre (like Vincent Price in the Mad Magician). 3-D process and numerous subjective camera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.

After reading some negative reviews of this film, I expected it to be a pretty stale B-movie about gangsters and stolen dough. However, I found this to be a pretty entertaining B-movie with some humorous 3-D effects, and some wonderful footage of an amusement park circa 1953.

The script for this film, is indeed pretty routine with the typical gangster stereotypes seen in most films of the period. Edmund O'Brien gives a very good performance, however. There are also a few other familiar character actors in the film, which make for interesting viewing.

The 3-D gimmicks utilized throughout (scalpels, cigars, guns, a flower pot, roller coaster) are fun to spot, and good for a laugh. The greatest asset this film has though, is it's use of location filming. There is an interesting chase across some rooftops which works very well, but best of all are the amusement park scenes, including a roller coaster ride, and some really nice close-ups of the Fun House Laughing Sal figure. If for no other reason, see the film for her presence.

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.

Growing up in L.A. always meant a fun trip to Pacific Ocean Park near Venice and riding the "Sea Serpent" roller coaster--and taking a whirl on the "Laff In The Dark" dark ride (while getting creeped-out by the caged "Laffing Sal" in her polka dotted dress who cackled at you from behind bars). "Man In The Dark" takes us back to 1953, and a pre-POP era, when amusement parks were generally seedy and frightening, especially Ocean Park as it was known then (POP came about after Disneyland was built in 1955, and gussied-up by CBS who had purchased it and turned it into a family-oriented theme park-by-the-sea). The "Sea Serpent"--which was "modified for family riding" by CBS in 1957-58 for the new POP, was originally known as the "High Boy"... a John Miller out-and-back masterpiece built circa 1927. This ride was a true thriller...and can be seen to full advantage in this rarely screened noir drama. Laffing Sal was there too, perched above a fun house back then, and she steals the show in many scenes shot to take full advantage of the 3-D process. Since I had experienced both parks back in the '50's through its last season in 1968 before it was torn down, I really wanted to see this movie. I wasn't disappointed. Although not up to the standards of "D.O.A." by a longshot, the movie holds one's interest from the get-go, further capturing the sleeziness old L.A. of the '50's as a place you didn't want to go to if you were trying to stay out of trouble...or if you were on the lam. Edmond O'Brien holds is own, but the other characters do seem a trifle cartoonish to be truly believable. Audrey Totter comes off a little too harsh (even for her) to be considered an attractive prize. The interior shots come off as being filmed a little too flat, but once the film goes on location to the run-down areas around Ocean Park (a real slum at the time), and the park itself, the noir experience kicks-in...Big Time! You can't really call this film a "B-Noir Classic" because its almost impossible to find today...not in the league of "Gun Crazy" (shot at Ocean Park too!) or "D.O.A" or a host of others... but Google it...and you'll find it! Then judge it for yourself.